f57 
 '•5 
 
 FRAGILE DOES NOT 
 CIRCULATE 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS ONE OF 
 A COLLECTION MADE BY 
 
 BENNO LOEWY 
 
 1854-1919 
 
 AND BEQUEATHED TO 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
The date shows when this volume was taken. 
 HOME USE RULES 
 
 cmcuust 
 
 All books subject to recall 
 
 All borrowers must regis- 
 ter in trie library to borrow 
 books for home use. 
 
 All books must be re- 
 turned at end of college 
 year for inspection and 
 repairs. 
 
 Limited books must be 
 returned within the four 
 week limit and not renewed. 
 
 Students must return all 
 books before leaving town. 
 Officers should arrange for 
 the return of books wanted 
 during their absence from 
 town. 
 
 of periodicals 
 iphlets are held 
 
 [the library as much as ' 
 siule. r*or special pur- 
 poses they are given out for 
 a limited time. 
 
 Borrowers should not use 
 their library privileges for 
 -•the benefit of other persons. 
 Books of special value 
 and gift books, when the 
 giver wishes it, are not 
 allowed to circulate. 
 
 Readers are asked to re- 
 port all cases of books 
 marked or mutilated. 
 
 Do not deface. books by marks and writing. 
 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 3 1924 091 785 505 
 
 ■ 
 
 FRAGILE PAPER 
 Please handle 
 with care, as 
 is brittle. 
 
 this book 
 the paper 
 
^ 
 
 Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924091785505 
 
THE 
 
 SPECIAL COMMISSION ACT, 1888. 
 
 REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE 
 COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY THE ACT. 
 
 REPRINTED FROM 
 
 Iff Sitttt 
 
 VOX,. I. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED AND PDBLISHED BY GEORGE EDWARD WRIGHT, 
 
 AT THE TIMES OFFICE, PRINTING HOUSE SQUARE. 
 
 (:.C?iUs l l : 1 I 1890. 
 
 V k' I V I K 1 1 1 Y 
 
 [Entered at Stationers' Hall.] 
 
/\lpZ.U7f 
 
 
THE SPECIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE. 
 
 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1888. 
 
 (Before Vie Kight Honourable Sir J. Hannen, Mr. Justice Day. and Mr. Justice A. L. Smith, 
 
 Commissioners . ) 
 
 The first public sitting of the Royal Commission ap- 
 pointed under the Members of Parliament (Charges and 
 Allegations) Act to investigate the charges made in 
 the pamphlet " Parnellism and Crime " and in 
 various articles in The Times was held to-day in'the 
 Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce Court at the Royal 
 Courts of Justice. Arrangements had been made by 
 which the whole body of the Court, with the exception 
 of two rows of counsels' seats, was allocated to the 
 Press, and the jury-box and the galleries of the Court 
 appropriated to the use of such persons as had received 
 tickets of admission, 'no one being admitted without 
 a ticket. There was therefore no confusion or crowd- 
 ing, the Court presenting a striking contrast to that 
 usual in a law court when a case exciting great 
 interest is being heard, and the public are allowed to 
 occupy all the seats and fill up all the gangways. 
 Mr. Parnell was not present at the time fixed for the 
 assembly of the Commission, but entered the Court 
 shortly after 12 o'clock, taking' his seat in the well 
 of the Court immediately beneath his counsel, Sir C. 
 Russell. The other members of the Irish partypresent 
 included Mr. A. O'Connor, M.P.,Mr. T. P. O'Connor, 
 M.P., Mr. T. P. Gill, M.P., Dr. Fox, M.P., Mr. T. 
 Quinn, M.P., and Mr. H. Campbell, M.P. 
 
 Sir C. Russell, Q.C., and Mr. Asquith represented 
 the Irish party ; and Mr. W. Graham appeared for the 
 defendants in the action of " O'Donnell v. Walter." 
 
 The President' (Sib James Hannen).— As the pro- 
 ceedings which we are about to enter upon are novel," 
 it may be convenient that we should shortly state 
 what we consider to be their scope and nature, anil 
 (the principles upon which we propose lo conduct the 
 
 inquiry. We derive our authority exclusively from 
 an Act of Parliament recently passed, which is en- 
 titled " Special Commission Act, 1888," and by the 
 first section of that Act we are directed to inquire 
 into and report upop the charges and allegations made 
 against certain members of Parliament and other per- 
 sons in the course of the proceedings in an action 
 entitled " O'Donnell versus Walter and another." 
 The inquiry, therefore, is ' restricted both as to the 
 persons and to the charges and allegations. We have 
 only to inquire into the charges and allegations 
 which were made in the course of the proceedings in 
 the action named, and only into those charges and 
 allegations as far as they affect the persons against 
 whom they were directed in the course of those pro- 
 ceedings. As to our procedure, by the second section 
 of the Act the Legislature has given to us, " in addi- 
 tion to the special powers hereinafter provided, all 
 such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in 
 her Majesty's High Court of. Justice, or in any Judge 
 thereof, on the occasion of any action, including all 
 powers, rights, and privileges in respect of llio 
 following matters." As we have before us— as wa 
 know from the summonses which have been taken out 
 — the defendants in the action of " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter and another," as well as some other persona 
 against whom the charges and allegations in question 
 were directed, we«propose in the first instance tu uuu" 
 duct this inquiry as though it were an issue directed 
 between those parties to try the truth or falsehood of 
 those charges and allegations. We, of course, reserve 
 Lo ourselves the power of calling before us any per" 
 avu v* jjursonS' whom we think able to throw light 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
11. 
 
 The Special Commission, September 17, 1S88. 
 
 upon the issue involved, even although neither of the 
 parties interested might call such parties. But we 
 shall 'proceed with the inquiry in the manner I have 
 indicated, judicially, and, as far as the circumstances 
 will permit, according to the rules of procedure and 
 of evidence which prevail in the superior Courts of 
 Justice. The power which I have referred to of act- 
 ing as a Court or as any Judge of the High Court of 
 Justice may act in an action, it will be observed, is 
 not given to us individually, but is given to us col- 
 lectively, and it is for that reason we are assembled 
 here to-day in order to hear such applications which, 
 in an ordinary action, would be made to a Judge in 
 Chambers, aud we are therefore now here ready to 
 hear those applications. Before we proceed further 
 I must ask you, Sir Charles Russell, for whom you 
 appear. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — I appear for the purposes of the 
 present application, with my learned friend Mr. 
 Asquith, for all the members of the Irish Parliamen- 
 tary party, who are 84 or 85 in number. 
 
 The President. — That is a convenient mode of 
 designating them- at- present, but I should be glad if 
 you will on a future occasion put them clown in 
 writing and will lay them before me individually by 
 name. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — I have said that I appear to- 
 day for the purposes of the present application, be- 
 cause in the later stages there may be a subdivision of 
 labour, and I may not be employed in the same way. 
 
 The Presides t.— I quite understand that. Are 
 those persons whom you have thus designated repre- 
 sented on this occasion by one solicitor ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — Can you inform us who appears 
 upon the other side ? 
 
 Sip. C. Russell.— My learned friend Mr. Graham, I 
 believe, appears for the other side. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I appear with my learned friend 
 the Attorney-General, who is not now in town, for the 
 defendants in the action of " O'Donnell v. Walter 
 and another," one being Mr. Waller, part proprietor, 
 and the other Mr. Wright, the printer, of The Times 
 newspaper. 
 
 The President. — Well, we are ready to hear any 
 applications that you may think proper to make to us 
 at this stage of the proceedings. 
 
 Mr. George Keebell (solicitor).— I ask leave to 
 appear for Mr. Maurice Moser, late Inspector of the 
 Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland-yard. 
 
 The President.— Is he. one of the persons against 
 whom charges or allegations are made ? 
 
 Mr. Kerbell. — The inquiry may take a turn affect- 
 ing my client's interests. 
 
 The President.— If the inquiry should take a turn 
 of that kind I will then listen to your application. 
 Now 1 am ready to hear you, Sir Charles Russell. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — As your lordships propose to con- 
 duct the inquiry mainly upon the lines which would 
 be followed if this were an issue between these parties, 
 
 this further question seems to be involved — who your 
 Lordships would expect to begin at the opening of the 
 inquiry. 
 
 The President.— We have turned that over in our 
 minds, and we should first desire to know whether 
 you have on the one side or the other any opinion as 
 to the party upon whom the right or duty falls. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Of course, if the analogy of an 
 action for libel were followed, the person charged 
 would he the person to begin. But, so far as the per- 
 sons whom I represent are concerned, we have no wish 
 in that direction, and we think that the natural order 
 in circumstances such as these would be that he who 
 alleges should begin. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I have had no opportunity of con- 
 sideling this matter with the Attorney-General, or 
 even with those who instruct me, and I was not 
 aware that any question of this sort would arise. 
 
 The President. — At aDy rate it arises 'as a matter 
 of convenience in order ihat that side which is to 
 begin should be prepared with witnesses when we 
 next assemble. Shall you he able to communicate 
 with the Attorney-General during the day 'I 
 
 Mr. Graham. — No, I am afraid not. 
 
 The President.— Then you leave the point to us to 
 decide ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I would rather not express any 
 opinion upon the matter at present. 
 
 The President.— We may not be here after to-day 
 until we meet for the purposes of the inquiry itself. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — No notice was given that any ques- 
 tion of this kind would be raised, and I have had no 
 opportunity of discussing it with my clients or the 
 Attorney-General . 
 
 The President.— Then I may at onca say what are 
 our views, lor we have naturally considered this 
 question. We thought it possible that the parties 
 might themselves agree upon a course of procedure. 
 It might have appeared desirable to both, apart from 
 the rules of law, that one party should begin, and if 
 there had been a concurrence upon the point we should 
 have thought it right to accede ; but if it is left to us 
 to decide we are of opinion that it lies upon the 
 defendants in the action of " O'Donnell v. Walter " 
 to tender such evidence as they think fit in support of 
 the charges that have been made. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— Does your Lordship intend that the 
 case should be conducted altogether like an action at 
 law, and that speeches shall be made, or simply that 
 evidence shall be taken as has been done when other 
 Commissions have sat ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I should wish respectfully to say 
 that it would be desirable from every point of view 
 that counsel for the defendants in the recent action 
 and that counsel for the incriminated parties should 
 have an opportunity of putting your Lordships in 
 possession of their views before the evidence is given. 
 
 The President.— We adopt that view. We think 
 that the case should be opened in the same way as aa 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
The Special Commission, September 17, 1888. 
 
 111. 
 
 action is opened. But do you mean that counsel 
 should be heard before evidence is given ? 
 
 Sik C. Russell.— I do mean that. 
 
 The President. —As at present advised, I think the 
 inquiry must be opened in the Lsual way by counsel 
 tor Mr. Walter and the printer of The Times. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— That is all I mean. I do not 
 mean that I, representing the persons who are accused, 
 should have the right to make a speech at that early 
 stage. 1 mean that the analogy of a case at law should 
 be followed. 
 
 The President.— Quite so. 
 
 Sir C. Rusjell. — Then there are several applica- 
 tions to be made. Perhaps your Lordships will think 
 that my learned friend (Mr. Graham) should begin 
 with his applications. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — My friend's application is first in 
 order of time, and my application with regard to dis- 
 covery is only an alternative application in the 
 eveut of the application on the other side for an 
 affidavit of discovery being assented to. My conten- 
 tion is that there is no power to assent to such an ap- 
 plication, and that no such order ought to be made. 
 
 The President. — Have you any other application ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. — Yes, an application under the Bankers' 
 Act for the inspection of bankers' books. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell. — Is there such an application ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I also have an application to make 
 for the issue of summonses for the attendanca of wit- 
 nesses out of the jurisdiction. 
 
 The President. — That is a question which any one 
 of us has power to deal with. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — Yes, my Lord. As far as discovery 
 is concerned I do not now make any application. 
 
 The President. — Pray, Mr. Graham, do not stand 
 upon the order of your going. As you are on your legs, 
 pray go on. Inthe event of the application for discovery 
 on the one side being granted, you, Mr. Graham, are 
 going to make an alternative application. The appli- 
 cation under the Bankers' Act will be an ex parte 
 application. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — And also the application foran order 
 to summon witnesses out of the jurisdiction. 
 
 The President. — Quite so. 
 
 Sir C.Russell. — Has my learned friend abandoned 
 his applications t 
 
 The President.— No ; he says that you have 
 nothing to do with them and that they are ex parte. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — There are three applications. 
 First, for the discovery of documents by Mr. Parnell. 
 
 The President. — As I understand, it is only in the 
 event of our granting your application to the same 
 effect that this application will be made. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Another application is for the 
 discovery by Mr. Justin M'Carttiy, M.P., of Land 
 League and National League documents ; and there 
 is a third application against Mr. Biggar, M.P., Mr. 
 T. Harrington, M.P., and Mr. Quinn. 
 
 Mr. GRAHAM.— They amount to no more than an 
 application for discovery against the, same people. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— As far as the- substance of these 
 applications is concerned we are not prepared to resist 
 them, subject to certain conditions which I will 
 mention when my learned friend' makes his applica- 
 tion formally. Now I will state what applications 
 we make ; they are five in number. One is for the 
 inspection and, for photographs of certain alleged 
 forged letters; thesecondis for the discovery of docu- 
 ments ; the third is for particulars of the charges ; 
 the fourth is for a commission to examine witnesses 
 in America ; and the fifth is for an order for the 
 release of Mr. John Dillon, on such bail as the Court 
 thinks right, under the powers conferred upon the 
 Commission by the sixth section of the Act, Mr. 
 Dillon being now in gaol for an oifence under the 
 provisions of the Crimes Act of last year. I will take 
 these applications in order. The first is for an in- 
 spection of the letters. I cannot suppose that there 
 will be any objection to this applicaton on the part 
 of the defendants, Mr. Walter and Mr. Wright. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — No ; there will be no objection to 
 that. I understand that the letters are the two letters 
 that were read in the course of the action of 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My learned friend is mistaken. 
 The application is not confined to these two letters, 
 but extends to all letters read in the course of the 
 action, and particularly to certain ' letters purporting 
 to be written to certain persons by one Patrick Egan. 
 
 The President. — I happened, when these proceed- 
 ings were first spoken of, not to have read any of these 
 papers, and I have since kept my mind in the same 
 condition of ignorance. I know generally what these 
 proceedings are about, but you must tell me what is 
 necessary to guide my judgment. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Then I will put your Lordship 
 speedily in possession of this -part of the case. One 
 main charge running through the series of accusations 
 which have been summarized under the title of 
 " Parnellism and Crime" is a charge of direct 
 knowledge of and participation in murder on the part 
 of prominent members of the Irish Parliamentary 
 party, and as one of the proofs of that knowledge and 
 participation a letter was read by the Attorney- 
 General in the coarse of the action of " O'Donnell 
 v. Walter." It will be found on page 79 of The 
 Times report of the trial. 
 
 The Commissioners having conferred together for a 
 few moments, 
 
 Sir C. Russell , resuming, said, — My learned friend 
 has made a communication to me which will save 
 great trouble. Mr. Patrick Egan was, I believe, at 
 the time the treasurer of the Laud League, and this 
 letter purports to be a letter from him to some one 
 not named, but it is suggested that it was written to 
 one Harris. I will read the letter : — 
 
 " My dear Friend,— Write under cover to Mde. J. 
 Rouyer, 99, Avenue de Villiers. Mr. Parnell is here, 
 and will remain for about a week. I have spokeu to 
 him about further advance for the A fund ; he has no 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 a— 2 
 
IV. 
 
 The Special Commission, September 17, 1888. 
 
 objection and you may count upon it. All goes well. 
 We have met Mr. O. L. and other friends, who are 
 here, and all are agreed that prompt and decisive 
 action is called for." 
 
 The suggestion is that by the A fund was meant the 
 assassination fund. It is very important to have an 
 inspection of this letter. Its genuineness is denied, 
 and it is alleged to be a forgery. 
 
 Mr. GRAHAM.— Mr. Lewis's (Mr. Parnell's solici- 
 tor's) affidavit mentioned two letters, but I now under- 
 stand that the mention of only two letters was a mis- 
 take. My client has said that further application 
 will not be necessary, and I will produce the letters 
 from Mr. Parnell or from Mr. Egan. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— All the letters which were read 
 in the course of the trial of " O'Donnell v. Walter " 
 by the counsel for The Times. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — From those parties. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — From every party. 
 
 The President.— I understand Mr. Graham to con- 
 sent to produce all the letters either from Mr. Parnell 
 or Mr. Egan. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— Yes. Then I am told that there is 
 one by Mr. Campbell, and I have no objection to 
 produce that. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Then there can be no objection 
 to my application to inspect and take copies of all 
 the letters read by the counsel for The Times in the 
 course of the trial. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— But I do not know that we have got 
 them all. 
 
 The President. — That cannot be helped. The order 
 will be for the inspection of all the documents pro- 
 duced, or, I suppose, not actually produced but read 
 by the Attorney-General in the action of " O'Donnell 
 v. Walter." 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Read or referred to. 
 
 The President. — Referred to as being in the posses- 
 sion of the defendants. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — A great many documents were 're- 
 ferred to. 
 
 The President. — Do not you think that this will 
 guard you — all documents read or referred to by the 
 Attorney-General as evidence in the case ? Does that 
 satisfy you, Mr. Graham ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. — A very large part of " Parnellism 
 and Crime " consists of extracts from American news- 
 papers published by the Parnellite party. They are all 
 set out in The Times pamphlets, and my learned 
 friend's clients could easily specify what they wished 
 to have. 
 
 The President.— If this were an action it would 
 be necessary to specify. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I do not think there is any objec- 
 tion to that. 
 
 The President. — Perhaps this may be a convenient 
 moment for me to say something about our future pro- 
 ceedings. I have explained why we are all here to- 
 day. It is because we have only power to act collec- 
 tively unless it be by consent. I am perfectly willing, 
 
 if the parties interested consent, to deal myself with 
 those preliminary matters which we are not able to 
 dispose of absolutely to-day. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— We will certainly consent to 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— We also. 
 
 The President. — Then it is agreed that the docu- 
 ments which you, Sir Charles Russell, desire to in- 
 spect shall be stated. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— My friend's clients and my client 
 will probably agree upon these points, but if not they 
 can be settled in Chambers. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— There is another application, 
 even more important — viz., that the defendants should 
 either furnish us with photographs of these documents 
 or that we should be allowed to photograph them at 
 our own expense. Without such photographs we shall 
 have no means of submitting these documents to the 
 judgment of experts. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— We shall be perfectly willing to sup- 
 ply facsimile copies. They are taken by photography. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— If they are reproductions of the 
 facsimiles that have appeared in The Times they will 
 not be sufficient. 
 
 The President. — A good deal depends upon the 
 material upon which they are taken. If they were 
 supplied on suitable paper reproductions of the fac- 
 similes that have appeared might be sufficient. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— That might be so. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— We will supply the facsimiles, and 
 then if my learned 'friend is not content an applica- 
 tion may be made to your Lordship. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The next application is an appli- 
 cation for the discovery of documents- bearing upon 
 the charges made. The charges are many of them 
 vague, conveying less by direct accusation than by 
 insinuation. But there are certain charges which are 
 specific, and it is very material to know how many 
 documents bearing upon those charges The Times has 
 possession of or has had possession of, and whether 
 there has been a full disclosure of all incriminating 
 documents or only a disclosure of the larger number 
 of the documents that have come into the possession 
 of the proprietors of The Times. We therefore call 
 upon them to prepare an affidavit showing what docu- 
 ments bearing upon the charges which they have made 
 are or have been in their possession. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I respectfully submit to your Lord- 
 ships that we ought not to be placed in the position of 
 litigants in this matter. This Commission is sitting 
 under the powers of an Act of Parliament which was 
 not promoted by my clients. Nor was this inquiry in 
 this form in any way sought by them. The Legislature 
 has thought fit to adopt certain allegations made iu 
 certain proceedings to which my clients were unwill- 
 ing parties. They were defendants in an action at 
 the suit of a man against whom they alleged, and 
 successfully alleged, that they had made no charges 
 and who had no real cause of action. In the course 
 of those proceedings certain allegations and charges 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
The Special Commission, September 17, 1S88. 
 
 were made, and it is rather difficult to deal with 
 them on an application of this description when your 
 Lordship is not familiar with the nature of those 
 charges and allegations in detail. Speaking generally, 
 the allegations that were made in the course of the 
 articles which have been known as " Parnellism and 
 Crime," and which formed the substance of the 
 Attorney-General's speech, because he had to read 
 through all those various articles for the purpose of 
 showing that they were not libels on Mr. O'Donnell, 
 the plaintiff in the action — broadly speaking, the 
 allegations in those articles are these : — That the 
 members of what is known as the Parnellite party 
 formed an association in Ireland which was known as 
 the Land League in the year 1879 ; that that associa- 
 tion was formed for the purpose of dealing with the 
 agrarian difficulty and the question of Home Rule, 
 and that the party who formed that association 
 have enforced the views or decrees of the association 
 by a system of boycotting, outrage, and murder ; 
 that the members of the League, while posing as a 
 Constitutional party, went about Ireland making 
 inflammatory speeches in which persons who had made 
 themselves offensive to the party were named ; 'that 
 those speeches were followed by crimes of violence, 
 and that the persons who committed those crimes 
 were recognized and supported by the association ; 
 that eventually, when the Phoenix Park murders were 
 committed, those who formed the main portion of the 
 executive of the League fled to America ; that while 
 they have been in America they have boasted of their 
 connexion with those murders and with the extreme 
 party known as the Invincibles ; that they have 
 collected large sums of money for the benefit of the 
 families of men convicted of murder and for the pur- 
 pose of defending criminals ; that the members of the 
 Parnellite party, notwithstanding what they know of 
 the avowed conduct of these men in America, have 
 continued to act with them and to receive sums of 
 money from them, and that very large sums, amount- 
 ing to some millions of dollars, were from time to 
 time paid to persons who were committing crimes. 
 Many of those allegations are founded upon statements 
 which appeared in the newspaper published in Ame- 
 rica which is the avowed organ of the extreme 
 party there — namely, the Irish World, the proprietor 
 of which, Mr. Ford, has collected those sums of 
 money which have been forwarded to the League, 
 From time to time accounts were given of meetings 
 which were held. I will mention one at which a 
 testimonial was presented to Mrs. Byrne, who was 
 stated to have carried the knives over to Ireland for 
 the purpose of being used in committing the Phoenix 
 Park murders. What is asked is that we who have 
 derived our information to a large extent from >the 
 statements in these various papers of certain acts 
 which we know took place on certain occasions in 
 which certain leading members of the Parnellite 
 party were mixed up with these people — we are 
 asked, as I understand, that we should furnish to 
 
 those for whom my learned friend appears full details 
 of how much we know, the extent to which our infor- 
 mation goes, and as to whom we are able to impli- 
 cate by the information in our possession. I submit 
 respectfully that the very object for which your Lord- 
 ships are appointed a Commission is — to find out, first, 
 whether there is any truth in these charges, and, 
 secondly, who are the persons implicated in them. 
 What, in substance, my learned friend asks is that, 
 instead of this being an inquisitorial Commission to 
 find out the facts, we should be placed in the position 
 of having to define exactly what are the charges and 
 who are the parties connected with the charges, and 
 of showing who are the persons who will be examined 
 before your Lordships, and that it is our duty to state 
 to your Lordships exactly how much we know and 
 what information in relation to this matter is in our 
 possession. Your Lordships suggested the course of 
 procedure upon this hearing, and I can only say on 
 behalf of those who instruct and act with me that 
 every possible assistance that we can give, either by 
 adopting any course that your Lordships think con- 
 venient, or by laying before your Lordships either in 
 public or in private, at the proper time, what infor- 
 mation is in our possession, shall be cheerfully given ; 
 bat we do submit that we ought not to be called upon 
 any more than any other person who may be in any 
 way connected with this business, to disclose to other 
 parties who may be coming before your Lordships full 
 details ot any information in our possession. Of 
 course where Mr. Parnell has been particularly 
 charged with writing particular letters we quite agree 
 that he should have an opportunity of examining such 
 letters, but with reference to the other part of my 
 learned friend's application, in which he asks that we 
 should be placed in the position of a litigant, with all 
 the disadvantages of that position 
 
 The President. — Does the term litigant come from 
 them ? How are we to exercise the third subdivision 
 of the 2d section, which runs thus :— " The Com- 
 missioners may, if they think fit, order that any docu- 
 ment or documents in the possession of any party 
 appearing at the inquiry shall be produced for the' in- 
 spection of any other such party ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. — Yes ; that is what I was going to 
 call your Lordships' attention to when I came to con- 
 sider the provisions of this Act. I submit that it is a 
 very strong confirmation of what I have urged upon 
 your Lordships — that it was never intended that by this 
 Act there should be conferred upon your Lordships a 
 general power of ordering an affidavit of discovery 
 of documents, which would be reasonable enough as 
 between two litigant parties who are contesting ques- 
 tions between themselves and where one can get 
 similar advantages from tie other. What I submit is 
 that the Commissioners have conferred upon them 
 under the 2d section of the Act, for the purposes of 
 this inquiry, all the powers, rights, and privileges 
 vested in her Majesty's High Court of Justice or in 
 any Judge thereof on the occasion of any action, 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
VI. 
 
 The Special Commission, September 17, 1888. 
 
 including all powers, rights, and privileges in respect 
 of the following matters — the enforcing the attend- 
 ance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirma- 
 tion, or promise and declaration, and the compelling 
 the production of documents, and the punishing per- 
 sons guilty of contempt, and the issue of a commission 
 or request to examine witnesses abroad. 
 
 Sip. C. Russell. — The Act says that the Commis- 
 sioners shall have the power to compel the production 
 of documents. 
 
 Mr. GRAH1H.— Yes. I understand that to mean 
 compelling the production of documents before your 
 Lordships. Then, in addition to that, by subsection 2, it 
 is provided that a warrant of committal to prison issued 
 for the purpose of enforcing the powers conferred by 
 this section shall be signed by one or more of the 
 Commissioners, and shall specify the prison to which 
 the offender is committed. By subsection 3 the Com- 
 missioners may, if they think fit, order that any docu- 
 ment or documents in the possession of any party 
 appearing at the inquiry shall be produced for the in- 
 spection of any other such party. I submit, that there 
 is no power given there to compel my clients, who 
 are for the purposes of this inquiry simply in the posi- 
 tion of witnesses, to make an affidavit of discovery of 
 all the documents in our possession. Your Lordships 
 suggested that it would facilitate the procedure if my 
 clients should begin by calling witnesses, and, as I 
 understand your Lordships, we shall examine wit- 
 nesses instead of doing what has been the course 
 commonly pursued on Commissions of this description, 
 for the Commissioners to examine the witnesses and 
 for the counsel appearing for the different parties to 
 cross-examine them. That does not put me in the 
 position of a party to an action, in which power 
 would exist in the superior Courts to order me to 
 make an affidavit of discovery. Of course it is com- 
 mon knowledge that the question of interrogatories 
 was discussed in the House of Commons, and that the 
 House refused to allow them to be put. 
 
 The President. — I know nothing of what passed in 
 the House of Commons, and you must not refer to 
 what passed there. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — Of course nothing that took place 
 there can alter the construction of this Act. But what 
 I am submitting to your Lordships is that here we do 
 find a special power given of ordering the production 
 of documents known to be in our possession, and form- 
 ing material for the purposes of this inquiry. I do 
 not dispute that any document which is material 
 ought to be produced. 
 
 The President. — For the inspection of the other 
 parties to the inquiry. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I have already consented to the 
 inspection of the documents to which public atten- 
 tion has been called. What I am putting to your 
 Lordships is that your Lordships have no jurisdiction 
 under the Act to compel me to disclose what docu- 
 ments I have in my possession. Of course, in the 
 case of any docmuent which your Lordships find either 
 
 from evidence given or from statements made to be in 
 the possession of my clients express jurisdiction is 
 given to your Lordships to order its production. But 
 I submit that there is no jurisdiction given to your 
 Lordships to order me to make a general affidavit of 
 discovery. My clients will give your Lordships every 
 information to facilitate the inquiry. But ought wo 
 to be called upon to give my learned friend's clients, 
 85 in number, many of whom are not referred to in 
 any way, and many of whom have become members of 
 Parliament since the charges and allegations were 
 made, and all of whom may appear in the inquiry by 
 separate counsel, a statement of all the information 
 we have collected and of all the documents which now 
 are or have been in our possession ? I submit, re- 
 spectfully, that your Lordships have not jurisdiction to 
 make the order asked for. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I will not follow the example of 
 my learned friend in going into the history of this 
 matter, of which he has given your Lordships a fairly 
 accurate summary, but I desire to state that this Bill 
 was drawn up after an interview with the proprietors 
 of The Times. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I entirely deny that. It is not the 
 fact. 
 
 The President. — We have to look solely to the Act 
 of Parliament. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — It seems to me that my learned 
 friend has made some confusion between two things, 
 discovery and inspection. It may well be that after 
 the affidavit of discovery has been made there may be 
 reasons which may prevent production or inspection on 
 the ground that the documents disclosed are irrele- 
 vant to the matter at issue. 
 
 The President. — But what is said is that we have 
 no power to order discovery. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Then what is the use of the 
 language of the section, which clearly contemplates 
 the exercise by your Lordships of the power of order- 
 ing discovery ? Turning to my learned friend's 
 argument, Erst let us look at the jurisdiction. I say 
 that it cannot be doubtful, looking at the second 
 section of the Act, that the Legislature intended that 
 the inquiry should, as nearly andas closely as possible, 
 be a judicial, inquiry, following the lines of an action 
 at law. It says that in the Commission shall be 
 vested all the powers, rights, and privileges of her 
 Majesty's High Court of Justice for the calling of 
 evidence and compelling the production of documents. 
 Then subsection 3 of Clause "2 provides that the Com- 
 missioners may order that any documents in the pos- 
 session of one party may be produced for the 
 inspection of any other party. In this case my learned 
 friend not only appears in the position of an accuser, 
 but he has taken the initiative of applying for sum- 
 monses and for the examination of the bankers' books 
 of the Land League or of the National League, and it 
 cannot, therefore, be argued that there is no power to 
 make an order for discovery. 
 
 The President. — My impression is this. It is con- 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
The Special Commission, September 17, IS 88. 
 
 vn. 
 
 tended by the other side that although Mr. Walter and 
 the other defendant are parties appearing at the in- 
 quiry, yet they are not parties to the suit, and Mr, 
 Graham says that in such circumstances we have no 
 power to compel discovery by any party except a 
 party to the suit. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Tjhe parties are placed in a posi- 
 tion analogous to that of parties to a suit. The title 
 of the Act and the preamble of the Act are quite con- 
 sistent with the view 1 submit to your Lordships. The 
 Act is one to constitute a Special Commission to in- 
 quire into the charges and allegations made against 
 certain members of Parliament and other persons by 
 the defendants in the recenttrial of an action entitled 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter and another. "And then, in sec- 
 tion 2, the Act goes on to say that the Commissioners 
 shall, for the purposes of the inquiry under this Act, 
 have, in addition to the special powers hereinafter 
 provided, all such powers, rights, and privileges as 
 are vested in Her Majesty's.High Court of Justice, or 
 in any Judge thereof, on the occasion of auy action. 
 What isthe meaning of introducing these words except 
 to show that the position of the defendants in the case 
 of " O'Donnell v. Walter" was as uearly as possible 
 to be analogous under this Act to that of defendants 
 in an ordinary action ? If the Court has no power to 
 order discovery, then the whole of the section about 
 discovery is beside the question. 
 
 The President. — Is there anything about discovery ? 
 — Discovery is a different thing from ordering the pro- 
 duction of particular documents. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The Act says that documents in 
 the possession of one of the parties shall be produced 
 for the inspection of the other. I have said all I have 
 to say about jurisdiction, and I submit that it is im- 
 possible to say that the Legislature intended to ex- 
 clude the power of ordering discovery. Now, as to 
 the exercise of that jurisdiction, I think a stronger 
 illustration of the necessity for it could not have 
 been given than the letters, which are, on the one 
 hand, stated to be genuine, and, on the other, to be 
 forged, and the statement that they have been bought 
 by The Times, some of whose representatives have 
 been imposed upon. Surely it is of the greatest con- 
 Bequence for us to know whether the decuments which 
 The Times have produced are merely a selection from 
 a larger number which may have been foisted upon 
 thera. They have made a similar application as 
 against us, and we are perfectly willing to meet them 
 on the matter. At present all we are asking for is the 
 common order incident of an action — namely, one of 
 discovery. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — My Lords, I desire to add only a 
 few words to what my learned friend has said. The 
 question is, I apprehend, what construction is to 
 be put upon the words " The Commissioners shall 
 have ... all such powers, rights, and privileges 
 as are vested in her Majesty's High Court of Justice, 
 or in any Judge thereof, on the occasion of any 
 action. ' ' My Lords, what are the powers of the High 
 
 Court of Justice in relation to discovery in an action ? 
 Order XXXI. rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme 
 Court, 1883, says that " Anypartymay . . . apply 
 to the Court or a Judge for an order directing any 
 other party to any cause or matter to make discovery 
 on oath of the documents which are or have been in 
 his possession or power relating to any matter in 
 question therein." What does the word " party " 
 there mean ? It is defined by section 100 of the 
 Judicature Act, 1873, which says, " Party shall in- 
 clude every person served with notice of or attending 
 any proceeding, although not named on the record." 
 Your Lordships, therefore, have to construe that power. 
 By the sixth section of this Act " The persons impli- 
 cated in the said charges and any persons authorized by 
 the Commissioners may appear at the inquiry, and any 
 person so appearing may be represented by counsel or 
 solicitor practising in Great Britain or Ireland." 
 The effect is to give to all the persons appearing the 
 status, and with the status the rights and privileges, 
 of parties to an action as defined by the Judicature 
 Act and the procedure and rules under that Act. As a 
 matter of jurisdiction I submit that your Lordships have 
 power to compel either my learned friend's clients or 
 our own to make discovery upon oath of their docu- 
 ments. They are by the Act of Parliament placed in 
 the position — at any rate for the purposes of discovery 
 — of parties to an action. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — With reference to that Order, it has 
 been expressly held that " other party " means 
 " opposite party." 
 
 The President. — It has been held that one defend- 
 ant cannot get discovery from another defendant. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — That is with reference to interroga- 
 tories, and the language of the rule with regard to 
 interrogatories is " opposite party." 
 
 Mr. GRAHAM. — It has been held that that rule, 
 though the language is different, applies only to the 
 opposite party. And it has also been held that a 
 " next friend" cannot be ordered to make an affidavit 
 of documents. The case about the next friend is 
 " Dyke v. Stephens " (30 Ch. Div., 189). Mr. 
 Justice Smith was a party to the decision in the other 
 case. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— We held that one party 
 could interrogate and the other party could not. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — That is not the case I refer to. The 
 case is " Brown v. Watkins " (16 Q. B. Div., 125). 
 The language of the Order with reference to interro- 
 gatories is, I think, " opposite party," but the 
 language with reference to discovery of documents is 
 " other party." It was| contended on that language 
 that any party to the proceedings might be ordered 
 to make discovery} and Mr. Justice Mathew and Mr. 
 Justice A. L. Smith held there was only jurisdiction 
 to order the " opposite party " to give discovery. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — If I may interrupt my learned 
 friend, in the case of " Witham v. Witham " (28 
 Solicitors' Journal, 456) Mr. Justice Pearson said 
 these words enabled the Court to direct discovery to 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
VU1. 
 
 The Special Commission, September 17, 1888. 
 
 bo made by any other party to an action, and not 
 merely by an opposite party, and that the Court had 
 the widest discretion. In " Brown v. Watkins " (16 
 Q. B. Div., 125), however, a Divisional Court held, 
 but with much hesitation, that there was no jurisdic- 
 tion under this rule to make an order for discovery, 
 except as between opposite parties. But in " Shaw 
 v. Smith " (18 Q.B. Div., 193) the last-mentioned 
 case was explained by the Court of Appeal, and 
 " opposite parties " was construed as meaning not 
 that the application must in all cases be made by 
 plaintiffs against defendants, or vice versd, bat that it 
 must be by and against parties between whom there 
 is some right to be adjusted in the action. 
 
 The President. — It will be more convenient if we 
 retire to consider this question. 
 
 The Commissioners retired at ten minutes past 12 
 o'clock and returned into Court at five minutes to 1. 
 
 The President.— Before deciding this question, 
 there is a matter which might assist us in coming to 
 a determination. Assuming that we should think that 
 we have the jurisdiction to order discovery, Sir C. 
 Russell has intimated that when that rule came to be 
 applied to discovery by those whom he represents he 
 should have to claim certain restrictions and qualifi- 
 cations, and we desire to know what these restric- 
 tions and qualifications may be. That information 
 might assist us. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Certainly, my Lord. First of 
 all, when I read tO'your Lordship the particulars they 
 ask, you will appreciate, I think, the objections I 
 had before just alluded to. The first notice is ad- 
 dressed to Mr. Parnell and the 85 Irish members of 
 Parliament, for whom Messrs. Lewis and Lewis 
 appear, and it asks that the names and addresses of 
 the 85 members of Parliament for whom Messrs. 
 Lewis and Lewis appear should be given. Perhaps it 
 would be enough if I were to tell my learned friend 
 who they are. I do not suppose he wants them writ- 
 ten down ? 
 
 The President. — I do ; I want to have the names. 
 
 Mr. GRAHAM. — And we want them. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— There is no objection to that. 
 The notice goes on to say, That Charles Stewart 
 Parnell and each and every of such members of Par- 
 liament do within five days from the 17th day of 
 September inst. make and deliver to us, at the office 
 of our solicitors, Messrs. Soames, Edwards, and Jones, 
 58, Lincoln's-inn-fields, a full and sufficient affi- 
 davit, stating whether they respectively have or have 
 had in their possession or power respectively any, and 
 if any what, documents relating to the matters in 
 question in this Commission, and accounting for the 
 same." The first point is this, My learned friend 
 Mr. Graham has stated, no doubt correctly upon his 
 instructions, that, although there are sweeping alle- 
 gations against the Irish party, the allegations 
 against specific members are, so to speak, limited — 
 that is to say, the number of persons against whom the 
 . charges are made by name are limited ; and therefore 
 
 it would be rather absurd to require 85 affidavits of 
 discovery from the 85 members, when there might be 
 only three or four, or six at the outside, against whom 
 allegations were made specifically. In order to 
 simplify that we shall agree to those persons against 
 whom allegations are, in fact, made making a proper 
 affidavit of discovery. Now, what are we to discover ? 
 The notice says, " stating whether they have or have 
 had in their possession or power respectively any and 
 what documents relating to the matters in question in 
 this Commission." Before we know what are the 
 documents which are relevant we must know what the 
 allegations are. They are of the vaguest and most 
 shadowy kind. With regard to the letters which we 
 say are forged, those allegations are clear enough, but 
 with regard to all else they are conveyed, to great 
 extent, by insinuation and innuendo rather than by 
 direct suggestion. As regards the first part, we have 
 no objection to such members of Parliament as are 
 charged making the usual affidavit of documents. We 
 ask, first, an enumeration of the persons charged ; 
 next, a statement of what the allegations made against 
 those persons are ; subject to that, we have no ob- 
 jection. The next application is addressed to Mr. 
 Justin M'Carthy and a person named Brady, who is 
 not, as I understand, referred to — that is, that he is 
 not a person put before this inquiry at all. 
 
 The President. — May he not be one of the " other 
 persons " ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — He may be. I am not appearing 
 except for the Irish members of Parliament, and I do 
 not know anything about who the others are, and I do 
 not even now know that he is one of the other persons. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — He is secretary for the League, I 
 believe ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am not aware that he is one of 
 the persons against whom allegations are made. The 
 publication is, " That Justin M'Carthy, the president, 
 and John Brady, the secretary, and each of them do 
 within fivedays from the 17th of September inst. make 
 and deliver to us a full and sufficient affidavit, stating 
 whether they have or have had in their possession or 
 power respectively, either alone or jointly with any 
 other and what person or persons, any, and if any 
 what, documents belonging to or connected with or 
 referring to the Irish Land League and National 
 League of Great Britain, and accounting for the same 
 and that the persons having the custody of the same 
 may be ordered to produce them." I never heard of 
 such a thing. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— That is the ordinary form. 
 
 SIR C. Russsll.— Not in this connexion. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— The object of that is to know what 
 haB become of the books of the Land League and the 
 National League. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— We have no objection to this 
 application subject to what I have already said. The 
 first thing we ask for is a statement of the persons 
 implicated and a statement of the charges against 
 those persons. As regards Brady, I have no instruo- 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
The Special Commission, September 17, 1888- 
 
 IX. 
 
 t ions or authority from him ; but as I read this Act it 
 refers, primarily at all events, to persons who are 
 parties. I should have no objection if at a later 
 stage your Lordships should bring him before you. 
 Then the last application is — " That C. S. Parnell, 
 the president ; J. G. Biggar, the treasurer ; J. E. 
 Kenny, the treasurer ; T. Harrington, the secretary ; 
 and J. P. Quinn, the secretary or under-secretary, of 
 the several Leagues hereinafter mentioned, do within 
 five days from September 17 inst. make a fall and 
 sufficient affidavit stating whether they have or have 
 had in their possession or power any documents of, 
 belonging to, or connected with, or referring to 
 the Irish National Land League, the Irish National 
 Land League and Labour and Industrial Union, the 
 National League, the Irish Land League, and the 
 Ladies' Irish National Land League respectively, 
 and accontuing for the same." So far I think I have 
 put my position clearly before your Lordships. I 
 greatly regret your Lordship has not read this 
 pamphlet . 
 
 The President. — There is plenty of time for that. 
 
 Sie 0. Russell. — I will just read to your Lord- 
 ships a few passages to show the difficulties we feel in 
 this matter. I only find from beginning to end of the 
 book seven or eight names of members of Parliament 
 mentioned. Therefore I say we - ought to be told, 
 with reference to the expense if for no other reason, 
 against whom those charges are made, and, next, what 
 the charges against those persons are. I will just 
 call your Lordships' attention to the nature of the 
 charges that are made. As an illustration of what I 
 mean, Mr. F. H. O'Donnell was an Irish member, 
 yet their case was that they made no allegation 
 against him. The Attorney-General, in addressing 
 the jury in the case of " O'Donnell v. Walter," 
 said : — " In Loughrea, between January, 1880, and 
 March, 1882, six or seven murders took place, 
 although the people who were killed were guilty of 
 no crime against God or man. These murders can be 
 traced to no cause whatever except the language used 
 at Land League meetings." Your Lordships see the 
 field which that opens up. At what Land League 
 meetings was the language used ? What was the 
 language so used ? When and where and by whom was 
 it spoken ? What was the state social, economical, 
 political of that particular neighbourhood, and what 
 were the causes outside the Land League meetings. 
 The Attorney-General simply says, " Those murders 
 can be traced to no other cause whatever except the 
 language used at Land League meetings." I go on 
 to another illustration. The Attorney-General says, 
 speaking in reference to that shocking occurrence, the 
 Phoenix Park murders, in May, 1882 :— " A true bill 
 was found against him," that is against Sheridan, 
 " in connexion with the Phcenix Park murders, and 
 also against Brennan and Tynan, and warrants were 
 also issued against Bgan and Byrne in connexion with 
 those crimes." I do not stop to consider whether that 
 is accurate or not. " It is part of my case that the 
 
 prominent members of the Laud League and National. 
 League, as distinguished from the Constitutional 
 party, had communications with these men after those 
 members had become aware of the accusations made 
 against them. After the suppression of the League 
 Egan went to Paris, and I think I shall be able to 
 prove that Mr. Parnell met him there. It will be for 
 you to consider what his business was." We want to 
 know, in downright, unmistakable language, do they 
 want to charge any, and, if so, which, of the Irish 
 members of Parliament with being, before or after 
 the Phcenix Park murders, parties to them ? At paga 
 83 of the pamphlet another illustration occurs. " Aa 
 to Byrne, though it was said he went to Cannes, where 
 attempts were made at extradition and failed, he 
 went to Amerjca and had never appeared again. So 
 as to Sheridan and Brennan, they had never been 
 . found. But he believed he should prove that some of 
 the so-called Constitutional leaders had since been in 
 communication with these men. Not Mr. O'Donnell, 
 who had never been charged with it, though he had 
 chosen to assume that he had been. But if he should 
 prove that sums of money collected by these men had 
 been remitted to some of the leaders of the Irish 
 party, the jury would draw their own conclusion." 
 We want to know who are " some of the so-called 
 Constitutional leaders," as to whom it is alleged they 
 have been since in communication with these men. 
 Then again, " Mr. Parnell was liberated on parole on 
 April 10, 1882, to attend his nephew's funeral in 
 Paris, but Mr. Parnell had the inexpressible mortifi- 
 cation of informing his friends in both cities that his 
 parole bound him to refrain from politics. His honour, 
 indeed, was the sole obstacle to the most exhaustive 
 discussion of all pending transactions between the 
 confederates," &c. I would remind your Lordships 
 that this was in April, 1882, and the Phcenix Park 
 murder was in May, 1882 ; the suggestion is ob- 
 vious. " The same evening (Saturday, May 6, 1882) 
 Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke were stabbed 
 with amputating knives in the Phoenix Park. Not 
 less curious is the prescience which enabled Mr. Par- 
 nell to assure a representative of the France that 
 ' the crime was neither organized nor executed by 
 Fenians, . . . but by assassins, who may, I think, 
 be members of some association much more ex- 
 treme.' " We want to know in" downright, plain, un- 
 mistakable, language what are the charges to bo 
 proved against Mr. Parnell — whether he is charged 
 with being privy to the murder of Lord F. Cavendish 
 and Mr. Burke, or of being an accessory after the 
 fact. I think I have given your Lordships ample 
 justification for the application, and I would ask your 
 Lordships to order that reasonable particulars of the 
 charges made and the persons against whom they ara 
 made should be furnished. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— This, as I understand, is an applica- 
 tion that we should deliver further particulars of the 
 charges made by us. Again I protest against the attempt 
 to plaice us in the position of parties to an action. 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings, 
 
Tlie Special Commission, September 17, 18S8. 
 
 The President.— Do you propose to attempt to 
 specify any charges ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I understand that your Lordships are 
 appointed a Commission in the ordinary way, and, 
 according to the usual course, your Lordships would 
 have to inquire and report to Parliament. 
 
 The President.— I quite admit that. The question 
 is, What are you going to do ? You are here represent- 
 ing the defendants in the action of " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter;" I wish to know whether you intend to 
 specify any charges— to give us all the information 
 that you can. The Act of Parliament deals with 
 certain " charges and allegations." Do you propose 
 to specify any " charges and allegations " ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I do not know. I propose to lay 
 before your Lordships all the information we have 
 relating to the charges and allegations. 
 
 The President.— Which " charges and allega- 
 tions ' ' ? 
 
 Mr. Graham.— I cannot tell which. We shall lay 
 before your Lordships such evidence as we can. Let me 
 take an instance. My friend has read an extract from 
 page 71 of the report of the trial of "'O'Donnell v. 
 Walter." Speaking of Sheridan, the Attorney-General 
 said, " A true bill was found against him in connexion 
 with the Phoenix Park murders, and also against 
 Brennan and Tynan, and warrants were also issued 
 against Egan and Byrne in connexion with thofe 
 crimes. It is part of my case that the prominent 
 members of the Land League and the National League 
 as distinguished from the constitutional party had com- 
 munications with these men after those members had 
 become aware of the accusations made against them." 
 Taking that as an instance, all the information we have 
 is that all these men fled to America. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— What men? 
 
 Mr. Graham.— Egan and Sheridan and those 
 charged with being actually parties to the commission 
 of the Phoenix Park murders. We know from state- 
 ments in the American papers, and in a paper published 
 by Ford, who has been intimately associated with 
 them, how they have been acting since their arrival in 
 America. 
 
 The President. — What is the charge connected 
 with Egan ? 
 
 Mr. Graham.— I spoke of Egan and Sheridan and 
 others charged with direct complicity in the murders, 
 and against whom warrants have been issued and true 
 bills found by grand juries as being actual parties to 
 the murders. We know that having reached America 
 they have been acting in connexion with Ford in 
 various proceedings there— making testimonials, for 
 instance,to what they call "the plucky little woman," 
 in connexion with what they term " the victory " of 
 Phcenix Park. They have also got up what they call a 
 "Martyrs' Fund" for pensions for the families of those 
 "hung for the murders in the Phconix Park. We also know 
 from those papers that certain members of the Irish 
 Land League in this country, certain members of Par- 
 liament, were in communication with these people. 
 
 and were attending certain meetings. We do not 
 know, and we have no means of knowing, what mem- 
 bers of Parliament were in communication with them — 
 that is exactly one of the matters into which your 
 Lordships will inquire. We believe that some day, 
 when evidence is given, it will turn out that some com- 
 munications were going on at that time. We know that 
 certain meetings were held, but there is no one who 
 caD give us the information as to who was present on 
 those occasions. We know that large sums were 
 collected by those persons who were charged with 
 being direct parties to murder and forwarded to the 
 Land League in Ireland. But we do not know who 
 constituted the Land League in Ireland at that time 
 Then, as to the meetings, we know that meetings 
 were held at which inflammatory speeches were de- 
 livered, but all we know is what happened to be re- 
 ported. From the speeches made we have drawn 
 certain inferences, but it is absolutely impossible for 
 us to tell what people were at this meeting. That is 
 one thing we want to find out. 
 
 The President. — The question is, What do you 
 know at present ? You know the particular persons 
 against whom charges and allegations have been made. 
 
 Mr. Graham. —We do not make charges and allega- 
 tions against any particular persons. We say that this 
 organization has been acting in a certain manner. In 
 " Parnellism and Crime," and in the speech of the 
 Attorney-General, certain charges have been made with 
 regard to that organization, and certain persons have 
 been mentioned. I apprehend that the object of the 
 Commission' is to discover who is implicated. 
 
 The President. — " Implicated in the said charges 
 and allegations " — that is what the Act of Parliament 
 says. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — We will lay before your Lordships 
 what was said in the course of the proceedings in 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter." I would suggest as a con- 
 venient course that the shorthand-writer's notes of the 
 proceedings be printed. 
 
 The President. — I have endeavoured to save every- 
 body expense, but if there is a general wish to have 
 the notes printed I will order it. (Addressing Mr. 
 Graham.) If I understand your position, you decline 
 to say against what persons you have made allega- 
 tions, or what those allegations are, and you say it is 
 for the Court to find out for itself. Of course, if you 
 do not give the information, I will find out the parti- 
 culars for myself without your assistance. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I will give your Lordship any assist- 
 ance that I possibly can in making a precis of the 
 charges. We say, here is an organization, the Land 
 League, carrying out their edicts, and carrying out a 
 system of coercion and terrorism in Ireland by tacitly 
 adopting the acts of criminals, by not denouncing I hern, 
 and by protecting them when they are brought to 
 justice. We have gathered that partly from facts 
 within our own knowledge, partly from reports in 
 various newspapers. Into those allegations the Legis- 
 lature has appointed your Lordships to inquire. Then 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
The Special Commission, September 17, 1888. 
 
 XI. 
 
 comes my learned friend, representing 85 members of 
 Parliament, seeking to put me in the place of an accuser 
 and to make me deliver particulars showing how much I 
 do not know and how much I do know. Of course, I can 
 say who the persons are against whom the charges are 
 made; they are mentioned pretty clearly. Your Lordships 
 will find the names of Mr. Parnell and of other members 
 of his Parliamentary party mentioned, and in addition 
 there are the names of those who have been taking an 
 active part with thtm. The allegations are against the 
 organization generally, and I cannot tell in what 
 meetings and in what particular proceedings they were 
 individually engaged. That, I would submit, is a 
 matter for your Lordships to ascertain. We have made 
 no charges against them individually. 
 
 The President. — Have they made any charges and 
 allegations against you ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. — No, nor have we against them. 
 
 The President. — Then who made these charges and 
 allegations ; did nobody make them ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. — Certain charges and allegations have 
 been made against an Irish organization. 
 
 The President. — No, certain charges and allega- 
 tions have been made against particular persons. Who 
 made the allegations in the course of the proceedings 
 of " O'Donnell v. Walter ?" 
 
 Mr. Graham. — The allegations were made, in the 
 first place, in the pleadings, and afterwards by the 
 Attorney-General in opening the case for the defend- 
 ants. They were not particular charges against indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 The President. — But he did make charges against 
 individuals. 
 
 Mr. GRAHAM. — They were members of an organiza- 
 tion. 
 
 The President.— Will yoube kind enough to specify 
 the individuals ? 
 
 Mr. Graham.— I have no information ; I have no 
 means of ascertaining. Your Lordships will see that 
 the charges are against a whole organization and the 
 way it has been worked. 
 
 The President.— We have to inquire into the charges 
 and allegations against certain members of Parliament 
 and other persons. 
 
 Mr. GRAHAM. — No persons are specified by the Act. 
 I would submit to your Lordships, as I submitted 
 before, that I ought not to be placed in the position 
 here of a party or a litigant any more than any one 
 else who might attend here before your Lordships, 
 Why should I be called upon to formulate an analysis 
 of the Attorney-General's speech any more than if it 
 had been a speech of some member of the House of 
 Commons ? The conduct of an organization which 
 exercised great power in Ireland has been attacked; but 
 we have no power and no means of giving your 
 Lordships information as to the persons who, at 
 different times, have been actively engaged in pro- 
 secuting the criminal ends of that organization. Any 
 information in our power we will furnish, but to give 
 
 particulars as to who are the persons charged, wa 
 cannot do it because we do not know. 
 
 At this point the Commissioners adjourned for 
 luncheon. 
 
 On resuming their seats, 
 
 The President said,— I do not think I need trouble 
 you, Sir Charles Russell. The first question which has 
 been argued before us is as to whether we have jurisdic- 
 tion to order discovery — I use the word simply, without 
 going into other questions that arise out of it. It has 
 been argued that the power to grant discovery is not 
 enumerated among the powers given specifically by the 
 Act, and that we ought not to apply the power to order 
 discovery in this case, because the parties are not 
 parties to an action. The Court, hewever, is of opinion 
 that it has the power to direct discovery ; if the 
 argument ot Mr. Graham be adopted, it would limit 
 the authority of the Court to those things only which 
 are particularized in the sub-clauses of subsection I of 
 section 2 of the Special Commission Act — namely, 
 enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling pro- 
 duction of documents, punishing contempt, and issuing 
 a commission abroad. These are the powers which are 
 included, they are the principal ones ; but the previous 
 part of the section gives us "all such powers, rights, 
 and privileges as are vested in her Majesty's High 
 Court of Justice, or in any Judge thereof, on the 
 occasion of any action." Now, this is not an action, and 
 therefore the language has to be applied to the peculiar 
 circumstances of this case. The Court is of opinion that 
 all those persons who appear upon this inquiry are in a 
 position analogous to the parties to an action, and that, 
 therefore, as between those who are asserting contrary 
 propositions, there arises the duty imposed by law to 
 make discovery of such documents as bear upon the 
 questions at issue, unless there be any ground or 
 privilege for refusing, which is a matter to be con- 
 sidered afterwards. The Court, therefore, is of opinion 
 that ithas power to direct discovery to be made against 
 any party appearing at the inquiry, and accordingly we 
 do direct that discovery be made by the defendants in 
 he action of " O'Donnell v. Walter " of such docu- 
 ments as may be in their possession or under their 
 control relating to the matters in issue. That, how- 
 ever, does not conclude the question, because when 
 that discovery has been made will arise the question 
 whether or not we should order inspection by the 
 clients of Sir C. Russell. In addition to any ground of 
 privilege which may be Urged in the usual way by Mr. 
 Graham's clients, the Court will take upon itself to 
 consider what documents it would be right should be pro- 
 duced for the inspection of Sir C. Russell's clients, and 
 for that purpose we shall, upon those points,if difference 
 should arise, exercise our own judgment. In order that 
 the power we desire to reserve to ourselves should 
 be preserved intact, we do not require the schedule 
 that will be made by Mr. Graham's clients to be made 
 in such a shape as -shall disclose anything as to 
 which they desire to raise a question before us. 
 They will schedule their documents in such a way 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
Xll. 
 
 The Special Commission, September 17, 1888. 
 
 as will not disclose by the schedule that which they 
 desire to have our opinion upon, as to the production 
 of any particular document — for instance, if I may 
 give as an illustration a document obtained by solici- 
 tors for the purposes of the litigation. That would 
 come under the head of privilege, and there might be 
 other grounds of objection to producing certain docu- 
 ments which maybe specified by Mr. Graham's clients. 
 Then a like order will be made against Sir C. Russell' 8 
 clients. Next the question arises whether there 
 should be any restriction as to the order, and for that 
 purpose it is necessary to consider the application that 
 has been made that particulars should be given of the 
 charges and allegations made and the persons against 
 whom they are made. It has been argued by Mr. 
 Graham very earnestly that he is not in a position to 
 do so. Certainly we must not be misunderstood — we 
 entirely assent to Mr. Graham's proposition that this 
 is an inquiry which we enter into, and which we should 
 be bound to follow out to its end even if neither Sir 
 C. Russell's clients nor Mr. Graham's clients appeared 
 here. But they do appear here under the provisions of 
 this Act, and we are armed with certain powers for the 
 purpose of arriving at the truth. Among those powers 
 which we think we are entitled to exercise, and which, 
 for my part, I think we are bound to exercise in the 
 interests of truth and justice, is the power first of all 
 of learning what documents there are which may 
 be of use ; and, secondly, with regard to the ques- 
 tion now under consideration, that we should know 
 what charges and allegations Mr. Graham's clients 
 propose to give evidence in support of, and against 
 what persons they propose to give evidence in support 
 of those charges. I am sure it will be exceedingly use- 
 ful to Mr. Graham and to whoever may be engaged in 
 the case with him that they should be forced, how- 
 ever unable they may think themselves at the present 
 moment, to condescend to particularize the charges 
 which they intend to give evidence in support of. If, 
 contrary to my expectation, they should find them- 
 selves unable to give particulars we shall then have 
 the duty cast upon us which we shall have to dis- 
 charge, and we shall have to gather particulars for 
 ourselves. I trust, however, that we shall receive 
 assistance from Mr. Graham's clients, and that we 
 shall receive particulars of the definite charges which, 
 after consideration, his clients are prepared to support, 
 and also the allegations— by which,I suppose, in popular 
 language, is meant charges short of actual criminality 
 —which they are prepared to support. It may be that 
 the whole of the clients of Sir C. Russell would not 
 be among the persons whom the defendants in the action 
 of " O'Donnell v. Walter " would make any charges 
 against. That, however, in the opinion of the Court 
 does not cover the question of discovery. These several 
 persons have appeared at the inquiry, and so, for the 
 reasons I gave earlier, they have put themselves into 
 a position analogous to that of parties to an action. 
 The Court is of opinion that they are all bound, if 
 called upon, to make discovery of any document in 
 
 their possession bearing upon the matters in issue. 
 The order, however, does only apply to those who have 
 oppeared in the inquiry, and therefore will not affect 
 those who are not now represented. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I presume the order will be drawn 
 up in the usual form. 
 The President. — Yes, the usual form. 
 Mr. Graham. — I am afraid that it will be physically 
 impossible to furnish the particulars asked for unless 
 sufficient time is given us to draw them up. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I am myself afraid that the time 
 between now and the datefixed for the commencement 
 of the inquiry is to some extent too short. 
 The President. — You can take any reasonable time, 
 Sib C. Russell. — Perhaps your Lordships would say 
 that the particulars must be furnished within a certain 
 number of days before the next sitting of the Com- 
 mission. 
 
 The President. — I have already suggested in 
 reference to this subject that we should begin the 
 inquiry on the 16th of October, because that will give 
 us several days before the commencement of the 
 sittings of the Law Courts. 
 
 Mr. Gbaham. — Do your Lordships propose to sit on 
 the 16th of October ? 
 The Preside nt.— That is my present proposal. 
 Mr. Gbaham. — I respectfully submit that it would 
 be well that you should sit a little later, because the 
 order that you have just made will necessarily involve 
 an immense amount of labour and of consideration. 
 Specific charges will have to be made against every 
 individual implicated. Your Lordship does not know 
 what it is until you come to read through the whole 
 case. 
 
 The President.— I perfectly understand that. I 
 know the general effect of the charges from an 
 analysis I have had made of them. If you apply to 
 amend the charges it can be done. 
 
 Mr. Gbaham.— The great difficulty is to set forth 
 the charges specifically in the shape of particulars. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — We only want the best particulars 
 you can give. 
 
 Mr. GRAHAM. — All I can say is that we will give 
 the best particulars we can. I am afraid, honestly 
 speaking, that the best particulars would be to give the 
 names of all the members of Parliament who were 
 members of the Land League at the time. 
 
 The President. — I am quite sure that whatever you 
 do honestly will not be found fault with. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— My clients will do what they can to 
 carry out your Lordship's view. 
 
 The President.— It would be a very difficult 
 thing for us to embark upon this general inquiry 
 without knowing what charges you intend to endeavour 
 to substantiate. That does not mean that we 
 shall regard ourselves as limited in our inquiry in any 
 way by the charges you may make specifically, and that 
 if you should give up any case to which we have a clue 
 we shall not feel at liberty to investigate it for our- 
 
 PreliminaryJProceedings, 
 
The Special Commission, September 17, 1888. 
 
 • •• 
 
 xiu. 
 
 Selves. But we want to know at least what assistance 
 you can give us. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — Of course, we may be in a position of 
 being able to give your Lordships evidence at some future 
 day of charges which are not now made. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Certainly ; you will always be en- 
 titled to do so. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — As regards the date when the discovery 
 has to be made. It took me a good part of two days to 
 read the case. It will be a matter of some time to pre- 
 pare the particulars, and I understand that it will be 
 extremely inconvenient to the Attorney-General for the 
 Commission to sit as early as has been proposed. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am prepared to adopt any course 
 that will be the most convenient to all parties. 
 
 The President. — Suppose we take two or three days 
 more? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — May I suggest that we should sit 
 on Monday, the 22d of October ? 
 
 Mr. GRAHAM. — Monday is always an inconvenient 
 day ; may I suggest Tuesday, the 23d of October ? 
 
 The President. — If I am to understand that it is the 
 desire of both parties that the inquiry should not be com- 
 menced before Monday, the 22d of October, I will not 
 withhold my consent from such an arrangement. Other- 
 wise I am bound to say that it is of great importance 
 to get on with this inquiry as soon as possible. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— There will be not the slightest 
 difficulty on our side : but it will be more convenient 
 to sit on October 22. My clients will make their 
 affidavits of discovery within a reasonable time. 
 
 The President. — It must" be remembered that these 
 are concurrent orders, and that you, Sir Charles, are 
 bound to make your discovery of documents equally 
 with Mr. Graham. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I perfectly understand that, my 
 Lord. My friend will agree with me that there are a 
 considerable number of persons to make affidavits of 
 discovery. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — Some of my learned friend's clients 
 have been elected members of Parliament since these 
 charges and allegations were made, and consequently 
 these charges and allegations do notapply to them. If 
 we are supplied with a list of Mr. Lewis's 85 clients 
 within a couple of days, we will return the list with 
 the names of those struck out to whom the charges and 
 allegations do not apply. 
 
 The President. — Then, we will begin the inquiry 
 on Monday, the 22d of October. What time before 
 that date will you furnish the particulars ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. — A week before that date. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is scarcely early enough. 
 
 The President.— I think it is. The order will be 
 that the particulars shall be furnished a week before 
 October 22. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Then, with regard to the docu- 
 ments which are to be inspected ? 
 
 Mr. GRAHAM. — You will not require an order with 
 regard to them. You can inspect them at once. With 
 respect to the dates of the charges and allegations, I 
 
 do not see how our giving them can help my learned 
 friend. I do not see how we can give them. 
 
 The President. — Wherever dates are material put 
 them in, if you know them. Only give the dates as far 
 as you are able to give them. For instance, if there 
 are half-a-dozen meetings in a town, you will, if you 
 can, specify the date of the particular meeting to which 
 you refer. We are engaged in a very difficult inquiry, 
 and it is essential you should give us all the assistance 
 in your power. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — Yes, we will give all the material 
 dates. But my learned friend asks for particulars with 
 regard to persons other than members of Parliament. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Only as far as the allegations 
 against others affect us. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— Very well. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The next application is one in 
 which, I presume, my learned friend will join. It is 
 an application under the powers given to your Lordships 
 by clause 4 of subsection 1 of section 2 for the issue of a 
 Commission for the examination of witnesses abroad. The 
 affidavit upon which I move is that of Mr. Lewis, re- 
 lating to a material and important witness in the case. 
 In the course of the statement of the Attorney-General 
 in the conduct of the case of " O'Donnell v. Walter " 
 one gentleman was very prominently named. He was 
 Mr. Patrick Egan, who was stated to have been 
 treasurer of the Land League at some time or another, 
 and it was suggested that he, having been implicated in 
 the Phoenix Park murders, had left the country. As far 
 as my information goes, that is not the fact. It ismot 
 specifically stated that he was charged with being im- 
 plicated in the Phoenix Park murders, but it is said that 
 a warrant had been issued against him. In reference 
 to the authenticity of the alleged forged letters the 
 part that Mr. Bgan's evidence would play is a very 
 important one. If your Lordships will refer to page 
 79 of the pamphlet containing the report of the case of 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter" you will find set out a letter 
 purporting to have been written by Mr. Egan, whichis 
 as follows : — 
 
 "24th Feb 1881. 
 ' ' My dear friend — Write under cover to Madame J. 
 Rouyer 99 Avenue de Villiers Mr. Parnell is here and 
 will remain for about a week. I have spoken to him. 
 about further advance for the ' A ' fund, he has no ob- 
 jection and you may count upon it. All goes well. 
 We have met Mr O L and other friends who are hore 
 and all are agreed that prompt and decisive action is 
 called for " Yours very faithfully 
 
 " P. Eqan." 
 
 Lower down on the same page is another letter, which 
 runs thus : — 
 
 " I had a conversation with Mr. Parnell on Satur- 
 day last in reference to the subject of a further ad- 
 vance of £50, and while anxious to consent he regrets 
 that it is not in his power to manage the matter just 
 now. As I explained to you the funds are low. Is 
 there no other source from which the amount could be 
 obtained ?" 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
XIV. 
 
 The Special Commission, September 17, 1888. 
 
 And lower down again is another letter, also purport- 
 ing to have been written by Mr. Bgan, which is as 
 follows : — 
 
 " I am in receipt of your note of 8th instant and am 
 writing Mr P fully on the matter He will Doubt- 
 less communicate with you himself." 
 On the next page are printed two even more important 
 letters. The first is dated June 18, 1881 :— 
 
 ,. " Your two letters of 12th and 15th insts are duly 
 to hand and I am also in receipt of communications 
 from Mr. Parnell informing me that he has acted upon 
 my suggestion and accepted the offer made by B. You 
 had better at once proceed to Dundalk so that there 
 may be no time lost." 
 
 In reference to this letter, the suggestion was made by 
 the Attorney-General that " B " was the initial letter 
 of Brennan, who at that time was conducting an agita- 
 tion in the West of Ireland. Following this is a letter 
 purporting to have been written by Mr. Parnell to 
 Egan to this eifect : — 
 
 " Tell B to write to me direct. Have not yet re- 
 ceived the papers." 
 
 The President.— Areyoureading these lettersforthe 
 purpose of endeavouring to convince me that it is im- 
 portant that Egan should be examined by commission ? 
 
 Mr. Geaham. — It is most material that your Lord- 
 ships should have all the witnesses before you. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — That statement comes very 
 curiously from my learned friend, because the Attorney- 
 General himself stated that there was a very good 
 reason why Bgan could not be here — namely, that he 
 was flying from justice. 
 
 The President.— But if he came here and told us 
 the truth he would get a certificate. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— That is not the only matter for 
 consideration. The affidavit upon which I move states 
 that Mr. Egan is at present State Eepublicandelegate of 
 Nebraska, United States of America, and is actively 
 engaged in the Presidential campaign now proceeding, 
 and is also engaged in a large business as a corn 
 merchant at Lincoln, Nebraska, and that for those 
 reasons it is quite impossible he should come to 
 this country to be examined as a witness. The 
 evidence of Egan is of vital importance, not only 
 with regard to the question of the forged letters, 
 and I am sure that my learned friend himself will 
 not deny that he is a material and important witness. 
 The authorities treat the right to examine a witness 
 who i s abroad and out of the jurisdiction of the Court 
 by commission as a matter ex dcbito justitice. In the case 
 of " Kemp v. Tennant " (2 The TimesLaw Reports, 304.) 
 it was held that where a material witness was out of 
 the jurisdiction the Court would grant an order to 
 examine him by commission. In " Cock v. Alleock " 
 (21 Q. B. Div.) it was held that, even where a 
 material witness resident abroad was in the employ- 
 ment or under the control of the person who desired 
 to examine him, that was no reason for disentitling 
 the party to an order for examining such witness by 
 commission. 
 
 Mr. Graham .—Egan is undoubtedly one of the parties 
 implicated in the charges, and in a sense he is a party 
 to these proceedings, and therefore he should appear in 
 person and give his explanation before your Lordships. 
 The case against Egan is that he was treasurer of the 
 League, and that he dispensed the moneys of the League 
 that were paid to the Phcenix Park murderers. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Will my learned friend show where 
 that is alleged ? For my own part, I now hear the 
 allegation for the first time. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — It is alleged two or three times over. 
 I cannot point out the page at this moment, but the 
 allegation is made in a letter to the effect that he 
 sends £200 to Carey and a further £50 to someone else. 
 As soon as the League was suppressed they made away 
 with the books. Mr. Campbell, Mr. Parnell's private 
 secretary, as far as our information goes, brought them 
 over here. It is, however, extremely doubtful whether 
 these books will be produced before your Lordships. 
 When, or soon after, the Phcenix Park murders were 
 committed Egan was in Paris, sending money to the 
 persons who were engaged therein. As soon as Carey 
 made his statement Egan went to America, and he has 
 not come within the ■jurisdiction of the Court since. 
 It is alleged against him that he was implicated in the 
 Phcenix Park murders, and that he has constantly been 
 in communication with Mr. Parnell, and has taken a 
 very active part in the agitation, and that he can give 
 very important information as to what is now going on 
 in America. Mr. Lewis himself does not suggest any 
 reason why Egan should not come here, and we think 
 it most important that he should give his evidence^wii 
 voce before the Commission, and that your Lordships 
 should see him and should hear his cross-examination. 
 Moreover, matters may continually be cropping up 
 which he may be required to give an explanation of. 
 As it would be necessary, in case a commission 
 were issued, to send over to America a number 
 of original documents which would be required before 
 the Commission, the proceedings of the Commission 
 would have to be suspended until the Commission 
 had concluded the examination of Egan. PrimA facie 
 Egan ought to appear here. With all the facts before 
 your Lordships, I would suggest that your Lordship 
 should suspend your judgment upon this point for the 
 present. 
 
 SirC. Russell.— My learned friend has treated this 
 as an application made by Mr. Egan, whereas it is 
 made on behalf of Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Mr. Graham.— Egan is Mr. Parnell's chief ally. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— The statement that Egan had ever 
 been charged with having anything to do with the 
 Phcenix Park murders is now made for the first time as 
 far as I know, and I am instructed that there is not 
 the slightest foundation for such a statement. I am in- 
 structed on behalf of Mr. Parnell to say that the letters 
 purporting to be written by Mr. Egan are not signed by 
 him and that the letters are forgeries. It is absolutely 
 necessary that Egan's evidence should be forthcoming. 
 in some form or another, and as he is now working for 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
The Special Commission, September 17, 1888. 
 
 xv. 
 
 the Republican candidate for the Presidency, and is 
 besides in a large way of business, there are good 
 reasons why he cannot be here. 
 
 The President. — We are of opinion that this appli- 
 cation is at least premature. There is nothing put for- 
 ward to show that Mr. Egan cannot be in this country. 
 The only ground stated is that of business occupation, 
 and it seems to me highly probable that he may be 
 able to come here by-and-bye. If he does not come 
 there will be ample time for us to allow a commis- 
 sioner to go. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The only remaining application 
 that I have to make is under the latter part of the 6th 
 section of the Act. I intimated to your Lordships in 
 general terms, when I was stating the heads of my ap- 
 plication, that I should have to make one for the 
 release of Mr. John Dillon, on such terms and condi- 
 tions as to bail and other matters as your Lordships 
 should think fit to impose. I move on the affidavit of 
 Mr. Lewis, who says, " I am retained to act as solici- 
 tor for Mr. John Dillon, M.P., now a prisoner inDun- 
 dalk Gaol, county Louth, Ireland, that the said Mr. 
 John Dillon is a person affected by the charges and alle- 
 gations made against certain members of Parliament by 
 the defendants in the trial of an action entitled 
 ' O'Donnell v. Walter and Another.' " 
 
 Mr. Graham. — I have nq observation to make with 
 regard to the application. There are two other wit- 
 nesses, who have been sentenced to long terms of penal 
 servitude in connexion with the Phoenix Park murders, 
 whose attendance my clients may require. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Mr. Dillon is one of the most 
 prominent members of the League, having spoken on its 
 behalf and taken part in its organization both in Eng- 
 land and Ireland. Mr. Lewis in his affidavit states 
 that he has not been able to communicate with Mr. 
 Dillon, and is unaware whether it 'is or is not his 
 intention to appear before the Commission ; that he 
 has been quite unable to obtain any statement from 
 Mr. Dillon, or any information from him on his own 
 behalf or on that of the other members of Parliament 
 who are charged ; that Mr. Dillon is a necessary and 
 material witness ; and that it is absolutely necessary 
 that he should be forthwith admitted to bail so that he 
 may attend the inquiry. Now, as to your Lordships' 
 jurisdiction to make this order only one question can 
 arife. The words of the Act are these — " Where it 
 shall appear to the Commissioners that any person 
 affected by any of the said charges or allegations is 
 at any time during the holding of the said inquiry 
 detained or imprisoned, the Commissioners may order 
 the attendance of such person at such inquiry in such 
 manner, for such time, and subject to such conditions 
 as regards bail, or otherwise, as to the Commissioners 
 may seem fit." The only point that can arise is as 
 to the meaning of the words " the attendance of such 
 person at such inquiry." Now, this inquiry, I take it, 
 began at the moment when your Lordships sat. It 
 could not be maintained that Mr. Dillon should be 
 released on bail for a certain day and recommitted to 
 
 prison at night, or for certain days, say from Saturday 
 till Monday, and thenrecommitted. I maintain that the 
 words mean that the prisoner should be released during 
 the whole time over which the inquiry extends. It may 
 be a question whether this application is not made 
 prematurely, but if the difficutly resolves itself into a 
 question of that kind I cannot think that your Lordships 
 would refuse to deal with the application on that 
 ground. A week hence your Lordships might not be 
 sitting as a Court for the purposes of this inquiry. Under 
 all the circumstances I cannot doubt that the Executive 
 themselves would not object to this order being made, 
 in view of the statements, more or less serious, which 
 have been made about Mr. Dillon's health. But I make 
 the application on the ground that he is a person against 
 whom serious charges are made, that he has for many 
 years filled a prominent position in public life, and that 
 in common justice he ought to have a full opportunity 
 of preparing his defence and of giving evidence in 
 defence of his friends. The section to which I have re- 
 ferred was put into the statute to enable your Lordships 
 to do this just thing. With any condition as to bail 
 or as to abstention from political meetings of course 
 Mr. Dillon must and will comply. 
 
 The President. — I have already pointed out that our 
 powers are derived exclusively from this Act of Parlia- 
 ment, and that we can do no more than we can find 
 authority for in this Act. The procedure under con- 
 sideration is a procedure which has been substituted for 
 the ordinary process by which a person is brought up 
 on a subpoena ad testificandum. The person is brought 
 up and remains still in custody and appears from day 
 to day before the tribunal. No doubt this section is 
 couched in language which is intended to give us wider 
 powers, but we are of opinion that we must not do 
 more than appears to be consistent with the wordB of 
 the Act and necessary for the purposes to which this 
 process is directed. Now, I must say that the affidavit 
 which has been read fails to satisfy us that this gen- 
 tleman could not communicate with his solicitor, and 
 therefore I do not feel at all influenced by the argu- 
 ment of hardship. But, further, we are of opinion 
 that substantially the inquiry has not commenced, and 
 it is only for the purpose of enabling a person to be 
 present at the inquiry that this power should be exer- 
 cised. We are of opinion, therefore, that this inquiry is 
 premature, and that we can only make an order for Mr. 
 Dillon's attendance at the inquiry at the time which 
 we have indicated. It may be convenient to say at 
 once that we will make the order at that time ; but it 
 must be subject to the condition that Mr. Dillon will 
 abstain from taking part in any other public proceed- 
 ings. Assuming that the conditions are assented to, the 
 order would be that " he be released in order that he 
 may attend the special inquiry until further order." 
 Then would arise the question of bail. We have to 
 exercise our discretion in the matter, and I am inclined 
 to think that bail need not be required, but that he 
 should enter into his own recognizances in the sum of 
 £1,000. 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
XVI. 
 
 The Special Commission, September 17, 1888. 
 
 Silt (J. Russell. — Your Lordships will not be 
 bore again as a Court until the 22d, of next 
 month. Will your Lordships now make an order 
 not to be delivered out until such a day before the 
 22d as you may determine ? 
 
 The President. — The 22d being a Monday, we will 
 make an order not to be delivered out until the pre- 
 ceding Friday. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— About the Irish Prisons Board 
 there is a certain amount of red tape, so perhaps it 
 would be safer to make the order for Thursday. 
 
 The President.— We will not haggle as to a day. 
 Let us say Thursday. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — May I say a word with reference to 
 the application under the Bankers' Act ? We want to 
 inspect certain accounts, and your Lordships, having 
 all the powers that a Court would have in an action, 
 have the power to make an order for inspection. As to 
 one of these accounts an order was made in the action 
 of " O'Donnell v. Walter." It is the account of the 
 Land League. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — Is not this an application of which 
 notice ought to be given ? 
 
 The President.— No, it is not. Having read the 
 affidavits, we think, Mr. Graham, that you are entitled 
 to your order. Is there anything else ? 
 
 Mr. Graham.— I think that is all. 
 
 The President. — Then we adjourn until the 22d. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — Have your Lordships decided where 
 to sit ? When we have our witnesses here, this Court 
 will be inconveniently crowded if as many reporters 
 are present as are here to-day. 
 
 The President. — You need not have many witnesses 
 present at one time. I have considered the subject very 
 carefully, and should be very glad indeed if we could 
 get some larger Court. However, I think that, subject 
 to the little difficulty which you have suggested, we 
 have been very comfortable to-day. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. ASQUITH. — It is a great convenience to meet in 
 this building. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — Perhaps the Lord Chief Justice might 
 allow your Lordships the use of his court, which is 
 larger. 
 
 The President. — I have not made any application 
 to the Lord Chief Justice, and I do not know what 
 he would say. We had, at any rate, better meet here. 
 I thought that the public would be best represented by 
 the Press, to whom certainly a great number of seats 
 have been allotted. 
 
 , The proceedings then terminated, the Commissioners 
 leaving the Court at five minutes past 3 o'clock. 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings. 
 
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE. 
 
 MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1888. 
 
 {Before the Bight Honourable Sir J. Hannen, Ms. Justice Day, and Mr, Justice A. L. Smith, 
 
 Commissioners.) 
 
 The first sitting (except for preliminary applica- 
 tions) of the Special Commission appointed by 
 the Special Commission Act, 1888 (51 and 52 Vict., 
 cap. 35), was held to-day in No. 1 Probate Court of the 
 Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 The Special Commission Act, which was passed 
 daring the first part of the present Session, is as 
 follows : — 
 
 An Act to constitute a Special Commission 
 to inquire into the charges and allegations made 
 against certain members of Parliament and other persons 
 by the defendants in the recent trial of an action 
 entitled " O'Donnell v. Walter and another." (13th 
 August, 1888.) 
 
 Whereas charges and allegations have been made 
 against certain members of Parliament and other 
 persons by the defendants in the course of the proceed- 
 ings in an action entitled " O'Donnell versus Walter 
 and another, " and it is expedient that a Special Com- 
 mission should be appointed to inquire into the truth 
 of those charges and allegations, and should have such 
 powers as may be .necessary for the effectual conduct- 
 ing of the inquiry t 
 
 Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most 
 Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent 
 of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons 
 in this present Parliament assembled, and by the 
 authority of the same, as follows : — 
 
 1. — (1) The three persons hereinafter mentioned — 
 namely, the Right Honourable Sir James Eannen, the 
 Honourable Sir John Charles Day, and the Honourable 
 Sir Archibald Levin Smith, are hereby appointed Com- 
 missioners for the purposes of this Act, and are in this 
 Act referred to as the Commissioners. 
 
 (2) The Commissioners shall inquire into and 
 report upon the charges and allegations made against 
 certain members of Parliament and other persons in 
 the course of the proceedings in an action entitled 
 " O'Donnell versus Walter and another." 
 
 2.— (1) The Commissioners shall, for the purposes 
 of the inquiry under this Act, have, in addition to the 
 special powers hereinafter provided, all such powers, 
 rights, and privileges as are vested in Her Majesty's 
 High Court of Justice, or in aay Judge thereof, on 
 the occasion of any action, including all powers, 
 rights, and privileges in respect of the following 
 matters : — 
 
 (i.) the enforcing the attendance of witnesses and 
 examining them on oath, affirmation, or promise and 
 declaration ; and 
 
 (ii.) the compelling the production of documents ; 
 and 
 
 (iii.) the punishing persons guilty of contempt ; 
 and 
 
 (iv.) the issue of a commission or request to 
 examine witnesses abroad ; 
 
 and a summons signed by one or more of the Com- 
 missioners may be substituted for, and shall be equi- 
 valent to, any form of process capable of being issued 
 in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses 
 or compelling the production of documents. 
 
 (2) A warrant of committal to prison issued for 
 the purpose of enforcing the powers conferred by this 
 section shall be signed by one or more of the Com- 
 missioners, and shall specify the prison to which the 
 offender is to be committed. 
 
 (3) The Commissioners may, if they think fit, 
 order that any document or documents in the 
 
 The Special Commission Act. 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 possession of any party appearing at the inquiry shall 
 he produced for the inspection of any other such 
 party. 
 
 3. If any person, having been served with a 
 summons under this Act, shall fail to appear accord- 
 ing to the tenour of such summons, the Commissioners 
 shall have power to issue a warrant for the arrest of 
 such person. 
 
 4. Any person summoned to attend before the 
 said Commissioners who shall refuse, neglect, or fail 
 to attend in pursuance of any summons, shall, inotwith- 
 standing the dissolution of the Commission,be liable lo 
 punishment for contempt of the High Court of Justice, 
 on the motion of any person who has appeared at the 
 inquiry before such Commissioners. 
 
 5. A warrant or order for the arrest, detention, 
 or imprisonment of a person for contempt of the 
 Commissioners shall, notwithstanding the Special 
 Commission is dissolved or otherwise determined, be 
 and remain as valid and effectual in all respects as if 
 the Special Commission were not so dissolved or other- 
 wise determined, and upon such dissolution or de- 
 termination all the powers, rights, and privileges of 
 the Commissioners with respect to such warrant or 
 order, and to a person arrested, detained, or im- 
 prisoned, or to be arrested, detained, or imprisoned by 
 virtue thereof, shall devolve upon and be exercised 
 by the. Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of 
 Justice or a Judge thereof ; and such contempt, and a 
 proceeding with respect thereto, shall not be in any- 
 wise affected by such dissolution or determination of 
 ihe Special Commission. 
 
 6. The persons implicated in the said charges and 
 allegations, the parties to the said action, an^ any 
 person authorized by the Commissioners may appear 
 at the inquiry, and any person so appearing may be 
 represented by counsel or solicitor practising in Great 
 Britain or Ireland. Where it shall appear to the 
 Commissioners that any person affected by any of the 
 said charges or allegations is at any time during the 
 holding of the said inquiry detained or imprisoned, the 
 Commissioners may order the attendance of such 
 person at such inquiry in such manner, for such time, 
 and subject to such conditions as regards bail, or other- 
 wise, as to the Commissioners may seem fit. 
 
 v . Tba Commissioners shall have power, if thay 
 think fit, to make reports from time to time. 
 
 8. Every person who, on examination on oath, 
 affirmation, or promise and declaration under this Act, 
 wilfully gives false evidence, shall be liable to the 
 penalties for perjury. 
 
 9. Any person examined as a witness under this Act 
 before the Commissioners, or under a commission to 
 examine witnesses abroad, may be cross-examined on 
 behalf of any other person appearing before the Com- 
 missioners. A witness examined under this Act shall 
 not be excused from answering any question put to him 
 on the ground of any privilege, or on the ground that 
 the answer thereto may criminate or tend to criminate 
 himself : provided that no evidence taken under this 
 
 Act shall be admissible against any person in any civil 
 or criminal proceeding except in the case of a witness 
 accused of having given false evidence in an inquiry 
 under this Act, or of a person accused of having pro- 
 cured, or attempted or conspired to procure, the 
 giving of such evidence. 
 
 10. — (1) Every person examined as a witness under 
 this Act who, in the opinion of the Commissioners, 
 makes a full and true disclosure touching all the 
 matters in respect of which he is examined, shall be 
 entitled to receive a certificate signed by the Com- 
 missioners slating that the witness has, on his exami- 
 nation, made a full and true disclosure as aforesaid. 
 
 (2) If any civil or criminal proceeding is at any 
 time thereafter instituted against any such witness in 
 respect of any matter touching which he has been so 
 examined, the Court having cognizance of the case 
 shall, on proof of the certificate, otay i£e proceeding, 
 and may in its discretion award to the witness such 
 coaU as he may be put to in or by reason of the pro- 
 ceeding ; provided that nothing in this section shall be 
 deemed to apply in the case of proceedings for having 
 given false evidence at an inquiry held under this Act, 
 or of having procured, or attempted or conspired to 
 procure, the giving of such evidence. 
 
 11. This Act may be cited as the Special Com- 
 mission Act , 1888. 
 
 The following are the particulars of the charges or 
 allegations made by the defendants in the action of 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter," delivered pursuant to the 
 order of the Special Commission, dated the 17th 
 day of September, 1888. 
 
 The names of the members of Parliament against 
 whom the charges and allegations are made are set out 
 in the schedule hereto. 
 
 The members of Parliament mentioned in the schedule 
 were members of the conspiracy and organization here- 
 inafter described, and took part in the work and 
 operations thereof with knowledge of its character, 
 objects, and mode of action. 
 
 From and including the year 1879 there have existed 
 societies known as the Irish Land League, the Irish 
 National Land League and Labour and Industrial 
 Union, the Ladies' Land League, the Ladies' Irish 
 Land League and Labour and Industrial Union, the 
 National League and the affiliated societies in Great 
 Britain and America, all forming one connected and 
 continuous organization. 
 
 The ultimate object of the organization was to 
 establish the absolute independence of Ireland as a 
 separate nation. With a view to effect this one of the 
 immediate objects of the said conspiracy or organiza- 
 tion was to promote an agrarian agitation against the 
 payment of agricultural rents, thereby securing the co- 
 operation of the tenant farmers of Ireland, and at the 
 same time the impoverishment and ultimate expulsion 
 from the country of the Irish landlords, who were 
 styled " the English garrison." 
 
 The mode of action was to organize a system of 
 coercion and intimidation in Ireland, which was 
 
 The Suecial Commission Act 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 sustained and enforced by boycotting and the com- 
 mission of crimes and outrages. 
 
 The organization was actively engaged in the 
 following matters : — 
 
 1. The promotion of and inciting to the commission 
 of crimes, outrages, boycotting, and intimidation. 
 
 2. The collection and providing of funds to be used, 
 or which it was known were used for the promotion of 
 and the payment of persons engaged in the commission 
 of crimes, outrages, boycotting, and intimidation. 
 
 3. The payment of persons who assisted in, were 
 affected by or accidentally or otherwise injured in 
 the commission of such crimes, outrages, and acts of 
 boycotting and intimidation. 
 
 4. Holding meetings and procuring to be made 
 speeches, inciting to the commission of crimes, out- 
 rages, boycotting, and intimidation. Some of the 
 meetings referred to, which were attended by members 
 of Parliament, with the approximate dates and place 
 of meeting, are given in the schedule hereto. 
 
 5. The publication and dissemination of newspaper 
 and other literature inciting to and approving of 
 sedition and the commission of crimes, outrages, boy- 
 cotting, and intimidation, particularly the Irish World, 
 the Chicago Citizen, the Boston Pilot, the Freeman's 
 Journal, United, Ireland, the Irishman, the NcAion, the 
 Weekly News, Cork Daily Herald, the Kerry Sentinel, 
 the Evening Telegraph, the Sligo Champion. 
 
 6. Advocating resistance to law and the constituted 
 authorities, and impeding the detection and punishment 
 of crime. 
 
 7. Malting payments to or for persons who were 
 guilty, or supposed to be guilty, of the commission of 
 crimes, outrages, and acts of boycotting and intimida- 
 tion for their defence, or to enable them to escape 
 from justice, and for the maintenance of such persons 
 and their families. 
 
 8. It is charged and alleged that the members of 
 Parliament mentioned in the schedule approved, and by 
 their acts and conduct led people. to believe that they 
 approved of resistance to the law and the commission 
 of crimes, outrages, and acts of boycotting and intimi- 
 dation when committed in furtherance %l the objects 
 and resolutions of the said societies, and that persons 
 who engaged in the commission of such crimes, out- 
 rages, and acts would receive the- support and protec- 
 tion of the said societies and of their organization and 
 influence. 
 
 The acts and conduct specially referred to are as 
 follows : — 
 
 9. They attended meetings of the said societies and 
 other meetings at various places and made speeches, 
 and caused and procured speeches, to be made, inciting 
 to the commission of crimes, outrages, boycotting, and 
 intimidation. 
 
 10. They were parties to, and cognizant of, the 
 payment of moneys for the purposes above mentioned, 
 and as testimonials or rewards to persons who had 
 been convicted, or were notoriously guilty of crimes or 
 outrages, or to their families. 
 
 11. With knowledge that crimes, outrages, and acts 
 of boycotting and intimidation had followed the delivery 
 of speeches at the meetings, they expressed no bond 
 fide disapproval or public condemnation, but, on the 
 contrary, continued to be leading and active members 
 of the said societies and to subscribe to their funds. 
 
 12. With such knowledge as aforesaid they continued 
 to be intimately associated with the officers of the 
 same societies (many of whom fled from justice), and 
 with notorious criminals and the agents and instru- 
 ments of murder and conspiracies, and with the plan- 
 ners and paymasters of outrage, and with the advo- 
 cates of sedition, violence, and the use of dynamite. 
 
 IS. They and the said societies, with such knowledge 
 as aforesaid, received large sums of money which were 
 collected in America and elsewhere by criminals and 
 persons who were known to advocate sedition, assas- 
 sination, the use of dynamite, and the commission of 
 crimes and outrages. 
 
 14. When on certain occasions they considered it 
 politic to denounce, and did denounce, certain crimes 
 in public they afterwards made communications to their 
 associates and others with the intention of leading 
 them to believe that such denunciation was not 
 sincere. One instance of this, of which the said 
 defendants propose to give evidence, is the following 
 letters : — 
 
 Letter from C. S. Parnell, dated the 15th of May, 
 1882. 
 
 Letter from same, the 16th of June, 18S2. 
 
 Another letter from the same, of the same date. 
 
 The following are persons who are guilty of crime or 
 advocates of treason, sedition, assassination, and 
 violence with whom it is alleged the said members of 
 Parliament continued to associate : — 
 
 Frank Byrne, who admitted his connexion with the 
 Phcenix Park murders, and who was supplied with 
 money by Mr. C. S. Parnell, which enabled him 
 to escape to America. 
 
 Patrick Egau, the treasurer of the Land League, who, 
 during the years 1881 and 1882, organized and pro- 
 cured the commission of crimes and outrages in various 
 parts of Ireland. 
 
 Patrick Ford, the editor of the Irish World, who 
 remitted large Bums of moneys to the said association, 
 and for the purposes aforesaid. 
 
 James Carey, the Phcenix Park informer. 
 
 Captain M'Cafferty, implicated in Phoenix Park 
 murders. 
 
 Tynan, who organized the Phcenix Park murders. 
 
 J. Mullett, convict. 
 
 T. Brennan, who was secretary of the Land League, 
 and paid some of the perpetrators of the Phcenix Park 
 and other murders and outrages. 
 
 Edward M'Caffery, convict. 
 
 Patrick J. Sheridan, who was an organizer of the 
 Land League, who organized outrages and acts of 
 violence, and was implicated in the Phoenix Park 
 murders. 
 
 Particulars of the Charges and Allegations. 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 M. J. Boyton.organizer of the Land League and insti- 
 gator of crime. 
 
 J. W. Nally, convicted of crime. 
 
 John Walsh, of Middlesbrough, organizer of the 
 Invincible conspiracy in Ireland. 
 
 Thos. F. Bourke, who was convicted of high treason 
 en the 24th of April, 1866. 
 
 James Stephens, the chief of the Fenian organization. 
 
 J. J. Breslin, Hospital Superintendent of Kichmond 
 Gaol, a member of the Irish Eepublican Brotherhood, 
 who aided Stephens's escape. 
 
 Hamilton Williams, the partner of Gallagher, the con- 
 victed dynamitard, and himself a dynamitard. 
 
 Alexander Sullivan, a member of the Clan-na-Gael. 
 
 Transatlantic (Mooney). 
 
 Augustine Ford. 
 
 Ellen Ford. 
 
 Maria Doherty. 
 
 Father Eugene Sheehy. 
 
 Dr. Wm. Carrol. 
 
 P. A. Collins. 
 
 C. O'M. Condon, sentenced to death for the murder 
 of Sergeant Brett. 
 
 John Devoy, convicted of Fenianism, and a trustee 
 of the Skirmishing Fund raised by the Irish World. 
 
 O. Brien, M'Carthy.and Chambers, convicted Fenians. 
 
 John Finerty, dynamitard. 
 
 John Daly, dynamitard. 
 
 General Millen, dynamitard. 
 
 W. F. Mackay-Lomasney, a convicted Fenian. 
 
 Stephen Joseph Meaney, convicted Fenian. 
 
 James Bedpath, advocate of crime. 
 
 Jeremiah O'Donovan Bossa. 
 
 John O'Leary, convicted of Fenianism. 
 
 P. J. Gordon, Francis Tully, Father Egan, Father 
 Coen, John Boche, of Woodford, P. N. Fitzgerald, 
 Laurence Egan, J. Eiordan, J. Connell, Timothy 
 Horan, Jeremiah Riordan, J. Dowling, Patrick Nally, 
 M. M. O'Sullivan, M. J. Kelly, Thomas Fitzpatrick, 
 Maurice Murphy, Martin Egan, J. M. Wall, A. M. 
 Forrester, J. P. Quinn, W. F. Moloney, Pearson 
 Beddington, members of the Land League and impli- 
 cated in crime. 
 
 Anna Parnell, H. Reynolds, H. Lynoh, Mrs. Moloney, 
 Clara Stritch, Mrs. Moore, members of the Ladies' 
 Land League who paid for the commission of crime. 
 
 Names of Members of Parliament against whom 
 it is proposed to give evidence of charges and 
 Allegations :— 
 
 Thomas Sexton 
 Joseph Gillis Biggar 
 Joseph Bichard Cox 
 Jeremiah Jordan 
 James Christopher Flynn 
 William O'Brien 
 Dr. Charles K. D. Tanner 
 William J. Lane 
 James Gilhooly 
 
 Joseph E. Kenny 
 
 John Hooper 
 
 Charles Stewart Parnell 
 
 Maurice Healy 
 
 James Edward O'Doherty 
 
 Patrick O'Hea 
 
 Arthur O'Connor 
 
 Michael McCartan 
 
 John J. Clancy 
 
 Sir G. H. Grattan Es- 
 
 monde, Bt. 
 Timothy D. Sullivan 
 Timothy Harrington 
 William H. K. Eedmond 
 Henry Campbell 
 Patrick J. Foley 
 Matthew Harris 
 David Sheehy 
 John Stack 
 Edward Harrington 
 Denis Kilbride 
 Jeremiah D. Sheehan 
 James Leahy 
 Patrick A. Chance 
 Thomas Quinn 
 Dr. Joseph Francis Fox 
 Michael Conway 
 Luke Patrick Hayden 
 William Abraham 
 John Finucane 
 Francis A. O'Keefe 
 Justin McCarthy 
 Timothy M. Healy 
 
 The meetings at which 
 Parliament made speeches 
 
 Joseph Nolan 
 Thomas P. Gill 
 Daniel Crilly 
 John Deasy 
 John Dillon 
 James F. O'Brien 
 Patrick O'Brien 
 Bichard Lalor 
 James J. O 'Kelly 
 Andrew Commins, LL.D. 
 Edmund Leamy 
 P. J. O'Brien 
 Thomas Mayne 
 John O'Connor 
 Matthew J. Kenny 
 Jasper D. Pyne 
 Patrick Joseph Power 
 James Tuite 
 Donal Sullivan 
 Thomas Joseph Condon 
 John E. Bfedmond 
 John Barry 
 Garrett Mich. Byrne 
 Thomas P. O'Connor 
 
 the particular Members of 
 
 Place. 
 
 County. 
 
 Date of Meeting. 
 
 Member. 
 
 Ballycastle 
 
 Antrim.. .. 
 
 30 Nov., 1880 .. 
 
 J. G. Biggar 
 
 Cork 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 5 Oct., 1879 
 
 C. S. Parnell 
 
 Cork 
 
 Cork ., 
 
 3 Oct., 1880 
 
 C. S. Parnell 
 
 Cork •• .. 
 
 Cork ., 
 
 3 Oct., 1880 
 
 A. O'Connor 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 3Oct.,18 80 
 
 T. D. Sullivan 
 
 Cork •• . . 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 26 June, 1881 .. 
 
 John O'Connor 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 2 Oct., 1881 
 
 C. S. Parnell 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 2 Oct., 1881 
 
 T. M. Healy 
 
 Ovens .. .. 
 
 Cork •• .. 
 
 15 Feb., 1885 .. 
 
 J. C. Flynn 
 
 Kanturk .. .. 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 12 April, 188E .. 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 Cork . . '.. 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 12 April, 1885 .. 
 
 J. Deasy 
 
 Clonakilty 
 
 Cork ,. 
 
 29 June, 1885 . . 
 
 J. Deasy 
 
 Innishannon 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 22 July. 1885 .. 
 
 J. Deasy 
 
 Keallcil 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 23 July, 1885 .. 
 
 Dr. Tanner 
 
 Macroom.. .. 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 6 Sept.. 1885 .. 
 
 John O'Connor 
 
 Durrus .. .. 
 
 Cork „ 
 
 IS Oct., 1885 .. 
 
 J. Deasy 
 
 Coachford .. 
 
 Cork , a 
 
 8 Nov., 1885 .. 
 
 Dr. Tanner 
 
 M id ditto n 
 
 Cork a# ,. 
 
 15 Nov., 1885 .. 
 
 W. J. Lane 
 
 Drimoleague . . 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 22 Nov., 1885 .. 
 
 Dr. Kenny 
 
 MollyMcCartby'B 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 Bridge .. 
 
 Cork av 
 
 23 Jan., 1887 .. 
 
 Dr. Kenny 
 
 Bantry . . . . 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 17 Sept., 1880 .. 
 
 T. M. Healy 
 
 Castletown 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 24 Oct., 1880 .. 
 
 T. M. Healy 
 
 Middletoa 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 13 April, 1884 .. 
 
 W. H. Redmond 
 
 Boherbue 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 16 Nov., 1884 .. 
 
 John O'Connor 
 
 Banteer .. .. 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 20 Hoy., 1884 .. 
 
 John O'Connor 
 
 Kitaboro .. .. 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 6 Sept., 1885 .. 
 
 J. O. Flynn 
 
 Queenstown 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 20 Sept., 1885 .. 
 
 J. Deasy 
 
 Blackstaffs Cross 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 4 0ot.,188S 
 
 J. DeaBy 
 
 Ballydehob 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 4 Oct., 1885 
 
 Dr. Tanner 
 
 Millstreet 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 15 Pec, 1885 .. 
 
 Dr. Tanner 
 
 Ballyvourmey .. 
 
 Cor'k | .. ' .. 
 
 3 Jan., 1886 
 
 Dr. Tanner 
 
 BaDyvourmey . . 
 
 CorkJ .. ' .. 
 
 3 Jan., 1886 
 
 John O'Connor 
 
 Kealkil .. 
 
 Cork" .. 
 
 22 Aug., 1886' .. 
 
 J. Qilhooly 
 
 Youglml . . 
 
 Cork M .. 
 
 7 Nov., 1886 
 
 Vf. J. Lane 
 
 Youghal . . 
 
 Cork" .. 
 
 7 Nov., 1886 
 
 J. O. Flynn 
 
 Inch! qui n 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 6 Dec, 1886 
 
 Dr. Tanner 
 
 Incbiquin . . 
 
 Cork ., 
 
 6 Dec, 1886 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 Ennia . . . . 
 
 Clare .. 
 
 19 Sept., 1880 .. 
 
 O. S. Parnell 
 
 Ennis .. 
 
 Clare .. 
 
 19 Sept., 1880 .. 
 
 T, D. SulliTan 
 
 Bonis ,, .. 
 
 Clare .. 
 
 9 Nov., 1885 
 
 T. M. Healy 
 
 Ennia .. ., 
 
 Clare .. 
 
 12 Nov., 1882 .. 
 
 — Redmond 
 
 Ennia .. ,. 
 
 Clare ., 
 
 12 Not., 1882 .. 
 
 W. J. Kenny 
 
 Kllrush ., 
 
 Clare •. .. 
 
 16 Deo., 1882 ,. 
 
 W. J. Kenny 
 
 Particulars of the Charges and Allegations. 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 ! Place. 
 
 County, 
 
 Date of Meeting. 
 
 Member. 
 
 Tulla 
 
 Clare •• 
 
 24 May, 18£5 ' . . 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 Newmarket - on - 
 
 
 
 
 Fergus ,. .. 
 
 Clare .. 
 
 23 Jan., 1887 .. 
 
 J. B. Cox 
 
 Belturbet.. 
 
 Clare' .. 
 
 29 Nov., 1880 . . 
 
 J. G. Biggar 
 
 Kingscourt .. 
 
 Cavan .. 
 
 6 Jan., 1886 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Cardonagh . . 
 
 Donegal 
 
 25 March, 1881 .. 
 
 T. M. Healy 
 
 Donegal . . 
 
 Donegal 
 
 18 April, 1881 .. 
 
 J. Dillon 
 
 Letterkenny 
 
 Donegal . . 
 
 13 Feb., 1865 .. 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 Ballyshannon . . 
 
 DoDegal 
 
 9 Nov., 1880 
 
 J. J. O'Kelly 
 
 Luc an 
 
 Dublin .. .. 
 
 25 Jan., 1885 .. 
 
 J. J. Clancy 
 
 Lucan 
 
 Dublin .. ' .. 
 
 25 Jan., 1885 .. 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 Skerries .. .. 
 
 Dublin .. 
 
 1 Feb., 1885 
 
 Daniel Crilly 
 
 Clondalkin 
 
 Dublin .. 
 
 22 Feb., 1885 .. 
 
 T. Harrington 
 
 Stasgart .. 
 
 Dublin .. 
 
 29 March, 1885 . . 
 
 J. J. Clancy 
 
 Durdown.. 
 
 Dublin .. 
 
 12 April, 1885 . . 
 
 T. D. Sullivan 
 
 St. Margarets . . 
 
 Dublin .. 
 
 8 Nov., 1885 
 
 J. J. Claocy 
 
 Tempo 
 
 Fermanagh . . 
 
 1 Jan., 1881 
 
 J. J. O'Kelly 
 
 Loughrea,. 
 
 Galway,. 
 
 6 Jan., 1880 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Riveravilla 
 
 Galway . . 
 
 13 Sept., 1880 . . 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Killeenadeema . , 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 26 Sept., 1880 .. 
 
 T. P. O'Connor 
 
 Killeenadeema . . 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 2G Sept.. 1880 .. 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Kilconnelly 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 5 Dec, 1880 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Ahascragh 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 19 Dec, 1880 .. 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Ballymaoward .. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 26 Dec, 1830 .. 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Loughrea.. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 17 March, 1831 .. 
 
 John Dillon 
 
 Mountbellew . . 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 17 March, 1861 .. 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Gal way .. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 20 March, 1831 . . 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Killimore.. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 25 March, 1881 .. 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Clifden . . 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 3 April, 1881 .. 
 
 Hat Harris 
 
 Carna 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 7 April, 1881 .. 
 
 Sit at Harris 
 
 Dunmore.. 
 
 Galway.. •. 
 
 22 May, 1881 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Kilkerrin.. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 12 May, 1885 . . 
 
 Daniel Crilly 
 
 Kilreech .. 
 
 Galway 
 
 19 May, 1885 .. 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Gal way .. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 30 Aug., 1885 .. 
 
 J. Redmond 
 
 Loughrea.. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 10 Sept., 1885 .. 
 
 A. O'Connor 
 
 Loughrea.. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 10 Sept., 1385 .. 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Ballinasloe 
 
 Galway.. .. 
 
 18 Oct., 1885 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Athenry 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 26 Oct., 1885 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Athenry .. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 26 Oct., 1835 
 
 J. Dillon 
 
 Gut teen .. 
 
 Galway.. .. 
 
 29 Nov., 1885 .. 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 
 Gurtcen .. 
 
 Galway. . 
 
 29 Nov., 1885 .. 
 
 M. Harris 
 
 Loughrea.. 
 
 Galway*. 
 
 16 0ot.,1886 
 
 J. Dillon 
 
 Portumna 
 
 Gal«ay.. 
 
 28 Sept., 1886 .. 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Killimore.. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 21 Nov., 1886 .. 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 
 Headford., 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 27 June, 1880 . . 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Eyre Court 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 27 Sept., 1885 .. 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Ballinasloe 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 27 Sept., 1881 .. 
 
 T. P. O' Connor 
 
 Galway 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 30 ( Aug., 1885^ .. 
 
 J. Redmond 
 
 Woodford 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 20'March, 1881 \. 
 
 J. Dillon 
 
 Loughrea. . 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 G March, 1ES4 .. 
 
 M. Harris 
 
 Beaufort .. 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 16 May, 1830 .. 
 
 C. S. Parnell 
 
 CaBtleisland 
 
 Kerry _.. 
 
 10 Oct., 1880 .. 
 
 A. O'Connor 
 
 CastleislancI 
 
 Kerry .. .. 
 
 10 Oct., 1880 
 
 J. G. Biggar 
 
 Brosna . . 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 24 Oct., 1880 
 
 T. Harrington 
 
 KillorgUn 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 31 May, 1885 .. 
 
 B. Harrington 
 
 Killarney.. 
 
 Kerry 
 
 30 Aug., 1885 .. 
 
 J. D. 8 hoc l.i an 
 
 Killarney.. 
 
 Kerry . . . . 
 
 3G Aug., 1885 .. 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 Killarney.. 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 30 Aug., 1835 .. 
 
 T. M. Healy 
 
 Listowel .. 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 IB Oct., 1885 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 Lis towel .. 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 18 Oct., 1885 
 
 T, Harrington 
 
 Killarney.. 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 15 May, 1881 
 
 T. Harrington 
 
 Tralee .. 
 
 Kerry .. .. 
 
 6 March, 1881 .. 
 
 T. Harrington 
 
 Dingle .. ■• 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 20 Feb., 1881 . . 
 
 T. Harrington 
 
 KillorgUn.. 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 4 March, 1881 .. 
 
 T. Harrington 
 
 Ken mare.. 
 
 Kerry . . 
 
 20 Sept, 1885 .. 
 
 £. Harrington 
 
 Knocknagoshlll. . 
 
 Kerry 
 
 6 Jan., 1886 
 
 E. Harrington 
 
 Kiltoom .. 
 
 RoBCommon .. 
 
 17 Oct., 1830 .. 
 
 M. Harris 
 
 French Park 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 19 June, 1881 .. 
 
 J. R. Cox 
 
 Ballinagare 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 18 Sept., 1881 .. 
 
 Dr. Commins 
 
 Boyle 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 20 Jan., 1884 .. 
 
 V7. O'Brien 
 
 Roscommon 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 17 Aug., 1884 .. 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 Athlone .. 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 5 Oct,, 1884 
 
 \V. Redmond 
 
 Boyle .. .. 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 21 Dec, 1884 . . 
 
 W. Redmond 
 
 Strokestown 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 28 Dec, 1884 
 
 J. J. O'Kelly 
 
 Strokestown . . 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 25 Oct., 1885 .. 
 
 J. G. Biggar 
 
 Strokestown 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 25 Oct., 1885 .. 
 
 J. O'Kelly 
 
 Breedogne 
 
 Roscommon . . 
 
 30 Aug., 1885 .. 
 
 J. J. O'Kelly 
 
 Mount Irvine . . 
 
 siigo .. 
 
 6 June, 1880 
 
 Mat Harris 
 
 Pomeroy 
 
 Tyrone .. 
 
 10 Deo., 1880 .. 
 
 John Dillon 
 
 Gortin 
 
 Tyrone .. .. 
 
 6 April, 1881 .. 
 
 J. R. Cox 
 
 Gortin .. 
 
 Tyrone .. 
 
 6 April. 1881 .. 
 
 T. Sexton 
 
 Carrick-on-Suir.. 
 
 Tipperary ,. 
 
 7 Bept., 1880 „ 
 
 Dr. Kenny 
 
 Place. 
 
 County. Date of Meeting. 
 
 Templemore 
 
 Holyf ord . . 
 
 Ormond Stile .. 
 
 Carrick-on-Suir. . 
 
 Baneha .. 
 
 Bansha . . . . 
 
 Fethard .. 
 
 Holycroas 
 
 Holy cross 
 
 Newport .. .. 
 
 Cahir .. .. 
 
 Cahir 
 
 Ballingarry .. 
 
 Roacrea .. 
 
 Enniscorthy 
 
 Rosemount .. 
 
 Rosemount . , 
 
 "Wexford.. 
 
 Wcxrord .. 
 
 New Ross , . 
 
 Killinick.. 
 
 Killinick .. 
 
 Now Ross 
 
 Cushenstown .. 
 
 Cushenstown . . 
 
 Newtownbarry . . 
 
 Taghmon.. 
 
 Gorey 
 
 Gorey .. 
 
 Knocknagoshill 
 
 Knocknagoshill 
 
 Knocknagosbill 
 
 Newton Saudes 
 
 Clonmacnoise • < 
 
 Phillipstown . 
 
 Edinderry 
 
 Kildare .. 
 
 A thy 
 
 Kildare .. 
 
 Nurney . . 
 
 Kilkenny.. 
 
 Clough . . 
 
 Ballyragget 
 
 MuUinavat 
 
 Shana golden . 
 
 Murroe . . 
 
 Abbeyfeale 
 
 Killinallock 
 
 Newcastle 
 
 Cappermore 
 
 Longford 
 
 Longford 
 
 Edgcworth stown 
 
 Longford 
 
 Longford 
 
 Lanesboro 
 
 Dundalk .. 
 
 Navan 
 
 Broom, field 
 
 Irishtown 
 
 Cong 
 
 Bally haun is 
 
 C as t lobar . . 
 
 Castlebar.; 
 
 Knockaroo 
 
 WoolfhUl.. 
 
 Maryborough 
 
 Maryborough 
 
 Maryborough 
 
 Ballickmoyler 
 
 Ballickmoyler 
 
 Mayo 
 
 French Park 
 
 Waterford 
 
 Lismore .. 
 
 Portlaw .. 
 
 Kilroesenty 
 
 Bray 
 
 BalliDglass 
 
 Kilbrennan 
 
 Bally more 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Tiuijerary .. 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Tipperary . . 
 
 Tipperary • . 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Tipperary . . 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Tipperary . . 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford • . 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Wexford 
 
 Kerry .. ,. 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 Kerry .. 
 
 Kerry 
 
 King's County 
 
 King's County 
 
 King's County 
 
 Kildare.. 
 
 Kildare.. 
 
 Kildare.. 
 
 Kildare.. 
 
 Kilkenny . 
 
 Kilkenny 
 
 Kilkenny 
 
 Kilkenny 
 
 Limerick 
 
 Limerick . 
 
 Limerick 
 
 Limerick . 
 
 Limerick 
 
 Limerick 
 
 Longford 
 
 Longford . 
 
 Longford . 
 
 Longford 
 
 Longford . 
 
 Longford 
 
 Louth . . 
 
 Meath .. 
 
 Monaghan . 
 
 Mayo .. 
 
 Mayo .. 
 
 Mayo .. 
 
 Mayo . . 
 
 Mayo .. 
 
 Queen's County 
 
 Queen's County 
 
 Queen's County 
 
 Queen's County 
 
 Queen's County 
 
 Queen's County 
 
 Queen's County 
 
 Queen's County 
 
 Roscommon 
 
 Waterford 
 
 Waterford 
 
 Waterford 
 
 Waterford 
 
 Wicklow 
 
 Wicklow 
 
 West meath 
 
 Westmeatu 
 
 10 Oct., 1880 . 
 
 17 Oct., 1880 . 
 
 11 April, 1881 . 
 
 7 Sept., 1884 . 
 
 8 Feb., 1885 
 
 8 Feb., 1885 
 
 12 April, 1885 . 
 
 12 April, 1885 , 
 
 5 July, 1885 
 
 30 Aug.. 1885 . 
 20 Sept., 1885 . 
 20 Sept., 1885 . 
 
 4 Oct, 1885 
 
 11 Oct., 1885 , 
 26 Oct., 1879 , 
 
 13 Sept., 1885 . 
 
 13 Sept., 1885 . 
 
 9 Oct., 1881 
 
 9 Oct., 1881 
 
 26 Sept., 1880 . 
 
 18 Sept., 1881 . 
 IS Sept., 1881 , 
 
 22 June, 1884 . 
 
 31 Aug., 1884 , 
 31 Aug., 1884 . 
 
 1 Feb., 1885 
 
 24 May, 1865 
 
 23 Aug,, 1885 , 
 
 23 Aug., 1885 
 
 6 Jan., 1886 
 6 Jan., 1886 
 6 Jan., 1886 
 
 25 Oct., 1886 
 
 5 Sept., 1830 
 18 Oct.. 1885 
 
 10 Jan., 1880 
 15 Aug., 1880 . 
 
 10 Oct., 1880 , 
 
 24 April, 1881 , 
 
 15 Feb., 1885 
 
 2 Oct., 1880 
 
 3 April, 1881 
 9 Oct., 1881 
 
 14 April, 1884 
 5 June, 1881 
 31 July, 1881 
 
 8 March, 18B5 
 
 12 April, 1885 
 31 Mny, 1885 
 2 Sept., 1885 
 
 7 Oct., 1880 
 
 13 March, 1381 
 
 27 March, 1881 
 27 March, 1881 
 
 27 March, 1881 
 
 16 Aug., 1885 
 12 April, 1885 
 
 12 Oct., 1879 
 
 9 Aug., 1385 
 
 2 May, 1880 
 
 11 July, 1880 
 
 10 Oct., 1880 
 
 3 Nov., 1885 
 2 Nov., 1885 
 2 Feb., 1880 
 
 28 Sept., 1884 
 5 Oct., 1884 
 
 5 Oct., 1884 
 
 6 Oct., 1884 
 5 April, 1885 
 
 5 April, 1885 
 
 20 Sept., 1885 
 1 Aug., 1860 
 18 Dec, 1882 
 24 May, 1884 
 
 13 Sept., 1885 
 
 6 Dec, 1885 
 31 Dec, 1882 
 
 21 Oct., 1883 
 10 Oct., 1880 
 8 May. 1881 
 
 Member. 
 
 J. Dillon 
 J. Dillon 
 J. Dillon 
 W. O'Brien 
 John O'Connor 
 W. O'Brien 
 T. Mayne 
 John O'Connor 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 J, O'Connor 
 J. O'Connor 
 T. Mayne 
 T. Mayne 
 T. Mayne 
 W. Redmond 
 W. Redmond 
 J. G. Biggar 
 C. S. Parnell 
 J. J. O'Kelly 
 C. S. Parnell 
 Redmond 
 
 G. M. Byrne 
 J. Redmond 
 
 E. Leamy 
 W. O'Brien 
 W. Redmond 
 W. Redmond 
 W. Redmond 
 W. O'Brien 
 E. Harrington 
 J. D. Sheehan 
 J. Stack 
 
 J. Dillon 
 M. Harris 
 James Leahy 
 Dr. Fox 
 John Dillon 
 James Leahy 
 John Dillon 
 W. H. Redmond. 
 O. S. Parnell 
 John Dillon 
 A. O'Connor 
 P. J. Power 
 J. R. Cox 
 W. Abraham 
 E. Harrington 
 T. Harrington 
 W. Redmond 
 W. O'Brien 
 C. S. ParnBll 
 Justin M'Carth* 
 Mat. Harris 
 T. M. Healy 
 J. M'Carthy 
 W. Redmond 
 W. Redmond 
 C. S. Parnell 
 W. Redmond 
 C. S. Parnell 
 Mat. Harris 
 Mat. Harris 
 John Dillon 
 
 C. S. Parnell 
 Richard La lor 
 A. O'Connor 
 A. O'Connor 
 J. Deasy 
 
 D. Kilbride 
 W. Redmond 
 A. O'Connor 
 
 D. Crilly 
 M. Harris 
 J. G. Biggar 
 T. M. Heal£ 
 
 E. Leamy 
 G. 61. Byrne 
 R, Lalor 
 
 J. O'Kelly 
 T. D. Sullivan. 
 |t. Harrjpgtoa. 
 
 Particulars of the Charges and Allegations. 
 
The Special Commission, October. 22, 1888. 
 
 Plaoo. 
 
 1 County. 
 
 Date of Meeting. 
 
 Kllrnsh .. 
 Kilrueh .. 
 Bandon . . 
 Carrigrobane . . 
 Oarrigrohane . . 
 Oarrigrohane . . 
 Sbanbally 
 Ballinadee 
 Kanturk .. 
 Kanturk .. 
 Carrigadrohld . . 
 FarnaneR.. 
 Farnanes.. ,, 
 Nowry 
 Dromore . . 
 Killesher.. 
 Killesher.. 
 Luughrea.. 
 Al.boy (Wood- 
 ford) .. 
 Miltown .. 
 Miltown .. 
 Mohill .. 
 Mnlull .. 
 Longford ■ . 
 Longford . . 
 Kdge worlhatown 
 F.dge worth* town 
 Ballyhauuls 
 Kella 
 Kolla 
 
 Mountmellick 
 Oastlerea.. 
 Boyle 
 Atbluno . . 
 Athlone .. 
 Clonniel .. 
 Clonmel .. 
 Tallow , , 
 Tallow . . 
 Tallow .. 
 Tallow .. 
 Tang 
 Tang 
 
 Arklow .. 
 Kilfenora.. 
 Kilfenora 
 Kilfenora.. 
 Ennis 
 Cork 
 
 Uarrigaline 
 Coolderriky 
 B-mtry .. 
 Tiantry 
 Ballynisbiu 
 Mitchelstovcn . 
 Mitcbelstown . 
 Mifcchelstown . 
 M.itchelatown . 
 Mitchelstown . 
 Meelin 
 Oueeostown 
 Qnoeostown 
 Cole'-n 
 
 Goleen .. . 
 Letterkenny 
 Caroudough 
 Lnnghrca.. 
 Abbeyfeale 
 Collon 
 Drogheda 
 Drogheda 
 OarrickmaproB*. 
 Claromorrii 
 Bftllincostello . 
 Ballinrobe 
 Newport . . 
 Newport . . 
 l.ouisburg 
 I/uggacurren 
 Hillstreot.. 
 Doyle 
 Ballina .. 
 
 Clare .. 
 Clare .. 
 Cork .. 
 Cork 
 Cork . . 
 Cork .. 
 Cork .. 
 Cork .. 
 Cork .. " .. 
 Cork .. 
 Crak .. 
 Cork . . 
 Cork 
 Down 
 Down .. 
 Fermanagh . . 
 Fermanagh . . 
 Galway 
 
 Galwny 
 
 Galway 
 
 Galway 
 
 Lei trim 
 
 Leitrim.. 
 
 Longford 
 
 Longford 
 
 Longford 
 
 Loogfurd 
 
 Mayo . . 
 
 Meath ., 
 
 Meath .. 
 
 Queen's County 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 Roftcuiumon . . 
 
 Roscommon . 
 
 Roscommon . . 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Tipperary 
 
 Waterford 
 
 Waterford .. 
 
 Waterford 
 
 Waterford 
 
 \Voatmeath 
 
 Westmcath 
 
 Wicklow 
 
 Clare . . 
 
 Clare . . 
 
 Clare . . 
 
 Clare . . 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 Cork . . 
 Cork 
 
 Cork' .. 
 
 Cork . . 
 
 Cork . . 
 
 Cork .. 
 Cork 
 Cork 
 
 Cork ., 
 
 Cork . . 
 Cork 
 
 Cork . . 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 Cork .. 
 Cork 
 Donegal 
 Donegal 
 Galway .. 
 Limerick 
 
 Louth . . 
 
 Louth .. 
 
 Louth . . 
 Monaghan 
 
 Mayo . . 
 
 Mayo . . 
 
 Mayo .. 
 
 Mayo .. 
 
 -Mayo .. 
 
 Mayo . . 
 
 29 May, 1867 
 
 29 May, 1887 
 18 Sept., 1837 
 18 Sept., 1887 
 18 Sept., 1887 
 18 Sept., 1887 
 23 Get., 1887 
 
 30 Get., 1887 
 30 Oct., 1687 
 30 Oct., 1887 
 C Not., 1SS7 
 16 Nov., 1887 
 16 Nov., 1837 
 25 Sept., 1887 
 1 Nor., 1887 
 27 Oot., 1887 
 27 Oct., 1837 
 18 Oct., 1C87 
 
 21 Oct., 1837 
 13 Nov., 1387 
 13 Not., 18S7 
 16 Oct., 1887 
 16 Oct., 1887 
 9 Oot., 1887 
 9 Oct.. 1887 
 20 Nov., 1887 
 :0 Nov., 1337 
 30 Sept., 1887 
 4D.-C, 1837 
 4 Dec, 1857 
 18 Sep".'," 18OT 
 29 Sept., 1887 
 
 1 Oct., 1887 
 6 Nov., 1887 
 6 Nov., 1»87 
 6 Nov., 1887 
 6 Nov., 1887 
 25 Sept., 1837 
 25 Sept.. 1887 
 25 Sept., 1837 
 25 Sept., 1837 
 
 2 Oct., 1887 
 
 2 Oct., 1887 
 
 24 Sept., 1887 
 15 Dec, 1886 
 15 Dec, 1886 
 4 Dec, 1337 
 
 3 Sept., 1887 
 21 March. 1880 
 
 9 Jan., 1887 
 
 25 Jan., 1887 
 29- May, 1887 
 29 May, 1887 
 
 12 .lime, 1887 . 
 
 10 July, 1887 
 10 July, 1887 
 
 10 July, 1887 
 9 Aug., 1887 
 ll'Aug., 1887 
 
 14 Aug., 1887 , 
 6 Sept., 1887 
 
 6 Svpt.; 1887 
 
 11 Sept., 1887 . 
 
 11 Sept., 1887 
 
 4 Sept., 1887 . 
 
 12 Sept., 1887 . 
 
 7 July, 1887 
 9 June, 1887 
 29M»y, 1387 . 
 17 July, 1887 . 
 17 July, 1887 . 
 17 April, 1887 . 
 19 Jan.. 1887 . 
 31 Jan., 1887 
 
 21 March, 1887 . 
 
 5 June, 1887 
 5 June. 1887 
 
 19 June, 1887 . 
 
 Member. 
 
 Queen'sCounfcy 24 July, 1887 
 Roscommon . . [19 Jan., 1887 
 Roscommon ..26 Aug., 1887 
 Tipperary ..Jzijune, 1887 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 J. R. Cox 
 J. Hooper 
 J. Deasy 
 Dr. Tanner 
 O'Hea 
 J. Hooper 
 J. Hooper 
 J. C. Flynn 
 W. O'Brien 
 Dr. Tanner 
 
 C. Flyua 
 J. Gilhooly 
 M. M'Cartan 
 W. K. Redmond 
 W. K. Redmond 
 
 Jordan 
 D. Sbechy 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 
 TV. K. Redmond 
 L. P. Haydcn 
 M. Conway 
 L. P. Haydeo 
 T. M. Ilealy 
 L. P. Haydcn 
 
 E. llarriugtoa 
 T. M. Healy 
 
 J. F. X. O'Brien 
 
 P. O'Brien 
 
 W. K. Redmond 
 MDonald 
 
 J. R. Cox 
 
 J. R. Cox 
 
 D. Sullivan 
 
 T. D. Sullivan 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 
 T. Mayne 
 
 J.D.Pyne 
 
 J. De.-lsy 
 
 T. M. Healy 
 
 P. J. Power 
 
 J. Tuite 
 
 D- Sullivan 
 
 W. Iv. Redmond 
 
 Kenny 
 J. Jordan 
 
 Flynn, M.P. 
 J. Dillon 
 
 G. Biggar 
 \V. J. Lane 
 Dr. Tanner 
 J. Densy 
 J. Gilhooly 
 
 J. O. Flynn 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 J. C. Flynn 
 
 T. Condon 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 J.' C. Flynn 
 
 P. O'Hea 
 
 W. J. Lane 
 
 J. Dcaay 
 
 J. Gilhooly 
 
 A. O'Connor 
 
 J. Doherty 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 
 D. Crilly 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 W. K, Redmond 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 
 J. E. Redmond 
 
 J. Deasy 
 
 D. Orilly 
 
 ». Crilly 
 
 J. Deasy 
 
 J. Deasy 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 J. B. Cor 
 
 J. J. O'Kelly 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 
 Place. 
 
 County. 
 
 Date of Meeting. 
 
 Member. 
 
 Ballieborough .. 
 
 Cavan , . 
 
 21 Oct., 1580 .. 
 
 J. G. Tliffgar 
 
 Bawnboy 
 
 Cavan 
 
 30 Oct., 1880 .. 
 
 J. G. Biggar 
 
 Bantry 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 17 Oct., 1880 .. 
 
 T. M. Healy 
 
 Millstreet 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 15 Dec, 1885 .. 
 
 Dr. Tanner 
 
 Millfttreet 
 
 Cork .. 
 
 15 Aug., 1886 .. 
 
 D,r. Tanner 
 
 Dublin .. 
 
 Dublin 
 
 22 Nov., 1883 .. 
 
 T. Sexton 
 
 Dublin .. 
 
 Dublin.. 
 
 23 Nov., 1883 . . 
 
 C, S. Pamell 
 
 Kyhbeg 
 
 Gii 1 war 
 
 21 Nov., 1886 . . 
 
 D. Sheehy 
 
 Portumna 
 
 Galway 
 
 15 Nov., 1885 .. 
 
 M. Harris 
 
 Woodford 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 17 Oct., 1886 
 
 J. Dillon 
 
 Gurt"en .. 
 
 Galway.. 
 
 10 Oct., 1886 .. 
 
 VY". O'Brien 
 
 Athy 
 
 Kildare.. 
 
 10 Oct., 1886 .. 
 
 K. Lalor 
 
 Tuiljallen 
 
 Louth . . . . 
 
 8 April, 1888 . . 
 
 J. Dillon 
 
 Castleblayney .. 
 
 Monagban 
 
 30 Nov.. 1886 .. 
 
 W. K. Redmond 
 
 Kcllystown 
 
 Meath .. 
 
 22 April, 1883 .. 
 
 J. Dillon 
 
 Kiltoom .. 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 17 Oct., 1880 . . 
 
 M. Harris 
 
 Boyle 
 
 Roscommon .. 
 
 20 Jan., 1884 .. 
 
 W. O'Brien 
 
 Porrisokane 
 
 Tipr-erary 
 
 27 Feb., 1881 .. 
 
 J. Dillon 
 
 Finea ,. 
 
 Westmeathand 
 
 
 
 
 Cavan 
 
 4 Nov., 1880 
 
 J. G. Biggar 
 
 Gcrey 
 
 Wexford 
 
 23 Aug., 1885 .. 
 
 W. II. K. Red 
 
 roond 
 
 Dungarvan 
 
 Waterford 
 
 5 Oct., 1881 
 
 T. M. Healy 
 
 Dungarvan 
 
 Waterford 
 
 5 Oct., 1881 
 
 J. Leahy 
 
 Dungarvan 
 
 Waterford . . 
 
 5 Oct., 1881 
 
 C. S. Pamell 
 
 Tie counsel representing The Times were tho 
 Attorney-General (Sir R. Webster, Q.C.), Sir IT. James, 
 Q.C., Mr. Murphy, Q.C., and Mr. W. Graham of the 
 English Bar, and Mr. Atkinson, Q.C., and Mr. Ronan 
 of the Irish Bar. 
 
 Mr. Pamell wm represented by Sir C. Russell, Q.O., 
 and Mr. Asquith ; and the other members of Parlia- 
 ment against whom charges and allegations have been 
 brought, by Mr. K. T. Reid, Q.O., Mr. P. Lpckwood, 
 Q.C., Mr. Lionel Hart, Mr. A. O'Connor, and Mr. 
 A. Russell of the English Bar, and Mr. T. Harrington 
 of the Irish Bar. 
 
 The Commissioners having taken their seats upon 
 the Bench, 
 
 Silt C. Russell said,— My Lords, I have an applica- 
 tion to make to your Lordships before the order of pro- 
 ceedings is discussed — an application in which my 
 learned friends are not interested. It is an application 
 under section 6 of the Special Commission Act for the 
 release of Mr. William Redmond, a member of Parlia- 
 ment, against whom certain particulars have been 
 delivered. I have to ask for an order for his release, in 
 order that he may attend this iuquiry„on such substan- 
 tial bail as your Lordships may think fit. 
 
 The President.— When was he convicted ?. 
 
 Sik C. Russell.— My Lords, the affidavit on which 
 I move shows that he is now confined in Wexford 
 Prison, that he is a material witness on behalf of his 
 colleagues, and is a person against whom charges have 
 been made. He is now under sentence of three months- 
 imprisonment in Wexford Prison. The affidavit does 
 not say when he was convicted, but I believe about a 
 month ago. 
 
 The President.— When did he commit the offence for 
 which he was convicted ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I believe it was on the occasion 
 of certain eviotions when certain tenants were resist- 
 ing the process of eviction. I am informed it was on 
 tho 14th of August. 
 
 Particulars of the Charges and Allesations, 
 
The Special Commission, October "22, 1888. 
 
 The President (after consulting his colleagues). 
 — We have already had a similar application 
 in the case of Mr. Dillon, which we granted 
 under certain conditions which I think I may say were 
 easy. We were anxious that these proceedings should 
 be commenced in such a way that all feeling of irrita- 
 tion should, as far as possible, be allayed. My brothers 
 and I propose to follow the same course now in regard 
 to Mr. Redmond that we pursued in regard to 
 Mr. Dillon, but I think it right to point out that 
 this power given to us to release prisoners must not be 
 construed into immunity from imprisonment for all 
 those against whom convictions have been obtained. 
 Without giving any expression of opinion I desire to 
 point out that in future applications will be made under 
 totally different circumstances. However, in order that 
 our action may be prompt, we will give you an order 
 for Mr. Redmond's immediate release until further 
 order, bnt ho will be required to enter into his own 
 recognizances in £1,000 that he will take no part in 
 any public proceedings whatever during the time of his 
 temporary release or while this inquiry is proceeding, 
 and that he will surrender himself when the period 
 arrives to undergo the remainder of his sentence. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I would point ont that Parliament 
 meets on the Cth of November. 
 
 The President.— I did not mean that. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Would your Lordships make the 
 order merely subject to any further order, so that he 
 might be re-committed if he took part in any proceed- 
 ings of which your Lordships disapproved ? 
 
 The President. — We are of opinion that we must adhere 
 to the terms which we laid down in the case of Mr. 
 Dillon. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Mr. Dillon was not released under 
 your Lordships' order, but by the Government. 
 
 The President.— Yes, but we laid down certain con- 
 ditions in his case, and to those conditions we must 
 adhere. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Would the conditions allow him 
 (Mr. Redmond) to take part in public proceedings out of 
 Ireland ? 
 ' The President.— No. 
 
 Sir C. Kussell. — Then my application is unavailing, 
 for Mr. Redmond would not comply with the condi- 
 tions. 
 
 The President. — Oh, very well then. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Perhaps it would be con- 
 venient now for my learned friends to state for whom 
 they appear. I appear, with my learned friends Sir 
 Henry James, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Graham, 
 and Mr. Ronan, for the proprietors of The Times. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I appear, with my friend Mr. 
 Asquith, for Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I appear, with Mr. T. Harrington and 
 Mr. Arthur Russell, for Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, and 
 others whose names I shall hand in. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I appear, with Mr. Lionel Hart and 
 Mr. A. O'Connor, for certain other gentlemen, the rest 
 
 of the members of Parliament charged, a list of whom I 
 shall hand in. 
 
 Mr. Hammond (solicitor). — I appear for Mr. P. A. 
 Chance. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Might I be allowed to ask 
 Whether your Lordships have arrived at any determina- 
 tion as to how many days a week your Lordships intend 
 to sit f I hope not every day. 
 
 The President (after consulting his colleagues). — We 
 shall be ready to hear what counsel have to say, but 
 our present view is to sit every day except Saturday. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I confess I had hoped that, 
 having regard to the burden and gravity of the case, 
 your Lordships would have thought four days a week 
 sufficient. Your Lordships will have considerable 
 matter to digest. 
 
 The President. — We shall be happy to hear what 
 Counsel have to say on the subject, and if we find 
 there is a general concurrence of opinion on the matter 
 we shall be anxious to meet their wishes. 
 
 Silt C. Russell. — So far as I can gather there is 
 not only a general concurrence but a unanimous feel- 
 ing. 
 
 The President. — We have already intimated our own 
 feeling. It will, we think, be better to go on every 
 day this week except Saturday, and we shall be ready 
 to listen to any further application on the subject. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — As to Wednesday next, my Lords ? 
 
 The President. — With regard to Wednesday I have 
 taken on myself to excuse our attendance at the pro- 
 ceedings connected with the opening of the Courts. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have some applications to make 
 to your Lordships, in regard to the particulars and 
 discovery that were ordered. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We have had no notice of 
 any application, and the particulars were delivered on 
 Monday. 
 
 The President. — It would certainly have been 
 according to practice to have given notice of your 
 application. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The first application I have to 
 make is in relation to discovery. 
 
 The President. — Is it based on affidavit? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes. 
 
 The Attorn ey -General. —Which was sworn this 
 morning. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Ves, only a few moments ago. 
 
 The President. — Would it not be more convenient 
 to let the applications stand over till to-morrow 
 morning ? I do not think that will make any material 
 difference . 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I do not think it will. There is, 
 however, another matter which I may mention by way 
 of giving notice to my learned friends. No particulars 
 have been delivered as to the " other persons " against 
 whom allegations have been made and are intended to 
 be made here. We know that there is in the particulars 
 the omission of the name of a gentleman who has taken 
 a prominent part in the politics of Ireland — Mr. 
 
 Applications by Counsel. 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 Michael Davitt. He was not a party to the application 
 for particulars, and that may be the reason why his 
 name is omitted. But one part of the application 
 which I shall press upon your Lordships to-morrow 
 morning is that particulars be given of any other persons 
 than those enumerated against whom it is intended to 
 substantiate any charges. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I shall make my obser- 
 vations on that matter when the application is made. 
 The President.— Very well. 
 
 The Attorney-General then rose to open the case, 
 And said : — I have now to lay before your Lordships the 
 outline of the case which it will be my duty to present 
 to your Lordships on behalf of my clients in accordance 
 with the course of procedure settled by your Lordships 
 at the preliminary meeting, and which, if I may be 
 allowed to say so, appears to be the most proper and 
 natural method of procedure that could be adopted. 
 Having regard to the extreme importance of the 
 matters I have to lay before your Lordships, and the 
 extent to which I must generalize in dealing with some 
 of the topics, I think it will be convenient for me to 
 make a few preliminary observations in regard to the 
 exact position in which we stand. Your Lordships are 
 aware that you are sitting under the Special Commis- 
 sion Act of 1888, and your Lordships are also aware — 
 as, indeed, you indicated at the preliminary meeting to 
 my learned friends Sir Charles Kussell and Mr. Graham 
 —that you have nothing to do with anything that 
 passed in any other place, or with the arguments used 
 when this measure was passing through Parliament. The 
 Act of Parliament gives your Lordships a certain com- 
 mission, and it is that commission that you are now 
 starting to fulfil. Your Lordships will find, on refer- 
 ence to the first section of the Act, that the duty that 
 is imposed upon your Lordships by name is " to inquire 
 into and report upon the charges and allegations made 
 against certain members of Parliament and other per- 
 sons in the course of the proceedings in an action en- 
 titled ' O'Donnell versus Walter and Another.' " It will, 
 of course, be my duty not only to summarize what is 
 the nature of those charges and allegations, but to enter 
 into some detail and state the nature of the evidence 
 we propose to lay before you. But, passing to the other 
 sections of the Act, I desire to remind your Lordships 
 of the position in which the parties before your Lord- 
 ships are. You will find by the sixth section that "the 
 persons implicated in the said charges and allegations, 
 the parties to the said action, and any person autho- 
 rized by the Commissioners may appear at the inquiry, 
 and any person so appearing may be represented by 
 jounsel or solicitor practising in Great Britain or Ire- 
 land." The position which I and my learned friends 
 ire in is this — that we are here to give your Lord- 
 ihips the fullest information in our power which may 
 elicit the truth. We accept at once the duty which 
 was indicated in your Lordships' decision at the pre- 
 liminary meeting— namely, the duty of giving all the 
 evidence we can to prove the charges and allegations 
 that have been made. At the same time, we must point 
 
 out that we are not the persons who are to inquire into 
 the truth of these charges. Nothing can relieve your 
 Lordships from the duty of inquiring and reporting. I 
 am sure that I am not saying anything that is not passing 
 through your Lordships' own minds, because your Lord- 
 ships have already indicated this view at the prelimi- 
 nary meeting. But I desire to make this point quite 
 clear. We shall lay before your Lordships everything 
 that we possibly can. We shall indicate sources from 
 which information can be obtained, though we may not 
 be, at the present time, in a position to bring that in< 
 formation before you by legal evidence. If, in the 
 course of the inquiry, information comes to our know- 
 ledge which would enable us to give your LordshipB tha 
 channels or sources from which information can be 
 obtained, we shall feel it our duty to lay it unreservedlj 
 before your Lordships, thus fulfilling the duty which 
 you indicated on the last occasion — honestly to put 
 before your Lordships all the sources of information 
 that are at our command. Perhaps it may be well that 
 I should refer to section 9 of the Act before passing 
 away from the Act. Your Lordships will notice that 
 "any person examined as a witness under this Act 
 before the Commissioners, or under a commission to ex- 
 amine witnesses abroad, may be cross-examined on 
 behalf of any other person appearing before the Com- 
 missioners. A witness examined under this Act shall 
 not be excused from answering any question put to him 
 on the ground of any privilege, or on the ground that 
 the answer thereto may criminate or tend to criminate 
 himself." The last four lines are not new, but are 
 similar to the provisions with regard to many Eoyal 
 Commissions ; but the first four lines are, as far as mj 
 recollection serves me, quite novel — namely, the power 
 given to any person interested to cross-examine. This 
 does not, I submit, alter the position of the Commis- 
 sion in any way, or fetter the discretion or powers of 
 your Lordships, nor does it relieve the Commission 
 from any burden or duty cast upon it ; but, having 
 regard to the nature of the charges made, and the 
 circumstances under which they were made, it in 
 all probability was deemed desirable that this right of 
 cross-examination, not usually given, should in this 
 ease be given. I do not think it is necessary to refer 
 at the present moment to any other sections of the Act. 
 I now come to the proceedings which led to the 
 passing of this Act. As your Lordships know, you are 
 inquiring into charges made against members of Parlia- 
 ment and other persons in the course of proceedings in 
 an action of " O'Donnell v. Walter," and in all proba- 
 bility your Lordships will agree with me if I say that 
 the general scope of this inquiry must be confined to the 
 charges and allegations which were made in the course 
 of those proceedings. I say that for this reason. We 
 have nothing to do with ordinary political organization 
 or political agitation. We are not here to inquire 
 into the rights or wrongs of Home Eule, or the rightj 
 or wrongs of particular tenants, or into any of those 
 questions which are supposed to be, or have in fact been, 
 burning questions for a long time in reference to Ire- 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 land. We are here to inquire — or I should say your 
 lordships are to inquire — into certain specific charges 
 and allegations. I shall conceive it to be my duty to 
 show that the several individuals who are referred to 
 in the original charges and in the particulars which 
 have been delivered are directly or by clear implica- 
 tion guilty of what is charged against them, for, 
 having read your Lordships' ruling on the last occasion, 
 I know that you pointed out that it was in reference 
 to members of Parliament and other persons that you 
 were inquiring. Let me now make a few preliminary 
 observations in regard to the charges themselves. It 
 is, I think, essential that your Lordships should under- 
 stand what the charges and allegations are. Let me at 
 once mention one or two dates to which I shall have 
 subsequently to refer. The charges were originally 
 made in articles which formed the first of a series of 
 articles now known as " Farnellism and Crime," all 
 of which have been printed at the end of the Blue- 
 book before your Lordships. They commenced on the 
 7th of March, 1887, and were continued on the 14th 
 and 24th, and a few appeared in the early days of April. 
 I advisedly refrain now from reference to the later 
 articles. The charges contained in the earlier articles 
 were not new charges. They had been made under other 
 circumstances on previous occasions, and it may 
 possibly be that your Lordships may have to inquire 
 into the circumstances under which some of these 
 charges had been made at an earlier date. But for the 
 purposes of my argument, let me make it clear that the 
 earlier group of the articles termed " Farnellism and 
 Crime " were a mere repetition of charges made in the 
 years 1882 and 1883 in reference to some of the same 
 individuals. It would be absurd to suggest that when 
 these charges were made by the writers of The Times 
 newspaper they were in a position of being able to 
 legally prove all the allegations that they made. If a 
 newspaper were to wait until it had absolutely legal 
 proof of the facts on which it comments, its comments 
 would often not appear for several years, and some- 
 times never. I do not deny — it is no part of my duty 
 to deny — that the charges that were made in 
 the year 1887, and which were a repetition of 
 charges formerly made in 1882 and 1883, were 
 made on information communicated to those who 
 wrote the articles, which in all probability in 
 many instances would not be legal evidence. I shall 
 have, for instance, to call attention to extracts from 
 other newspapers — I refer especially to extracts from 
 the Irish World, United Ireland, and the Freeman's 
 Journal. The position of these newspapers will be a 
 subject which may form an important part of your 
 Lordships' inquiry. But at the present moment I am 
 calling your Lordships' attention to the fact that the 
 charges which were made rested, to a certain extent, 
 upon statements which the writers of the articles in The 
 Times believed to be true statements, for which autho- 
 rity was given and reference made to the sources from 
 which the information was obtained. The group of 
 articles, beginning with that of the 7th of March, 1887- 
 
 and ending in the month of April, 1887, evoked no 
 proceedings on the part of any person directly charged 
 or implicated in the charges and allegations. Later in 
 the year, and in the month of June, 1887, certain other 
 articles were written, and in these certain further 
 statements were made. Among these statements was 
 one which had direct reference to a particular in- 
 dividual, Mr. Parnell. There was published a letter, 
 purporting to be signed by him on the loth of 
 May, 1882. Undoubtedly, with reference to the case 
 of Mr. Parnell himself, that letter must form, and will 
 form, a matter which your Lordships will most care- 
 fully and thoroughly investigate. But it is most import- 
 ant, in reference to the inquiry in which your Lord- 
 ships are engaged at the present time, to observe that 
 the writing of a particular letter by Mr. Parnell, 
 important as this will be so far as his case is con- 
 cerned, will not enable your Lordships to judge of the 
 main truth of the allegations which are directed, not 
 against Mr. Parnell alone, but against Mr. Parnell and 
 his associates. It will be necessary for me when I 
 come to refer to the evidence I am about to lay before 
 your Lordships to point to individuals by name, and I 
 shall do so wherever I feel the interests of justice 
 demand it ; but I want your Lordships to understand 
 that in the first place it is essential that you should 
 know and appreciate what the charges and allegations 
 were, and against whom they were and are made, and 
 who are the persons directly, or by clear implication, 
 accused. Now, my Lords, these articles having been 
 written, and the letter having been published on April 18 
 directly relating to Mr. Parnell, and also further articles, 
 no proceedings were taken other than these — that in tho 
 coarse of this year an action which had been com- 
 menced came on for trial. The action had been com- 
 menced by Mr. O'Donnell, who had at one time 
 been associated to a greater or less extent with Mr. 
 Parnell and his followers. Mr. O'Donnell complained 
 that he had been libelled in the allegations made by 
 The Times in " Parnellism and Crime." The proceed- 
 ings at that trial are printed in the Blue-book, which 
 will be before yonr Lordships. Mr. O'Donnell com- 
 plained of certain allegations which, taken without 
 their context, he alleged referred to him. In the 
 course of the3e proceedings it became necessary for 
 The Times to state their whole case in answer to this 
 action. It was alleged by Mr.O'Donnel! that he had been 
 defamed and slandered, to which The Times answered 
 that they had not defamed Mr. O'Donnell, but that they 
 had made against a number of persons, many of whose 
 names were stated, a number of serious charges. I do 
 not know that I can do better than read the descrip- 
 tion of these charges and allegations given by the 
 Lord Chief Justice, who tried the action of " O'Don- 
 nell v. Walter " :— 
 
 "It would seem, therefore, that The Times news- 
 paper, in the discharge of what those who conduct 
 it, I have no doubt, thought their duty, published a 
 series of articles, which are known to us under the 
 familiar or short title of ' Parnellism and Crime.' 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
10 
 
 The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 They run over in this small type something like 60 
 pages ; they contain a great variety of statements, 
 and statements deeply incriminating a number of 
 persons — members of Parliament, persons cot members 
 of Parliament, bat well known to the world, and a 
 number of prominent men, who are accused, if I may 
 say so, frankly and plainly, of abominable crime, not 
 so much, perhaps.that they themselves have committed 
 with their own hands abominable crime, but that they 
 have lent themselves to a system which must neces- 
 sarily, as its reasonable effect, be accompanied with 
 crime, and that with regard to many of the crimes by 
 which it was accompanied they themselves had per- 
 sonal knowledge. That is the statement in a broad 
 way, bat that is iu substance what is charged against a 
 number of persons whose names you have heard in the 
 course of these articles about ' Parnellism and 
 Crime.' " 
 
 I adopt, if I may respectfully say so, these words of 
 the Lord Chief Justice. Whatever may be any failings 
 of mine in making my statement to your Lordships 
 «ith regard to the matter I am going to lay before 
 you, those who are so well represented by my learned 
 friends shall have no reason to find fault with me for 
 not making my allegations clear in the discharge of 
 my duty with regard to the part which has been played by 
 those of whom I shall have to speak ; but inasmuch as 
 we are not only concerned with the case of Mr. 
 Parnell, though that is one of the most important, but 
 also with the part played by Mr. Dillon, Mr. Matthew 
 Harris, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Biggar, and Mr. T. 
 Harrington, and, passing from members of Parliament, 
 with the part played by Egan, Brennan, Boyton, 
 Gordon, and a number of others whose names are given 
 in " Parnellism and Crime," it is clear that it is per- 
 fectly impossible for me properly to discharge my duty, 
 or for the proprietors of The Times to discharge their 
 duty, by limiting the inquiry to the allegations against 
 any one individual. Now, my Lords, when the prelimi- 
 nary inquiry took plate your Lordships thought it a 
 reasonable application that we should specify the 
 charges in sufficient detail to enable my learned friends 
 to know what the charges are that they have to meet. 
 Your Lordships at that time indicated that you had 
 not read the articles referred to. I shall not assume 
 that your Lordships have yet read the whole of the 
 articles, but I shall think it right, in order to make my 
 statement clearer, to refer to the pages of the Bine- 
 book in which the different allegations are to be 
 found. Because I agree that if my learned friends were 
 in a position to say, " You are stating against us accusa- 
 tions that are not contained in ' Parnellism and 
 Crime,' and not raised in the proceedings of ' O'Don- 
 nell v. Walter,' " I doubt whether your Lordships would 
 have jurisdiction to entertain such accusations. I shall 
 have to refer in the course of my statement to what has 
 been called " the conspiracy," and at other times 
 " the organization," and I shall use these terms because, 
 when I shall allude subsequently to the names of indi- 
 viduals, it will be seen that they did not all take part 
 always in the acts that I am going to prove. Some- 
 times the act was done by one, sometimes by another. 
 
 But, rightly or wrongly, truly or falsely, we shall 
 allege that all the acts were done in furtherance of a 
 preconcerted and preconceived conspiracy, with definite 
 objeots and definite ends, and in the only way in 
 which those objects and those ends could be attained. 
 The only way the conspiracy or organization could do 
 the work which those mixed up with it intended it to 
 do was by the commission of crime. I shall show your 
 Lordships that the fact that the conspiracy or organi- 
 zation could only be made effective by means of crime 
 was pointed out so far back as in 1881, 1882, and 
 18S3j and I shall demonstrate to your Lordships that 
 it is only by crime and the commission of crime that 
 it could be made effective. In other words, the signifi- 
 cant phrase " Parnellism and Crime " is an accurate 
 paraphrase of the history of the organization itself in 
 three words — " Parnellism," because it took its name 
 from the man who played a very prominent part in 
 public affairs, who was the recognized leader and head 
 of the organization — not by any means doing the whole 
 work, that would have been impossible — but supported 
 by. men of great vigour and energy and undoubted 
 ability, but not inaptly called " Parnellism," because 
 the organization represents his following ; and 
 " Crime " because, whatever its objects, whatever may 
 be suggested as to its being engaged in bondjide agita- 
 tion, its real work could not be carried on without 
 crime, and without crime it could not have succeeded. 
 Now, my Lords, let us first take the particulars. I 
 make no apology to your Lordships for occupying 
 time. 1 am sure that your Lordships would prefer that 
 in justice to those against whom I am opposed in this 
 case I should make my meaning perfectly clear rather 
 than attempt to cut matters, and I hope there 
 will be no cause of complaint of any want of plain 
 speaking on my part as the advocate or re- 
 presentative of The Times. I will ask your Lord- 
 ships to take the particulars which have been 
 delivered, and allow me to go through them 
 and then to refer to two or three passages in " Par- 
 nellism and Crime," in which the charges and allega- 
 tions will be found described. The second paragraph 
 of the particulars is in these words : — " The members 
 of Parliament mentioned in the schedule were mem- 
 bers of the conspiracy and organization hereinafter 
 described, and took part in the work and operations 
 thereof with knowledge of its character, objects, and 
 mode of action." Then, my Lords, the next paragraph 
 contains the names of the various societies which are 
 referred to, and we take them to be the Irish Land 
 League, the Irish National Land League and the Labour 
 and Industrial Union, the Ladies' Land League, the 
 Ladies' Irish Land League and Labour and Industrial 
 Union, the National League, and the affiliated societies in 
 Great Britain and America, all forming one connected 
 and continuous organization. I have here to say that 
 the word " organization " is not made use of by those 
 who framed these particulars for the purpose in any 
 shape of avoiding the responsibility cast upon us of 
 dealing with the case of charges and allegations against 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 11 
 
 individuals, but because the conspiracy to which 
 " Parnellism and Crime " referred cannot be com- 
 pendiously referred to except by some one word which 
 will indicate that we are dealing with a number of 
 men acting in concert. In dealing with something that 
 had branches in hundreds of districts in Ireland, your 
 Lordships will see how essential it is to have some one 
 word by which to refer to it, and the word " organiza- 
 tion" is inserted for the purpose of showing what was 
 the real working of this combined conspiracy, how all 
 the strands of interest were bound together in one 
 form, and how men who otherwise could not have 
 worked together did work in one combined organiza- 
 tion or conspiracy. The next paragraph of the par- 
 ticulars states : — 
 
 " The ultimate object^ of the organization was to 
 establish the absolute independence of Ireland as a 
 separate nation. With a view to effect this, one of 
 the immediate objects of the said conspiracy or organi- 
 zation was to promote an agrarian agitation against 
 the payment of agricultural rents, thereby securing the 
 co-operation of the tenant-farmers of Ireland, and at 
 the same time the impoverishment and ultimate expul- 
 sion from the country of the Irish landlords who were 
 styled ' the English garrison.' " 
 
 I repeat, and I will make it clear in the course of my 
 observations, that the way in which this conspiracy 
 worked and was intended to work was, if necessary, by 
 the commission of crimes which would injure both the 
 landlord and the tenant, which in 99 cases out of 100 
 injured the tenant and did not injure the landlord, in 
 order to drive the " English garrison " — the Irish land- 
 lords — from any possession in the soil of Ireland. But 
 I am utterly indifferent as to what the particular 
 object of the organization was, except for the light it 
 throws on the means adopted by the organization. The 
 particulars proceed to say : — 
 
 " The mode of action was to organize a system of 
 coercion and intimidation in Ireland, which was 
 sustained and enforced by boycotting and the commis- 
 sion of crimes and outrages. 
 
 " The organization was actively engaged in the 
 following matters : — 
 
 " 1. The promotion of and inciting to the commis- 
 sion of crimes, outrages, boycotting, and intimida- 
 tion." 
 
 Your Lordships need not and must not think that I 
 have the slightest intention here of referring to minor 
 matters — such as preventing people from dealing with 
 particular persons — except in so far as it will be neces 
 sary to do so to show how less grows to greater. We 
 shall, so far as it is material to our purpose, prove 
 that, in order to make what was called boycotting 
 effective, in order to make intimidation effective, 
 crimes of the worst character had to be resorted to ; 
 in fact, a very little consideration, when I come to 
 that part of the case, will show that if the persons who 
 were carrying on this conspiracy stopped short of 
 crime, of personal injury, of violence, and at times of 
 
 murder, there would have been an end to the success 
 of the organization altogether. In other words, it 
 was only by imposing on the subjects of this tyranny 
 such fear as made them the absolute slaves of the 
 organization that it could ba made effective, and 
 its power and influence sustained. What I shall do 
 is to show that many of these men who are named 
 in these particulars have personally taken part in acts 
 which did undoubtedly lead to crime of the worst 
 description, and that many of them, as I shall ask your 
 Lordships to come to the conclusion, must have known, 
 and did know, that the consequences of the conduct in 
 which they were taking part would be the commission 
 of these crimes. I shall show your Lordships that after 
 it was clear that the result of the conduct to which I 
 have referred was to lead to the commission of these 
 crimes, they repeated over and over again the same 
 conduct, and that down to a very recent date ; and, 
 what is perhaps, after all, quite as important an 
 observation, I shall show that being men of undoubted 
 influence, being men respected and of great ability, 
 and it may be revered and beloved by some of the 
 inhabitants of Ireland, with scarcely an exception, they 
 never denounced these outrages, and took no steps to 
 put an end to this, the most cruel of tyrannies that ever 
 existed in any country in the world. Now, my Lords, 
 the second head of the particulars is this :— 
 
 " 2. The collection and providing of funds to be used, 
 or which it was known were used, for the promotion of 
 and the payment of persons engaged in the commission 
 of crimes, outrages, boycotting, and intimidation." 
 
 Later in my opening statement I will explain to 
 your Lordships what at the present time we arc in a 
 position to lay before your Lordships in regard to this 
 matter, and I shall have to mention the fact that, 
 owing to orders made on a previous occasion not 
 having been complied with — namely, for the discovery 
 of bank books— we shall not be able to lay them 
 before your Lordships in the same detail as we should 
 have wished to do ; but I will postpone referring to 
 that matter in detail until I come to it in my chrono- 
 logical statement. Then we say that these persons were 
 actively engaged in " the payment of persons who 
 assisted in, were affected by, or accidentally or other- 
 wise injured in the commission of such crimes, out- 
 rages, and acts of boycotting and intimidation." When 
 I deal with this particular part of the case I shall lay 
 before your Lordships evidence which will undoubtedly 
 require the most careful examination, but with regard 
 to parts of that evidence it cannot be shaken, and I 
 think your Lordships will have no doubt that many of 
 those whose names are included in these particulars 
 knew, and must have known, that sums of money were 
 being paid under exceptional conditions and over a 
 long period of time to the persons who were engaged 
 in carrying out the acts of violence and crime to which 
 I have referred. Here, again, I do not intend to refer 
 to payments made with respect to minor matters, 
 except in so far as those minor matters grew to be 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
12 
 
 The Special^Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 larger and led to the commission of more important 
 and serious offences. The fourth head of the 
 particulars is :— 
 
 " Holding meetings and procuring to be made 
 speeches inciting to the commission of crimes, out- 
 rages, boycotting, and intimidation. Some of the meet- 
 ings referred to, which were attended by membors of 
 Parliament, with the approximate dates and place of 
 meeting are given in the schedule hereto." 
 
 I need not refer to that again, because I have men- 
 tioned it in speaking of the way in which the organiza- 
 tion did its work. Many of the acts and consequences 
 referred to were the direct result, as the writer of the 
 articles alleged, and as the proprietors of The Times now 
 allege, of the meetings, of the speeches, and of the 
 conduct referred to. Then, my Lords, I have to call 
 attention to the fifth paragraph of the particulars, 
 viz. : — ' 
 
 " The publication and dissemination of newspaper 
 and other literature inciting to and approving of sedi- 
 tion and the commission of crimes, outrages, boy- 
 cotting, and intimidation, particularly the Irish World, 
 the Chicago Citizen, the Boston Pilot, the Freeman's 
 Journal, United Ireland, the Irishman, the Nation, the 
 Weekly News, Cork Daily Herald, the Kerry Sentinel, 
 the Evening Telegraph, the Sligo Champion." 
 
 I desire to state here, my Lords, that I shall have to 
 address your Lordships at some considerable length 
 upon the connexion between those gentlemen who are 
 named and the organizations in America. I shall have 
 to show your Lordships, or at any rate indicate to your 
 Lordships, the heads of the evidence from which it will 
 appear that there was being collected in America a 
 very large sum of money by means of literature of the 
 worst kind — literature which incited and invited people 
 to participate in acts of the most infamous character, 
 such, for instance, as the use of dynamite and the 
 use of the dagger, and other crimes of the worst 
 description ; and it will be part of the case which I 
 have to lay before your Lordships that many of the 
 gentlemen to whom I have referred knew of the publi- 
 cation of this literature, knew of the way in which the 
 money was collected, and with that knowledge con- 
 tinued to consort with and to thank the people who had 
 collected the money by these means, received the 
 money, and, for all I know — I speak for my clients of 
 course — have a considerable portion of it still. Be that 
 as it may, that part of the case, which in one sense is 
 entirely a separate thing, is one of the main and 
 principal allegations made by the writer of " Par- 
 nellism and Crime" — namely, that many of those whose 
 names are included were in active communication 
 with some of the most violent agitators in America 
 and, with a knowledge of the doctrines preached by 
 those agitators, availed themselves of their services, 
 received the money they had collected, and continued 
 to consort with and be friendly with them after there 
 had been a publication of their views extending over 
 a very long period of time. Of course, my Lords, I do 
 not say that at the present time I am in a position to 
 give you the whole of the details of the working of 
 
 the conspiracy in America. Your Lordships have 
 powers, and it may be necessary to exercise those 
 powers for the ascertainment of the truth. With regard 
 to certain incidents I shall be able to lay evidence 
 before your Lordships, and the evidence referring to 
 those incidents will, I think, lead to sources of in- 
 formation to which your Lordships can go, if you think 
 it necessary for the elucidation of the truth, to ascer- 
 tain whether the view I have put to your Lordships is 
 the correct view or not. Then, my Lords, we allege 
 that the members who were taking part in the con- 
 spiracy and in the overt acts that were done in 
 furtherance of the conspiracy advocated resistance to 
 law and the constituted authorities and impeded the 
 detection and punishment of crime. In connexion with 
 that part of the case it will be my duty to bring 
 before your Lordships evidence with regard to the part 
 that was taken by some of those named, and by their 
 agents with their knowledge, with regard to persons 
 who had been charged with some of the worst offences 
 which were committed in Ireland during the years 1880, 
 1881, and 1882, and even later. If I am correctly in- 
 structed, some of the acts that were done must have 
 come to their knowledge — nay, more, must have to a 
 certain extent been carried out with their authority 
 and under their direction. Then, my Lords, the 
 seventh head is : — 
 
 " Making payments to or for persons who were 
 guilty, or supposed to be guilty, of the commission of 
 crimes, outrages, and acts of boycotting and intimida- 
 tion, for their defence, or to enable them to escape 
 from justice, and for the maintenance of such persons 
 and their families." 
 
 I think your Lordships will find when the evidence is 
 given with regard to these matters that there will be 
 very little doubt in your Lordships' minds that sums 
 of money, of which many of those gentlemen to whom 
 I have referred had to a greater or less extent the 
 control, went for the purposes indicated in that para- 
 graph. Then, my Lords, comes the statement in 
 paragraph 8 : — 
 
 " It is charged and alleged that the members of Par« 
 liament mentioned in the schedule approved, and by 
 their acts and conduct led people to believe that they 
 approved, of resistance to the law and the commission 
 of crimes, outrages, and acts of boycotting and intimi- 
 dation when committed in furtherance of the objects 
 and resolutions of the said societies, and that persons 
 who engaged in the commission of such crimes, out- 
 rages, and acts would receive the support and protec- 
 tion of the said societies and of their organization and 
 influence." 
 
 I do not think it necessary for me to read paragraphs 
 9 to 13, though I will do it if it is desired ; but in 
 detail they are merely a little more elaboration of the 
 particular acts named, and my reason for not referring 
 to them is that I have in general language more or less 
 indicated those acts in describing the way in which 
 the conspiracy was worked. But I will call attention 
 to the specific allegation in paragraph 13 — namely, 
 that they and the said societies, with such knowledge as 
 aforesaid, received larce sums of monev which were 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special > Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 13 
 
 collected in America and elsewhere by criminals and per- 
 sons who were known to advocate sedition, assassination, 
 the use of dynamite, and the commission of crimes and 
 outrages. Then your Lordships will find in paragraph 
 14 the allegation respecting three letters published and 
 said to be signed by Mr. Parnell. Of course, your 
 Lordships are aware that my learned friend Sir Charles 
 Kussell, when he appeared on the last occasion, indi- 
 cated to your Lordships that those letters were 
 forgeries. I shall in the course of my opening state- 
 ment, when I arrive at the incidents to which these 
 letters refer, make to your Lordships statements that 
 will to a great extent enable your Lordships to judge 
 how far my learned friend will be able to support that 
 statement. Probably before the end of this case 
 yoni Lordships will have the fullest opportunity 
 of coming to a decision as to whether or not the 
 allegation that those letters were forgeries is true ; 
 but all I will say at present, dealing with that parti- 
 cular allegation, which is one which of coarse directly 
 affects Mr. Parnell and probably only one other indi- 
 vidual, is that there will be many documents which 
 will have to be referred to in connexion with the inci- 
 dent, and I shall lay before your Lordships evidence on 
 which you will be able to come to a decision as to 
 what is the truth in the matter. Now,my Lords,you will 
 find in the particulars a list of the names of the other 
 persons who are alleged to have been the associates of 
 the members of Parliament, though,of course, not all of 
 them ; but it will be found that most of the members 
 of Parliament were in association with a great many 
 of those whose names are in the list. I shall in a few 
 moments, I hope, be able to get to a part of the story 
 which will render it necessary to refer to these names ; 
 therefore, I do not propose to stop now to go througn 
 them. When I come to deal with them categorically 
 and chronologically, I shall have to state to your 
 Lordships the part which any particular individual 
 mentioned in the list took. They are put in the parti- 
 culars in order to give my learned friends the informa- 
 tion with regard to those who The Times alleged in 
 " Parnellism and Crime " were directly connected 
 with the crime and outrage to which reference was 
 therein made. Now I gather from your Lordships that 
 it is better that I should not assume your Lordships 
 to have an intimate knowledge of " Parnellism and 
 Crime ;" therefore I think I should briefly refer to 
 certain passages in which your Lordships will find the 
 charges made in plain and unmistakable language. 
 With reference to the organization itself I would ask 
 your Lordships to refer to the Blue-book before you, 
 from which I am obliged to quote from my own speech. 
 On page 65 you will find this passage :— 
 
 " Whatever may be the difficulty on the part of the 
 defendants' counsel when they are laying this case 
 before you, this I will undertake to demonstrate to 
 you — namely, that the libels, the slanders published in 
 The Times prior to Mr. O'Donnell having written him. 
 self, by which I mean prior to the 17th of June,referred 
 to the Land League in Ireland, and to the illegal 
 organizations known by that name, and not to the Irish, 
 
 Constitutional party with which alone Mr. Lucy knows 
 Mr. O'Donnell to be connected." 
 
 Mr. Lucy, my Lords, is a reporter of the Daily News, 
 who had been a witness for Mr. O'Donnell, and had 
 stated that he knew Mr. O'Donnell as a member of the 
 Irish Constitutional party. Then, if your Lordships 
 will kindly refer to the top of page 122, you will find 
 the following : — 
 
 "As we go through these I will ask you to watch 
 most carefully, and say, is there any libel that can be 
 said to be connected with Mr. O'Donnell ? — because, as 
 far as I have gone, the libel, be it true or be it false, 
 is against the Land League, and nobody else." 
 Then, again, on page 164 : — 
 
 " I am prepared, if necessary, to call witness afte* 
 witness to prove the facts with regard to the doings of 
 the real Land League." 
 
 Now I will ask your Lordships to allow me to refer 
 you to the paragraphs which alleged that t he organiza- 
 tion to which I have referred was one combined con-< 
 spiracy. At the bottom of page 79 you will find •— 
 
 " Now, gentlemen, I wish to call your attention to 
 one other very remarkable case, and that is the case of 
 Woodford. I refer to it because The Times has said, 
 and I shall, if necessary, maintain, that there has been 
 the same continuity of action between the Land League 
 and the National League." 
 Then, again, on page 107 : — 
 
 " I shall be able to show you, though it is not so 
 very material, that quotations in The Times' articles 
 from the speeches of Byrne in America were correctly 
 reported in the official journals as being speeches which 
 he delivered in which he advocated the use of dyna- 
 mite, the knife, and political agitation. I remind you 
 that at the end of July, 1883, Carey, the informer, was 
 shot by O'Donnell. I shall prove before you that sub- 
 scriptions were received all through the year 1883 and 
 onwards from the American organization. I shall prove 
 before you that in February, 1884, was published a 
 statement of the amounts that had been collected 
 under these funds and published as being a statement 
 of account showing, if any part of it was true, the con- 
 nexion between the Irish organization and the American 
 organization." 
 
 I am only now referring to this matter for the purpose 
 of indicating that we have throughout maintained— 
 that The Times and the writers of The Times have 
 throughout pointed out that the organization of which 
 Mr. Parnell and his followers are members was 
 intimately connected with the societies in America 
 which advocated such courses and conduct as those to 
 which I have referred. On page 129 you will find these 
 words : — " We have laid bare some of the ligaments 
 that knit the so-called ' constitutional movement ' in 
 the United Kingdom to its fellow-conspiracy in the 
 United States." The whole of page 131 contains 
 charges of exactly the same character, and in it there 
 occurs this passage : — " He " (that is, Ford) " sub- 
 scribed to the Parliamentary Fund ' out of 
 his own private purse,' he * published the reports, 
 and manifestoes of its officers,' he cheerfully for. 
 warded many heavy contributions to the reverend 
 treasurer, he ' enlisted ' and ' called out ' American 
 N sympatby, he started the Home Kule mass meetings,and 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
14 
 
 The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 elicited and published in his murderous print some 200 
 Home Kule letters from American politicians with an 
 eye to the Irish vote. Even at the height of the money 
 squabble the close relations between the ' constitu- 
 tional ' Leaguers and the Fenian skirmishers established 
 by Davitt, and ratified by Mr. Parnell on his American 
 tour, were carefully maintained." 
 
 The President. — Whose language is this ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I think it is an extract 
 from the Irish World of July 22, 1882. On page 136 
 there is a passage to which I wish to call attention : — 
 
 ' ' Davitt explained the secret of the conspirators' 
 (access in a speech of great frankness and ability, 
 former insurrections in Ireland had exclusively relied 
 on Irish national sentiment. ' But Irish national 
 sentiment had not succeeded in winning Irish liberty. 
 Recently they had added the power found in the desire 
 Df a people to improve them {sic) socially. Ihey had 
 to combine the whole Irish race at home aiid abroad in 
 one vast movement. . . . They had to strike at and 
 cripple the power of Irish landlordism, England's 
 territorial garrison in Ireland, before they could call 
 into the field of action the full force of Irish manhood 
 and Irish national sentiment.' The march, to reiterate 
 Mr. Gladstone's felicitous phrase, lies ' through rapine 
 to dismemberment,' and the distinctive characteristics 
 of the League movement, which had made it vigorous 
 and progressive where all preceding agitations had 
 been fitful and weak , are its Jacobin appeal to agrarian 
 greed at home and its direct invocation of Irish- 
 American race-hatred abroad — that hatred which, as 
 Mr. Finerty admits, no English concessions can abate. 
 Sullivan and Mr. William O'Brien also spoke, but the 
 most interesting item in the programme was the presen- 
 tation of a service of plate to Pat Egan, the fugitive 
 treasurer of the League, the man who hinted to the 
 * Invisibles ' that ' talk ' would never open the gates 
 of Kilooainham." 
 
 00 page 146 there are these passages : — 
 
 " The rest of the story is told, so far as the facts are 
 ioncerned, in the columns of Ford's newspaper, the 
 jrgan of the dynamite party and the channel through 
 which, as Davitt has gratefully testified, * enormous 
 ivims of money ' have passed into the hands of the 
 League. From this trustworthy source we learn that 
 Mr. Parnell's party have been associated, not only 
 Before but since the detection of the Phoenix Park 
 murderers and the disclosure of the origin of the 
 ' Invincible ' conspiracy, with Ford himself, who 
 ' stands by all he has ever said on this doctrine of 
 Jynamite ' with Egan, who hinted to the ' Invincibles ' 
 that ' talk ' would never get the suspects out of 
 Kiltnainham, with Sheridan, Brennan, Walsh, Boyton, 
 md Byrne, all implicated by Carey'6 evidence, all 
 fugitives to the United States, and all conspicuous 
 members up to that time of the staff of Mr. Parnell's 
 
 1 constitutional agitation.' " 
 
 [ do not desire to read the succeeding passages, but I 
 must indicate then?, because they contain a categorical 
 reference to a meeting which may possibly be made 
 the subject of some evidence . Then on page 152 your 
 . Lordships will find a passage which again puts the 
 natter most distinctly : — 
 
 , " Much mystery still attaches to the relations 
 Between the Irish Land League and the Invincible 
 conspiracy which culminated in the Phoenix Park 
 
 murders, but a good deal is known besides what 
 appeared in the evidence at the trials of the complicity 
 of some of the ' constitutionalists ' with that crime. 
 It must be borne in mind that the Parnellites maintain 
 that the Land League and the National League in 
 Ireland, England, the United States, are all constitu- 
 tional bodies working by lawful means for lawful ends. 
 It must also be remembered that there is a complete 
 solidarity established between all the Leagues in the 
 three countries. In dealing with the question of funds, 
 at any rate, the Irish Land League and the National 
 League, with the affiliated societies in Great Britain 
 and America, must be regarded as one organization. 
 The American branch of the League has always been 
 the chief source of supplies ; and the English branch 
 was also founded to sudsidize the movement in 
 Ireland. The unity of the organization on both sides 
 of the Irish Channel is proved by a secret article, 
 which was issued by the executive of the League at 
 Westminster three days after the parent society was 
 in Ireland suppressed ; the document is interesting also 
 on account of the proof it affords that the conspirators 
 recognized the illegality of their proceedings." 
 
 I need not now refer to the details of that particular 
 circular, for I am only justifying the allegation which 
 we have made that the League and the various societies 
 of which these gentlemen were members formed one 
 continuous and united organization. Now, I have to 
 justify the statement in the particulars that the 
 organization depends, in carrying out its objects, upon 
 the commission of crime, and I will call attention to a 
 few passages, in order that your Lordships may see 
 that I am not passing outside the charges and allega- 
 tions made in the particulars. On page 67 you will find 
 this passage : — 
 
 " The whole organization of the Land League and its 
 successor the National League depends upon a system 
 of intimidation, carried out by the most brutal means, 
 and resting ultimately upon the sanction of murder. 
 The Iri»h Home Eule party glory in being the inventors 
 of this organization, and openly base their appeals, 
 whether of the wheedling or of the menacing kind, 
 upon the knowledge that its power is at their 
 disposal." 
 
 I referred to that some time ago, when I spoke of the 
 way in which this organization did its work and of 
 what was necessary to its success. I mention it now, 
 in order to indicate to your Lordships the charges and 
 allegations that have been made. On page 73 there is 
 the following statement of my own — it is not a quota- 
 tion from " Parnellism and Crime " :— 
 
 " The charge made was this — that the Land League 
 and its successor the National League depends upon a 
 system of intimidation carried out by the most brutal 
 means, and resting ultimately upon the sanction of 
 murder. There are one or two other passages to which 
 I will refer when I come to deal with the libels later 
 on, in which, in different language, the same idea is 
 put forward, that a reign of terror, intimidation, and 
 tyranny, supported by outrage, was the policy of the 
 Land League during the years to which I refer. Now, 
 gentlemen, do not let it be supposed that I am going 
 to deal with the small fry of this organization. I am 
 going to put before you evidence of the fact that in the 
 presence of their leaders, sometimes by the leaders 
 themselves, were made speeches at Land League 
 
 The Speech of the Attorner-GeneraL 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 15 
 
 meetings, directly inciting to outrage, inciting to 
 arson, inciting to treatment which has led to the most 
 iniquitous results. Please understand this — that while 
 upon the one side I shall put before jou affirmative 
 evidence of the infamous speeches that were being made 
 by many of these men, sometimes by the leaders them- 
 selves, and at other times in their presence, on not 
 one single occasion do we find the slightest speech, or 
 one single expression, directed to diverting the minds of 
 the people from outrage — to diverting them from the 
 acts which certainly followed, and which to the 
 knowledge of these men followed." 
 Probably the words *' on not one single occasion " 
 may have to be slightly qualified, as the evidence 
 which I shall lay before you now stands, because 
 it may be that in one or two speeches there 
 is some slight reference to — I cannot call it 
 condemnation of — the outrages and crimes committed. 
 Bit, at any rate, the statement is proved that in the 
 vast majority of instances there is language inciting to 
 crime without the least condemnation of the conduct 
 that might reasonably be expected to follow. Now 
 look at page 77. You will there find these words : — 
 ' " Now, gentlemen, I will take you to Castleisland, in 
 which also murders took place, and in which I shall 
 be able to prove before you there was practically 
 no disorder and no disturbance of any kind until the 
 Land League meeting took place. In the year 1880 
 Castleisland was honoured by a speech from no less a 
 gentleman than Mr. Biggar, who was one of the lead- 
 ing Parliamentary allies and Land League treasurer. 
 At that meeting were present Mr. Arthur O'Connor 
 and Mr. Harrington, of the Kerry Sentinel. I do not 
 like to make mistakes, but I think it will turn out that 
 that is one of the Mr. Harringtons who is a member of 
 Parliament now. Now let us look at what Mr. Biggar 
 said in his speech at Castleisland on the 10th of 
 October, 1880." 
 
 I need not read the speech now, as I shall have to 
 read it later on. I only indicate it as a charge made 
 in our particulars. Then on page 82 please note these 
 words : — 
 
 " Gentlemen, I have occupied a very great deal of 
 your time in describing to you what I am about to 
 prove in connexion with this Land League. I shall call 
 before you, unless any admission by the plaintiff or his 
 counsel makes it unnecessary for me to do so, witness 
 after witness — I am afraid a great many— who will 
 prove the speeches. It will be proved before you that 
 these speeches were made in the presence ot members 
 of Parliament who are now spoken of as being the 
 trusted allies of Mr. Parnell and the constitutional 
 leaders, together with Mr. O'Donnell. I shall prove 
 before you the occurrence of these murders. I shall 
 prove before you that the murders followed these 
 speeches in the way I have been describing, and that 
 no apparent cause of any sort or kind has ever been 
 suggested, or can ever be suggested, with all the in- 
 genuity of my learned friend and those who assist him, 
 for this extraordinary outDurst of crime, excepting the 
 agitation of the Land League, which had been started 
 in the autumn of 1879, and continued throughout the 
 whole of the years 1880 and 1881." 
 Your Lordships will remember that that passage was 
 referred to by Sir Charles Russell at the preliminary 
 meeting. I refer to it now for the purpose of indi- 
 cating again that the charge was there made, and to 
 
 say that we shall attempt to produce evidence to 
 justify the allegation so made on behalf of The Timet. 
 Now I refer to page 109 : — 
 
 " Now, gentlemen, Mr O'Donnell has told you that 
 for years before 1887 he had regarded the Parliament 
 Bystem with repugnance. He told you through his 
 witnesses and by his letters that be had left even the 
 Parnellite party and had nothing whatever to do with 
 the Parnellite party in 1883, and yet, writing in 1887 
 of an organization which existed in 1872 and 1880, 
 before Mr. O'Donnell joined it, and of an organization 
 which had nothing in the world to do with the Parlia- 
 mentary action of Mr. O'Donnell, he thinks fit to 
 suggest, for the purpose of maintaining this action, 
 that The Times alluded to him when they talked abou' 
 this organization. ' Mr. Gladstone declared that " with 
 fatal and painful precision crime dogged the steps of 
 the Land League." ' That, you are aware, is a quota- 
 tion from Mr. Gladstone's speech in April. ' Again he 
 pointed out that the League depends upon boycotting, 
 and that the sanction of boycotting " by which alone it 
 can in the long run be made thoroughly effective, 
 is murder." ' That, again, is a distinct quotation from 
 Mr. Gladstone's speech in April. If it is not true, let 
 them say it is not true. The Times had not initiated 
 this statement." 
 
 I refer to that as showing what was charged in the 
 proceedings in the case of " O'Donnell v. Walter." The 
 proof of that statement will, of course, depend upon 
 the evidence which I shall have to lay before your 
 Lordships later on. On page 112 you will find these 
 words : — 
 
 " ' What is the basis and sanction of the suitable 
 organization except the murder, not of landlords, 
 but of tenants, which Mr. Gladstone found to lie 
 at the back of boycotting ? When Mr. Biggar confines 
 himself to not recommending the murder of landlords, 
 is it m any degree wonderful to find outrage and murder 
 varying in the direct ratio of the frequency of League 
 meetings ? But all these gentlemen might have been 
 more discreet in their reported utterances without 
 affecting the case in any way. It is not necessary to 
 show that the leaders of the Home Bale movement 
 have directly incited to crime. It is enough if it can 
 be shown ' — please note this — ' that the organization 
 which gives them their power, which elects their 
 nominees, and which pays their salaries derives its 
 power in tarn from the systematic perpetration of 
 crime. That, at any rate, is proved up to the hilt. 
 There are volumes of evidence, and it is being added 
 to every day.' " 
 
 The passage goes on : — " The whole organization of 
 the Land League and its successor, the National 
 League, depends upon a system of intimidation, carried 
 out by the most brutal means, and resting ultimately 
 upon the sanction of murder." On page 118 we read : — 
 
 " The Land League, he argued in the following 
 month (like the National League to-day), relied upon 
 the ' combined intimidation ' of boycotting to enforce 
 its decrees, ' and the sanction of boycotting, that 
 which stands in the rear of boycotting, and by which 
 alone boycotting can in the long run be made 
 thoroughly effective is the murder which is not to he 
 denounced.' " 
 
 I may pause here to observe that I have 6ome remark- 
 able facts to bring to your notice with reference to un- 
 discovered crime, for, owing, as we suggest, to the 
 
 The SDeech of the Attorney-General. 
 
16 
 
 The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 action of the Land League and the National League, 
 criminals enjoyed immunity from punishment. On page 
 129 let me draw attention to the following passages : — 
 
 " We have seen how Mr. O'Donnell's ' constitutional 
 organization ' was planned by Fenian brains, founded 
 on a Fenian loan, and reared by Fenian hands ; how 
 the infernal fabric ' rose like an exhalation ' to the 
 sound of murderous oratory ; how assassins guarded it 
 about, and enforced the high decrees of the secret 
 conclave within by the bullet and the knife. Of that 
 conclave to-day, three members sit in the Imperial 
 Parliament, four are fugitives from the law ; against 
 one a true bill for murder stands recorded ; all the 
 exiles consort with professed assassins since their 
 flight. It remains to show that the ' distinguished 
 representatives ' at home have continuously maintained 
 their relations with the murderers who fled and the 
 murderers who harbour them. In Parliament and before 
 English audiences Mr. Parnell and his lieutenants have 
 repeatedly denied their American accomplices. They 
 ignore the secret history of the Central Executive. The 
 memories of Brennan, Egan, Sheridan, and Boyton are 
 cherished in silence. They never mention John Walsh, 
 their chief organizer, or Frank Byrne, their secretary. 
 The feats of these heroes in ' the campaign ' are 
 shrouded in oblivion. But Ford and Finerty they dis- 
 cuss with the assurance of calumniated innocence. 
 Ford, indeed, did at one time give them some little 
 help. His services, however, were trifling ; his paper 
 was ' merely used as a medium for subscriptions,' and 
 the Pamellites would have got the money ' all the 
 same if the Irish World had never existed.' " 
 If you turn to page 144 you will see that, after reading 
 the manifesto signed by Mr. Parnell, Mr. Dillon, and 
 Michael Davitt after the Phoenix Park murders, I said: — 
 
 " I think you will see this manifesto, which would 
 go broadcast through Ireland, would be a direct attack 
 upon the secret part of the Land League organization, 
 that part of the Land League organization which had 
 been promoting outrages, which had been promoting 
 boycotting, and which had been winking at murder." 
 I think now that I have justified the charge as to the 
 organization depending upon intimidation, carried out 
 by the most brutal means, and resting ultimately upon 
 murder. I shall have to call attention to a number of 
 passages from speeches that have been made. On page 
 110 it will be seen that I said : — 
 
 " I have read to you two or three speeches, and you 
 will hear more, in which those sentiments are enun- 
 ciated by prominent members of the Home Rule party 
 in the sense in which Tlvz Times referred to them. 
 Nor is the turpitude of these incitements to crime in 
 any degree reduced by the cold-blooded condemnation 
 of murder sometimes resorted to by Mr. Parnell and 
 others. When Mr. Biggar says that it is no part of the 
 duty of the League to recommend the shooting of land- 
 lords, and when Mr. Parnell points out that recourse 
 to such measures is unnecessary where there is 
 a suitable organization among the tenants, it is need- 
 less to say that they inflame rather than calm the evil 
 passions of their hearers. " 
 
 The allegation is that murder followed the delivery of 
 these speeches. I said at the trial of " O'Donnell v, 
 Walter " (page 73) :— 
 
 " I shall be able to show you by picking out par- 
 ticular districts that certain speeches were made and 
 language used at those meetings to people already in- 
 
 flamed by suggestions of their ill-treatment of the most 
 inflammatory character, and I shall show how murders 
 followed those speeches, and yet speeches again re- 
 peated, and this conduct which I venture to term dia- 
 bolical, continued for a period of certainly two or 
 three years. I say if I establish this by the evidence 
 — whieh.thongh it may be long to take and record, it is 
 necessary should be recorded — I shall make good that 
 part of the libel which it is in one sense necessary for 
 me to make good — namely, that of the organization of 
 whom we spoke the allegations were true." 
 Then there are direct references to some of the 
 gentlemen concerned, charging them with remaining in 
 communication with persons who had defended conduct 
 such as that which I have described. I think it suffi- 
 cient for the purpose of justifying this particular alle- 
 gation to call attention to pages 73 and 74. Now as 
 to the connexion with the party of violence in America. 
 On page 82 you will find : — 
 
 " It was resolved on the 21st of October, 1879, that 
 Mr. Parnell should proceed to America in order to 
 obtain assistance ; in the course of my evidence I shall 
 prove before you, by statements made in the official 
 organs of the Land League party, that Mr. Parnell did 
 proceed to America. I shall be able to show you, I 
 think, beyond all question that he was in communica- 
 tion with men named Ford, Devoy, and with a man 
 named Walsh, and I think I shall be able to show you 
 that about the 11th of March, 1880, when Mr. Parnell 
 was present in New York, the American Land League 
 was formed, and, gentlemen, although I am not certain 
 at the present time whether I shall be able to prove 
 the exact amount, you will have, I think, no doubt 
 whatever that they are very large sums of money 
 which came over from the American Land League to 
 the Irish Land League." 
 Then on page 115 : — 
 
 ' ' In December Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon sailed for 
 America, and immediately communicated with Ford and 
 the principal Fenian ex-convicts. It is unnecessary to 
 dilate upon the speeches Mr. Parnell delivered on his 
 tour. They were frankly treasonable. Their spirit 
 may be divined from the celebrated passage in which 
 ' the constitutional leader ' revealed his ' ultimate 
 goal.' ' None of us,' he declared, ' whether we are in 
 America or in Ireland, or wherever we may be, will 
 be satisfied until we have destroyed the last link 
 which keeps Ireland bound to England.' Mr. Parnell 
 found that sentence troublesome last May, and, not for 
 the first time, disclaimed it as a calumny. Two days 
 later a correspondent confronted him in The Times 
 with the special report published in the Irish World of 
 March 6, 1880. Ford himself has since gently 
 rebuked and magnanimously pardoned the moral 
 cowardice of his leader's denial." 
 At page 116 is a passage to which I am about to 
 refer. It is : — 
 
 " The general election of 1880 suddenly interrupted 
 Mr. Parnell's tour. He left his interests in America in 
 the hands of Ford and the Fenians. Soon the organi- 
 zation in Ireland assumed its regular shape. The ' exe- 
 cutive committee ' controlled the whole machinery, 
 and among the most active members of that committee 
 were Mr. Parnell, Mr. Sexton, and later Mr. Arthur 
 O'Connor, Mr. Patrick Egan, treasurer to the League, 
 Mr. Thomas Brennan, secretary to the League, Mr. 
 Michael Boyton, ' chief organizer ' in Leinster, and 
 Mr. P. J. Sheridan, ' chief organizer ' in Connaught." 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
The Special Commission, October 22", 1888. 
 
 17 
 
 At page 150 there is a passage which has not been 
 given which I think I ought to read : — 
 
 " In view of the desperate, but futile, efforts still 
 made to draw a distinction between the obstructive 
 and the destructive wings of the Homo Rule army, it 
 is very interesting to note how inextricably their affairs 
 are intertwined in the financial department. The two 
 most important collections made by Ford were the 
 Land League Fund and the Skirmishing Fund." " This 
 is not alleged to be libellous." 
 
 One more passage merely, at page 158. My learned 
 friend (Mr. Graham) points out that I ought also to 
 have referred to the lines at the top of page 151, to 
 show that the money which was diverted from the 
 proper objects of the Skirmishing Fund went to buy 
 up a couple of newspapers amalgamated to form United 
 Ireland, which is the recognized organ of the Irish 
 Land League. My Lord, there are a number of refer- 
 ences to persons by name, many of whom, as I have 
 already told your Lordship, are persons not named in 
 the particulars. I do not know whether my learned 
 friends desire that I should go through " Farnellism 
 and Crime " at the present time for the purpose of 
 showing that those passages were justified by passages 
 in " Parnellism and Crime." If it is of the least 
 assistance to your Lordship or my learned friends, we 
 have prepared lists for the purpose of showing the 
 passages which range themselves under the same head 
 with the passages in " Parnellism and Crime." They 
 have been indicated in the particulars, which have been 
 prepared with the utmost care. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not complain of what is con- 
 tained in the particulars. My complaint is of what is 
 not in the particulars. I shall explain what I mean by 
 that to-morrow morning. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I can only, of course, deal 
 with what is in the particulars. I only wish to indi- 
 cate that any assistance I can give to your Lordships 
 I should be delighted to give. I am only referring to 
 it in this detail in view of what your Lordship said on 
 the last occasion — that you had not read " Parnellism 
 and Crime." 
 
 The President. — I have read every word since, and 
 I may add I am also in possession of a very minute 
 index to the whole. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — That will relieve me from 
 the very irksome and laborious task of reading the 
 
 The President. — I think it would lead to some 
 accommodation with your learned friend (Sir C. 
 Russell) if you supplied him with the particulars to 
 which you refer. 
 
 The Attorney-Gen ekal. — I shall see that he has 
 the particulars of the passages to which I have re- 
 ferred. I think I have justified the statement that I 
 have made, that these charges and allegations aro con- 
 tained in " Parnellism and Crime," and after the 
 admission of my learned friend — — 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I did not make that admission. I 
 said I did not complain of what was in the particulars, 
 but of what is not in them. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I do not know what my 
 learned friend means. Your Lordships' orders were that 
 particulars of the charges and allegations which were 
 made should be given. These particulars have been 
 given, and I am prepared to justify — to prove every 
 single one of those charges and allegations contained 
 either in the pages of " Parnellism and Crime " or in 
 the speech I made as counsel for the defendants in 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter." If that be seriously dis- 
 puted, I will go on with my somewhat mono- 
 tonous and laborious task of reading from 
 these pages. If it be not disputed, I am 
 content to leave it there. 
 
 The President. — So far as we are concerned we are 
 of opinion that you have, in fact, sufficiently indicated 
 the charges contained in the particulars. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I now propose to give to 
 your Lordships an outline of what I am aboat to prove 
 with regard to the connexion of individuals with the 
 organization to which I have referred. I propose to 
 start practically with the formation of the Land League 
 in 1879. Prior to the formation of the Land League 
 there had been, as your Lordships know, as a matter of 
 common knowledge and of history, the Fenian agitation, 
 conspiracy, and organization, which had to a great 
 extent failed, and it is essential that your Lordships 
 should understand in this connexion what it was thai 
 drew together the various strands, as I have called 
 them, of the organization and enabled them to work for 
 the common object. The Fenian organization, as I 
 gather from the authorities to which I have referred, 
 had apparently failed because it would in no way assist 
 the occupiers of the land. There undoubtedly were a 
 certain number of Fenians in various parts of Ireland. 
 I do not know how far it will appear whether any 
 particular individuals who are charged were themselves 
 Fenians, but it will appear clearly to your Lordships 
 that somehow or other a fresh departure was made at 
 the time of the formation of the Land League, and we 
 think it essential, in order that you may understand 
 the position, that you should appreciate what our 
 view is with regard to the causes which led to the 
 combination. America is the chief source of supply. 
 It will be proved beyond all question — in fact, I do not 
 know, when the proof comes to be thoroughly 
 investigated, that those against whom the charges are 
 made will seriously dispute it — by far the largest 
 amount of money came from America. The money in 
 America was, as I have already indicated, collected to 
 a large extent through papers — through the agency of 
 men who advocated the most extreme measures, who 
 advocated the use of dynamite, and the most violent 
 steps for the removal of any obnoxious person. That was 
 the one element which was necessary to combine with 
 the party who did not sympathize altogether, or to any 
 great extent, with extreme measures. Then there 
 were in Ireland the occupiers of the land, and, in their 
 connexion with the occupiers of the land, it was 
 necessary to satisfy the American subscribers that by 
 coupling their agitations and organizations with the 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
18 
 
 The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 agrarian agitation aD<l organization their end — that is 
 to say the end for which they were working — would 
 be effected ; and, accordingly, as your Lordships will 
 see after I come to deal with the speeches delivered 
 under the auspices of the Land League, and by many of 
 the gentlemen whose names are mentioned in these 
 particulars, the landlords were to be the persons 
 against whom the attacks were to be levelled ; and so 
 the interests of the tenant occupiers were excited 
 because they were led to believe that through this 
 agitation would come to them direct benefit in the 
 land being obtained at a very low rent, or, in many 
 cases, at no rent at all ; and it will appear, unless 
 contemporary record is absolutely untruthful, that 
 time after time those who were addressed at those 
 meetings were told that the effect of the agitation 
 would be to drive the landlords out of Ireland 
 altogether. That was the way in which, as it will be 
 shown, the interests of those who were occupying the 
 land were drawn in the same direction as those who 
 were contributing to the funds. Then, my Lords, came 
 the question of how this organization or conspiracy was 
 to be rendered effective, and it will be proved — I do 
 not yet know whether it will be disputed — that one of 
 the principles that was advocated by the Land League 
 was this — that no evicted land should be occupied and 
 that anybody who took possession of a farm which 
 should become vacant by eviction or who took posses- 
 sion of another man's land should be treated as being 
 one of the worst of criminals, should be subjected to 
 treatment such as I shall have to describe when I refer 
 to the speeches themselves, and should, if necessary 
 be removed from the face of the earth. Unless the 
 evidence which we have to lay before you is absolutely 
 mistaken, unless the witnesses have been completely 
 misleading those to whom they have made statements, 
 it is clear that time after time the excited hearers at 
 the meetings were told that if any person was found 
 base enough to take an evicted farm steps were to be 
 taken against him which would lead, and did lead in 
 many cases unfortunately, to his being removed from 
 the place where he was, removed by most violent 
 means, and, if necessary, by murder; Now, my Lords, 
 it was further necessary that this organization should 
 be practically universal, and accordingly, after a date 
 which I shall mention, particularly in the years 1880, 
 1881, and 1882, those gentlemen whose names have 
 been mentioned in the particulars were parties to the 
 starting of what were called Land League branches by 
 the hundred in every part of Ireland. The duty of those 
 who carried on those Land League branches was that 
 they were to carry out the decrees of the Land League 
 in the way I have described — by making it impossible 
 for anybody to take an evicted farm, and by making it 
 impossible for a landlord to obtain any return from an 
 evicted farm — the result being that the American 
 section were informed and led to believe that if the 
 money they were subscribing was used for the purposes 
 to which I have referred — that is, to spread this 
 wholesale and terrible intimidation among those who 
 
 occupied the land — the most fatal blow would be 
 struck at the landlord garrison, who were supposed to 
 be the English garrison in Ireland. There is no doubt 
 that there has prevailed, and there has been recognized 
 as prevailing in every Irish tenant, a land hunger. 
 Those who have studied history and the evidence in 
 this particular case know that the Irish peasant is most 
 eager to occupy land. Nothing would prevent his 
 occupying land except dire terror and absolute intimi- 
 dation — intimidation to such an extent that he was 
 fearful for his life and for his existence. Your Lord- 
 ships will find, when I come to work this out by evi- 
 dence, that, unless the organization was prepared to go 
 the length of saying, " You occupy that land on peril 
 of your life," it would have ceased to be an effective 
 organization, and I shall show that these gentlemen 
 who spoke, and their agents who, with their know- 
 ledge, were advocating the steps to which I have re- 
 ferred, did practically indicate to their hearers that 
 they were not to allow any person to be so base, such 
 a brute, such a criminal, such a loathsome object as to 
 remain in possession or take possession of an 
 evicted farm ; and those individuals who thought fit 
 to take possession of an evicted farm were subjected 
 to grievous outrages, and were, not infrequently, 
 murdered. The actual date at which we suggest this 
 organization came into existence was at the end of the 
 year 1879. And who were the founders of the Land 
 League ? Your Lordships will find that the president 
 was Mr. Parnell ; the secretaries were Mr. Kettle, 
 Mr. Davitt, and a man named Brennan ; the treasurers 
 were Mr. Biggar.Mr. 0'Sullivan,and Mr. Patrick Egau. 
 Your Lordships will probably know, from the enumera- 
 tion of the names, that those are men whose names 
 recur frequently in the pages of " Parnellism and 
 Crime." I shall have to say a great deal as to what 
 has become of these men, where they are now, anJ where 
 they have been since certain material dates, but 
 Brennan, Egan, and some others practically have not 
 been in this country since a date in 1883, to which I 
 shall call attention. Now, my Lords, these leaders of 
 the Land League employed and engaged organizers to 
 go through the length and breadth of Ireland, and I 
 shall mention to your Lordships the names of some 
 organizers who were employed by the Land League, 
 and who, I shall ask your Lordships to come to the 
 conclusion, were without doubt paid by the Laud 
 League; and who had no other visible means of 
 existence ; some of whom abandoned other occupations 
 for the purpose of becoming Land League organizers 
 and agitators. I shall mention some of the principal 
 names in connexion with that part of the work which 
 was essential to be performed in order that the con- 
 spiracy or organization might be effective ; P. J. 
 Sheridan, who was a pnblichouse keeper at Tubbep 
 curry, and was one of the principal organizers in the 
 west ; Mr. J. Boyton, the son of a Leinster shopkeeper 
 at « place called Eath-na-Qlen ; P. J. Gordon, who 
 was a shoemaker in county Mayo ; J. W. Nally, who 
 had so fixed occupation ; Matthew Harris, now a 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 19 
 
 member of Parliament, but then a builder at Balli- 
 nasloe ; J. W. Walsh, a commercial traveller; T. 
 Brennan, a secretary ; a man named Kelly, who wa9 
 an organizer in Tralee ; J. P. Quinn ; and a school- 
 master of the name of Sullivan. I do not wish to 
 speak positively, because there may be a mistake as 
 to some one or two ; but I believe that, without ex- 
 ception, these men had no practical interest in this 
 land question. They were organizers for the Land 
 League with the knowledge of Mr. Parnell, of Mr. 
 Dillon, of Mr. J. O'Connor, and of Mr. Redmond, 
 mentioning those which come first into my mind, and 
 of many others whose names I shall enumerate.. I 
 shall prove before your Lordships that the work of 
 the Land League during the years 1881 and 1882 was the 
 starting of branches in every part of Ireland where 
 there was the least chance of their influence being 
 felt, for the purpose of rendering it impossible for 
 landlords in that district to collect their rents or 
 making it absolutely impossible for any land from 
 which any tenant had been evicted to be occupied by 
 any man, and providing for the punishment of 
 those who were rash or courageous enough to resist 
 the influence and intimidation of the League. 
 About the same time — namely, about the beginning of 
 1880 — Mr. Parnell visited America. He went with Mr. 
 Dillon, and it will be proved that his expenses .were 
 paid by the Land League. It is not a very material 
 matter, but there are several matters in connexion with 
 the relations between Mr. Parnell and others of his 
 party and those in America which make it not unim- 
 portant that the way in which these expeditions to 
 America were conducted should be proved before, your 
 Lordships. I think it will appear Clearly that from 
 that date there was for a long time harmonious action 
 between the American section and the Land League at 
 home, and for this reason, that the American section 
 were satisfied that their aims and objects would be 
 effected by those who were keeping up what they 
 termed the war against England, and who were making 
 reprisals against those who occupied land contrary to 
 the will of the Land League. The fact is that the 
 Irish nation were constantly spoken of as being at war 
 with the English nation— a war being carried on against 
 the tenants who would not carry out the behests of the 
 Land League — a war in which the landlords who were 
 murdered were treated as victims in what - were spoken 
 of as the victories obtained by the Irish over the Eng- 
 lish nation. Your Lordships will find on the evidence 
 that Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon, the envoys to 
 America, were in communication with Devoy,a convicted 
 Fenian, and also with a man named Walsh ; and shortly 
 after Mr. Parnell went to America there was formed 
 an American branch of the Land League, of whom a 
 very considerable number of members were either 
 selected, nominated, or recommended by Mr. Parnell 
 himself. That Mr. Parnell had a greatdeal to do .with the 
 formation of the American Land League, if my instruc- 
 tions are correct, there can be no sort of doubt. 
 Who was doing the work of the Land League at home ? 1 
 
 have mentioned Egan,who was the treasurer in conjunc- 
 tion with Mr. Biggar, and Mr. Davitt and Mr. Brennan 
 were secretaries ; but in the beginning of 1881 Mr. Davitt 
 was arrested, and then occurred an event of very con- 
 siderable importance, to which, in connexion with certain 
 other matters, I direct your Lordships' especial attention. 
 It was about the same time that the warrant for the 
 apprehension of Mr. Egan was issued, at the beginning 
 of the year 1881, in connexion with charges of the 
 same kind as those in respect of which Sheridan had 
 been arrested. The warrant was issued under the 
 Special Act in force under which the Habeas Corpus 
 Act was suspended. The result of the warrant being is- 
 sued was that Mr. Egan left the country and went to 
 Paris — I am referring merely to the beginning of 1881. 
 On Mr. Egan going to Paris, from time to time a con- 
 siderable number of the other leading members of the 
 Land League were found in Paris with him. Mr. 
 Parnell was there, Mr. Matthew Harris was there, Mr. 
 O'Leary, whom I have not before mentioned, was there, 
 and some others were there. The mere fact of people 
 going to Paris is nothing ; they may go there for 
 pleasure or a thousand things, but in connexion with 
 what I shall have to lay before your Lordships, I shall 
 submit to your Lordships that the reason why Mr. Egan 
 was in Paris in 1881 was because it was not safe for him 
 to remain either in Ireland or in England. There will 
 be some evidence forthcoming as to what was the 
 business which took Mr. Egan to Paris, and Mr. Matthew 
 Harris, and Mr. O'Leary, and Mr. Parnell, and some 
 others. So far as I know, Mr. Matthew Harris was 
 nothing more than an organizer of the Land League. 
 Beyond all question, I think Matthew Harris was 
 in communication with Mr. Egan at this time as an 
 organizer of the Land League, and for no other 
 purpose. I shall also be able to show that Matthew 
 Harris was drawing considerable sums of money fronr 
 Mr. Egan, sometimes as much as £20 or £30 at a time, 
 I am not at present dealing with the question how that 
 money was expended, but am simply giving the outlines 
 of the evidence, on which I shall ask your Lordships to 
 come to the conclusion that Mr. Harris, Mr. Egan, 
 Mr. Parnell, and others to whom I have referred were 
 in Paris on the business of the same conspiracy of the 
 same organization which had previously been carried 
 on in Dublin, and your Lordships will also find, I be- 
 lieve, that during this time Egan continued to be the 
 treasurer of the Land League. There may be some ex- 
 planation of this meeting in Paris of which wo have no 
 idea. I am only indicating what I am prepared to 
 prove. At about the same time certain correspondence 
 passed which was put in evidence at the last trial, and 
 some of that correspondence—all of it, in fact — I shall 
 have to put in evidence before your Lordships, and I 
 wish to refer to one or two letters. On the 24th of 
 February, 1881, Egan being in Paris, this letter was 
 written by him. I am not at present able to tell your 
 Lordships to whom.although full information will pro- 
 bably be given in the course of the inquiry. The letter 
 was in these terms :— 
 
 The SDeech of the Attorney-General 
 
20 
 
 The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 " 24th Feb. 1881 
 " My dear Friend — Write under cover to Madame J 
 Kouyer 99 Avenue de Villiers. Mr. Parnell is here and 
 will remain for about a week. I have spoken to him 
 about farther advance for the ' A ' fund, he has no ob- 
 jection and you may count upon it. All goes well. We 
 have met Mr O'L and other friends who are here, and 
 all are agreed that prompt and decisive action is called 
 for. ' Xrs vy faithfully P. Egan." 
 
 My Lords, I notice in reading the shorthand note of the 
 preliminary proceedings before your Lordships, that Sir 
 Charles Russell said that I suggested that the "A" fund 
 was an assassination fund. I did nothing of the kind. 
 I said distinctly that I did not know what the " A " 
 fund referred to ; but this I did say, that if Mr. Egan's 
 presence in Paris was for an innocent purpose, I asked 
 why it was necessary to write, not direct to him, but 
 to write under cover to the person whose name is given. 
 And I also call your Lordships' attention to the refer- 
 ence to " O'L, and other friends who are here, and 
 all are agreed that prompt and decisive action is 
 called for." On the 3d of February Davitt was 
 arrested ; on the 15th of March Sheridan was arrested. 
 What we suggest to your Lordships is that the ' ' prompt 
 and decisive action called for" was the continuing of 
 the agitation in the parts of Ireland where the power 
 of the League was not already so powerful as they 
 wished it to be, and it refers to steps to be taken by 
 Sheridan and other organizers for the purpose of 
 making the power of this conspiracy paramount where- 
 ever they could, and to enforce its decrees in the way 
 to which I have already referred. There are certain 
 other letters which passed in the same way, but which 
 I do not wish to read just now, as they are not material 
 except with reference to handwriting. Of course, 
 I do not know at the present time what case is 
 going to be made with regard to these letters of 
 Mr. Egan. Whether it is going to be suggested 
 that they are forgeries or not. If so, your Lordships 
 will have to inquire into that. If they are forgeries, 
 there are four or five people whose handwriting has 
 been forged. If they are genuine letters, I shall ask 
 your Lordships to come to the conclusion that Egan 
 was in Paris consorting with persons named in the 
 particulars for the purpose of carrying on the business 
 of the Land League, of the conspiracy, or whatever 
 it may be called ; further than that, my Lords, that 
 the presence of this man at the time that certain events 
 were going on in Ireland and the receipt of moneys from 
 Mr. Egan by Mr. Harris at this time show that the 
 position of Mr. Harris was that which I have indicated 
 as being an organizer of the Land League, and a person 
 who was carrying out the particular line of conduct 
 which I have suggested. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. On 
 its re-assembling, 
 
 The Attorney-General continued,— When your 
 Lordships adjourned I had read that letter from Egan 
 of the 24th of February, 1881, and mentioned that I 
 should put in other letters which passed in 1881 with 
 reference to Mr. Parnell being in Paris, and showing 
 
 that Egan was in Paris at the same time. They are 
 only really of importance as to subsequent questions of 
 handwriting. I can very briefly pass over incidents of 
 1S81 until I have touched that part of the subject which 
 relates to what was being done by the Land League and 
 those who are mentioned in the particulars during the 
 years 1880 and 1881. I desire to break the story by 
 giving first a statement as to what was going on prior 
 to the time that Mr. Parnell was in prison, and showing 
 what was being done after Mr. Parnell and certain 
 others were in prison. In August, 1881, United Ireland 
 was started. It was edited by Mr. William O'Brien, 
 and Mr. Egan and Mr. Parnell were the principal share- 
 holders. It absorbed three other papers known as the 
 Irishman, the Flag of Ireland, and the Shamrock. I am 
 not quite sure whether one of those did not continue 
 for some time as a separate paper, published nnder the 
 same direction as United Ireland. From the month of 
 August, 1881, United Ireland was to a great extent one 
 of the recognized organs of the Land League and its 
 organization. I have told your Lordships that it was on 
 the 13th of October that Mr. Parnell was arrested 
 and put in Kilmainham, with other suspects, whose 
 names will come up in relation to later inci- 
 dents. I am now anxious to make good at 
 once what I may call the history of the doings of the 
 Land. League, prior to the time that Mr. Parnell was 
 put in prison. I admit that the task is one of very 
 considerable difficulty, because of the enormous mass 
 of matter which will have to be put in evidence before 
 your Lordships. You will notice by the particulars a 
 very large number of speeches. It would be absurd 
 for me to occupy time by reading the whole of those 
 speeches to your Lordships. I propose, therefore, to 
 take certain counties, and instead of merely multiplying 
 the number of speeches and of outrages, I propose 
 to bring before your Lordships as directly as I can what 
 were the speeches being made to which practically all 
 the gentlemen to whom I have referred were parties, 
 in which some of them took part, and what was the 
 consequence of those speeches. I propose to begin with 
 the county of Galway, though I shall refer to Mayo, 
 Clare, Kerry, and possibly Cork, unless it may become 
 unnecessary, in the course of making clear my state- 
 ment. In the first place, I will give your Lordships the 
 general features of what I am going to show. I am 
 going to show, in a large number of instances, the, 
 practically speaking, quiet state of things prior to the 
 delivery of these speeches. I shall show your Lordships, 
 by overwhelming testimony, that concurrently with the 
 delivery of the speeches and following directly thereon 
 outrages increased both in number and violence, the 
 police force being required enormously to be increased, 
 and, in fact, the ordinary relations between the autho« 
 rities and those who lived in the parts named were abso- 
 lutely disturbed and completely disrupted. Further, I 
 shall show that there were practised on the people 
 who had offended against the decrees of the League, who 
 had not carried out what was supposed to be the law of 
 the League, punishments of the most cruel, vindictive. 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 21 
 
 and disgraceful character. I mentioned to your Lordships 
 before the adjournment that one of the main tenets of 
 the Land League was that no vacated land must be 
 taken possession of without the consent of the Land 
 League. Now, I ask your Lordships to let me picture 
 the state of Galway in 1880. Your Lordships will be 
 able to observe whether I have unduly exaggerated the 
 matter when I read a series of speeches which 
 occurred in Galway in 1880 and 1881, and when I de- 
 scribe the condition of the county before and after 
 those speeches were made. I will in no case, as far as I 
 know, read a speech except those which were made by 
 those who were the recognized organizers of the Land 
 League, or who were persons actually named in the 
 particulars, or of persons for whose conduct I shall be 
 able to show that the persons named in the particulars 
 were responsible. I shall call your attention to 
 speeches made in Galway. 
 
 Sir O. Russell. — My Lords, I ask for copies of the 
 speechesfrom which the Attorney-General is reading. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — As far as I can I will 
 hand to my learned friend copies of the speeches 
 which I read. 
 
 SirC. Russell.— Justice requires that we should 
 have the speeches from which only passages are read, 
 or other speeches by the same persons, which might 
 qualify what the Attorney-General relies upon. 
 
 The President. — I cannot tell anything about that. 
 I can only deal with what the Attorney-General puts in. 
 There must be another copy of these speeches, and it 
 could be printed by to-morrow morning along with the 
 reporter's notes. 
 
 Sir C. RUS3ELL. — I was asking my learned friend 
 not merely for the extracts, but for a copy of the 
 speeches which I see are here in large volumes. 
 
 The President. — I understand that the Attorney- 
 General is willing to supply a copy. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My Lord, lam opening my 
 case, and I appeal to your Lordship's experience as to 
 what is usual. I say that as I open the case, I will of 
 course hand a copy of each speech that I propose to 
 read at the time to my learned friend. 
 
 The President.— The Attorney-General is entitled to 
 open his case, and if he does so improperly he will be 
 responsible. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My Lord, I am responsible 
 for the manner in which I open my case. This is a 
 speech at Glennamaddy by Mr. Nally, a well-known 
 organizer of the Land League. On the 16th of May, 
 1880, he proposed a resolution declaring that they 
 would regard a land-grabber' as the enemy of their 
 country, and pledging themselves never to occupy a farm 
 from which a tenant has been evicted or surrendered 
 for non-payment of rent. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I do not find this speech 
 enumerated in the particulars given, and I do not see 
 anything in my friend's statement so far to connect any 
 of the persons who are scheduled as persons here 
 incriminated as having been present at this meeting or 
 taken part in it. Nor do I gather that these speeches, 
 
 of which this is an example, have been set out by the 
 defendants in " O'Donnell v. Walter " as being docu- 
 ments in their possession. 
 
 The President. — I should not interfere with the 
 Attorney-General's discretion in opening the case. In 
 addition to that, this will be much better reserved for 
 the discussion which I am afraid you are going to raise 
 to-morrow morning. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I gladly end the discussion if it is 
 inconvenient. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I have not shown any 
 undue sensitiveness at the interruptions of my learned 
 friend. I have a responsibility in opening this case. 
 If my learned friend has the courtesy to listen I am 
 going to show that this man is one whose services 
 both Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon pointedly referred to. 
 The President. — The Attorney-General must be 
 allowed to open the case in his own manner. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Mr. Nally proposed a 
 resolution pledging themselves never to occupy the 
 farm from which a tenant had been evicted, or which 
 had been surrendered for non-payment of rent. He 
 said that — 
 
 " They should join together in the hillside and 
 valley and everywhere until they get rid of that 
 accursed, hated system of landlordism. Come forward, 
 then, like men, and put those blasted landlords in the 
 same position as they themselves have been for a 
 number of years. What I come here for is this— to say 
 that every one amongst you will join the Land League 
 until we put away landlordism and every ' ism ; ' I 
 don't care a damn about all 'isms.' It is well 
 known in this country that against landlordism I will 
 work tooth and nail, and until I see those scoundrels 
 called landlords banished in oblivion." 
 At the same meeting John Kelly spoke. He said : — 
 
 "If the people were but loyal they would soon 
 manage the landlords. I mean if a man was evicted 
 that no man would meddle with his laud . . . and 
 make him a black sheep in the parish. They may 
 return members to Parliament, but we can have a 
 Parliament at home by establishing branches of the 
 Land League. Let the land be left waste. Let him 
 that does be pointed out at market and fair. Let no 
 one buy or sell with him. The chief object of this 
 meeting is to put down tyrants." 
 
 Mr. Kilmartin spoke, and I shall prove that he was 
 frequently on the platform and made speeches with 
 many gentlemen mentioned in the particulars. He said : — ■ 
 " Join the Land League ; never take a farm from 
 which a man is evicted. Ostracize the villain who 
 would do such a thing. There is not a greater criminal 
 ever swung on a gallows than the man who would take 
 that land. Point to him as he goes the road, and say, 
 ' Behold the villain.' Would you not hunt a mad dog 
 from society ? The desperate villain who would bid 
 for the land is 50 times worse than the mad dog. 
 With regard to rack-rent, where is the tenant who is 
 not rack-rented ? Offer a fair rent, and if they don't 
 take it put it in your pocket." 
 
 Mr. Fitzpatrick spoke. He said :— " What »ia 
 the end proposed to you by Chas. S. Parnell, 
 the uncrowned prince of Ireland ? Keep a firm 
 grip of your holdings, feed your wife and children 
 
 The Sneech of the Attorney-General. 
 
22 
 
 The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 first, and the landlord after." On the 25th of 
 July, 1880, in the same year, at Milltown, in connty 
 Galway, Thomas Brennan and Mr. P. J. Gordon, one of 
 the organizers of the Land League, spoke. He said 
 an onslaught had been made on the system which de- 
 grades labour in Ireland. (Great groans, and cries of 
 " Down with them," " To hell with them," " Card 
 them.") I shall show the importance of " Card them " 
 by and bye. " That system is not dead, but we shall con- 
 tinue to strike until we bring about a state of affairs 
 when labour shall be the recognized system. We are in 
 open insurrection against landlordism." The speaker 
 then referred to a local landlord, whom, however, he 
 did not name. The omission was supplied by some one 
 in the crowd, and at the mention of his name (Mr. 
 Bodkin) there was groaning, and a voice said " The 
 coffin is too short for him, his legs must be cut." I 
 shall have to describe an outrage in this particular 
 district very shortly following this meeting. The speaker 
 continued, " When I say ' Ireland a nation ' I mean 
 something more than a green flag flying from Dublin 
 Castle. The highest form of Government is a Republic. 
 You may establish an Irish Republic on Irish soil." 
 Your Lordships will find running through all these 
 speeches that element of which I spoke this morning 
 as being the element which joined together the 
 American branch of the organization with the other 
 branches of the organization, as being a determination 
 to complete separation from England. Mr. P. J. 
 Gordon said they were assembled to denounce the 
 landlords who had plundered them of their lands, 
 determined to denounce the land robber : — 
 
 " If they are determined to keep a firm grip of their 
 homes they will not allow Bodkin to drive them from 
 their homes. He carried out a poor, unfortunate woman; 
 there was no crime against her but following the 
 doctrine laid down by C. S. Parnell, and that doctrine 
 I will preach to yon, that every man and woman shall 
 keep a firm grip on the land. If I were evicted I would 
 say, Oh, God ! you have created this land for me, and 
 sooner than die a victim I will die on the spot. If you 
 die iu the workhouse you have no one to go to your 
 funeral (groans for John Barrett, the robber). If you 
 fight, fight for the land of your country ; if you draw 
 a sword you would not be begging yellow meal. You 
 will get measures by determination ; as Mr. Gladstone 
 said, the only measures given to Ireland were given 
 by the Fenians. I do not want you to give a 
 blow of a stone to the landlords, but you may 
 do it if you like. If your land were taken to- 
 morrow, would you not harbour revenge in your 
 bosom ? Let there be no scoundrel among you to 
 take land. Have the curse of God on such a man." 
 
 The speaker then alluded, by name, to a land-grabber 
 named Billy M'Hugh, and told the people they knew 
 him, to shun him, and have no connexion with him. 
 He advised the people to watch every man who will 
 dare to take a scythe " to cut the grass on evicted 
 fa/ms," and voices from the crowd said, " We will 
 cut the hands off him ; we will cut the elbows off 
 him." The reason why I refer to these interruptions is 
 for the purpose of showing how these speeches were 
 understood by the crowd. How they were understood 
 
 will become self-evident when I come to read the story 
 of the outrages afterwards. Your Lordships will find 
 that persons' ears have been cut off, and other outrages 
 perpetrated upon those who were named by the 
 speakers at these meetings. The speaker then referred 
 to some pending evictions on the property of Mr. Sey- 
 mour, whom he also named and told the people to stick 
 to the cabin ; if they were good soldiers, the Land 
 League would help them. If they were cowardly dogs, 
 the League would not recognize them. " God says it is 
 better for one tyrant to fall than that many should 
 perish." " Keep a firm grip of the land ; the man who 
 dies under that system of robbery is a sneak, not a 
 man." Then J. W. Nally, another speaker at the same 
 meeting, said : — " Why do you allow land-grabbers to 
 live ; why do you allow them to exist ? The only way 
 I want you to put them from existence is this — don'i 
 speak to them, leave their corn and meadows uncut, 
 and they will commit suicide without the pills." My 
 Lords, I shall by and bye be able to show your Lord- 
 ships, from other speeches of Nally, that the " pills " 
 referred to here are bullets, or shots, with which the 
 land-grabbers are to be shot. The speaker went on to 
 say — " Without unity and organization we cannot get 
 rid of that blasted system of landlordism. Mind the 
 land-grabbers." On the 19th of September of the same 
 year a meeting was held at Riversville, county Gal- 
 way, at which Mr. Mat Harris, M.P., was present— my 
 learned friend will find the names of all the members 
 of Parliament present at these meetings in the parties 
 lais furnished to him. At that meeting Mr. M. M. 
 O'Sullivan spoke, and he said they were assembled to 
 stamp upon the land-grabber " the indelible stigma of 
 public abhorrence." Where the land-grabber existed 
 they should meet together to denounce him. (Cries 
 of " Maim him," " Shoot him.") The speaker did not 
 rebuke these expressions, but merely said, " No, do 
 not speak to him at all ; if he goes into chapel make 
 a ring round him, that everybody may see him. 
 Mr. Murty Hynes is destined to have his name, 
 written in history with a very questionable, in fact, 
 unenviable, notoriety. The only way that Mr. Murty 
 can retrieve his name is to come upon this spot where 
 we are standing and give up this farm." Now,myLords, 
 I wish to point out that Murty Hynes did give up the 
 farm, and that a man named Dempsey, who took it 
 after him, was shot dead for no other reason whatever. 
 The speaker, in continuing, referred to the eviction of 
 the chairman of the meeting from his holding on the 
 property of Mr. Persse, of Roxborough, whom the 
 speaker named and called him a traitor to the cause. 
 He said " Let him be among you a marked man, a man 
 upon whom every man will look as if traitor was marked 
 with a brand on his forehead. Will you not thus mark 
 him ? Keep him with that brand on his forehead till 
 he comes and makes restitution. I promise him that, 
 though to-day I have restrained my tongue, for if I l e t 
 it free the hideousness of the act would canse me to 
 say words that may be harmful to the cause I advo- 
 cate." Mr. Matthew Harris, M.P., in speaking at the 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 23 
 
 same meeting, denounced Lord Dunsandle,who, he said, 
 should be held up to public opprobrium. Had they 
 made the country too hot for him in the sense of a 
 country being too hot for the man who is hated by the 
 people, the exterminations which had taken place on 
 his property would never have taken place. He com- 
 pared the landlords to the Indian tiger, and said that 
 when a bad one, his agent or bailiff came to a dis- 
 trict to put people out of their peaceable homes, they 
 should all congregate as people do in Bengal and drive 
 that worst of tigers from their midst. He also 
 denounced the Persaes of Galway, especially Burton 
 Persse, whom he warned that the people " would not 
 put up with his oppressions any longer." He referred 
 to the grabbing ot the farm by Marty Hynes and said 
 that if he did not give it up he would find the public 
 feeling not alone against him, but against every 
 member of his breed. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell.— I should like to point out that 
 Dempsey was not Bhot until more than a twelvemonth 
 after these speeches were delivered. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — 1 am going to mention 
 the date when Dempsey was shot. I must remind my 
 learned friend that I am now merely opening the case. 
 If he will refer to the pamphlet called " Parnellism 
 and Crime " he will find the whole story told in it. 
 Your Lordships will judge how far that interruption was 
 called for, and how far it was necessary to correct any 
 statement I have made. It is quite true that Dempsey 
 was not shot until a year after, but Marty Hynes did 
 not give ap the farm for some time, and when Dempsey 
 took it after he had given it up he was shot for simply 
 taking a piece of vacant land. I was about to say, 
 when my learned friend interrupted me, if I may be 
 allowed to resume the story I was telling, that on the 
 19th of September of the same year, at a meeting at 
 Kilcouly, P. J. Gordon said that a Judge of Assize had 
 observed " that the law was made clear that every man 
 is bound to protect himself, even in taking down of the 
 life of another." " If that is good law," said the 
 speaker, " I say the tenants ought to adopt it. I tell 
 yon to resist tyranny, even at the cost of your life ; 
 it is better to die fighting than die in the workhouse. 
 I will ask you again to proclaim to-day, as honest men 
 before God, not to give up your land without a 
 struggle. Have no bowing and scraping before these 
 land-robbers and land bastards that surround this 
 locality. Three cheers for O'Leary and Rafferty, and 
 three cheers for every honest Fenian in Ireland. 
 (Cheers.) If you are an honest Irishman you must be 
 a Fenian ; if there is an honest Irishman that says, ' I 
 wish to see my country free, 'he must be a Fenian." 
 My Lords, I have heard it suggested in connexion with 
 this kind of agitation that the leaders of the Land 
 League were protecting people from outrages, but I do 
 not think that my learned friend, withall his research, 
 with the immense stock of information at his disposal, 
 will be able to point to a case where the leaders of 
 the Land League have ever interfered topreventaperson 
 who was called a land-grabber from being boycotted or 
 
 intimidated, or, if the local branch of the Land League 
 thought it neoessary that he should be murdered, from his 
 lifebeing sacrificed. Of course, my learned friend will be 
 perfectly entitled to show, if he can do so, that the 
 picture I am presenting to you is inaccurate, but at 
 present I am merely speaking from the information I 
 have before me. On the 26th of September of the same 
 year a meeting was held at Clonbar, in the county 
 of Galway, at which were present James Redpath, 
 the correspondent of the Irish World newspaper, 
 published in New York ; J. W. Nally, to whom I 
 have already referred ; and P. J. Gordon. The extract 
 I have before me of Red path's 'speech is to this 
 effect : — *' The Southern States hate the English 
 Government. Do the English people know the hatred 
 that is against them in Ireland ? (J. W. Nally. — 
 ' Cheers for the Irish Republic.') " P. J. Gordon 
 said : — " If you take the bayonet and sword I am with 
 
 fou. If 30,000 men wonld join and strike one deadly blow 
 ou will be asked to do so. The English Government 
 is guilty of murder and robbery. Organize, morn, noon, 
 and night. Hold a firm grip of your homesteads. Keep 
 the harvest. Form secret societies." What are these 
 secret societies to be formed for — against whom are 
 these speeches directed ? The more these people 
 imagined they were suffering from wrongs, the 
 greater, I submit, was the wickedness of those who 
 endeavoured to stir them up to acts such as those 
 indicated in the speeches I am now reading to your 
 Lordships. On the 10th of October, at Clerhaun, at a 
 meeting at which were present P. J. Gordon, R. D. 
 Walsh, and J. W. Nally, P. J. Gordon called upon the 
 people not to take an evicted farm, and said if any of 
 them should do so he would " pray that he shall send 
 himself to perdition." He referred to Mr. Murray 
 M'Greggor, of Blackeree, as a land-grabber, and 
 abused two other landlords, Mr. Bourke, of Ower, and 
 Mr. Browne, of Clarne. A reference to land-grabbing 
 provoked the interference of J. W. Nally, who 
 observed that they should take him very quietly away ; 
 they knew where to put him. Gordon went on to say 
 that Murty Hynes threw up the farm he had taken 
 because the people assembled in their thousands, 
 tumbled the ditches, and scattered the wall. R. D. 
 Walsh, who was present as " the representative of the 
 Irish National League," said he had asked Mr. 
 Hackett to join the League and that he (Hackett) 
 replied, " No, get out." Walsh then called upon the 
 people not to go into his house, because he is 
 a tyrant. He also called for three cheers for Allen, 
 Larkin, and O'Brien. These latter were the men who 
 were tried, convicted, and hung for the murder of 
 Sergeant Brett at Manchester, and for the relief of 
 whose families and of those who had suffered for 
 similar outrages the Martyrs' Fund was started . The 
 speaker went on to say : — 
 
 " If the men here to-day do not do something for 
 their country, their sons will curse their memory. I 
 am one of those who believe in the amelioration of 
 Ireland with the sword ; still, I say, let all be combined 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
24 
 
 The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 ind united first— missing— I say if you combine and 
 organize and educate yourselves, the day is not tar 
 distant when the sun of liberty shall shine over your 
 heads, and you shall rise before the world a glorious 
 oation." 
 
 J. W. Nally said that for any man who took an evicted 
 farm they should " come for the pills, and pills only." 
 (Voice, " Holloway's ointment.") " That (the oint- 
 ment) is too mild, when the pills will go they will 
 want no ointment." "Without organization we cannot get 
 total separation from that hated, detested, and 
 blasted Government that we are under at present." 
 He then referred by name to certain persons whom he 
 accused with grabbing— viz., Bottrell, Pat Davis, 
 John Tully, Keane, Keating, and J. Casy. (Voice. — 
 " We have another name, Hackett.") He implored the 
 people to join the Land League ; and said ho had 
 seen Father Conway, who jumped with joy when 
 he told him he was coming to that meeting, and 
 said, " Light was wanted in that country." (A voice* 
 — " Christians will tell that, boys.") He had also met 
 Father Corbett in Claremorris, who told him to come 
 there, break down every door, and let in the light. 
 At a meeting held at Abbeykoockmoy, county Galway, 
 Bn the 30th of October of the same year, P. J. Gordon 
 referred by name to a landlord, Eobert Henry, of 
 Togher, whom he called a land-robber and land-shark, and 
 whose name, he said, sunk deep into his heart. He 
 taid : — 
 
 " When I see before me the motto of that independent 
 aation, the stars and stripes, I hope and trust that the 
 nay will yet arrive when the stars and stripes will 
 float on the hill tops of Ireland. (Cheers.) Some one 
 might say that Gordon came here because he is well 
 paid for it. I am not under any obligation to the 
 National League or to you. I am well paid if the 
 land-shark is crushed to the earth. Let none of you 
 take a farm from which another has been evicted. On 
 this day week I attended a meeting at Clonbur. I got 
 a telegram from Father Conway. When I arrived 
 there I had the pleasure of hearing that some great 
 land-robber was murdered, or shot himself. The 
 Government of England were murmuring because 
 Mountmorres was shot. He denounced one D. B. 
 Leonard (a landlord) as the ' devil's bochel.' The 
 Judges of Ireland are well paid, because the more 
 crime is committed, the more pay they get for it." 
 
 That is the first time I have ever heard that view put 
 forward as to the manner in which Judges are paid, 
 (A laugh.) What the Land League and its supporters 
 meant by being thoroughly organized was that the 
 Land League should be paramount. There is no neces- 
 sity for further organization when everybody obeys the 
 decrees of the Land League. Gordon went on to say : — 
 " Although I am not here as a representative of the 
 League in person, I represent the League in form 
 throughout the country. Let every man and woman 
 join it. Until Ireland is proclaimed a nation I shall 
 work by day and write and plot by night. England is 
 here only as a robber. There are land-sharks in this 
 village ; treat them as you would a mad dog. Murty 
 Hynes took a farm, and when he found that the people 
 were hallooing him he gave it up, and to-day I had the 
 
 pleasure of distributing 100 copies of the song com- 
 posed for Murty Hynes." At the conclusion of this 
 speaker's speech cheers were called for him, and as 
 the reporter states, there was " great cheering." 
 Father Cahill and Father Eglinton were also present at 
 this meeting. John Hanly, another speaker, said : — 
 " You Have a young man at the bank of the parish 
 who owns a property worth from £7,000 to £8,000 a 
 year, and who admits he has a capital of £200,000 saved 
 since he got the property. (A voice.—' He wants the 
 steel.') He does not, he would not, even give one 
 farthing abatement to his tenantry. (A voice. — ' Why 
 don't they shoot him 1 ') He is the man that says he 
 cannot afford to pay an agent with his £8,000 a year. 
 (Groans, and cries of ' Walter Blake.') I say this here 
 to-day, that the man who will go either to Galway or 
 Mountbellew to pay in his rent to Walter Blake, I say 
 on his way home that he may get what they call the 
 Irish ' fearagurthok.' (Great cheers.) He does not 
 know who he is making the money for. (A voice. — 
 ' For the devil.') He will die like Croesus. He will 
 ask at the eleventh hour, give me a bit of gold to put 
 into my mouth, in order to put into the cofQn. (Voices. 
 — ' He won't get time ; may be it's a bit of steel he 
 will ask.') I tell Irishmen not to go out excep.t at the 
 point of the bayonet, and don't go out all if you die ; 
 die at the point of the bayonet." I wish to draw 
 your Lordships' particular attention to this reference 
 to Walter Blake, because I shall have to describe to 
 you presently the circumstances under which he was 
 shot. On December 19, 1880, at Ahascragh, in county 
 Galway, Mr. Matthew Harris and Mr. Thomas Griffin 
 were the speakers. The latter gentleman advised the 
 farmers " to go in a body to their landlord, to stand 
 before his office window and tell him to come out, and 
 ask him why he brought them there. If he refused to 
 take the rent at Griffith's valuation they should keep it 
 and bank it. It. was impossible for a landlord to crow 
 over his tenants even if he had all the British 
 bayonets at his back." The speaker then related what 
 had occurred at Gurteen on the day previous to the 
 meeting. He said there were four tenants on the pro- 
 perty of the late Major O'Reilly who had paid more 
 tha» Griffith's valuation. ' Well, we summoned them 
 to appear before the Land League executive ; they 
 came as submissive, they told us they acted in 
 ignorance, one was fined 4s., another 3s., another 2s., 
 another Is.' " This, my' Lords, is not the only instance 
 of the League summoning these unfortunate tenants to 
 appear and fining them because they have not complied 
 with its decrees. Mr. Mat Harris on the same occasion 
 said " he thought it might be in his power to get into 
 the English House of Commons, but he would consider 
 he was degrading himself as an Irishman if he entered 
 that House." Circumstances, however, have occurred 
 since which induced Mr. Mat Harris to enter the House 
 of Commons. He went on, to say that " he wanted to 
 crush down bad men, and it was a mistake on the part 
 of the tenants of Lord Clonbrock and Mr. Mahon to 
 think tbev were coming there to denounce any man. Ho 
 
 The Sneech of the Attorney-General 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 25 
 
 did not come there to hound down any good man, 
 because they had enough of these vile exterminators. 
 They had enough to denounce." He then referred to 
 Judge Fitzgerald's charge to the grand jury at assizes, 
 and to that Judge's observations regarding the action 
 of the people " in taking a widow in the town of 
 Askeaton and putting her back into her place." The 
 speaker said that Judge Fitzgerald had declared this 
 act to be a heinous crime, and his advice to the people 
 was, "Long may you continue to violate the Judge 
 Fitzgerald's charge." On March 17, 1881, at 
 Loughrea, in county Galway, Mr. Dillon made a 
 speech in which he said that " the only way to break 
 down the power of landlordism and to redace rack- 
 ■ents was to maintain the rule by which a man who 
 goes and speaks alone and treats alone with his land- 
 lord will be looked upon as a traitor, and that he and 
 his children afterwards will be considered such by the 
 neighbours he has betrayed. We never told you we 
 would face the police and prevent evictions by force. 
 On the contrary, we told you from the beginning that 
 we could not do that, because we have not got the 
 means, and the armed men, and the discipline to do 
 it. In many an Irish county some 50 farms were lying 
 idle, and which no Irishman can be found base enough 
 to put his foot in. These farms are warnings to _ the 
 Irish landlords and a protection to the tenant. I tell 
 you here to-day that the day which sees these farms 
 occupied, and which sees you and any tenant on friendly 
 terms, or having any dealings with the wretch who 
 occupies an evicted farm, will see the ruin of your 
 cause, and the yoke of landlordism on your necks. 
 The advice which I would give you is this — Do not 
 allow, do not consent to pay an unjust rent until you 
 are compelled to do it. Remember, above all things, 
 that whatever you do, whatever decision you come to, 
 whatever terms you are prepared to offer to the land- 
 lord, the tenantry on every estate shall do the same 
 thing together, and no man shall be so base or 
 traitorous as to go and make arrangements for himself 
 without consulting his fellow tenants and not acting in 
 common with them. I appeal to the young men of 
 Galway especially to show a bold front to those tyrants 
 (landlords). Teach them that the Irish race is rising 
 all over the earth to-day ; teach them that there is a 
 power still in the Irish race to destroy Irish land- 
 lordism, and win back the fair fields of Ireland for 
 the people from whom they have too long been kept." 
 Sour Lordships can appeciate, I think, the effsot of 
 such speeches upon ignorant and half-educated men. 
 On March 20, 1881, Mr. Mat Harris, speaking at 
 Galway, said : — 
 
 " When men scatter ejectments in all directions,- I 
 say that not only we are bound to denounce them, but 
 we would be morally wrong if we shut our eyes upon 
 them. No man should bring forward crime, but when 
 crime does come it is the duty of every gentleman to 
 crush that crime. A great cry was raised about that 
 word of shooting down partridges. Well, the land- 
 lords of Galway have not used any such language, they 
 are too wise, they are too hypocritical. Don't they 
 
 strike down the people more unmercifully than 
 partridges ? Lately I have travelled a great deal through 
 the county Ualway, and what do I find ? I found the 
 landlords scattering about their writs of ejectment, and 
 I say to those assembled, what is the use of tha 
 Land League if I stand up without denouncing it ?" i 
 
 I refer to this speech not so much for the language^ 
 used as for its reference to another speech. Tha 
 expression " shooting down partridges " refers to ai 
 speech delivered by Mr. Matthew Harris, in which ha 
 said he would shoot down landlords like partridges. Off 
 March 25 of the same year at Killimore, Mr. Matthew 
 Harris said :— ■ 
 
 " When I came here to-day I wag told .by the. 
 rev. chairman not to indulge in personalities — that 
 is, not to mention any names. But there are a good 
 many landlords in this locality that I would like to 
 speak about. My friends, before I conclude, I would 
 like to remind you to beware of the land-grabber, and I 
 am told there is one in this district named Kennedy.' 
 That vile wretch, keep away from him, for his breath 
 is contaminated ; he is a disgrace not only to the 
 locality, but to all Ireland. I am told this wretch has 
 six of the Royal Irish Constabulary guarding him every 
 day. They march up and down with the plough as" 
 they tear up that poor widow woman's land. I am not 
 enamoured with the constabulary, but still they are a 
 respectable body of men in general ; but when they 
 are sent to do the dirty work, and when they are 
 employed guarding such a wretch as this Kennedy, 
 they will soon become as contaminated as himself. So 
 keep away from this Kennedy as if he was a demoi 
 from hell. (There was great groaning at the mention 
 of Kennedy's name.)" 
 
 On April 3, 1881, at Clifden, in county Galway, Mr. 
 Matthew Harris again made a speech, in which he 
 denounced Mr. Henn, County Court Judge. He said that 
 a number of decrees had been taken out at County 
 Sessions by a man named Robinson, who, when asked 
 by the Land Commissioners whether a peasant pro- 
 prietary could he established in Connemara, replied, 
 " Do you want to establish the vermin on the land ? " 
 The speaker went on to say that when Robinson was 
 going about among them formerly without police pro- 
 tection they were no better than vermin. But let no 
 one say he wanted any one to shoot Robinson. No, but 
 there were other ways of dealing with him. In China 
 there were people who were fond of the flesh of fat 
 dogs, and there were dog butchers, and whenever one 
 of those dog butchers made his appearance on the 
 streets, all followed and howled after him ; and when 
 this Robinson would go among them every man, woman, 
 and child should follow and howl at him, Then he 
 told them something the Land League wanted them to 
 do. They should resist eviction to the last ; and when 
 the sheriff came, if they could not resist the sale, 
 some of their friends should buy their stock or 
 goods for them, and the Land League would pay 
 all legal expenses for them in every case, pro- 
 vided they belonged to it. But they 6hould resist 
 in a legal and constitutional way — Thig-um-thu ? 
 I understand, my Lords, that " Thig-um-thu " means 
 " Do you understand ? " It is, in fact. the Irishism for 
 " You twig?" On April 7. 1881, at Carna, in county 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
26 
 
 The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 Galway, Mr. Matthew Harris said : — " You have a 
 bad landlord in this locality, or landlady — Mrs. Forbes, 
 [ mean. I believe she wears the breeches. Mrs. 
 Blake, of Renooyle, is not better than a she-devil. 
 The middleman is abolished in other parts of the 
 country. Not alone have you bad landlords, but bad 
 agents and bailiffs. We will crush landlordism. It is 
 on its last legs. The Land League will give all assist- 
 ance. Hold firm, don't cringe. Mark the man who 
 takes land Irom which a man is evicted ; let the bad 
 man stand isolated. Mr. Robinson called the people 
 of Connemara vermin ; the people. of Connemara ought 
 to treat him as vermin. Leonard, of Tuam, I will say 
 nothing about. I will denounce him at his own door." 
 I do not know that I have any more speeches in 1881 
 in Galway, but at a meeting of the Ladies'Land League 
 ■ — your Lordships will remember that the Land League 
 was suppressed by the Government in the month of 
 October, 1881, and the work of the Land League was 
 carried on by the Ladies' Land League, as I shall show 
 your Lordships by overwhelming evidence, during the 
 last three months of 1881 and the early part of 1S82 — 
 at a meeting of the Ladies' Land League on March 12, 
 1832, the Rev. Mr. Higgins made a speech. He told 
 the people to unite and organize among themselves, and 
 they would soon gain their national independence. He 
 hoped there was no one present base enough to violate 
 the national oath ; if there was he, although a priest, 
 would put a rope round his neck and hang him ; ho 
 should be shot. He then told them to oppose the ser- 
 vice of writs and sheriffs' sales in every possible way. 
 He referred to the election of guardians ; they should 
 make a selection among themselves — they wanted no 
 rats — to shoot the rat. The reporter adds that he be- 
 lieved that the allusion made by the speaker in con- 
 nexion with the election of guardians was directed 
 against Mr. John Geraghty, of Shanaglish. The Rev. 
 Mr. Higgins was prosecuted at Gort on the 1st of 
 April, 1882, on the charge of proposing to sundry 
 persons to shoot one Geraghty, and publishing a 
 notice to incite an unlawful assembly. He was re- 
 turned for trial to Galway assizes without bail. I 
 have now read to your Lordships a series of Galway 
 speeches, and so far as I know on the information 
 before me they are representative. I do not pretend 
 to have exhausted the speeches made in Galway at 
 this period, but I said that I was anxious, in opening 
 the matter, not to put before you anything said by 
 ipeakers of whose position as being connected with 
 the League I have not any proof. Now, my Lords, I 
 wish to ask your Lordships to observe what was tie 
 condition of matters with regard to county Galway. 
 Prior to 1880 I believe it will be proved before your 
 Lordships that the place was quite peaceful and quiet 
 »nd showed nothing more than the ordinary offences 
 occurring in every other community, and that there 
 was no organized agrarian crime. In the years 1880, 
 1881, aud 1882, prior to the suppression of the Land 
 League, there were no fewer than 18 agrarian murders 
 in the county. It is to be observed, and I may make 
 
 the observation now, that in all these districts agra- 
 rian murders and outrages were immensely diminished 
 under the Coercion Act of 1882. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— The Act of 1881. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I beg pardon ; the Act 
 under which persons were arrested without trial was 
 passed in 1881 and the Coercion Act in 1882, and it 
 was after the passing of that Act, which had to do with 
 the actual punishment of crime, that these murders 
 diminished ; but before the passing of that Act there 
 were 18 agrarian murders in this county of Galway. 
 Now I want to describe to your Loidships very briefly 
 the character of the outrages with which t you have to 
 deal. At Cloughanover in January, 1880, there had 
 been a series of Land League meetings iu the neigh- 
 bourhood. The landlord was Mr. James M'Dermott, 
 and, as I am instructed, it will be proved that prior 
 to these Land League meetings the relations between 
 the landlord and the tenants might almost be said to 
 be perfect. At the meetings which were held 
 speeches of the kind to which I have referred were 
 made. A bailiff on the property, named Joseph 
 Dooley, and two farmers, Thomas Lohan and John 
 Tannyan, were subsequently suspected of having paid 
 rent. In January a party of men visited their houses, 
 made them swear not to pay rent, and fired shots outside 
 the doors. A police hut had to be erected for the pro- 
 tection of the men. Previously there had been no ne- 
 cessity whatever for such a thing as police protection. 
 Now let me describe what was done near Tuam in the 
 case of a man called Raftery. He had occupied some 
 land belonging to a proprietor named Lynch, and at 
 the end of 1879 he took some land from which Lynch 
 had evicted two tenants for non-payment of rent. On 
 May 22, 1880, a party of moonlighters — who, as far as 
 we can ascertain, were members of the local Land League 
 — a party of men numbering 16 or 20 went to his house, 
 burst open the door, pulled him out of bed, and then 
 carded him with a card into which they had driven nails 
 in order to tear the flesh. They then pulled his wife out 
 of bed and knocked her about. They killed his dog and 
 broke all the windows of the house. For the man's pro- 
 tection a police hut with accommodation for five con- 
 stables had to be erected. So far as my instructions go 
 there was nothing whatever against this man except that 
 he had taken some land from which Mr. Lynch had 
 evicted two of his tenants. Observe, this tyranny 
 could not injure Lynch except very indirectly ; it only 
 injured this unfortunate man, who had committed no 
 offence and had done what he had a perfect right to 
 do. On' September 25, 1880, Lord Mountmorres was 
 murdered. The particulars are specially brutal, but I 
 need not refer to them at any length. I have alluded 
 to them here because Lord Mountmorres was referred to 
 in a speech delivered after his death aB a land-robber. 
 On December 11, 1880, a Land League meeting was 
 held at Tynagh, and in proposing a resolution one of 
 the speakers said : — 
 
 " If you meet a man that has deprived another of 
 his means of subsistence, Bhun him ; and if you meet 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 27 
 
 him in his place of worship, form a ring round him ; 
 look upon him as a man with some loathsome 
 disease. ... I call upon you to-day, for such bones 
 as those no grave ; let the earth refuse him a grave, and 
 the heaven a God." 
 
 In the year 1880, Hubert Greany and E. C. Robinson, 
 of Ballinagrane, surrendered a farm which they con- 
 jointly occupied at Stoneleigh, on account of the rent 
 being too high. Patrick Gibbons then became herd of 
 the surrendered land, but ho had to give it up because 
 he people ill-treated him. In November, 1880, a man 
 named Michael Coakly took up the herding of the same 
 farm, but had to leave because he was posted as a per- 
 son who was not to bo spoken to. In June, 1881, John 
 Moore came to herd the same farm, and he was at once 
 boycotted, and had to get police protection. The 
 following threatening letter was sent to him : — 
 
 " Beware of the awful doom that waits you, and 
 that horror of horrors that hangs over you. We hereby 
 solemnly pledge ourselves before God not to allow 
 you any longer to herd a farm from which a 
 tenant has been evicted ; so depart from the un- 
 wholesome place, you accursed traitor, or, by 
 heavens, you are on the verge of your tombe, 
 for the hour has come when all the foes of freedom 
 will be shot down and threw out as a gardener 
 would throw out plants. If you persevere and not 
 adhere to this notice and confess, you shall meet with 
 the same sad fate and red death of DempBey and 
 Doherty, &c. My advice to you is to depart within 
 six days of the arrival of this note, or if not, neither 
 rack, halter, or gibbet, coercion, buckshot, or steel 
 will chill my Celtic blood from doing what is here 
 mentioned. Exit. God save Ireland." 
 Moore, however, still remained as caretaker on the 
 farm, and he had to have police protection. As far as 
 our information goes, there was no complaint of any sort 
 against this man except that he had herded the land, 
 someone else having thrown it up on the ground that the 
 rent was too high. Now, I have referred to the case of 
 Dempsey, who succeeded Murty Hynes in a farm on 
 Lord Dunsandle's property. Murty Hynes, who had 
 taken the farm from which a tenant had been evicted 
 for nonpayment of rent, was referred to by name on 
 September 19, 1880, by Mat Harris. Hynes after- 
 wards attended a Land League meeting in October and 
 gave up the farm. About the same time a man named 
 Connors took possession of some bog land belonging to 
 Lord Dunsandle, which had been surrendered by a 
 person named Keogh. Connors was boycotted for 
 having taken the land, and Dempsey was at the same 
 time threatened. On May 12, 1881, Connors was 
 murdered. Four men were engaged in the murder, none 
 of whom were disguised. They were arrested, and three 
 of them, John Ryan, Patrick Keogh, and Edward 
 tfahy, were identified, but they were not convicted. 
 With regard to Murty Hynes, a meeting was held on 
 September 19. About 600 or 700 persons assembled, 
 •and, headed by Mat Harris, proceeded to the evicted 
 farm. About 130 yards of wall were broken down, and 
 the man's crops were tossed about. Mat Harris 
 addressed the people and denounced Hynes as a land- 
 grabber. Hynes gave up the farm and it remained 
 
 vacant until April, 1881, when Dempsey took it. 
 Within a month Dempsey was shot dead when going 
 to Mass. My learned friend, Sir Charles Russell, said 
 in his interruption a short time ago, " You ought to 
 tell the Court that the murder took place a year 
 afterwards." But what are the facts ? The facts are 
 that in October Murty Hynes gives up the farm 
 because 600 or 700 people have assembled for the 
 purpose of threatening him, and that within a month 
 from the time when Dempsey takes it he is shot at 
 and murdered. Can any one say that that was not 
 the natural consequence of the speeches that had been 
 delivered ? I do not know what my learned friend's 
 interruption meant, unless it was a suggestion that I 
 was putting to your Lordships a case which, from 
 the lapse of time, could have no connexion with the 
 speech to which I have drawn attention. But the logic 
 of events is irresistible. Dempsey's widow was boy- 
 cotted and had to have police protection for some 
 years after the unfortunate man was murdered. The 
 exact date of the murder was May 29, 1881. On July 
 24, James Linton, a sergeant of the Royal Irish Con- 
 ctabulary, was murdered at Loughrea, where he had been 
 for 20 years. He was on good terms with the people, 
 most liberal in his subscriptions to charitable 
 institutions of every denomination, and very kind 
 to the poor. All that he had done was to take notes 
 of Land League meetings, and to give evidence in 
 December, 1880, at the State trials in Dublin with 
 regard to the meeting held at Riversvilla on September 
 19, when Mat Harris denounced Murty Hynes. At 10 
 o'clock on July 24 he was shot dead as he was return- 
 ing to the police barracks at Loughrea, to attend roll- 
 call. He endeavoured to pursue the murderer, but fell 
 in the street, and died in less than half-an-hour. A 
 good many people were about at the time, but none of 
 them attempted to stop the criminal, who escaped. 
 My learned friend may,perhaps,say that the outlines of 
 my picture are exaggerated, but nothing can be more 
 certain than that in the great majority of instances 
 these crimes were the results of opposing the Land 
 League by resisting its decrees, or of taking land from 
 which a tenant had been evicted, or of giving evidence 
 against men who supported the League. It is most 
 worthy of note that these outrages, occurring in the 
 middle and end of 1880 and in the beginning of 1881, 
 were committed after these violent speeches had been 
 delivered, and that no single step had been taken by 
 the speakers to put a stop to the outrages. If this 
 conduct was not that which Mat Harris desired, 'if the 
 denunciation of the land-grabber was not intended 
 to lead to these consequences, how is it that 
 we do not find Mat Harris going down to these 
 districts and saying " I will have nothing more 
 to do with you until the persons who have com- 
 mitted these outrages are brought to justice " ? 
 No, you find a kind of slang expression at the end of 
 Mr. Harris's speech — thig-um-thu — meaning, " Do you 
 twig ?" But not in one solitary instance, at this time, 
 in this country, where this horrible state of things was 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-GeueraL 
 
28 
 
 The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 raging, was there any leading Parliamentarian or politi- 
 cian or member of the Land League taking sbeps to put 
 a stop to those horrible outrages. It it is said there 
 were instances, I ask where is the evidence that any 
 single outrage was prevented, stopped, or even hindered 
 by' the action of the Land League ? On August 26, 
 1881, Mr. George Robinson.a land agent and justice of 
 the peace of Ronnastone, who acted for Mr. George 
 Burrage, the Hon. Colonel Clements,and Mrs. Blake — 
 I am not aware that any suggestion is made that these 
 people, being landords, were oppressive or had given 
 rise to ill-feeling — on August 26, 1881, this Mr. 
 Robinson was shot at. It will be remembered that on 
 April 3, 1881, Mr. Harris, in the course of a speech 
 which I have already quoted, referred to Mr. 
 Robinson. Does any one suppose that that speech was 
 the expression of a wish that Mr. Eobinson should 
 not have any harm done to him ? I would also 
 remind your Lordships that on April 7, 1881, Mr. 
 Harris urged the people of Connemara to treat Mr. 
 Eobinson as vermin. On August 26 of that year there 
 were extra police in the district, and when Mr. 
 Eobinson went to collect rents with two constables, 
 eight or ten shots were fired at him. Fortunately none 
 of them hit him. The police fired back, and there is 
 every reason to believe that some one of the 
 assailants was wounded ; and I am not sure that I 
 shall not be able to give your Lordships some evidence 
 under another head directly connecting those who 
 committed the outrages and the local Land League 
 with the head executive in Dublin. I am justified in 
 asking your Lordships for a moment to consider what 
 is the condition of the place in which Mr. Eobinson 
 has been described as vermin, and statements made " I 
 do not wish you to shoot Robinson," and in the result 
 Mr. Eobinson shot at, and on what ground Mat Harris, 
 the speaker, is not directly responsible for that. I do 
 not know where responsibility begins if it does 
 not begin at such conduct. I- shall prove that Mat 
 Harris at this time was receiving money from Egan, 
 the treasurer of the Land League. What is the con- 
 nexion between the two, if Egan is the head of an 
 innocent organization ? I do not understand at present. 
 Of course I will not anticipate what is going to be 
 said, but I think your Lordships will be of opinion, if 
 I establish these cases, that The Times were justified 
 in saying that the Land League depended for its exist- 
 ence upon intimidation of which the sanction was 
 murder — that that was not the language of exaggeration 
 but of truth. On November 2, 1881, Peter Dogherty 
 was murdered. He was a young farmer, and all that 
 was known against him was that he had taken some 
 land which some other people had given up. I am not 
 sure that I can refer at the present moment to any 
 speech in which Dogherty was referred to by name, 
 but I think the inference can fairly be drawn from the 
 facts I have referred to. A Mr. De Blaquiere resided 
 at Fiddane, Tubber Gort, in 1881. He was a landed 
 proprietor, and from the beginning of the Land League 
 agitation he spoke against it, and pointed out openly 
 
 and boldly the tyranny imposed on the people. He made 
 himself obnoxious by speaking with fearlessness and 
 courage against the action of the Laud League. Soon 
 after the arrest of Mr. Parnell a motion was intro- 
 duced at the Local Board of Guardians at Tubber Gort 
 condemning the Government for arresting Mr. Parnell. 
 Mr. De Blaquiere refused to receive this motion, and 
 on November 15 two shots were fired through his 
 hall-door, one of which as nearly as possible killed 
 his wife. The door was open, and he saw two men 
 standing within 50 yards of his house. A notice 
 was then served upon him : — 
 
 " Take notice that Harry Blackquire is boycotted from 
 this day forward for his treacherous conduct at the Gort 
 Union in opposing a resolution condemnatory of the Go- 
 vernment in arresting our leader Parnell. Secondly, in 
 appearing at the head of the British soldiers and peelers 
 at Lough Cooter to prevent a Land League hunt, when 
 he defiantly expressed himself, ' If the people did not 
 disperse before five minutes that he would have them 
 shot down like dogs.' Boycott him ! Boycott him ! 
 Signed, Captain Moonlight. P.S. — If anyone is so base 
 after reading or hearing of this notice to work for him, 
 or keep his company, he shall die the death of a 
 traitor.— C. M." 
 
 In consequence of that notice Mr. De Blaquiere 
 was partially boycotted. A man named Pat Clayton 
 and some others continued to work for him, and 
 on March 9, 1882, Clayton was threatened with 
 death if he did not leave Mr. De Blaquiere'B employ- 
 ment. I desire to call attention to an outrage on 
 Thomas Connair and Martin Murphy, tenants of Lady 
 Bourke, who paid their rents in 1881. Your Lordships 
 will not have forgotten that I referred to a speech of Mr. 
 Dillon's, in which he said that persons who paid rent 
 when others did not were traitors, and should be 
 treated as traitors. On November 26, a few days after 
 they had paid their rents, Connair's house was set on 
 fire and a shot was fired through his window. On the 
 same night Murphy's house was set on fire and a shot 
 fired through his window, and the whole of his 
 furniture was consumed. On December 4, 1881, this 
 notice was posted : — " Irish National Land League. — ■ 
 £100 reward will be given for the names of any person 
 who have paid rent." I do not know whether it will 
 be suggested that any counter effort was made by the 
 Irish National Land League to prevent the effect of 
 such notices being circulated. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — The Land League was suppressed 
 at that time. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Does my learned friend 
 mean to suggest that the Land League could be sup- 
 pressed in a moment ? I can understand my learned 
 friend being desirous to interpose anything which 
 might mitigate what I am saying ; but I ask 
 your Lordships whether it takes much away from 
 the strength of what I have been saying to say that 
 the Land League was suppressed in October, 1881. 
 Has ho forgotten that Egan was in Paris ? At this 
 time, it is true, Sir C. Russell's particular client was 
 in Kilmainham. This is no case of whitewashing one 
 party at the expense of another. We are engaged in a ! 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 22, 1888. 
 
 29 
 
 searching inquiry into the truth of these charges and 
 allegations, and I ask your Lordships to notice 
 particularly that " Parnellism and Crime " was directed 
 against all these people against whom the charges are 
 made. My learned friend has, perhaps, forgotten that 
 ithe Ladies' Land League was in active operation, which 
 League we allege to have been a link in a continuous 
 organization, and it was Land League funds which the 
 Ladies' Land League used, and I have not heard it 
 suggested that the Ladies' League was more moderate 
 than the Land League itself. On December 11, 1881, the 
 following notice was found posted on the pier of a gate 
 ■near the Roman Catholic Chapel at Ballinakill : — 
 
 " My dear Leaguers, — I am going to warn you 
 a second time, owing to the . ignorance of the 
 person that took down the notice before the public 
 could get to read it. Let no man be so much insane as to 
 imagine that if he pays, Or has paid, his rent that he 
 won't be shot. Undoubtedly be will if he had all the 
 police in Ballinagar protecting him, if he violate the 
 rules of the League — that is, to pay the rent, to take a 
 farm from which a tenant is evioted, or to work for a 
 boycotted man. I remain, yours truly, Captain 
 Moonlight." 
 
 On December 15 another notice was found posted on 
 the wall outside the village of Woodford : — 
 
 "The tenant farmers of Woodford district are called 
 upon to show their independence on Thursday, when 
 the agent will come to look for rents. Let you all go 
 in like one man, and if he does give you a sweeping 
 reduction keep the money, but let the man who goes 
 in by himself — let him mark the consequence. — 
 Captain Moonlight." 
 
 I have said to your Lordships that the Moonlighters 
 •were Land Leaguers, and that piece of evidence, at 
 any rate, goes to show that the Land League, whose 
 name was being taken in vain if not responsible for 
 the Moonlighters, took no steps whatever to destroy 
 the effect of the notices. On January 3, 1882, 
 occurred the murder of Lord Ardilaun's bailiffs. Their 
 bodies were sank in the lake, and it was a long time 
 before the murder was detected, and even then there 
 was the greatest difficulty. They were sunk in 27ft. of 
 water, and although it was pretty clear, from informa- 
 tion then in possession of the police, and which will 
 probably be proved before your Lordships, that there 
 were some persons who could have detected the 
 criminals, it was not until October, 1882, that the 
 persons were detected who had been guilty of the 
 crime of that murder. On the 15th of February, 1882 
 • — your Lordships may remember that I have already 
 detailed to you the murder of Constable Linton, who 
 had been 20 years in the same place, and against 
 whom, so far as we can tell, no offence of any kind 
 could he brought except that he had taken notes at a 
 Land League meeting — Constable Kavanagh, who in- 
 vestigated the circumstances of Linton's murder, was 
 on the 15th of February, 1882, shot at his own barrack 
 gate. I think he was shot dead. I have passed a 
 case of Botterell and his two daughters, who were 
 fired at, and so far as we can tell on the information 
 i before us, the only thing that Botterell had done was 
 
 that he had served processes upon his tenants for 
 non-payment of rent. He served processes in the end 
 of December, 1880. I am not sure that he had 
 been referred to by name, but there had been 
 meetings referring to steps taken by the land- 
 lord, and on the 19th of December, 1882, he and 
 his- children were fired at as they were driving 
 home. There are two more murders in 1882. On 
 the 8th of June Walter Bourke, a landlord, was 
 murdered. My recollection of the proof is that Walter 
 Bourke was protected by a sergeant of police and was 
 shot while the sergeant of police was with him. Both 
 Mr. Bourke and the soldier who was guarding him were 
 shot on the 8th of June, 1882. That murder, my Lords, 
 took place in broad daylight, and except for some 
 suggestion that he was a landlord, I am not aware 
 that it will be suggested that he bad done anything 
 which could cause the attack made upon him— 
 certainly nothing that could justify such a brutal and 
 horrible murder. On the 29th of June occurred the 
 murder of Mr. Blake. I do not know whether your 
 Lordships will remember that I referred to his name 
 in the course of reading the speeches, I think, of 
 Griffin and of Mr. Harris ; at any rate one or two of 
 the speeches to which I have referred in the course 
 of this afternoon as having been delivered in Gal- 
 way. He was agent for Lord Clanricarde, and he 
 was personally very popular in the district and was 
 on good terms with all the persons there prior to the 
 meeting of the Land League. I have mentioned to 
 your Lordships the meeting which took place in 1881 
 in county Galway, in the immediate neighbourhood of 
 the district in which Mr. Blake lived. On the 29th 
 of June, 1882, as Mr, Blake and his wife were driv- 
 ing from Loughrea they were fired at from behind a 
 stone wall. Mr. Blake and his servant man Ruan 
 were both shot dead. Mrs. Blake was wounded in the 
 right hip, and the horse was also shot. It was a murder 
 which took place in broad daylight. Well, my 
 Lords, whatever may be said as to bow agitation of a 
 constitutional character can be conducted, this would 
 seem to show that these meetings were intended to 
 have a certain effect, and that they had it. My Lords, 
 there are later outrages in Galway than in 1881 and 
 1882, outrages which took place when the Coercion 
 Act had dropped and before the recent Coercion Act 
 — I mean outrages in 1885-6. As to one of those 
 Finlay, I may have to give your Lordships some de- 
 tail, because there was the most direct connexion be- 
 tween the murder of Finlay and the denouncing him 
 at a previous meeting after having taken some 
 part in eviction processes. But I propose not to refer 
 to 1885 at present, because I particularly desire to 
 call your Lordships' attention to what had been done 
 in 1881 and 1882. I have passed over a good many 
 of the outrages that occurred in Galway, but your 
 Lordships must not understand that I pretend 
 to have given you the details of every case. At the 
 same time I have, I think, given a sufficient number 
 of cases to show by name, by circumstance, and by 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
30 
 
 The Special Commission, October 22 and 23, 1888. 
 
 cause that there was in Galway the most direct at- 
 tempt made by those whose names are in the particu- 
 lars, by their paid agents, by the Land League and its 
 paid agents — I am speaking of the leading members 
 whose names are mentioned in the particulars — to carry 
 out a scheme for initiating and carrying out the 
 horrible and brutal system of tyranny whereby no tenant 
 was to be allowed to take or remain in possession of an 
 evicted farm, and the landlord was to get no advantage 
 out of such land ; and if any tenant was found rash and 
 courageous, or foolhardy enough to disobey the orders 
 of the Land League, the consequences were such 
 as I have described. Your Lordships will see that 
 such was the power of the Land League that it 
 was sufficient to bring down upon offenders against its 
 laws the vengeance I have described. Your Lordships, 
 however, must not think that because numbers of 
 people thus suffered there were not also many others 
 who gave in. It will be proved by those who have 
 had personal experience of the maintenance of law and 
 order in these parts of Ireland that, as I said a short 
 time ago, the organization of the Land League meant 
 the submission of everybody to its behests. It is 
 probable that when a sufficient number of people had 
 been murdered, a sufficient number of houses had been 
 burnt down, a sufficient number of cattle injured, and 
 a sufficient number of crops destroyed, the number of 
 people who could afford to undergo these risks was 
 very small. Instances will be given of people who, at 
 the risk of their lives, fought against the Land League, 
 and who have been the subject of repeated denunciation 
 by speakers. It must not, therefore, be supposed that 
 because I have brought this large number of murderous 
 outrages before your Lordships that is the full measure 
 of the Land League's power. 
 
 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23. 
 
 Mr. Hammond (solicitor) represented Mr. Chance. 
 As soon as the Commissioners had taken their seats, 
 The Attorney-General, addressing their Lordships, 
 said, — With regard to the application made yesterday by 
 my learned friend Sir C. Russell as to the production 
 of some further documents, I must ask that that shall 
 not be taken this morning, as we are obliged to make 
 an affidavit in answer to the one made on the other 
 Bide, and it could not possibly be made before the 
 rising of the Court to-day. I have not the slightest 
 objection to the matter being taken to-morrow. With 
 regard to the further particulars my learned friend asks 
 for I am indifferent. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — If one matter is to be postponed 
 the other had better be postponed also, so that the two 
 applications may be considered together. I have 
 however, to point out that the affidavit to which my 
 learned friend has alluded was handed in before 12 
 o'clock yesterday, and that there is no reason why it 
 should not have been answered by this time. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— As a matter of fact the 
 affidavit was handed in late yesterday afternoon to my 
 client sitting in Court, and as he had to attend here 
 all day, it was not possible for him to answer it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am informed that it was de- 
 livered before 12 o'clock. 
 
 The President.— I think that the matter had 
 better stand over until to-morrow morning. 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — I wish to correct a misapprehension 
 as to those I represent, after what was said by my 
 learned friend Mr. Reid as to the members of Parlia- 
 ment for whom he appeared. I said I appeared for 
 the other members, but there is one exception. I do 
 not appear for Mr. Biggar. Mr. Biggar represents 
 himself. 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — I wish to ask whether the representa- 
 tives of The Times will give me copies of the speeches 
 on which they rely and which I am supposed to have 
 made. My position is this: I have only seen summaries 
 of what I have said in print. I do not suppose that 
 the Attorney-General will make any objection. 
 
 The President. — Whatever is done in favour of Sir 
 C. Russell's clients will be done in your favour also. 
 
 The Attornet-General. — As Mr. Biggar appears 
 for himself, I may say that I have previously handed 
 all copies of speeches I am quoting to Sir C. Russell, 
 and the best course will be that when a speech I am 
 reading happens to be one of Mr. Biggar's it shall be 
 handed to him also. The speeches will all be in 
 print, and, of course, we have copies of them. I will 
 see that exactly what was done in Sir C. Russell's 
 case yesterday is done in Mr. Biggar's case. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — There is one observation which I 
 have to make. The Attorney-General was good enough 
 to hand me certain copies of speeches which he was 
 reading which I find do not appear in the shorthand 
 notes in the sanxi form «s the document handed to me, 
 and the omissions seem to me to be very important. I mean 
 that there are notes on the documents stating by whom 
 the notes were taken, and showing that they were 
 taken in longhand by the police-constables — I believe 
 in all instances. It is very important that that should 
 appear. That was one reason why I was going to ask 
 that we should have the Government notes furnished to 
 my learned friend's clients in order that we may see 
 the whole of the speeches said to have been delivered 
 and upon which my learned friend relies. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Before your Lordship 
 deals with the matter I wish to make one observation. 
 
 The President.— We will deal with that to-morrow 
 morning. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— With regard to the print- 
 ing of the matter, we have nothing whatever to do 
 with that. The same documents that were handed to 
 the officers of the Court were handed to Sir C. Russell, 
 and I see they are marked " uncorrected proofs," 
 it not having been possible to get the whole corrected. 
 
 Amplications by Counsel. 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 31 
 
 But my learned friend is entirely mistaken when he 
 calls them Government reports or papers. They are 
 reports of speeches, and have been obtained by 
 The Times la the ordinary way. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I say that these reports were notes 
 taken by police-constables on the instructions of the 
 Government. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My learned friend is in 
 error. 
 
 The President — Do you object to these marginal 
 notes appearing ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Certainly not; I should 
 have wished them to appear. I should wish them, 
 however, to be printed in the form of separate para- 
 graphs, and not to run on with the previous line. 
 They will then appear as separate, documents. 
 
 The President. — Then whatever documents are 
 handed in by the Attorney-General will be printed in 
 their entirety. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have now to resume my 
 statement at the point where I left off yesterday,and I 
 may say that I was anxious to read to your Lordships 
 before I went to another county a document called the 
 " No-rent manifesto," which was, or purported to 
 have been, issued from Kilmainham on the 18th of 
 October, 1881, signed by Mr. Parnell, Mr. Kettle, Mr. 
 Davitt, Mr. Brennan.Mr. Dillon, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. 
 Patrick Bgan. I wish to say here that Mr. Davitt's 
 signature was not affixed to the document by Mr. 
 Davitt himself, he being at the time confined in Port- 
 land Prison. As far as the evidence I am able to lay 
 before yonr Lordships enables me to say,ihe signature 
 of Mr. Davitt was put to it by some one of those per- 
 sons in Kilmainham. Whether or not Mr. Davitt was 
 responsible for it or authorized it in any way is a 
 matter which will not be without importance for con- 
 sideration in connexion with some later incidents I snail 
 have to refer to. I was anxious to read to your Lord- 
 ships the actual terms of that ' ' No-rent manifesto " — 
 but I have left it downstairs — in order that your Lord- 
 ships might see that this policy — the policy of prevent- 
 ing the payment of rents, of punishing tenants 
 who did pay rents, which was continued undoubtedly 
 from the time Mr. Parnell was in prison in Kil- 
 mainham, from the 1st of October, 1881, up to May, 
 1882, with the small interval when he happened to be 
 out for a few days — was carried on with the approval, 
 as far as we can tell, of those who at that time were 
 undoubtedly not so much in control of matters as they 
 had been previously, or as they were afterwards. And 
 with reference to this indictment which I am now pre- 
 ferring against a number of gentlemen — not against Mr. 
 Parnell alone, but against a large number of other 
 gentlemen whose names are given, among them those 
 of Mr. Biggar, Mr. Harrington, Mr. Matthew Harris, 
 and a number of others — I shall show your Lordships 
 that, long after the time that these gentlemen had been 
 in Kilmainham, and long after the time when the 
 effect of these speeches was brought to their know- 
 ledge, the same kind of speeches and the same kind pi 
 
 conduct were repeated, and the same results followed. 
 Yesterday, in dealing with Gal way, I had, for the pur- 
 pose of the particular method of telling my Btory, 
 stopped at the year 1882. In dealing with the other 
 counties I shall, without going back to Galway, show 
 your Lordships that the same course of conduct was 
 pursued, with the same consequences, after as before 
 1882. I propose to ask yonr Lordships' attention to 
 the county of Kerry and to pursue the same course 
 as I did yesterday, by reading from a series of speeches 
 which were made in that county of which we hav« 
 notes. There were many other speeches made of 
 which we have not any notes — that is to say, not 
 full notes — but we have references in some particular 
 instances to particular speeches, and I shall in those 
 cases be able to lay before your Lordships evidence of 
 what was said. The first speech to which I shall refer 
 was one made at Beaufort on the 16th of May,1880, by 
 Mr. Parnell. Tour Lordships will find that in many of 
 these counties, Mr. Parnell made, if I may so call it, 
 speeches which initiated the Land League and its 
 work, and he was followed by speakers, many of them 
 in the pay of — directly paid by — the Central Association 
 in Dublin, while others who are among the persons 
 charged, and many of whom are now members of Par- 
 liament, were, as I shall show — or shall suggest to 
 your Lordships — rewarded for the part they had taken , 
 they having had previously no connexion with the 
 land or with public life, by being nominated by Mr. 
 Parnell and his party to represent certain constitu- 
 encies in Ireland. Your Lordships will be able to 
 appreciate further on what was the effect of the orga- 
 nization I have been describing. This is the report oi 
 Mr. Parnell's speech at Beaufort on the ICth of May, 
 1880 :— 
 
 " I know as a matter of fact that of the COO, COO 
 tenant-farmers in Ireland fully 400,000 are unable to 
 pay the rents. (Cheers.) Ejectments for non-payment 
 of rent have been scattered broadcast over the 
 country, and in a short time the landlords will ask the 
 Courts of law to enforce those ejectments. This will 
 be a serious situation. Can it be expected this time in 
 the 19th century our people will allow themselves to 
 be driven from their farms as in 1848 ? I think that 
 day is gone by, that a spirit of determination is 
 taking fast hold of our people, and that they will no 
 longer permit themselves (cheers) to be exterminated, 
 either with or without the law. If the Legislature 
 refuses to step in this agitation will have to go on 
 (cheers), it will increase tenfold in intensity, and the 
 people will do for themselves that which the Legis- 
 lature refuses to do. (Cheers.) We will see that the 
 people will not be swept from the country while there 
 is money to defend them in the Courts of law. The 
 National Land League has plenty of money at its dis- 
 posal for the purpose of defending the tenantry of Ire- 
 land. The day is dawning when we shall have taken 
 the first steps to strike down British misrule, and the 
 noble dreams of Grattan, Emmet, and Lord E. Fitz- 
 gerald, and of every Irish patriot, ought at all times 
 to be brought to a triumph and realization. (Cheers.)" 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— There is a full report of the speech 
 in the Freeman's Journal. 
 
 The Speech of the AttorneY-General 
 
32 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I shall have to show to 
 your Lordships that this and many other speeches of a 
 very violent character were reported in papers such as 
 United Ireland and others. But the more important 
 fact is that these ontrages which were taking place 
 were referred to in the eolnmns of United Ireland, of 
 which Mr. William O'Brien wa3 the editor, as being 
 incidents in the campaign ; so that the murder and 
 wounding of men and women and burning of property 
 were regarded as merely incidents in the warfare that 
 was going on between the National League and the 
 landlords. Hay by day, therefore, the effect of these 
 speeches was being brought home to those who made 
 them, and yet they still continued to go on making 
 these speeches and profiting by this organization. On 
 October 10, Mr. A. O'Connor speaking at Castle- 
 island, delivered a speech which is thus reported 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — This purports to be a report, 
 whereas it is only one or two sentences. In the news- 
 paper it is a long report. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If the report is inaccu- 
 rate my learned friend will get the advantage of it., 
 
 ThePRESiDENT. — Some observation was made by one 
 of the learned counsel solto voce, the effect of which I 
 did not hear. I think, Mr. Attorney-General, you 
 had better confine yourself to those observations made 
 by Sir C. Russell which are addressed to the Court. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I entirely agree.if I may 
 humbly say so, with that view ; but your Lordships 
 will understand that it is scarcely possible when an 
 observation is made audibly to avoid reference to it. 
 The President.— I wish to keep things' orderly in 
 all respects, and I thought I would remind you of 
 what is orderly. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am obliged to your 
 Lordships. Now, on October 10, at Castleisland, Mr. 
 Arthur O'Connor and Mr. Biggar spoke. Mr. A. 
 O'Connor deprecated the commission of acts of violence 
 because their enemies made use of such acts, and 
 public opinion in England is affected by them. This 
 passage is worthy of consideration because in it the 
 speaker deprecates the commission of acts of vio- 
 lence, not because they are wrong or wicked, but 
 because their enemies made use of such acts, and 
 public opinion in England was affected by them. The 
 speaker went on to say that he knew the feelings that 
 were entertained towards the landlords of Kerry, and 
 he believed them to be perfectly natural. He sympa- 
 thized with those feelings, and he could well under- I 
 stand — though he would not attempt to justify — 
 the extreme act of any man who might in the 
 moment of irritation be prepared to do that 
 which St. Patrick and his followers would in 
 their duty be compelled to denounce. He 
 said, " I tell you that the man who would shoot 
 Samuel Hussey would do a grievous harm to the cause 
 of the tenant." On the subject of rent he told them 
 to provide first for their own maintenance, then to pay 
 their shop debts, and when that was done they might 
 think of the landlord i that they should keep a firm 
 
 grip of their holdings, and if evicted remain in the 
 locality watching the first opportunity to regain 
 possession, and that they should be no party to the 
 grabbing of farms. Mr. Biggar said : — 
 
 "They should take care that none of their neigh- 
 bours gave more than the valuatidh in the shape of 
 rent. They can take care that if any one is base 
 enough to take an evicted farm the public opinion of 
 the district is brought to bear against him, and that 
 he be forced — not by physical means — to do what he 
 ought to do in regard to a matter of that kind. If 
 any one is charged with shooting or offering violence 
 to the landlord or his agent it is the duty of the Land 
 League to see that that person shall get a fair trial. What 
 is the good of a man shootiug a landlord ? You, the 
 members of the local Land League, can use your exer- 
 tions to get everything in favour of the person who is 
 charged with such a crime as shooting a landlord." 
 
 Speaking of Mr. Blennerhassett, he said : — " He has 
 thrown in his lot, so far as I know, with the Whig- 
 gish members of the Irish party, who are our most 
 deadly and dangerous enemies." Speaking of Sir Row- 
 land Blennerhassett, he said : — " I believe when Mr. 
 Hussey's son wanted a grand jury Sir Rowland Blenner- 
 hassett took the trouble to come over here to keep 
 this tyrannical agent's son in as high sheriff for this 
 county." At Brosna, county Kerry, on the 24th of 
 October, 1880, Mr. T. Harrington, another member of 
 Parliament, proposed a resolution pledging the people 
 never to take an evicted farm or to hold intercourse 
 with such persons, and he said they should put their 
 opposition to that person into definite form. " In one 
 part of the county a man named John W. O'Connor 
 had taken an evicted farm, and endeavoured to dare 
 public opinion for three or four months, but the jeers 
 and scorn with which he was met obliged him to sur- 
 render it to the landlord." Now that case of John 
 O'Connor, which is one I have to mention to your 
 Lordships in connexion with the outrages in this 
 county and in connexion with the League, was a case 
 in which John O'Connor's crop of flax had been thrown 
 into the river. He had then been boycotted and his 
 house had been maliciously set on fire, and eventually 
 he surrendered his farm. Undoubtedly this is an 
 instance in which the steps taken by those 
 opposed to this poor man to make him surrender 
 his farm were successful, he having neither the 
 means nor the courage to resist any longer. The con- 
 duet that was used towards him to force him to sur- 
 render his farm was described by Mr. T. Harrington 
 as " the jeers and the scorn with which he had been 
 treated." 
 
 Sir 0. Russell.— Where did this John O'Connor 
 live ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My learned friend asks me 
 to state where the man John O'Connor lives. I have not 
 the reference of his address before me, but I will give 
 him the actual part of the county in which he lives 
 when I come to deal with_ the case. On the 27th of 
 February, 1881, at Barraduff, also in the county of 
 Kerry, M. P. Boyton, the Land League organizer for 
 Leinster, and known to Mr. Pornell as a principal 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 33 
 
 organizer, made a speech. This Boyton was a man 
 who, at a later date, many months after the time I am 
 now upon, when it was considered desirable for Mr. 
 Parnell to express his willingness to suppress outrages, 
 was referred to as one of the men Mr. Parnell would 
 use to suppress outrages. It is more important to my 
 purpose that this man was paid to make speeches. On 
 the occasion to which I refer Mr. T. Harrington and 
 Father O'Leary were also present. In the course of 
 his speech Boyton said : — 
 
 " The time for speeches has almost passed ; I 
 believe that the land-grabbers are dead in Kerry; if not, 
 it is high time for you to look after them. The day 
 must cease in Ireland when rent will be paid. From 
 this it will be our duty to go on as you are doing and 
 put an end to the land-grabbers in your midst. You are 
 entitled to fix what is a fair rent, and if that be refused 
 keep the rent and the land too. There is such a thing 
 as land-grabbing ; you know what to do with the land- 
 grabbers before now ; shun them like a man in the 
 smallpox." 
 
 Your Lordships will find presently from whom the ad- 
 vice as to land-grabbers originally came. I suggest 
 that even if these speeches had been delivered without 
 any previous knowledge of what had been their conse- 
 quence, such speeches must be known to be calculated 
 to be interpreted by those who heard them as a 
 direct incitement to get rid of land-grabbers — a land- 
 grabber being a man who has done nothing wrong 
 except take land which was to be let. I would ask 
 your Lordships what judgment ought to be passed on 
 men who delivered speeches such as these in regard to 
 land-grabbers, knowing as they must have known how 
 land-grabbers were being treated. I say it is im- 
 possible to exaggerate the wickedness of such speeches 
 — but I desire to point out, what is even more im- 
 portant for my purpose, that without this intimida- 
 tion backed up by outrage the Land League, of which 
 Mr. Parnell was the head, would have been powerless. 
 Poor men would have resisted its decrees if they 
 had not been enforced by murder. The next speeches 
 which I shall refer to were delivered at Killorglin on 
 the 4th of March, 1881. Mr. Boyton said :— 
 
 " If they (the landlords) did not stop their devilish 
 work of driving the youth out of Ireland a day would 
 come when there would be an end to the Lansdownes, 
 the Kenmares, the M'Gillicuddys, the Trenches." 
 (The Trenches are principally land agents in Ireland.) 
 " We know there is neither honesty, justice, or honour in 
 any English Government situation, so long as Ireland 
 is concerned. The moral coward, Mr. Gladstone, from 
 five millions of Irishmen he takes away the right to know 
 why they are put into a prison cell. We have seen 
 plenty of them (landlords and agents) that deserve 
 to be shot at any man's hands. I have always denounced 
 the commission of outrages by night, but meet him in 
 the broad daylight, and if you must blow his brains 
 out, blow it out in the daytime." 
 
 This is a direct incitement to commit outrages in broad 
 daylight, and there were some such outrages com- 
 mitted. To a great extent this was unknown prior to 
 1880. No doubt some outrages were committed in 
 connexion with Fenianism and agrarian matters, but as 
 
 far as this system of outrage and intimidation, begin- 
 ning by boycotting and culminating in murder, was 
 concerned it received a fresh and a wholly new start 
 from the Land League. Mr. Boyton proceeded : — 
 
 ' ' It will be your duty to punish those people for any 
 misuse of their power ; do not be afraid of the Govern- 
 ment or the police, but teach that man (the land- 
 grabber) to be afraid of you. Any policeman that 
 enters your house between sunset to-night and sunrise 
 to-morrow, you can kill him if you choose. If they 
 come at night and you have an old musket or an old 
 pistol, and your wife or daughter is frightened, you 
 can blow out his brains. Teach your children to grow 
 up in the love of God and hatred of the English mis- 
 government and oppression. If we saw, a fair prospect 
 for something better we would not be afraid to sacri- 
 fice our liberty first and afterwards our lives in its 
 attainment." 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington, who was then editor or proprietor of 
 the Kerry Sentinel, said : — 
 
 " The present agitation is ' something more than a 
 struggle against landlordism, it is a struggle for the 
 independence of the Irish nation." 
 Your Lordships will not forget what I have already said 
 as to the way in which the various strands of political 
 and agrarian feeling were united together. Mr. 
 Harrington proceeded : — 
 
 " The man who steals into the back-door of the 
 agent's office to pay his rent, that man is a double- 
 dyed traitor. It is your duty to cut off all communica- 
 tion with the man who takes a farm from which 
 another has been evicted. We intend to make them, 
 the farmers, independent men, and when any foreign 
 despots come to crush them their spirit will be up to 
 resent them." 
 
 I will endeavour for the sake of convenience to refrain 
 from commenting on these speeches until I have read 
 them all, but I must here point out that Boyton's 
 speech, referring to individuals by name, was one which 
 of course inflamed the minds of the people, and in- 
 dicated the course that they should pursue in order to 
 revenge themselves upon those persons by whom they 
 considered that they were injured. I desire next to direct 
 your Lordships' attention to speeches delivered at 
 Knocknabul onthe 5th of June, 1881. The Rev. Michael 
 M'Mahon, parish priest, said : — 
 
 " That when Irishmen were in the French service, 
 when the Irish Brigade existed, when Englishmen 
 and Irishmen were in the field, the Irishmen were 
 always placed against the Englishmen, so sure were 
 the French of carrying the day. Even in the great 
 battles where the French were beaten, the Irish broke 
 one section of the field and brought back the English 
 colours. At the battle of Fontenoy the French were 
 forced to fly. One resource remained, 5,000 of the 
 Irish Brigade. They got the word to charge, they 
 rushed in upon the English column irresistibly like a 
 thunder cloud, and trampled them to earth. At the 
 American War, Washington's war with America, the 
 Irish contingent contributed most materially to its 
 success. In the war of 1814 between England and 
 America, the American navy, oreatedby John Barry, an 
 Irish exile, defeated England in the height of her 
 power. The greatest commanders in that fleet were 
 M'Daragb, and Stewart, the grandfather of the present 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General,. 
 
34 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 Charles S. Pamell. They dealt their blows upon the 
 British, and the American army, led by Jackson and 
 
 two Irishmen also, they destroyed the 
 
 English army. The Irish element is a strong and 
 growing power upon the earth. They surround the 
 British Empire io thousands, prepared to break upon it 
 at any moment, Foreign complications may involve 
 England any day in war." 
 
 The Eev, D. M'Gillicuddy, Catholic curate, referring 
 to Father Sheehy's imprisonment, said : — 
 
 " What has been Father Sheehy's crime ? Let me 
 ask any man here if Father Sheehy walked this 
 road down here to-day and saw the ruin that you 
 saw, if a groan of indignation came from his 
 breast, who would condemn him ? And this is 
 Father Sheehy's crime. He has never done or 
 said anything that would be worse than if he stood 
 about the pile of the ruins of Donoghue's house and 
 said, ' Oh, Herbert.' " 
 
 Donoghue was a man who had recently been evicted, 
 and Patrick O'Keefe, a released Fenian, said : — 
 
 " The constitution upon which the sun never sets, 
 and God grant that it may never set, because it would be 
 wrong and dangerous to leave it in the dark, if the 
 constitution Jails to give a portion of the land to the 
 labourer, then I say, ' God send another constitution.' 
 Another constitution will come, and another sun shall 
 rest upon us." 
 
 Mr. Curtin, refening to the farm frcm which Dono- 
 ghue had been recently evicted, said : — 
 
 Let it stop there as a monument, as a memorial 
 of Herbert's perfidy. Let it stop there to show that 
 we, the people, are united to a man, and that they 
 will never suffer an Irish, or an English, or any machina- 
 tions to defeat us. Let it stop there till Herbert 
 goes down to the grave, and badly he is able. 
 (Voice, ' Let him go down to hell.') I don't want 
 you by any means whatsoever to make use of a 
 word against that man. I don't want you to make 
 use of that ugly word boycott. But 1 will tell you that 
 there are many ways of killing a dog besides choking 
 him with butter. I presume that Herbert won't make 
 his appearance often among you, and it would not be 
 any great loss if he did not appear in Castleisland. 
 Let it go around, from the centre to the sea, that 
 Herbert will be one of the most important men in the 
 country, far more so than Boycott or Bence Jones. I 
 will go and bring some man that might make Herbert 
 one of the most remarkable men in the country." 
 John D. Casey said they were there to crush tyran- 
 nizing land robbers, English blood agents, and to abolish 
 
 their cursed game of confiscation and eviction : 
 
 "We have been their slaves for many centuries. We arc 
 now determined to resist them by all the means in our 
 power. I call upon every one of you to stand by the 
 standard of C. S. Parnell, and if one of us be taken 
 away let others take their place until the English Go- 
 vernment get tired of arresting us. Our motherland is 
 a rich one ; therefore, let every one be determined, 
 no matter who is imprisoned, transported, or hung, let us 
 carry on the cause to the end. Now is the time to 
 crush landlords. Now is the time to live in freedom, 
 or die in slavery. It is new we are fighting the battle 
 of victory or slavery. We «o en the brink of victory, 
 and thank God, and with His help, we will be 
 victorious if we stand together, shoulder to shoulder 
 and stick to the Land League." 
 
 The Eev. Mr. O'Eearden, C.C., said that the princi- 
 pal reason of their assembling there that day was to 
 protest against a recent eviction in the district. He 
 was there to denounce those who had perpetrated that 
 outrage upon civilization. The speaker then explained 
 the circumstances of the case of the evicted tenant in 
 question, Donoghue, and stated that after he had been 
 evicted " the hirelings of the agent proceeded to level 
 the house to the ground." 
 
 " Now, I say hero to-day, and I know the effect 
 that act had upon the feelings of the people, I say 
 it was calculated to disturb and excite the people 
 and cause outrage in the land. Mr. Forster seems 
 to be at present only listening to one side of the 
 story. I say here to-day that there are some men in prison, 
 some of whom I am proud to call my friends. 1 say 
 that that act of outrage was more calculated to disturb 
 the peace than anything that these people might 
 reasonably be suspected to have done. I have a great 
 objection to bring any man's name under censure, 
 public or private ; but I will not withhold the name of 
 the landlord here to-day. The name is Mr. Wm. Hartlet, 
 the name of the agent is Br. A. Herbert, and I brand 
 them here to-day as disturbeis of peace and order in 
 the land. I am here to-day to tell this Mr. Arthur 
 Herbert that if he comes into this remote district to 
 disturb the peace, that if he dares to do it, that 
 though we will not injure a hair of his head, that we 
 will make an example of him." (The use of this phrase 
 as to injuring a hair of his head was one which the 
 people well understood.) " Is, therefore, Mr. A. Herbert 
 to be allowed to come in here and break up the houses 
 of these poor people and cast them adrift on the 
 waves of the world ? I say he will not." 
 On the 11th of September, 1881, a meeting was held at 
 Currow. Mr.Kelly,TraleeLand League organizer of Kerry, 
 said : — 
 
 " He felt that in no part of the world, in no part 
 of Kerry, could a meeting be so properly held as on this 
 very spot where they are assembled, because they can 
 almost see the footprints of the sheriff, the crowbar 
 brigade, the emergency men, and all the rag, tag, and 
 bobtail of a miserable, mean, and cowaidly Govern- 
 ment. To-day, not very far from where they are 
 assembled, the hired soldiers and police of Gladstone's 
 Government brought here, I daresay to give themselves 
 an airing, but with the ostensible purpose of preventing 
 us from committing a breach of the peace. What little 
 chance is there of us breaking the peace, except they 
 might stick their unwelcome noses among us, and if 
 they did I would not be responsible for the peace. 
 Will you take a farm from which another has been 
 evicted ? (Voice, ' They are taken here.') Well, you 
 have nothing to do with those people ; they are simply 
 land-grabbers, and for that you have one thing to no- 
 point the finger of scorn at them. As Dr. Nulty said, 
 socially ostracize them, have no intercourse with them, 
 and they will find when public opinion is brought on 
 them they will rot under it. We will work even to the 
 death to keep the labourers here, and we know well that 
 if more stern work is wanted we can depend on the 
 labourers on a pinch." 
 
 The Rev. Mr. O'Callaghan, C.C., delivered a strong 
 speech against emergency men and landlordism, and 
 urged upon the people the necessity for combination 
 " against that system which will soon sink accursed 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
 L 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 35 
 
 into the earth, to be melted by the tears of the widows, 
 famished children ; a system that hired the spy and 
 suborned the informer." The Rev. A. Murphy, CO., 
 said : — 
 
 ' ' We have been fouled out of our rights for the last 
 200 years, and it would be much better for us to fight 
 against our enemies on the battlefield than starve in the 
 workhouses as we have done. Unite, no man should 
 go by the back stairs into the rent-office ; go in a 
 body, or don't go at all. I should think there are 
 plenty of night boys about here to see them. I think 
 that the cause has made great progress ; one good 
 thing, you have cooked the small land-grabber, he is 
 done brown. (Boos for Brown.)" (Brown was the man who 
 was murdered by Poff an! Barrett, who were tried and 
 convicted. )"You have yet to cook that big land-grabber, 
 and the big land-grabber well merited it. Second course, 
 land-grabber ; third, dessert. We will give England her 
 deserts, and as soon as England meets with her deserts, 
 then you can drink a health to noble Davitt. My 
 friends, Davitt's wolf-dogs are in the slips, and we shall 
 only have to cry hulloa when those wolves will run 
 away. He need not catch them by the throat at all 
 when they will run. Speak to no man that goes by the 
 back stairs into the rent-office. Watch the petty agent, 
 and there will be no more land-grabbers, they will go 
 up to the top of Crumckbin." 
 
 With reference to the connexion between moonlighting 
 and the Land League, I have already mentioned that as 
 far as we have been able to find out in every case that 
 can be traced the moonlighters were Land Leaguers. 
 It is not unimportant also to notice that the moon- 
 lighters when tried were invariably defended with Land 
 League money. I mention that not for the purpose of 
 further connecting tho Land League with these outrages, 
 because we have abundance of other proof of this, but 
 for the purpose of calling attention to the purposes lor 
 which the money subscribed was devoted. As Mr.Boyton 
 pointed out, the money of the Land League was at the 
 disposal of every one accused of shooting a landlord, 
 in order, it was said, to secure for him " a fair trial." 
 The result was that all those who committed outrages 
 considered themselves as under the special protection of 
 the Land League. I now come to speeches delivered at 
 Kenmare on the 20th of September, 1885. 
 
 The President. — 1885 ! Are you proceeding from 
 1881 to 1885, or do you intend to return to the inter- 
 vening period ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — In 1882 the Land League 
 was suppressed, and from 1882 to 1885 the Coercion Act 
 was in force. However, perhaps the better course will 
 be for mo to break off with the speeches down to 1881, 
 and direct your Lordships' attention to a selection of 
 the outrages committed in this county down to this 
 period. I will not describe all the outrages, but I will 
 refer to some of them and show that they had a direct 
 connexion with the speeches which were delivered, to 
 which I have already referred. I will give them, as 
 far as possible, in order of date. First of all I would 
 call attention to the firing into the dwelling-house of 
 
 Thomas Talbot on the 18th of March, 1880. Your 
 Lordships will find that on the 8th of March, 1880, a man 
 named Murphy was evicted from his farm, and Thomas 
 Talbot took possession and occupied it as caretaker. On 
 the morning of the 18th of March he was fired at 
 through the window of the house where he was living. 
 On that occasion, fortunately, he was not wounded. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— That date is before any of the 
 speeches to which you have referred. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It is quite true that this 
 outrage is before the date of any of the speeches that I 
 have been reading, but I am not able to give your Lord- 
 ships the reports of the earliest of the Land League 
 meetings. There were meetings, and the organization 
 was at work months before the speeches I have read. 
 We cannot get evidence of what passed at the earlier 
 meetings, for they were not of the same public 
 character. It was not until the county had been 
 partially organized that these thoroughly public meet- 
 ings took place. I next call your Lordships' attention 
 to the firing into the dwelling-house of Jeremiah 
 Sullivan on the 3d of December, 1880. Sullivan was 
 a tenant of Lord Ventry's, and he paid his rent. He 
 had done uothing else, as far as I can gather, to call 
 down upon him the vengeance of the Land League. On 
 the morning of the 3d of December a shot was fired 
 through the bedroom window. Some pellets penetrated 
 the curtains of the bed on which he and his wife were 
 sleeping. The windows of the house were broken, and 
 a violent threatening notice was posted on his door. It 
 said :— 
 
 ' ' The cause that we come to you is that you paid your 
 rent, and we swear by our God that if you ever again 
 pay it against the will of the people or any other man 
 you will be shot. Take notice only for the large 
 family that was depending on you have been shot, and 
 there is more black sheep in the neighbourhood got not 
 to pay rent and they paid and they will be shot. — 
 Rory of the Hills, the Moonlight Ranger." 
 
 Then there was a picture of a coffin bearing the words, 
 " God rest his soul." On the 29th of June, 1881, the 
 house of a man named M'Candy was attacked by an 
 armed party, and this man with his brother and 
 sister were wounded with gun-shot wounds. One of 
 his arms had to be cut off. His offence was that he had 
 served certain eviction notices. On the 6th of Septem- 
 ber, 1881, William Coppice received notice that un- 
 less he apologized to the Land League for having paid 
 his rent he would be boycotted, and his house was sub« 
 sequently attacked. On the 12th of November, 1881, 
 the house of Thomas Galvin, who had paid his rent, 
 was entered by an armed party, Galvin being fired at 
 and wounded. On the 17th of December, 1881, 
 Michael Flynn had his houso entered by an armed 
 party at Corbal, and, being charged with paying his 
 rent, was fired at and wounded, necessitating tho 
 amputation of his leg. On the 1st of February, 1882, 
 the houses of Daniel M'Carthy and Daniel Lenaghan 
 were fired into, the only explanation being, that they 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
 2-2 
 
36 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 had paid their rent. In the same month Cornelius 
 Hickey, who had taken possession of a farm and who had 
 refused to give it up, was shot, and died of his wounds. 
 On the 6th of March, 1882, Daniel Dowling was fired 
 at and wounded. . These outrages in the county Kerry 
 were occurring almost daily, and one cannot help again 
 asking why is it that there is not a single speech by a 
 leader of the so -called constitutional party in which 
 an attempt was made to restrain such outrages. The 
 Land League was started under the names of Mr. Par- 
 nell and Mr. Biggar, and Mr. Brennan and Mr. Egan 
 were its officers. If they were not conniving at and 
 taking advantage of what was going on, how is it that 
 not even a circular was sent out to warn these people 
 of the iniquity of these outrages, and to urge the people 
 to assist in the conviction of those who committed 
 these deeds ? But during these dreadful years of 1881 
 and 1882 not one single step was taken by Mr. Parnell 
 or any of his followers to put an end to these outrages. 
 Your Lordships will find that whenever the outrages 
 were spoken of by some speakers it was pointed out 
 that they did harm because of their effect on English 
 public opinion. But nothing was said of the wickedness 
 of these deeds. Daniel Dowling was a farmer of 25 
 years' standing and was suspected of paying his rent. 
 On the 6th of March a party of men entered his house 
 and asked if he had paid his rent. He said he had and 
 had got a reduction, whereupon they ordered him into 
 the yard and fired at him, wounding him in the thigh. 
 The same party visited other persons' houses and in- 
 flicted injuries upon them when they refused to answer 
 questions. On the 10th of March, at Knockadoon, 
 Timothy Connelly's house was entered. He was shot 
 in the arms and legs, his wife was shot in the head 
 and thigh, and his daughter was also wounded, his 
 offence being the payment of his rent and the giving 
 information to the police as to certain outrages. In 
 this particular district Miss Reynolds, a member of the 
 Ladies' Land League, had been agitating, and un- 
 doubtedly she went down, having her expenses paid 
 with Land League money. On the 30th of March, 
 1882, Arthur Herbert was murdered near Castleisland. 
 He had been denounced in a speech that I have already 
 read. When walking along the public road on his way 
 to petty sessions he was fired at and shot. It is im- 
 possible to exaggerate the wickedness of these offences 
 or of the men who instigated them. On the 17th of 
 April, 1882, John Callarty was fired at and so badly 
 wounded that his leg had to be cut off. He had pointed 
 out certain land to the officers of the law. On the 
 20th of July, 1882, a bailiff named Kerry was shot at 
 and wounded in the leg, his only offence being that 
 he was working for an unpopular landlord. On the 
 20th of August, 1882, Daniel Leahy, a farmer, aged 60 
 years, of Scarteen, near Killarney, was murdered. He 
 was a tenant of Lord Kenmare and was suspected of 
 having obtained for his son-in-law through his influence 
 at the rent-office a farm which had been put up for 
 auction and for which Leahy was outbidden at the 
 auction. About midnight a party of six or seven men. 
 
 armed, burst into Leahy's house, proceeded to his bed- 
 side, and ruthlessly tore him from beside his wife, who 
 did all in her power to save him, but without effect. 
 Leahy was dragged into the kitchen, his wife still cling- 
 ing to him, but she was pulled away, and after the un- 
 fortunate man had been placed upon his knees three 
 shots were fired at him, all of which took effect in his 
 abdomen and from which he died. One would have 
 thought that this crime would have excited the pity 
 even of the constitutional agitators. But though 
 it was generally attributed to the Land League, 
 the leaders of the League did nothing to condemn 
 it. On the 14th of May, 1883, James Walsh, who 
 was the caretaker of an evicted farm, was attacked 
 by a party of men and injured by gun-shot wounds. 
 I will leave the later outrages until I have referred to 
 the later speeches. And now, my Lords, I wish to call 
 attention to the speeches made about the same time in 
 the county of Mayo. As far as we can gather Galway 
 was organized and worked by Harris, Gordon, and 
 Nally, who were sent down to deliver a series of 
 speeches in that county, while in Kerry Boyton and the 
 Harringtons were the chief agitators. Mr. Biggar was 
 also a speaker at some meetings, but, being a person of 
 more importance, with possibly even more important 
 work to do, he did not visit Kerry very frequently. 
 In regard to the county of Mayo I shall show your 
 Lordships how that county was worked. I shall not, 
 however, be able to refer to all the speeches that 
 were delivered, and in some cases we have only the 
 resolutions that were passed. The first meeting held in 
 the county of Mayo to which I would refer your 
 Lordships took place at Irishtown on the 2d of May, 
 1880. Mr. Boyton said there was an old adage which 
 says ' ' Show me your company and I will tell you who 
 you are ;" it was a proud ambition of his to be in the 
 company of Mr. Parnell and Mr. Davitt. It was the 
 first time he had set foot in Mayo, and he would go 
 back to the Land League of Kildare and tell them that 
 the cows in Connaught have long horns. Mr. Davitt 
 reviewed the work done by the agitation, which, he 
 said, had shown the tenant farmers their great strength- 
 had brought them together in vast numbers ; the force 
 of landlordism was nothing against the vast masses of 
 the people ; it had convinced them that they had 
 rights to the soil of Ireland — rights far more strong and 
 more superior than the landlords' ; and it had infused 
 into the people such a spirit that they are resolved to 
 fight for those rights until victory crowned their cause. 
 "The Land League had called upon the people to pay no 
 rent until they got a reduction, to look to their own 
 comforts, and then offer the landlords what they could 
 spare. You have triumphed over both the landlords 
 and the Government, and by your action have made 
 the landlords the weaker party. Then, in the name of 
 reason, in the name of justice and common sense, let ths 
 landlords go to the wall." Mr. John J. Louden said :— 
 " Not alone have we on the platforms of Mayo, Gal- 
 way, Sligo, and Leitrim preached the gospel of the 
 people's social regeneration, but we have carried the 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 37 
 
 war into every possible avenue of attack where 
 we could strike landlordism low. We often hear 
 the expression that our meetings are communistic, but 
 I here declare, in the face of heaven, that the land 
 does not belong to the landlords, but to the people. 
 You must not let any man bring a charge of communism 
 against us, for the cause we are advocating is the cause 
 of humanity and of God." 
 
 Mr.Parnell called upon the people to renew the pledge 
 they had made twelve months ago to keep a firm grip 
 of their holdings, to refuse to pay an unjust rent, and 
 to stand by the struggle until the lands have passed 
 into the possession of the people. " The Irish National 
 Land League was then a struggling institution ; to-day 
 it is known all over the world ; Canada, Australia, 
 and America are pouring in their money to help them. 
 It is impossible for the COO, 000 tenant farmers of Ire- 
 land to be overwhelmed if they combine together. 
 We will protect you by fighting in the Courts points of 
 law, and out of the Courts by creating a public senti- 
 ment against landlord exterminators ; and if by any 
 chance, in any place, a landlord should get the upper 
 hand of his tenantry, we will see that better and 
 happier homes will take the places of those they 
 have lost. I leave this cause, then, in your hands, 
 believing that we are commencing a renewal of 
 agitation on the land question greater in in- 
 tensity than that which signalled last winter." 
 I do not see how it is possible for any one to contend 
 that this was not a conspiracy, an organization started 
 and intended to be worked by agents in various parts of 
 Ireland. It was a conspiracy which never could have 
 been carried on by two or three men in the first 
 instance, but must, as its influence increased, be 
 worked by means of agents, and it is for that reason 
 that I have said that the principal charge made in 
 " Pamellism and Crime "is that these leaders con- 
 nived at and winked at the work being done. It is not 
 charged that they themselves personally went and 
 planned the outrages, but that other men were doing it 
 for them, and that of that system they took the advan- 
 tage and never stirred hand or foot to put a stop to it. 
 Without this thorough organization, as they called it, it 
 would have been impossible for Mr. Parnell to be sup- 
 ported by the members who subsequently supported him 
 in Parliament,and the men who were nominated to take 
 those places would never have been nominated at all. 
 I will call your Lordships' attention next to a speech 
 made at Ballintaffy on May 3, 1880, by the same M. P. 
 Boyton. He said he represented Mr. Parnell at the 
 meeting that day, and proposed a resolution protesting 
 against the tyrannical power that had driven two of 
 their fellow-countrymen (M'Hugh and Walsh) out of 
 the country, and pledging the people to take care of 
 their holdings until they returned to resume posses- 
 sion of them. " The cause they have in hand is known 
 to all, and if that cause is right it will succeed, in spite 
 of the whole British Empire. It is right, and it will 
 succeed. We are going to tear down this most infamous 
 structure. We are going to protest against the most 
 
 infamous imposition of laws. I was told here to-day 
 that the arm of the law — the rotten arm of strength- 
 was sent here for your protection ; but I think the 
 men of Mayo are able to take care of themselves. 
 (Cheers.) The seed that you have sown to-day will 
 come up and astonish the whole world. Let who will 
 take up the crop, the crop that will follow it will bo 
 more significant when the question of the right to the 
 land will be decided. I want you to bear in mind that 
 the man who is to-day the recognized leader of the 
 Irish people is taking advantage of a weapon greater 
 than the sword — the pen. We have a faithful and 
 efficient staff of men, who are putting before the eyes 
 of the world — greater empires than the British — that 
 every power will be used against them. I did not 
 come here to make a speech. I came here to describe 
 in great round Boman type before 500 audiences in. 
 the Great Republic of the West." The Bev. Mr. Cor. 
 bett, Catholic curate, also spoke. He said : — " We will 
 hold our farms and keep a firm grip of them ; we will 
 at least terrify the landlords so far as we can, that they 
 will relinquish their hold upon the land." Referring 
 to some vacant holdings on a local property, which, 
 however, he did not name, he called upon the people 
 never to dream of going into possession of these 
 holdings again ; let them lie waste, and put this 
 tyrant down. At this meeting a placard was dis- 
 played, having the inscription, " Let no man take this 
 land." - At the same meeting Mr. John W. Walsh said 
 it was from the lips of Father Corbett he had first 
 learned to hate landlordism. " I am here to-day," 
 he said, " to assist you to denounce that system. God 
 made this world for His own glory and man's benefit. 
 He never intended that a few lazy' people should own 
 the land." On June 13 of the same year, 1880, J. W. 
 Nally, an organizer who was doing work in Galway 
 during part of the same autumn, spoke at Ballyglass. 
 He said : — " The Peace Preservation Act is abolished 
 altogether ; each of you can get a licence for 10s. 
 Well, by paying 10s. you can shoot the whole year 
 round. The Act is this, that you can shoot jackdaws, 
 magpies, ' vermin, and nuisances. (A voice. — ' The 
 police.') Don't sheot the police, and the landlords and 
 land-grabbers are not brought under it. I am not 
 telling you to shoot, but I am telling you 
 what you can do, if you like. There is only 10s. 
 licence for the whole year round. You will have 
 to pay £3 for game, but the other applies to the vermin 
 line. Without unity we cannot get rid of the land- 
 sharks and land-grabbers." Nally then read a resolution 
 condemning the conduct of any person who would take 
 an evicted or surrendered farm, and compared such con- 
 duct to that of the robber soldier who pierced the heart 
 of Christ. No doubt my learned friend has tested the 
 accuracy of our reports by other reports of the speeches 
 I have read, and if there can be anything that can 
 qualify language such as I am referring to, my learned 
 friend is entitled to take advantage of it ; but all I 
 can say is that it will be for your Lordships to judge 
 whether the statements made by the reporters, par» 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
38 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 ticularly having regard to what I have already put 
 before you, do not represent with substantial accuracy 
 the pith of the speeches, and show that they 
 were intended to be made for the purpose of in 
 citing the people to the conduct which followed. 
 Next, my Lords, at Shrnle, on June 20, 1880, P. J. 
 Gordon, the man I mentioned yesterday, made a speech. 
 He commented upon the absence from the meet- 
 ing of the parish priest, and remarked that he bears 
 the name of Good, but he is damned little good. He 
 (Gordon) left it in the hands of the people to chastise 
 those who are against the people. He did not care if 
 " half the throats of our enemies were cut before 
 morning." Gordon then related a story of an attempt 
 that had been made by a landlord to evict a tenant of 
 his (a woman). The woman stood up, took from the 
 hearth a tongs, and smashed the head of the robber. 
 She was not guilty of a crime. He asked the women 
 there that day to act the part of the soldier, to allow 
 no robber to enter their cabin. If they drove the robber 
 from their cabin door their name should pass to every 
 quarter of the globe. He alluded to two men, David 
 Bourke and his son-in-law, who, he said, were in treaty 
 for an evicted farm previously held by one Tborton. 
 The people groaned at this, and J. W. Nally observed 
 that groans were of no use, and added, " Refer it me 
 for my pills I have got lately." " O'Connell once said 
 that the land of Ireland would be dearly bought at one 
 drop of blood, but I differ from him. It is better for 
 you to lose your blood as Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien 
 did, and we are determined to do the same. Away with 
 the land-robbers ; in referring to the land-sharks and 
 grabbers, unfortunately we have them in our midst. 
 I ask you in the name of Ireland to treat them with 
 contempt. (A voice. — ' Give them what Lord Leitrim 
 got.') (J. W. Nally.— ' You are too cowardly to do 
 that.') Don't forgive them, they have sold their 
 nationality and away with them. I don't care by what 
 form a man is robbed ; whether by day or by night, 
 you must look upon it as robbery. It is quite the same 
 to a dog how he is killed — by choking him with a rope 
 or with butter." J. W. Walsh also spoke. Ho pro- 
 tested against the eviction of a tenant named Pat 
 Kevil by his landlord, Mr. Bourke, of Ower. He said 
 he was present, deputed by the Irish N. L. L. , to offer 
 any assistance towards explaining the objects of the 
 movement. He was present as an Irish Nationalist to 
 proclaim the doctrine of Irish nationality. He had taken 
 an active part in the agitation since its initiation, and 
 he would be sorry to say one word in favour of the 
 N. L. L. if he saw it interfere with thatpuro and holy 
 name of Irish nationality. " Whenever you meet a 
 land-grabber, land-robber, or land-thief, raise your cry 
 to Ireland, that it may sound in his ears. Landlordism 
 has been swept away by the people of l'rance, ic. Are 
 we to lie up and see the bastard come into our cabirs ? 
 A tyrant comes in and says you must get up, I want 
 this cabin. What would be the feelings of that man ? 
 Aye, I don't know what would curb that man's feel- 
 ings from dark imaginings, or his hands from bringing 
 
 them into effect." This, my Lords, is the speech of a 
 man who had been deputed by the National Land 
 League to give his assistance in explaining the objects 
 of the movement. He had heard this speech of Gordon, 
 and he, as representing the National Land League, gave 
 tho people that advice and never uttered a word of 
 repudiation of the doctrines that had been preached to 
 them. On July 4, 1880, at Bohola, there were present 
 at a meeting J. W. Walsh and J. W. Nally. Walsh on 
 that occasion said : — " There were many reasons that 
 gave him pleasure that day, and that was to raise his 
 voice in praise of American Independence, and he 
 hoped the Irish people under the leadership of C. S. 
 Parnell will have Ireland a free nation yet." At the 
 conclusion of his speech, J. W. Nally came forward 
 and said : — " There has been more good done since this 
 day week than all the speeching — the pills. (A voice. — 
 ' Three cheers for Rory of the Hills !') (Cheers.)" Very 
 shortly before this speech was made an outrage had 
 taken place in the immediate neighbourhood, a man 
 having been shot ; and your Lordships will find, if you 
 think the evidence I shall bring before you is true, 
 that these men were, practically speaking, repeating 
 the same advice and using the same language in 
 various parts of Ireland. These men were not gifted 
 speakers selected for their eloquence, but they were 
 men who were selected and paid for the purpose of 
 going out and organizing this kind of work, and for 
 the purpose of promoting the; interests of the National 
 Land League by such speeches. I believe it will appear, 
 with reference to that statement," there has been moire 
 good done since this day week than all tho speech- 
 ing," that at the very time it was made a man 
 in the neighbourhood was lying dying from the 
 effects of a fatal shot — a man who had com- 
 mitted no offence except that he had in some 
 way offended those who worked the Land League. 
 On July 11, 1880, at Cong, Mayo, P. J. Gordon, 
 Matthew Harris, J. W. Walsh, and Father O'Malley 
 were present at a meeting. On that occasion P. J. 
 Gordon said: — 
 
 " The man who takes an evicted farm I will 
 point him as a greater assassin than the man who 
 fires a pistol-shot. If you sweep away landlordism, 
 everything will prosper in this land. They 6ay we 
 are promoting assassination ; but is it not enough to 
 make an assassin of any man when be sees his family 
 sent forth on the world ? Swear lefore Heaven that 
 this land you are determined to maintain. If you are' 
 determined to be free you must strike the blow against 
 landlordism. I will sketch over the attempt at Ballin- 
 robc. They have run over to Claremorris and took 
 one man from among us. But they wanted to have one 
 bird in the nest. They knew he had nothing to do with 
 the murder. The police went as far as Queenstown and 
 arrested those men on their way to America. I stole 
 away five of them, and before another week elapses 
 two will to away too. If there were a crime com- 
 mitted against the man, let them find out the guilty 
 party." 
 
 The mention of Ballinrobe had reference to an outrage 
 that had taken place there. A man was then lying on 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 39 
 
 his death-ted Buffering from the effects of a shot 
 received a few days before I have spoken to your 
 Lordships of the means adopted by the organization to 
 obtain a fair trial for the men who shot landlords, but 
 now the operations seem to be carried a step further, 
 and, practically speaking, Gordon says that he had 
 something to do with keeping these men out 
 of the way. Those are the tactics which were 
 preached, and those are the instructions that were 
 given to those poor ignorant men. Father O'Malley 
 said : — 
 
 " The Irish National Land League is the hope of 
 the peasant. Unity is strength. If you take a piece 
 of thread you can snap it, but pat a thousand pieces 
 together and they will hold a sK!f>. You will put them 
 round landlordism and lash it to the ground. Talk is 
 cheap, but what we want is action. The landlords 
 have murdered the people— driven them to die in the 
 workhouse, or sent them to the bottom of the 
 Atlantic. I say this is murder. A man said to me, 
 ' Is it not a savage thing to take away a man's life '(' 
 But what shall you say to the man who brings it upon 
 himself ? " 
 
 It is all very well to talk of this as a political 
 agitation. It is a direct attempt by means of 
 attacking the tenants, and through them the 
 landlords, to promote the end whereby the land- 
 lord " garrison " was to be removed altogether 
 from Ireland. That was part of the system 
 whereby this Land League organization was going 
 to do the work which would be palatable and 
 acceptable to the extreme party in America ; and, 
 as your Lordships will find, in consequence of 
 that very large subscriptions came from America, and, 
 as I have said, a very large amount of that money 
 still remains unaccounted for in the hands of the 
 leaders of the organization. At Clooneal, on Septem- 
 ber 19, 1880, J. W. Walsh, John Sweeney, and J. W. 
 Nally spoke. The latter said he had seen some land- 
 grabbers, both that day and the day previous, at 
 Killalla, " and they had the look of Judas Iscariot 
 who slayed Christ on the cross. I hope you will buy a 
 lot of those pills that I will be selling. Any man can 
 have a rifle and use it ; they are very cheap now. 
 I tell you yon can shoot. There is no close season for 
 shooting vermin. (Cheers.)" He then proposed a 
 resolution declaring that no man should take an evicted 
 farm ; any such man should be looked upon as worse 
 than the robber soldier who pierced Christ on the cross. 
 Continuing, he said that • " the words that have flown 
 from his lips were not up to the wishes of his heart, 
 because he would like to do away with land-grabbers 
 and land-sharks. The people want something more 
 than speechifying. It was no use unless they went 
 hand in hand under the standard of Wolfe Tono and 
 Emmet, and on the same scaffold as Allen, Larkin, 
 and O'Brien. Until that was done they would never 
 have total separation." Your Lordships will not fail to 
 notice again this idea of separation being brought out, 
 in order that when these speeches came to be reported, 
 and the accounts of the meetings came to be sent to 
 
 the other side of the Atlantic, to America, it might 
 be found that they were carrying on that part 
 of the programme which was acceptable to their 
 American friends. Before this inquiry is finished 
 your Lordships will have little doubt as to what 
 was the effect upon America of these speeches which 
 were being made from day to day and from month to 
 month in Ireland. Sweeney seconded the above reso- 
 lution, and Walsh said he was glad to see the light was 
 spreading, thanks to Bedpath and others like him. 
 ' ' Any man who gives away his harvest and does not 
 keep what will support his family, he is guilty in the 
 sight of God. If the land is not able to supply you, 
 don't pay any rent at all." With regard to the state- 
 ment about " spreading the light," your Lordships will 
 find that there was what was called a " Spread the Light 
 Fund, "and that the expression was commonly used both 
 of speakers in Ireland and of American literature, and 
 one of the ways in which the light was to be spread 
 was by the circulation in Ireland, among other papers, 
 of the Irish World. The Irish, World was a paper 
 which, by its articles and by the speeches reported in 
 it, openly advocated the use of dynamite, assassination, 
 and all kinds of acts of violence, and some of the men 
 whose names are implicated actually applied for thou- 
 sands of copies of the Irisli World to be sent over, and 
 Mr. Parnell himself publicly thanked the Irish World 
 more than once for the good it had done to the cause 
 of the Land League. More than once, too, you find 
 persons who are included in these charges in close 
 communication with the representatives of the Irish 
 World, and many of them are quoted in the Irish World 
 as advocates of the course of conduct I have been 
 denouncing. It may be said by my learned friend's 
 clients that this association was perfectly harmless ; 
 that they knew Ford, but did not then suspect him to 
 be the man he was. They may say "It is true 
 we knew Byrne, but we did not know he was the 
 criminal we now believe him to be." But what I shall 
 be able to show your Lordships is that these men, of 
 whom Byrne was one, were only known as dynamiters 
 or the advocates of dynamite and assassination, or 
 persons disseminating in the American Press the light 
 which was to be spread in Ireland. Therefore it will 
 not be difficult for your Lordships to come to the con- 
 clusion that the association between the Irish and 
 American sections was kept up for no other purpose than 
 for the promotion of a common object. It cannot be 
 said that these men, who had in view the com- 
 plete separation of Ireland from England by any means, 
 were associated with what has been falsely called a 
 constitutional agitation. I referred just now to the 
 expression " Spread the Light." It was used by Red- 
 path, one of the most violent speakers. He was the 
 correspondent of the Irish World. He on one occasion 
 denounced the Queen and the constituted authorities in 
 such a violent speech that, as I pointed out in my 
 opening observations in the action " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter," Mr. O'Donnell himBelf had to repudiate it, 
 and other members of the National party had to 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
40 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 apologize for it and endeavour to put a different gloss 
 upon it. On October 10, 1880, a meeting was held at 
 Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, at which Mr. Mat Harris 
 and James Daly were the speakers. The latter said 
 that Lord Monntmorres was not worth shooting as a 
 landlord. He was shot because he fined a man at 
 Clonbur Petty Sessions 10s. for pulling heather and 
 for being a seducer. These remarks are also corrobo- 
 rated by Daly's own paper, the Connaught Telegraph, 
 of October 16, 1880. Mr. Mat Harris said that the 
 liberty and independence of their country was to be 
 gained by fighting, not by talking. " No people ever 
 gained liberty in a permanent and substantial form 
 without fighting and dying for that liberty. Let the 
 people of Ireland make up their minds to this, if they 
 have any nationality and wish for severance from Eng- 
 land ; let them one and all make up their minds to 
 this. They have the game in their own hands ; 
 beware of him who would tell you to pay your 
 rent." These remarks are corroborated by the Con- 
 naught Telegraph newspaper of October 16, 1880. 
 On April 8, 1881, at a meeting at Ballintaffy, Mr. 
 J. P. Quinn spoke. He was secretary to the National 
 League, and I have seen his name in connexion with 
 one of the branches of the Land League. He said that 
 he left Dublin the day previous with the intention of 
 being present at this meeting, as the representative of 
 the Land League, for the purpose of " denouncing the 
 person who was about taking those farms ;" but he was 
 glad this disagreeable duty did not now fall to him, 
 as the man who was going to take those farms had come 
 forward and disclaimed that such was his inten- 
 tion. 
 
 " I may say, as one who has been identified with 
 this movement from its inception, that I would not 
 give one day in the furtherance of the land movement 
 if I did not believe that the day will soon come when 
 the banner of freedom will float over us, and the ini- 
 quitous landlord system will be abolished for ever, and 
 the British Government done terrorizing over us. Let 
 no man be guilty of the treacherous conduct of betray- 
 ing your country and the sacred cause by occupying a 
 farm from which a tenant has been evicted ; and if 
 any man is so guilty, shun him as you would the very 
 devil ; boycott him." 
 
 Would your Lordships observe the connexion ? The 
 idea is that the banner of freedom is to float overtheir 
 land, that the iniquitous landlord system is to be 
 abolished for ever, and that the British Government is 
 to cease terrorizing over them. These three laudable 
 objects are to be attained by preventing people from 
 being guilty of the treacherous conduct of betraying 
 their country by occupying farms from which tenants 
 have been evicted. The fact was that they believed 
 that, if they could not succeed in subjecting the Irish 
 tenantry to the tyranny which I have been describing, 
 the movement would fail because honest people would 
 not be iu fear and would refuse to join in it, and 
 there would not be enough dishonest people to form 
 such an army as could achieve the objects in view. At 
 the same meeting P. J. Gordon, in the presence of the 
 
 Rev. J. Corbett and Mr. Quinn, called the Government 
 " a bloody British Government." He said the land- 
 grabber would bo looked upon " in the light of a 
 Judas, who dipped his hands in the same dish with Our 
 Lord, and afterwards betrayed him ;" that " the man 
 who violates the rules of the Land League is a Judas, 
 and must be looked upon as such." He went on : — 
 
 " We have met here again to-day to denounce any 
 man that enters on this farm, and if any man takes it 
 we will make it a hot shop for him. And, lest it may 
 not be heard or understood, I say again that we will 
 make it a hot shop for him. I say that the English 
 Government is the most tyrannical, the most despotic, 
 and most damnable in the whole world. If you had 
 the bold spirit of the Boers you would have your 
 country free 100 years ago. (Cheers for the Boers.) 
 Commit no crime ; stick to the system of boycotting." 
 
 After that speech I think he, too, might have said, 
 " Do you twig ?" Your Lordships have had already 20 
 or 30 instances with respect to which I have shown 
 that if boycotting was not sufficient by itself it was 
 reinforced by crime. Will my learned friends say that 
 the words which I have read constitute an earnest 
 appeal to the people not to be guilty of crime ? If 
 they do, I shall ask your Lordships to draw your own 
 conclusions. I will now pass to speeches delivered on 
 October 31 at Shrule by J. W. Nally and E. D. Walsh, 
 Land League representatives. Many banners were 
 conspicuous at the meeting, bearing such inscriptions 
 as — " Down with land-jobbers ! Ireland for the 
 Irish ! " " Down with land-grabbers ! " (with pike 
 and gun crossed) " I'll cock my musket, says the 
 Shan van voght." Also a " Stars and Stripes." 
 Nally said, " He had suggested on one occasion pills ; 
 but he found that pills had got mild, they were 
 nothing but sweets. He would now suggest something 
 stronger— dynamite, gun-cotton. He would not tell 
 them to shoot any one, but they could do so if they 
 liked. ' Stick to your homesteads, and any man that 
 evicts you, you know what to do.'" R.D.Walsh said :— 
 ' ' There was no one present who had done more to 
 advance the cause of nationality than Mr. John Nally 
 and himself . They were there to say that landlordism 
 was opposed to the best interests of Ireland. If he 
 knew that the National Land League was antagonistic 
 to Ireland he would declare that he would have 
 nothing to do with it. By destroying landlordism they 
 would be laying the foundation-stone of national inde- 
 pendence, and they would then be able gloriously to 
 build that edifice for which Emmet died and for which 
 Lord Edward bled. He had been told there were only 
 two parties, the National Land League and the 
 Fenians." (Cheers for the Fenians.) Speaker—" Three 
 more cheers for Fenianism." (Cheers.) " Are we to be 
 told that the National Land League and Fenians cannot 
 unite ? We have only one enemy — the English Govern- 
 ment. The cause of every farmer who is a Land 
 Leaguer is the cause of every man who is a Fenian." 
 He concluded, amid cheers, by asking the people to 
 band themselves together in the Land League. I 
 should be surprised if that line of argument were 
 
 The Soeech of the Attorney-General 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 41 
 
 followed by any of the eminent counsel who represent 
 here the persons charged. If they should follow it, I 
 would point out that it would be a practical justifica- 
 tion of " Parnellism and Crime," for it is maintained 
 there that this conspiracy, started in 1879, and carried 
 on through 1880 and 1881, only existed on the faith of 
 the representation made by its advocates that by 
 attacking the land system the ends of the land agita- 
 tion and of F enianism would both be attained. At a 
 meeting at Roundfort, Mayo, on April 10, 1881, when 
 there were present, among others, Peter Mullaghy, hon. 
 secretary of the Kilcommon branch of the Land 
 League, and Edward Walsh, assistant secretary, V. J. 
 Gordon said : — 
 
 " He came there at the invitation of the Kilcommon 
 branch of the Land League. A sum of £30 had been 
 sent by the Irish National Land League for the 
 sufferers and friends of those persons in gaol in con- 
 nexion with the Clarsen affair ; it would be distributed 
 and £5 given to each. They were bound to resist that 
 law which had deprived their forefathers of the land 
 that was theirs, and who were evicted without mercy. 
 There was no remedy ; the thing went en until we saw 
 half a dozen men sit down and say they would make a 
 move. You know the result. (Cheers.) (At this point 
 Mr. Pringle passed on a trap and was groaned.) I for 
 one took an active part in the land movement from the 
 beginning. I was tried for the part I took in the Four 
 Courts, Dublin. I will stick to my last, and that 
 is the land question, and tell the murderous British 
 
 Government it is killing the Irish people 
 
 If you have any land-grabbers among you don't speak 
 to them ; shun them as if they were the devil ; don't 
 speak to him in the chapel ; no person or law can 
 compel you to speak to any person you don't wish to 
 speak to. If the blood of one landlord shot cries to 
 Heaven for vengeance, how much more the blood of 
 millions of the Irish people murdered by eviction and 
 starvation. (Cheers for the Boers.) The Boers are 
 the boys can bone the English soldier. The Boer 
 country is not bigger than the city of Dublin, but they 
 said to the English Government that they would have 
 to kill every man, woman, and child before it would 
 get them to surrender their rights. If the Irish people 
 held out like the Boers, the landlord and agent would 
 soon be glad to settle them and give them all they 
 wanted. I have a few words to say about the Arms 
 Act. I do not want you to send the first instalment to 
 the police, like that sent to the Home Secretary. 
 Keep your o wn arms ready and your firearms safe ; let 
 the police go to look for them. The Government says 
 it will pay you for them, but if you give them up you 
 may go and look for payment. You paid for these 
 arms ; they are your ow"n. Keep them safe, and your 
 own arms ready, as a day may yet come when the 
 Irish people may be called on to fight for their 
 country. I got some of my limbs broken in this land 
 movement, but my heart is not broken, and I hope I 
 may live to see the day — and if ever any of my limbs 
 are again broken, I hope it it will be on some hillside, 
 fighting for the independence of my country. (Cheers.)" 
 
 He then made a reference to Eobert Emmet, and 
 said : — " If he were alive he would fight for 
 his country ; but the people were not organized 
 then as now. They are organized now. (Cheers.)" 
 Your Lordships know how the organization 
 
 worked. I suppose that the Mr. Pringle who was 
 groaned when passing was an obnoxious individual. 
 On April 13, at Claremorris, P. J. Gordon, in the 
 presence of Father Corbett, said : — 
 
 " Three cheers for Father Corbett. Keep the flag 
 flying, boys ; don't let it go down. I will be out 
 yet to fight the battle against the land thieves. 
 Keep your powder dry, boys, and blow Bourke to 
 blazes some fine morning — Walter of Curraleigh. He 
 has all the money his father robbed from the 
 poor tenants sunk in that place below, and now the 
 devil has himself down in the grave or somewhere 
 else. That is the devoted Catholic ; see his work 
 after yesterday. In one case he threw out 13 weak 
 children and brought 300 police to evict them. It was 
 not the fault of the police, |frey were bound to come, 
 and they acted as men there ; they made up a sub- 
 scription for a poor man that was starving. Let no man 
 say a word to a policeman ; but there is another bas- 
 tardly dog there— Carter. Any one who would look at 
 him would know that he was a bastard. Carter, the 
 bastard, mind him." 
 
 Your Lordships will observe the reference — ' ' Blow 
 Bourke to blazes — Walter of Curraleigh." That was 
 the Mr. Bourke who was subsequently shot. If 
 that was not a direct incitement to the crime 
 afterwards committed, what was it ? Mr. Bourke, 
 of Curraleigh, had property both in Mayo and Gal- 
 way. Now, I have to give your Lordships as briefly 
 as I can the particulars of the outrages which took 
 place contemporaneously with the speeches delivered 
 in Mayo. In a period of about a year and a-half from 
 the beginning of 1880 there were five murders, 14 cases 
 of firing at and wounding people, 18 cases of firing into 
 houses, and a very large number of other outrages of a 
 less serious character. On March 28, 1880, the house 
 of Michael Nolan was attacked by an armed party at 
 3 o'clock in the morning. The house was fired into, and 
 both Nolan and his wife were assaulted, and they were 
 told that they would be again attacked if the land was 
 not given up. In May, 1880, occurred Feerick's case. 
 I will refer to some speeches that preceded the out- 
 rage, for the connexion between the speeches and the 
 outrage is remarkable. Feerick was agent for Mr. 
 George Browne, and he took some land which had 
 been in the possession of a woman named Geraghty. 
 The Land League meetings in the district had begun in 
 April, 1879. There was a series of meetings, but I 
 have not the reports of the speeches delivered on the 
 early dates. On May 2 and 3, 1880, there were 
 speeches by Davitt, Parnell, and Boyton, and on the 
 4th, the day after the meetings, Feerick was shot at 
 and wounded, but not severely. On June 13 occurred 
 the meeting at Ballyglass, when Nally told the people 
 that everybody could oarry arms and that 10s. could 
 procure a licence to shoot vermin. On June 14 
 placards were posted about Ballinrobe announcing 
 that the names and addresses of land-grabbers would be 
 published. On June 20 came those speeches by Walsh 
 and Nally which I have read, and which contained re- 
 ferences to extreme violence, and on June 29 Feerick 
 was shot, receiving a wound from which he afterwards 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
42 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 died. The outrage occurred at 3 o'clock in the after- 
 noon, in broad daylight, close to the town. He was 
 6hot in the back, the arms, the right thigh, the right 
 hip, and left eye, and he was left for dead in the 
 road, no one assisting him. He was subsequently re- 
 moved to the hospital, and while he was lying dying 
 from his wounds Nally made the speech in which he 
 said that something had been done there last week 
 that was better than speechifying, and in which he 
 again referred to pills. On July 11 occurred a meet- 
 ing, at which Mat Harris, Gordon, and Nally again 
 spoke, and on August 15 Feerick died. He was, I be- 
 lieve, on his way to Eallinrobe to attend the sessions 
 when he was shot. It is impossible not to connect 
 this outrage with the agitation that had sprung up 
 under the auspices of the Land League and with the 
 incitements of various speakers. On January 4, 1881, 
 occurred the case of Patrick Kirwan. He was taking 
 care of a crop on an evicted farm. All that he had 
 done was to take care of this crop for the landlord. 
 His bouse was attacked ; he was dragged out of it, 
 kicked, and carded in the face. I described to your 
 Lordships yesterday what they do when they card a 
 man. They take this implement, which is used for the 
 carding of wool, and wound the man's flesh by dragging 
 the weapon down his face. On February 28, 1881, 
 there was an attempt to murder John Hearne, Petty 
 Sessions clerk at Ballinrobe. On May 18, 1880, there 
 had been some eviction proceedings. Certain men were 
 evicted and were then readmitted as caretakers. On 
 the same day there was a meeting in Ballinrobe, and one 
 of Hearne's sons was pointed at by J. W. Nally, one of 
 the speakers, and mobbed as he was returning to his home . 
 I can do no more than say that they regarded this 
 man, who was clerk of Petty Sessions, as being some- 
 body connected with the law, and I suppose he had some- 
 thing to do with the enforcement of the law, and was 
 therefore likely to be unpopular. A threatening notice 
 was, in the month of November, sent to him by post, 
 telling him tbat if one tenant was put out in Cloon- 
 gowla he, John Hearne, would have to leave the 
 neighbourhood, and signed " A Boycotter." Proceedings 
 bad been threatened by the owner of the estate. 
 Hearne was the official by whom some notice would 
 have to be served, and he was also agent for the owner. 
 On February 28, at 2 o'clock in the day, within 200 
 yards of his own house, he was attacked by two men, 
 who fired at him with a revolver, and he was wounded 
 in six places, and I believe bis hearing has been per- 
 manently affected. He has had great suffering from 
 the wounds, he was obliged to give up all his agencies 
 and his clerkship of Petty Sessions, and is likely to 
 suffer all bis life from the wounds inflicted upon him . 
 On November 17, 1881, Luke Dillon was murdered. He 
 was bailiff to Mr. Farrell, The Land League having 
 some idea that Farrell might have some pressure 
 brought to bear on him, vengeance was wreaked upon 
 his agent. On November 17 he was shot about half- 
 past 8 o'clock in the evening. On December 16, in tho 
 same year, the houses of Michael Flynn, Thomas 
 
 Mooran, and James Mooran, three tenant farmers, 
 were attacked at night. They were dragged from 
 their beds. Their offence was that they had all three 
 paid their rents, which they were not to pay as long 
 as Mr. Parnell was in Kilmainbam. I do not know 
 whether it will be suggested that the persons who put 
 Mr. Parnell iu Kilmainham are responsible for that. 
 Bat I think your Lordships will be of opinion that it 
 was something very much nearer at hand. On March 
 15, 1882, George Shane Carter, who resides at Bel 
 mullet, or in the neighbourhood of that place, was 
 owed rents for three or five years. He offered to accept 
 one year's rent. As ho was returning home from 
 seeing some of his tenants he was shot in the leg at his 
 own gate and very seriously injured, and, in conse- 
 quence of the effects of his wounds, was for a long 
 time in a very serious condition. Peter M'Greevy, a 
 small farmer, living near Castlebar, was supposed to 
 have given some information to the police. At 10 
 o'clock on the night of March 25, 1882, his house was 
 attacked. When he heard the men knocking at the 
 door, and saw that their faces were concealed, being 
 a courageous man, he opened the door and chaucd them, 
 and they ran away. They came back and chot at him 
 through the door, and the shot as nearly as possible 
 struck him in the face, and by another discharge hi 
 wife was shot and injured in the eyes. On May 11, 
 1882, Thomas Barrett was murdered, and I ask your 
 Lordships' special attention to this case. There was a 
 landlord named Bingham, who had a farm of 12 acres, 
 from which he evicted a tenant in 1871, and Barrett 
 occupied the farm for four or rive years. On October 23 
 1880, this notice was posted : — " To all whom it may 
 concern, that for the welfare of the Irish tenant 
 farmers, grazing must be put down for the exclusive 
 benefit of a few land-sharks ; every man must observe 
 this rule, especially those deluded sordid serfs or slaves, 
 whose motto should bo self-interest and safety in help 
 ing to comply with the interest of their fellow-country- 
 men, and help to put down those tyrant land-grabbers ; 
 make them clear off the Irish lands for Irish hands to 
 till ; the lands must be left without a beast to graze 
 on until the land-thief is brought to a sense of justice. 
 Down with monopoly ; your second notice shall be a 
 bullet, bo drop the grazing in time — i.e., before 
 November 1." That was posted on the farm of which 
 Barrett was the occupier. He gave up the farm on 
 November 1, 1880, and it was let to a person named 
 Carter. He took the farm again from the same land- 
 lord on May 3, 1882— that is, having occupied one 
 farm, he took another from the same landlord. Within 
 a week ho was fired at in his house as he and his wife 
 were getting into bed, and in the room where his 
 children were sleeping. He was wounded so severely 
 in the hand and hip that he died in two hours. It 
 would certainly seem a most remarkable thing— per- 
 sons were called land-grabbers in the speeches I have 
 been reading, which were made in county Mayo. 
 What is it that the man Carter has done that makes 
 him w orthy of being shot ? Only two motives can 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 43 
 
 possibly be suggested — one, that he has in some way 
 wronged some other man and that man takes vengeance 
 on him ; and the other, that he is the victim of some 
 scheme which makes it necessary that no land shall be 
 occupied that has been evicted. All I submit is this 
 — that to say that because A and B may have had a 
 dispute, therefore C, wno had nothing to do with the 
 matter, shall be treated as being a leper, an outcast, a 
 criminal, and vermin, and be boycotted, and, if neces- 
 sary, killed, because he has taken possession of land in 
 order to gain a living ; to say that kind of doctrine is 
 to be taught, promulgated, encouraged, is the most 
 infamous, intolerable tyranny that can possibly be 
 suggested, and to say it h constitutional agitation is 
 a gross abuse of terms and an outrage on the under- 
 standing and the use of language. This organization 
 could only exist, could only get its power by such con- 
 duct as would result in such outrages that could main- 
 tain the law of the League as against the law of the 
 land, which by properly constituted authority would 
 preserve the peace and allow persons to go about their 
 proper business uninterrupted. I have a long list of 
 other firings in Mayo ; but, inasmuch as I have called 
 your Lordships' attention to the murder cases, it will 
 probably be sufficient if I pass from that county without 
 giving at present the dates and details of other outrages 
 there. I have now to call your attention to a docu- 
 ment which was signed, or purported to be signed, by 
 Mr. Parnell, in Kilmainham, Mr. Kettle, Mr. Davitt, 
 Mr. Brennan, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Patrick 
 Egan. Mr. Davitt, who was in Portland Prison, did 
 not at the time put his name to that, nor was he in any 
 way consulted about it. I am reading from a report 
 in the Freeman's Journal of a meeting at which this 
 manifesto was read by Mr. H. Campbell, the gentle- 
 man whose name is mentioned in the particulars, and 
 who is now M.P. He read a number of telegrams, one 
 from the Irish World, stating that Henry George had 
 left Amarica and was on his way to Ireland. The 
 date of the occasion on which the manifesto was read 
 was October 18, 1881. There were present at the 
 meeting Mr. Biggar, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Leamy, 
 and a number of Roman Catholic priests.The secretary, 
 Mr. Campbell, read the manifesto : — 
 
 " To the Irish people. — Fellow countrymen, — The hour 
 has come to test whether the grand organization built 
 up during years of patient labour and sacrifice, and 
 consecrated by the allegiance of the whole Irish race 
 the world over, is to disappear at the summons of a 
 brutal tyranny. The crisis with which we are face to 
 face is not of our making. It has been deliberately 
 forced upon the country, while the Land Act is as yet 
 untested, in order to strike down the only power which 
 might have extorted any solid benefits for the tenant 
 farmers of Ireland from that Act and to leave them once 
 more helplessly at the mercy of a law, invented to save 
 landlordism and administered by landlord minions. The 
 executive of the Irish National Land League.aoting in the 
 spirit of the resolutions of the National Convention — 
 the most freely-elected representative body ever 
 assembled in Ireland — was advancing steadily in the 
 work of testing how far the administration of the Land 
 
 Act might be trusted to eradicate from the rents of the 
 Irish tenant farmers the entire value of their own im- 
 provements and to reduce these rents to such a figure 
 as should for ever place our country beyond the peril 
 of periodical famine. At the same time they took 
 measures to secure, in the event of the Land Act 
 proving to be a mere paltry mitigation of the horrors 
 of landlordism in order to fasten it the more securely 
 upon the necks of the people, that the tenant farmer 
 should not be delivered blindfolded into the hands of 
 hostile law Courts, but should be able to fall back upon 
 the magnificent organization which was crushing land- 
 lordism out of existence when Mr. Gladstone stepped 
 in to the rescue. "(Not, my Lords, a very inapt descrip- 
 tion of what the Land League was trying to do.) " In 
 either event the Irish tenant farmers would have been 
 in a position to exact the uttermost farthing of their 
 just demands. It was this attitude of perfect self- 
 command — impregnable while there remained a shadow 
 of respect for law — and suppoited with unparalleled 
 enthusiasm by the whole Irish race, that moved the 
 rage of the disappointed English Minister. Upon the 
 monstrous pretext that the National Land League was 
 forced upon the Irish tenant farmers — an organization 
 which made them all-powerful and was keeping them 
 by intimidation from embracing an Act which, offered 
 them nothing except helplessness and uncertainty— the 
 English Government has cast to the winds every shred 
 of law and justice, and has plunged into an open reign 
 of terror in order to destroy by the foulest means an 
 organization which was confessedly too strong for it 
 within the limit of its own English Constitution. Blow 
 after blow has been struck at the Land League in the 
 mere wantonness of brute force. In the face of pro- 
 vocation which has turned men's blood to flame, the 
 executive of the Land League adhered calmly and 
 steadily to the course traced out for them by the 
 National Convention." (Your Lordships will hear in the 
 course of this case what the course traced out at the 
 National Convention was.) " Test cases of a varied and 
 certain character were, with great labonr, put in train 
 for adjudication in the Land Court. Even the arrest of 
 our President, Mr. Charles Stewart Parnell, and the 
 excited state of the popular feeling which it evoked, 
 did not induce the executive to swerve in the slightest 
 from that course, for Mr. Parnell's arrest might have 
 been accounted for by motives of personal malice, and 
 his removal did not altogether derange the machinery 
 for the preparation of the test cases, which he had been 
 at much pains to perfect. But the events which have 
 since occurred — the seizure or attempted seizure of 
 almost all the members of the executive and of the 
 chief officials of the League upon wild and preposterous 
 pretences and the violent suppression of free speech — 
 put it beyond any possibility of doubt that the English 
 Government, unable to declare the Land League an 
 illegal association, defeated in the attempt to break 
 its unity, and afraid to abide the result of test cases 
 watched over by a powerful popular organization.has de- 
 liberately resolved to destroy the whole machinery of the 
 central League, with a view to rendering an experi- 
 mental trial of the Act impossible and forcing it upon 
 the Irish tenant farmers on the Government's own 
 terms." (That,of eourse,was the LandAct.) "The brutal 
 and arbitrary dispersion of the central executive has 
 so far succeeded that we are obliged to announce to 
 our countrymen that we no longer possess the 
 machinery for adequately presenting the test cases in 
 Court, according to the policy prescribed by the 
 National Convention. Mr. Gladstone has, by a series 
 of furious and wanton acts of despotism, driven the 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
u 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1888/ 
 
 Irish tenant farmers to choose between their own 
 organization and the mercy of his lawyers, between 
 the power which has reduced landlordism to almost its 
 last gasp, and the power which strives, with all the 
 ferocity of despotism, to restore the detestable 
 ascendency from which the Land League has delivered 
 the Irish people." 
 
 I believe your Lordships will find that the power was 
 that which had carried out through the years 1880 and 
 1881 the outrages upon the tenants and upon some few 
 landlords, and nothing else, and that this was a direct 
 reference to the work which had been performed by the 
 Land League and its branches prior to this manifesto. 
 
 " One constitutional weapon now remains in the hands 
 of the Irish National Land League. It is the strongest, 
 the swiftest, the most irresistible of all. We hesitated 
 to advise our fellow-countrymen to employ it until 
 the savage lawlessness of the English Government pro- 
 voked a crisis in which we must either consent to see 
 the Irish tenant farmers deprived of their organization 
 and laid once more prostrate at the feet of the landlords 
 and every murmur of Irish public opinion suppressed 
 with an armed hand, or appeal to our countrymen to at 
 once resort to the only means now left in their hands 
 of bringing this false and brutal Government to its 
 senses. Fellow-countrymen, the hour to try your souls 
 and to redeem your pledges has arrived. The executive 
 of the National Land League, forced to abandon the 
 policy of testing the Land Act, feels bound to advise 
 the tenant farmers of Ireland from this time forth to 
 pay no rents under any circumstances to their land- 
 lords until the Government relinquishes the existing 
 system of terrorism and restores the constitutional 
 rights of the people. Do not be daunted by the re- 
 moval of your leaders. Your fathers abolished tithes 
 by the same methods without any leaders at all, and 
 with scarcely a shadow of the magnificent organiza- 
 tion that covers every portion of Ireland to-day. Do 
 not let yourselves be intimidated by threats of military 
 violence. It is as lawful to refuse to pay rents as it 
 is to receive them. Against the passive resistance of 
 an entire population military power has no weapon. 
 Do not be wheedled into compromise of any sort by 
 the dread of eviction. If you only act together in the 
 spirit to which, within the last two years, you have 
 countless times pledged your vows, they can no more 
 evict a whole nation than they can imprison them. 
 The funds of the National Land League will be poured 
 out unstintedly for the support of all who may endure 
 eviction in the course of the struggle. Our exiled 
 brothers in America may be relied upon to contribute, 
 if necessary, as many millions of money as they have 
 contributed thousands to starve out landlordism and 
 bring English tyranny to its knees. You have only to 
 show that you are not unworthy of the boundless sacri- 
 fices in your cause. No power on earth except faint- 
 heartedness on your own part can defeat you. Land- 
 lordism is already staggering under the blows which 
 you have dealt it amid the applause of the world. One 
 more crowning struggle for your land, your homes, 
 your lives — a struggle in which you have all the 
 memories of your race, all the hopes of your children, 
 all the sacrifices of your imprisoned brothers, all your 
 cravings for rent-enfranchised land, for happy homes, 
 and national freedom to inspire you — one more heroic 
 effort to destroy landlordism at the very source and 
 fount of its existence, and the system which was and 
 is the curse of your race and of your existence will 
 have disappeared for ever. The world is watching to 
 
 see whether all your splendid hopes and noble courage 
 will crumble away at the first threat of a cowardly 
 tyranny. Yon have to choose between throwing your- 
 self upon the mercy of England and taking your stand 
 by the organization which has once before proved too 
 strong for English despotism. You have to choose 
 between all-powerful unity and impotent disorganiza- 
 tion — between the land for trie landlords and the land 
 for the people. We cannot doubt your choice. Every 
 tenant farmer in Ireland is to-day the standard-bearer 
 of the flag unfurled at Irishtown, and can bear it to a 
 glorious victory. Stand together in the face of the 
 brutal and cowardly enemies of your race ! Pay no 
 rents under any pretext. Stand passively, firmly, fear- 
 lessly by while the armies of England may be engaged 
 in their hopeless struggle against a spirit which their 
 weapons cannot touch. Act for yourselves, if you are 
 deprived of the counsels of those who have shown you 
 how to act. No power of legalized violence can extort 
 one penny from your persons against your will. If 
 you are evicted you should not suffer. The landlord who 
 evicts will be a ruined pauper, and the Government 
 which supports him with its bayonets will learn in a 
 single winter how powerless its armed force is against 
 the will of a united, determined, and self-reliant 
 nation." 
 
 My Lords, I do not stop to mention the circum- 
 stances under which that manifesto was got out from 
 Kilmainham, or anything in connexion with it apart 
 from the use I am now about to make of it. In 
 several of the outrages to which I have referred it will 
 be proved that the offence was that rent had been paid 
 contrary to the No-rent Manifesto. After this date it 
 was made the text of Land League speakers, and par- 
 ticularly urged at meetings of the Ladies' Land 
 League. Now, either Mr. Paraell and those who signed 
 this knew the work which had been going on before, 
 or they did not. I shall ask your Lordships to come 
 to the conclusion that it is idle and ridiculous to sug- 
 gest that Mr. Parnell, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Biggar, Mr. 
 Sexton, Mr. Patrick Egan, Mr. Thomas Brennan, and 
 Mr. Andrew Kettle, who had been, up to the. time of 
 their arrest, actively connected with the Land League, 
 did not know what had been the effect of the Land 
 League working. Your Lordships will have no doubt 
 that reports were sent from the branches to the head 
 office week by week and month by month. I shall, in 
 a very few moments, demonstrate that to your Lord- 
 ships. The head office was paying money for the work 
 of the branches to be carried out. Mr. Patrick Egan 
 and Mr. Biggar were treasurers, and Mr. Brennan was 
 the secretary, and I shall ask your Lordships to come 
 to the conclusion, after hearing the evidence on this 
 part of the case, that many — nay, all — of those men did 
 know what had been the work of the League 
 during the two previous years. If they did not, 
 which it is almost impossible to conceive, then 
 the manifesto was meaningless when it referred to 
 the magnificent organization which during the last 
 few years had brought landlordism to its knees. 
 But I do most respectfully impress upon your Lordships, 
 when you come to consider the history of this matter, 
 that the Land League had, from 1879, and through the 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 45 
 
 autumn of 1880 and 1881, been -continuing the work it 
 was constituted to perform — the work Mr. Parnell 
 meant it should do. It is idle, after the speeches I 
 have read, to suggest that these people did not know 
 that this was the work which the Land League was 
 doing. IE it was doing other work and intended to do 
 other work where was the evidence of it ? Your Lord- 
 ships will hear some very remarkable evidence with 
 regard to the disappearance of Land League papers and 
 books ; but, dealing with what I have already brought 
 before your Lordships' attention — the speeches made at 
 these meetings and the outrages following — if there was 
 any evidence at all of genuine Land League work I 
 would put it before your Lordships, because I am here, 
 whatever may be the opinion of my learned friends, for 
 the purpose of giving your Lordships every opportunity 
 of investigating the truth of those charges and alle- 
 gations of The Times ; and we repeat that the 
 object, purview, and intention of this organization was 
 to destroy the relation of landlord and tenant, through 
 the tenants, to bring the landlords to their knees, and 
 so to sweep away the English garrison of landlords to 
 which I referred in so many of the speeches which I 
 cead yesterday. Now, my Lords, simultaneously with 
 the No-rent Manifesto was posted, apparently by the 
 same people, at any rate side by side with it, and in no 
 way repudiated by Mr. Biggar or Mr. Campbell, or any 
 other acting officials of the Land League — Mr. Biggar 
 being, of course, one of the most prominent — this mani- 
 festo, signed by Patrick Ford — posted throughout the 
 length and breadth of Ireland : — 
 
 " No rent. Parnell, Davitt, Sexton, Brennan, Dillon, 
 Kettle, Egan." 
 
 These,' your Lordships will notice, are the names of 
 the persons who were signatories of the No-rent 
 Manifesto, supposed to come from Kilmainham. 
 
 " Fly the Land Court. It's a sham — a fraud. He who 
 acts the traitor in the hour of Ireland's trial shall pay 
 the penalty of his villany. 'Tis a noble cause you are 
 engaged in. 'Tis a holy cause against a hell-born class, 
 who have plundered you for centuries. A class who 
 have grown fat upon the blood of yourselves and your 
 children. A class who, rioting in lust and covered with 
 human gore, stalk through the land scattering sickness, 
 sorrow, misery, affliction, hunger, want, and devasta- 
 tion in their loathsome path. 'Tis a war of right 
 against might, of justice and liberty against tyranny 
 and oppression, of charity, humanity, and Christianity 
 against selfishness, brutality, and immorality. Stand 
 firm and united, undeterred in your resolve not to leave 
 the land that gave you birth, and, though 60,000 bayonets 
 may bristle around you and buckshot rain upon you, 
 God is with you, and you cannot be defeated. One more 
 blow and victory is yours. Hold the rent, hold the 
 harvest, hold the land, and the new year which is 
 about to dawn upon us shall welcome a nation from 
 bondage released." 
 
 " To the men of Ireland.— Office of the Irish Worldt 
 New York. — Men of Ireland, the eyes of the world are 
 upon you ; stand together ; be faithful to your 
 imprisoned chief ; obey the manifesto — no rent ; pre- 
 pare for sacrifices ; be brave, but prudent ; rely on 
 America ; money and sympathy will flow over to you 
 
 We will succour the children of the evicted and honour 
 moral heroes. Landlords must go. Be true to 
 principle and redemption is assured. God Save 
 Ireland.— Patrick Ford." 
 
 Now, my Lords, I want to know is it going to be sug- 
 gested that Patrick Ford and his organization and the 
 hand that penned the No-rent Manifesto were not 
 working with the same object ? That has never been 
 repudiated by Patrick Ford. There is not the 
 slightest doubt that it was issued. Your Lordships will 
 be satisfied that it was issued with the knowledge of 
 Mr. Biggar and of the Irish Land League. I said that 
 it was published contemporaneously with the publica- 
 tion of the No-rent Manifesto ; that was in the month 
 of October, 1881. My Lords, I have not quite finished 
 with the county of Kerry ; but I have an incident in 
 itself independent, and I would prefer to break off at 
 the present time. 
 
 The Court then adjourned for luncheon. '. 
 
 On its re-assembling, 
 
 The Attorney-General continued, — My Lords, just 
 before I read the manifesto signed " Patrick Ford," 
 your Lordships may possibly have heard a comment as 
 to who issued it. I am not going to deal with the No- 
 rent Manifesto, properly so-called, at the present 
 moment 
 
 The President. — The document purporting to have 
 been issued from Kilmainham is what you call the 
 Manifesto ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Yes, my Lord. I shall be 
 able to prove two telegrams immediately preceding the 
 issue of the No-rent Manifesto from Kilmainham, one 
 from Ford to Egan : — " Communicate with Parnell, if 
 possible ; consult with your colleagues ; and then issue a 
 manifesto — no rent." The other was from Egan to 
 Ford:— "Your suggestion is approved. Prompt 
 measures are now in progress to secure a general strike 
 against rent. Tho manifesto will be issued without 
 delay. It is the only weapon now that remains in our 
 hands." The date of the telegram from Ford is the 
 17th of October ; the reply I have not got the date 
 of, but it is a reply to the former telegram. 
 I have indicated to your Lordships this morning that I 
 should give you some information as to the very large 
 amount of money that has been received from America 
 and other places by the Irish Land League, and the 
 very small amount of it, comparatively, that' has been 
 accounted for. That is not the only matter in connexion 
 with the Land League which will invite your Lordships' 
 anxious research and inquiry ; but it is what has become 
 of the Land League books and papers, by which I mean 
 the Land League books and papers during the years 
 1880 and 1881, prior to laifer dates when some books 
 were kept, as is stated, which perhaps did show some of 
 the dealings of the National League. I propose to refer 
 to this matter now before passing to another county, 
 because it has a direct bearing on the counties with 
 which I have been dealing this morning, both as 
 regards speeches and as regards outrages. On page 85 
 of the printed proceedings you will find that I read 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
46 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 in the course of the case of " O'Donnell v. Walter " a 
 letter, which will be put in evidence again in this trial, 
 from H. Campbell to Dr. Kenny. The date is the 18th 
 of October, 1881. Both those persons are now members 
 of Parliament. The letter is in these terms : — 
 
 " Oct. 18th 1881. 
 " M. J. Kenny, Esq, M.D., Dublin. 
 " Dear Sir,— Yours received. Mr. O'C— & Mr. 
 Sheridan will proceed to London to-day. I will go 
 by Liverpool and bring the books from there to Palace 
 Chambers ; and I shall also instruct the men at Liver- 
 pool to return to Dublin as you request. Mr. 
 O'Connor wishes you to send him a cheque for £30 on 
 his Bankers Messrs. Ridgeway & Co., 2, Waterloo 
 Place, London. This sum is to enable us to pay our 
 way as we go on. " Yours truly, 
 
 " H. Campbell." 
 
 Your Lordships will find that that document was 
 received in due course at the Land League offices, was 
 initialled and endorsed as being attended to by 
 TV. F. M.— I think the name is W. F. Maloney. At 
 that time there was a fear in Ireland of a raid being 
 made on the Land League offices, and of the documents 
 being discovered. Now, assuming these books and 
 documents to be innocent and to relate only to a consti- 
 tutional agitation by a political organization, one does 
 not know why they should have any fear of discovery. 
 But what is much more important at the present time 
 is, what has become of those documents ? Where are 
 they now ? My Lords, the original of this letter was 
 produced with other documents to the solicitor of 
 The Times by a Land League cleik, who will be 
 called before you, and who will give evidence 
 with regard to that document and other documents. 
 I merely refer to that letter at the present time 
 for the purpose of fixing a date up to which the 
 books were in Dublin— October 18, 1881. But, 
 my Lords, they were not the only documents which, 
 perhaps more by accident than by any other cause, 
 happened to be in possession of the Land League clerk. 
 There happened to be, and were found in his possession, 
 and will be produced, and the handwriting upon them 
 in many cases proved, two batches of documents 
 relating to part of the work done by the Land League 
 on two occasions shortly before they were removed to 
 London. Those documents will be very material, not 
 only from their contents, but for the purpose of 
 showing the BYsteni which was being carried on, and 
 for the purpose of showing what was the connexion 
 between the branches of the Katicnal League and the 
 central office ; and I only trust that it may be possible 
 to get at the corresponding documents for the earlier 
 months if they have not been destroyed. Now, my 
 Lords, although many of the documents are in them- 
 selves not material, they are all of some importance 
 as showing what was going on, and they prove, 
 undoubtedly, that the National Land League, by 
 which I mean the central office, was paying for the 
 work that was being done by the branches, paying for 
 persons who were refusing to work for boycotted 
 people, paying for persons who were carrying out the 
 
 decrees of the Land League, and thereby losing their 
 employment, but, what is more important, was paying 
 for outrages ; yes, paying for outrages ! My Lords, 
 there can be no doubt whatever about the proof of 
 these documents. One man closely connected with the 
 Land League chiefs, as those who instruct my learned 
 friends know, is John Fergusson, of Glasgow. Yes, 
 John Fergusson, of Glasgow. My learned friends' 
 clients will be able to give information of John 
 Fergusson, of Glasgow. He will be proved, nay, 
 in the course of this afternoon I hope I shall be 
 able to prove that he was a high official in the 
 Land League. I will read to your Lordships a letter 
 in which I shall be able to prove that on the 20th of 
 September, 1881— that is just, roughly, a month before 
 the documents were removed — Timothy Horan, from 
 the Irish National Land League, Castleisland, wrote 
 to J. P. Quinn, at the Land League office. J. P. 
 Quinn was also an official in the Irish Land League at 
 this time, and Timothy Horan was the local secretary 
 of the Castleisland branch. Timothy Horan is dead, 
 but his handwriting will be proved. The letter is as 
 follows :— 
 
 " I beg to direct your attention to a matter of a pri- 
 vate character which I attempted to explain to you 
 when I was in Dublin at the Convention. . The fact is, 
 one of the men who was shot has lost the use of bis 
 eye. It will cost him Si to go to Cork for medical 
 attendance. Another man received a wound in the 
 thigh, and was laid up nearly a month. No one knew 
 the patients but the doctor, myself, and members of 
 the society. I may inform you that the said parties 
 cannot afford to suffer. If it were a public affair a sub- 
 scription list would be opened at once for them as they 
 proved to be heroes. One man escaped the shot, but 
 got his jaw grazed. Hoping you will in your discretion 
 see your way to make a- grant, which you can send 
 through me or the Kev. John Callaghan, Catholic 
 curate, I remain, yours truly, " Timothy Horan." 
 And that letter, my Lords, was endorsed with a grant ; 
 the exact amount, I think, was £6, and that allow- 
 ance was initialled by John Fergusson — " J. F." I am 
 perfectly aware the giant is small. I am perfectly 
 aware it happens that in that particular batch of 
 documents there is only one which we are able to 
 trace directly as being connected with outrage. I 
 am not at all sure that I shall not be able to connect 
 with this particular letter the outrage with which this 
 occurred. The men have gone out on some moon- 
 lighting or outraging expedition. Mr. Biggar says one 
 of the objections to outrage is that you may shoot the 
 wrong man. It is in all probability a case in which 
 the persons were fired at by the police, because, 
 as you will observe, one of the men from a 
 shot lost the use of his eye, another man had 
 received a wound in the thigh and had been laid up for 
 a month, and one who had escaped a shot got his jaw 
 grazed. It was in all probability a case in which some 
 firing back took place and the wounds were inflicted. 
 In that way I think it may be possible to trace the 
 outrage. Well, my Lords, if it be suggested that there 
 was no connexion between the Land League, between 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 47 
 
 the Dublin centres of the Land League, and the out 
 rage, what is the meaning of stating, " I may inform 
 you that the parties cannot afford to suffer ? If it 
 were a public affair a subscription list would be opened 
 at once for them, as they have proved heroes/' &c. 
 In the same page of the papers — I do not stop to read 
 them now, they will be put in evidence before your 
 Lordships — there is a very considerable number of 
 cases of payment to persons who were carrying out 
 the behests of the League, and of requests, among 
 others, of persons to be paid because thoy have obeyed 
 the orders of the League. And in all these instances a 
 money grant was made — sometimes the amount asked for, 
 sometimes not so much, and all initialled by JobD 
 Fergusson, who was at that time having to do with 
 the treasury department of the Land League. I 
 will not deal at the preseut time with that part 
 of the case, which I shall take separately, to show 
 intimate connexion with the people whose names I 
 have referred to and whose speeches I have been read- 
 ing. I believe your Lordships will understand now why 
 I said that if these documents could be produced, and 
 in the state in which they originally were, they might 
 give a very large amount of information as to what was 
 being done. It was a purely accidental circumstance 
 that these documents were found and happened to have 
 been left in the possession of the Land League official. 
 The facts will be proved beyond all question, and as it 
 may be yet taken in connexion with the speeches, and 
 as I have already stated to your Lordships, I venture 
 to think it will enable you to draw a very strong 
 inference indeed as to what were the relations between 
 the Land League and the branches under whose subordi- 
 nate commands the outrages were being carried out. I 
 ought also to mention to your Lordships that the 
 letters to which I have referred do not by any means 
 come from the same place. Some come from Kerry, 
 some from other places. They are signed by 
 different persons, and therefore they show a 
 system. They do not show one particular instance 
 of Timothy Horan or any other man who 
 happened to write on some particular occasion for 
 the purpose of having some particular grant made. 
 I must now call your attention to the speeches 
 delivered in the county of Cork, which require in some 
 respects special notice because there were people in 
 Cork who fought the Land League. There are people 
 in that county who have courageously fought the Land 
 League all along the line, and it will not be unimpor- 
 tant to notice the way in which those persons who were 
 bold enough to fight the battle of independence and of 
 law and order against the Land League were treated. 
 There is a man named Heggarty who throughout has 
 shown most courageous defiance of the League. He 
 has been shot at more than once, and he has been the 
 object of the most pointed denunciation by some of 
 the leading members of the Land League. There are 
 others — some women among them — who have also fought 
 to maintain their independence and who have refused 
 to submit to the tyranny of the League. I refer to t 
 
 those persons because it is probable that for one 
 person found bold enough to run the risk of beggary, 
 maiming, or death, 99 will give in. These so-called 
 constitutional leaders were perfectly well informed ; 
 they knew perfectly well that the county was being 
 organized and that, practically speaking, they could 
 subdue the great majority of the population to their 
 will. The Cork speeches run over a very much longer 
 period, but I will keep the earlier speeches separate 
 from the later in the same way that I have done with 
 regard to the other counties. Your Lordships will find 
 that they commence about the same date as they com- 
 mence in the other counties, and that they have 
 the same objects in view. I will first call your 
 Lordships' attention to a speech delivered by M. P. 
 Boyton at Dunmanway on the 30th of April, 1880. 
 Boyton said he was there that day to represent the 
 President of the Irish National Land League (that is, 
 Mr. Parnell), in response to an invitation sent to the 
 Dublin Executive. He went on to say that : — 
 
 " There was a little story told by Mr. Parnell at a 
 meeting in the Eotundo to the effect that a certain 
 American gentleman had said, ' Parnell, there is 25 
 dollars, Dve for bread and 20 for lead.' I am not 
 authorised by the president of the Irish National Land 
 League to tell you that that was a bond f.de transaction, 
 that the man gave him 25 dollars. I am authorised to 
 tell you that those 20 dollars are perfectly safe. We are 
 not going to tell Mr. Forster what we are going to do 
 with the 20 dollars that have since swollen to 20,000. 
 The money gives 4 or 5 per cent, interest on it, and 
 we are turning it into good sound sovereigns. Therefore 
 I ask you in the name of God to stick together. If you 
 show us evidence that you are in earnest to help us 
 and take a share in this 20 dollars by showing us that 
 you will stand together, we have moral force and we 
 are going to use it ; and perhaps we have something in 
 the shape of physical force, but we don't want to use 
 it. We may some day come down and see you and talk 
 about something else. (Cheers.)" 
 
 There was also a meeting at Castlelyons, county Cork, 
 on the 5th of September, 1880, at which the speakers 
 were James Maye, Edward Kent, a member of the Cork 
 Land League, and hi. Farrell, and at which there were 
 present the Kev. T. Farris, P.P.,' J. R. Heffernan, and 
 J. O'Brien. James Maye proposed a resolution declar- 
 ing a branch of the League formed for the parish of 
 Castlelyons, to be called the Fermoy branch. He said 
 a branch of the League was very much needed when 
 there was such a man as one Hayes in the district pro- 
 posing for his farm. (Hisses.) Hayes had offered more 
 rent for his farm than he himself was paying after the 
 landlord had offered him a reduction — a reduction 
 which was afterwards withdrawn owing to Hayes's 
 offer. (Hisses.) He swore that he would have it yet, 
 and declared that he would wait 20 years for it. (Groans, 
 and a voice, " He won't live half that time.") They 
 should all join the Land League and then there would 
 be no such men as Hayes. (Cheers and groans.) Edward 
 Kent proposed a resolution pledging the people not 
 to take a farm from which a tenant had been unjustly 
 evicted. The speaker added, " By Heavens, if they 
 do they will pay for it. (Loud cheers.)" E. Farrell 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
48 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23 -, 1888., 
 
 said, ' ' If any one be found bad enough to take a farm 
 from which another has been evicted let no one speak 
 to him, let no one buy or sell to him, let no one hare 
 any dealings with him in any shape or form. And I 
 promise you that if you single him out in that was 
 he will soon rather be rid of the land than have 
 it. (Cheers.)" At a meeting at Castletown, Bere- 
 haven, on the 24th of October, 1880, at which J. W. 
 Walsh was present, Mr. T. M. Healy,. M.P., ad- 
 vocated the non-payment of rent. Speaking on the 
 subject of hay-burning, and mutilation of cattle, he 
 said : — 
 
 " It may not be the place of a speaker at a popular 
 meeting, or the editor of a popular newspaper, to con- 
 demn these outrages. In myjopinion popular meet- 
 ings and popular newspapers should be conducted 
 on strictly party lines. ^We have no chance of sympathy 
 from the landlords ; let the condemnation of these 
 things proceed from the people mostly interested. I 
 regret these outrages personally, because the charge 
 comes out of your pockets." 
 
 Referring to the case of firing at the person of Mr. 
 Hutchins,he said that a man so kind and fatherly should 
 not have been fired at. 
 
 " Only four landlords ' had been murdered, whereas 
 2,470 evictions — sentences of death — had been carried 
 out by them. When the latter had been condemned he 
 would condemn the murders of the four landlords. They 
 were all very sorry that Mr. Hutchins had been. fired 
 at, but he did] not wonder at it. They should enrol 
 themselves in the Land League, the principles of which 
 would be explained to them by Mr. Walsh. Be deter- 
 mined and say to the landlord,*' Thus far shalt thou 
 come and no farther.' " 
 
 J. W. Walsh, whom I have already referred to as an 
 organizer of the Land League, regretted he had not 
 had an opportunity of visiting this locality before, 
 because he .believed there was not a spot on God's 
 earth where a Christian people were so badly treated. 
 They should throw off this cloak of slavery and 
 maintain their rights. He called upon the people 
 notj to take evicted farms or to buy from the 
 shopkeeper who sold goods to the land-grabber. 
 At Enniskeanes, county Cork, on the 3d of July, 1881, 
 C. Crowley, of Bandon, in the course of a speech 
 said : — 
 
 "We were a long time begging and looking for 
 charity, now you have got a chance. So far as you 
 can see around you, you have crops and roots enough 
 to support you for the next two years, and if you don't 
 bold them you don't deserve the chance again. It is 
 your part to hold them and to try and work further 
 ahead. Evicted farms should not be taken, nor should 
 they assist in the cultivation of such farms. If any 
 ruffianly, damnable creature be found in their ranks, 
 he must be looked upon as a black sheep. We must 
 not sit beside him in church, we must pass him by like 
 a mad dog. I would ask every man who has not yet 
 joined the Land League to do so as quickly as 
 possible ; the day is perhaps not far distant when he 
 must wear it ; if not he will be looked upon as an 
 individual belonging to the other side. (Cheers.) I be- 
 lieve there are a few emergency men in Clonakilty ; they 
 will have to get a police barrack on every farm." 
 
 On the 7th of August, 1881, at a meeting at Dunman" 
 way, county Cork, the speakers were Thomas Fuller, 
 E. P. O'Neill, of the Cork Land League, P. O'Hea, and 
 Miss Parnell. Thomas Fuller compared landlords with 
 wolves, for whose heads rewards were given. B. P. 
 O'Neill said, " The time has now come when we must 
 meet them at the sword's point, and then, I say, we will 
 see whether the British soldier or the Irish peeler will be 
 content to throw down the rifle and take up the pick- 
 axe. (Cheers.) We have come to the point now; it is 
 a question of Land Leaguism versus landlordism." Mr. P. 
 O'Hea, of Skibbereen, who I am sorry to say is a soli- 
 citor, said that the object of the Land League was 
 resistance to the law — passive resistance. I am not 
 aware that that is the doctrine solicitors are supposed to 
 represent. The speaker continued, " In Limerick when 
 the walls were battered and broken down by. the 
 cannons of the invader the womanhood of Limerick 
 asserted its right. I am sorry to have to say it, if the 
 men acted better soldiers we would not be under the 
 damnable sway of England to-day. (Cheers.) " Miss 
 Parnell said that in the event of the suppression of 
 the Land League the farmers should keep all their 
 money ; there would be none to spare for rents. Out 
 of the proceeds of next harvest they would have to 
 keep the means to fight the landlords and the Govern, 
 ment, no matter what steps they took. The people 
 must be prepared for much more strenuous efforts to 
 crush them than they had yet experienced. They 
 must he able to put their hands in their pockets and 
 say, " We have enough money to fight them whatever 
 they do, and if they put us to too much costs then it 
 will be the worse for themselves, for it will have to 
 come out of what would otherwise have gone 
 towards paying a fair rent." Now I have to call 
 your Lordships' attention to a meeting held at 
 Cork on the 2d of October, 1881, at which were 
 present Mr. Parnell, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. 
 Bedpath — the person whose name I have already men- 
 tioned to your Lordships in connexion with violent 
 speeches — Mr. T. M. Healy, J. B. Heffeman, and the 
 Eev. Eugene Sheehy. At that meeting Mr. Parnell 
 said that the enthusiasm of the people, the spon- 
 taneous character of the reception, and the extent of 
 their numbers all combined to mark this demonstration 
 as one of the greatest and one of the mightiest that 
 had ever shown the invincible determination of the 
 Irish people to rule themselves. (Cheers.) If as a re- 
 sult of the Land Act a class of tenant farmers received 
 any benefit they must rocolleot that it was their duty to 
 refuse that benefit, unless it could be shared by all classes 
 in the country. If any tenant farmer should be 
 tempted to make his own bargain behind the backs of 
 his neighbours, and to regard his own selfish interest 
 only, let him recollect that the Irish people behind him 
 would see that he did full justice to thoBe who were 
 placed under him. The speaker went on to say : — 
 
 " Although we cannot yet have our own Parliament 
 to protect Irish manufactures, yet we shall be able by 
 the strong force of our public opinion to give a prefer* 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 49 
 
 snce to things that are made in Ireland by Irishmen. A 
 happy future then is before us if you stand together 
 like men ; if you refuse to allow the lines of our 
 organization to be broken, depend upon it nothing can 
 resist your power, and that by the spirit of order and 
 by the habits of organization and of association 
 together, which you are obtaining from day to day, 
 you will convince our rulers that it is an absolute neces- 
 sity for them, if they wish to retain the link of the 
 Crown, that that link shall be the only link between 
 the two countries. (Cheers.)" 
 
 Mr. Eedpath said he knew the Irish in America, and 
 knew them well, and told them they would sustain the 
 people of Ireland if they were true to themselves, not 
 only with sympathy but with money, until in all Ireland 
 there was not a tenant who was not his own landlord, 
 and not a landlord who was not his own tenant. 
 Mr. T. M. Healy said he had seen that day a banner 
 with the inscription on it, " Pay no rents but Griffith's 
 valuation." A friend remarked to him that that was a 
 very old banner, and he thought so too ; that it was 
 getting out of date, because they remembered how, when 
 the farmers tendered Griffith's valuation to the land- 
 lords last year, their offer was rejected with scorn. The 
 motto which he would now suggest to (cries of " Pay 
 no rent at all ") those who desired to bring this inscrip- 
 tion to a meeting, they should split the motto in two 
 and say, " Pay no rents but .... and we will 
 see by-and-by what rent is going to be. (Cheers.)" 
 The Eev. Eugene Sheehy, a Catholic curate, who has 
 been in America, characterized the meeting as the most 
 remarkable national demonstration that had yet 
 appeared in the country — - 
 
 " To chronicle the ancient resolve of Ireland 
 that this country must be ours (cheers) — that has 
 been the tradition and the sworn vow of ages of 
 bravest sacrifices, and they stand there that clay 
 in their many thousands to repeat once more and 
 to register solemnly the vow transmitted to them ; 
 that stay their steps they will not until they have 
 planted those glorious banners of Ireland (cheers), not 
 only on the ruins of landlordism, but on the ruins of 
 fnat Government and that alien race which it repre- 
 sents. (Cheers.) The national idea is becoming a 
 prominent one ; it is no longer so much ' Down with 
 landlordism ' as ' Down with English rule in Ireland.' 
 (Loud cheers.) Fellow countrymen, I do not speak to- 
 day a new idea, I do not speak because that my mind 
 and heart happened to be stirred by the splendid 
 declaration of your power that I witnessed, because I 
 witnessed numbers, at least as many as 100,000 fighting 
 men (voice — ' And ready at a moment's notice ') — 
 ncrt because of a new spirit begotten within me by the 
 presence of that great power, but more than that, 
 because that I see behind you numbers in every eye, I see 
 the soul of a new spirit, that not mere Land Leagueism, 
 not merely selfish interests, but the grand ideal 
 possesses your souls, and that you will not be content 
 as slaves redeemed from a cruel class until the other 
 idea be realized — that of making your country a nation 
 among the nations of the earth. (Cheers.) I tell this 
 English enemy and the American friend that we are no 
 more or less than Paddies evermore. We will not com- 
 promise with landlordism, so I speak at least for my- 
 self ; we will not compromise with the English people. 
 ( ' Never.') I care not who does that which would 
 
 induce you to the idea of measuring you with the 
 democracy of England. I say, no. (Voices. — ' No.') 
 There is no place else in Ireland one is so anxious 
 in planting that ancient flag-staff as uero inrebel Cork, 
 whose heart never beat high, nor fast, nor natural, 
 except when it beat in harmony with national ideas. 
 Yes, then, fellow countrymen, Ireland for the Irish, 
 whether it be separation altogether (cries of 
 ' Separation '), or whether it be a Parliament, as 
 they say, in College-green. I shall not quarrel so 
 long as the national standard is afloat ; let it 
 be national anyhow, let the doctrine be preached, 
 let the vows be registered, and we can unite on 
 a platform that declares for College-green. (Cheers.)" 
 In the county of , Cork there is a long series of speeches 
 in the year 1885, and they are, of course, open to the 
 same observation your Lordship was good enough to 
 make to me to-day — that there is a considerable break. 
 I do not desire to deal with them now ; but I wish to 
 say that I shall at a later period point out that in the 
 years 18S5 and 1886 — that is, right down to the publi- 
 cation of these article— speeches were being made 
 under the auspices of the National League, which was 
 the direct successor to the Land League, with the same 
 result in violence — that under the same auspices, with 
 the same money, and by means of the same mode oE 
 carrying on business, speeches were made promoting 
 the same outrages. I will repeat here what I said 
 in opening the case of *' O'Donnell v. Walter," that, so 
 far as I know, no leading member of the Parnellite party 
 has ever suggested that there was any difference whatever 
 between the Land League and the National League. 
 Indeed, they have openly admitted that the two associa- 
 tions were the same, controlled by the same officers, 
 and acting entirely on the same lines. I would ask your 
 Lordships to allow me to call attention to the Cork 
 outrages. Your Lordships will find that there were a 
 great many Land League meetings at which resolutions 
 were passed and speeches were made of which at present 
 I have not got reports ; but witnesses 'will be called who 
 will in some instances be able to supplement what 
 I have already read. On July 16, 1880, Mr. Samuel 
 Hutchins was returning home at a quarter to 5 o'clock. 
 He was travelling in a dog-cart, driven by a man named 
 Downey ; Mr. Hutchins was shot at and Downey was 
 mortally wounded. There is no doubt, I think, that in 
 that case it was intended to shoot Mr. Hutchins and 
 not Downey, and this must be one of the cases which 
 were subsequently referred to by Mr. Biggar as includ- 
 ing the wrong man. There was, at any rate, nothing 
 at all known against Downey ; but there was some sort 
 of a suggestion that Hutchins had made himself 
 obnoxious to the Land League. I must call attention, 
 also, to the outrage on Jeremiah Buckley on June 22, 
 1881. At a meeting held on October 17, 1880, at 
 Bantry, a very violent speech was made by J. W. 
 Walsh, and there had also been a previous meeting at 
 which violent speeches were made. On January 2, 1881, 
 a public meeting in support of the Land League was 
 held at Ballyvourney ; and as far as I can state from 
 the report of these meetings, they were held to 
 denounce persons who paid rent or had given informa- 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
'50 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 tion of any kind to the police. Jeremiah Buckley had 
 paid his rent. It was the next payment after that 
 meeting. On June 22, 1881, six men, armed and dis- 
 guised, broke into his house, pulled him out of bed, 
 beat him with furze bushes, and asked him whether he 
 had paid his rent. On his saying he had, one of them 
 took out a pair of scissors from his pocket and cut off a 
 part of his right ear and took it away with him. On 
 October 3, 1881, Patrick Leary, the son of a farmer re- 
 siding at Doonasleen, Kanturk district, was fired' at 
 and so severely wounded that he died. His father's house 
 had been visited, and he was asked whether they had 
 paid their rent. 1 The only reason that can be assigned 
 for shooting this young man was merely that he was 
 thought to have been watching to see who it was that 
 ■was coming to ask these questions, for the purpose of 
 subsequently identifying them. When for so small an 
 act against the rules of the Land League a man is to 
 lose his life, tyranny has surely reached a point which 
 could not be surpassed. In addition to the speeches re- 
 ferred to at Bantry, a public meeting was held on 
 January 2, 1881, at Ballyvourney, to further the ob- 
 jects of the Land League. At this meeting references 
 were made to land-grabbers and persons who had taken 
 grazing, and it was stated that Peter Kelleher was 
 either a land-grabber or was about to become one. He 
 did take some land, and on October 31, 1881, 10 or 12 
 men came to his house about midnight. They made him 
 get up and produce his gun, which they took. They 
 asked him if he was a leaguer, and to produce his card 
 of the League. They further asked him whether he 
 was not going to take this other farm. A shot was then 
 fired at him, the bullet passing through his right thigh. 
 On December 1, 18S1 — there having been, as your 
 Lordships may remember, a meeting held at which 
 Mr. Parnell, Mr. O'Connor, and others spoke in the 
 month of October, 1881 — a party of men went to the 
 house of one Michael Fenton, of Gurtnasna, and fired 
 at him with a revolver. I think they fired several 
 shots through the window, but did not wound him. 
 He had paid his rent a short time previously, and that 
 was, according to my information, the sole motive for 
 the outrage. In connexion with the county of Cork 
 I shall have, I am sorry to say, a good deal 
 more to lay before your Lordships with reference to 
 speeches after this date, and also with reference to 
 outrages which took place after the speeches were 
 made. Dealing only with this period, I think I can 
 now take the last of the counties to which I have to 
 refer in detail, prior to the year 1882, and that is the 
 county of Clare. With regard to Clare I am not at pre- 
 sent able to read as many speeches as in the other 
 cases, but there will be evidence put before your 
 Lordships as to the way in which the League was 
 worked in county Clare. The principal object I have 
 in reading some of the speeches made in county 
 Clare is that you will find in one of the principal 
 speeches of Mr. Parnell the text to which I have so 
 often referred, as to how to deal with land-grabbers. 
 On September 19, 1880, there was a meeting at Ennis. 
 
 at which were present Mr. Parnell, Mr. Finigan, and 
 Mr. Sullivan, all members of Parliament. Mr. Parnell, 
 referring to the question whether the farmers should 
 give evidence before the Land Commission, said 
 that his opinion " decidedly was that whatever 
 harm they may do to the cause by going before 
 the Commission, they will certainly be able to 
 do it no good." Speaking on the subject of land- 
 grabbing, he used the following words : — 
 
 " What are you to do to a tenant who bids for a 
 farm from which his neighbour was evicted ? (Shouts 
 and cries of ' Kill him,' ' Shoot him.') Now I think 
 I heard somebody say ' shoot him,' but I wish to point 
 out to you a very much better way, a more Christian and 
 a more charitable way, which will give the lost 
 sinner an opportunity of repenting. You must show 
 him when you meet him in the streets of the town, 
 at the shop counter, in the fair or market place, and 
 even in the house of worship, by leaving him severely 
 alone, by putting him into a moral Coventry, by 
 isolating him as if he was a leper of old ; and you 
 may depend upon it that if the population of a county 
 in Ireland carry out this doctrine, there will be no 
 man as to dare public opinion and transgress your un- 
 written code of laws. (Cheers.) How would the 
 English Government like it if some day we told the 
 people not to pay any rent until this land question 
 was settled ? We have not told them that yet. If it 
 should not be settled, it will be for wiser heads than 
 mine whether we shall not be obliged to tell the 
 people of Ireland to strike against all rent until 
 the question has been settled. And if the 500,000 
 tenant farmers struck against the 10,000 landlords, I 
 should like to see where they would get police 
 and soldiers enough to preserve the peace. (Cheers.)" 
 I want to say a word or two about this speech, be- 
 cause I do not understand that Mr. Parnell has denied 
 it. I have pointed out many times, as it was pointed 
 out by far greater men than myself in 1881, 1882, and 
 1883, that the leaving the people severely alone would 
 not be sufficient to enforce the decrees of the powers 
 that be, unless it is understood that the ultimate step of. 
 removing obnoxious persons is to be taken if necessary. 
 Your Lordships will not have forgotten the way in 
 which this speech was used afterwards, and its prin- 
 ciples enlarged upon. Over and over again, in the 
 speeches I have read to you, the land-grabber has been 
 spoken of as a leper and one to be treated as a dog or 
 vermin. What. does it mean? It means, I submit, that 
 any steps are to be taken which are necessary for the 
 purpose of compelling a man to abandon that course of 
 conduct to which the majority of the people object. Mr. 
 Finigan, speaking at the same meeting, said they had 
 shown their earnestness over the ' ' great land question 
 of self-government " by their enthusiasm and numbers, 
 but if they wished to carry out their resolves, they 
 must do something more than cheer, they must do 
 something more than unfold the Stars and Stripes. No 
 tenant should bid for another's land. And Mr. T. D. 
 Sullivan denounced land-grabbing, and said that "if any 
 one should be so base as to take an evicted farm, he 
 should be shunned. (A voice.— ' Shoot him.') Let 
 him be an outcast among them, and his life will be a 
 life of shame and of misery ; and the shame will not alone 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 51 
 
 attach to him, but to his children, and his children's 
 children." Then, my Lords, at a meeting held at Ennis 
 on November 12, 1882, Mr. Redmond and Mr. M. J. 
 Kenny made speeches. Mr. Eedmond said : — 
 
 " The duty of the tenants on every estate in the 
 county Clare is this : — In the first place, to join the 
 National Land League, they must travel on the same 
 lines that they followed when the Land League existed. 
 The tenants must band together and not go into the 
 Land Court until we obtain the amendment. They 
 must go to the landlord and say to him that the rent 
 is excessive, that they will only pay to him what they 
 believe to be a fair rent. Tell him, one and all, 
 u itil his demands come down to what is just and fair, 
 1hey will pay him no rent at all. If there is to be 
 found any man, or any men, bo base as to go behind the 
 back of their fellow-tenants and play the part of 
 traitors, I do not tell you to boycott them — I do not be- 
 lieve in using those fancy terms — but I tell you to make 
 him feel the full weight of your indignation. I am not 
 telling you to pay no rent. The principles of no rent 
 was never the policy of the Land League. The No- 
 rent Manifesto was issued as a weapon against 
 coercion — it drove out of office the worst Minister that 
 ever stood on Irish soil." 
 
 Mr. Kenny spoke of the Prevention of Crime Act, 
 1882, as " more damnable than was ever passed by 
 Castlereagh or Cromwell. The Government put it into 
 the power of one Judge to try men without juries, and 
 you, people of Clare, you know well how these juries 
 were packed in Dublin, how honest Irish Nationalists 
 have been executed proclaiming their innocence. Land- 
 lordism must be rooted out root and branch, and until 
 that is done there will be no peace or conteniment. 
 The English Government are telling us they will give 
 us a system of self-government. But we are determined 
 to accept no system but that which will leave 
 the people of Ireland their own masters. We have 
 been the servants of England too long. Agitation 
 is necessary to shake to the foundation the rule 
 of England ; we are determined to agitate until 
 that system is crushed and rotten for ever." 
 Now, I will give your Lordships particulars of some of 
 the Clare outrages. Before September, 1880, when the 
 speeches which I have read were delivered, Clare was 
 in quite a normal condition, if not quite free from agra- 
 rian crime. But very shortly afterwards the ordinary 
 number of police had to be doubled, being increased 
 from 327 to 600. Between January, 1881, and February, 
 1882, there were six murders and 12 attempts at assassi- 
 nation. Between February, 1882, and November, 1883, 
 there were six attempted murders. Fortunately, during 
 part of that period, ihe Crimes Act was in operation. 
 On April 27, 1881, the house of a caretaker named 
 John Sheehaa was fired into because he had taken 
 possession of some land with a view to take care of it 
 while it remained vacant. On May 6 in the same year 
 several houses were fired into because it was supposed 
 that the occupants had paid their rents. On July 17, 
 1881, a Land League meeting was held within sight of 
 the house of a Mr. Studdert, who was denounced by 
 several of the local leaders. On August 10 a man in 
 Mr. Studdert's employment, who was driving a donkey 
 
 home from Ballycar, was stopped by two men, armed 
 and disguised, who shot the donkey dead. On the 14th 
 another Land League meeting was held, at which Mr. 
 Studdert was again denounced. He was referred to by 
 Father Ryan, who was present, as an unclean beast, 
 and a landlord who evicted a tenant was called a 
 murderer. The effect of the meeting was that any one 
 who had anything to do with Mr. Studdert was boy- 
 cotted. A butcher named O'Halloran supplied him 
 with meat, whereupon the local branch of the Land 
 League threatened every one who should deal with 
 him. Mr. Robert Spaight, J.P., Major Maunsell, J. P., 
 and Lady Loftus were among those threatened. On 
 October 7 Mr. Spaight's house was fired into, and he 
 narrowly escaped with his life. The only known 
 offence that he had committed was that he had con- 
 tinued to deal with O'Halloran, refusing to be intimi- 
 dated. On July 29,1881, the house of Patrick Halloran, 
 at Ballyhee, was forcibly entered. In the early part of 
 the year he had been working for Mr. Enright, who in 
 May had a dispute with one of his tenants. Patrick 
 Halloran took up the herding from which this tenant 
 was dismissed. Three men entered his house and en- 
 deavoured to make him swear that he would leave Mr. 
 Enright's employment. He did not leave, however. 
 Some other men also continued to work for Mr. Enright 
 — namely, Michael Hurley, James Reddan, and Michael 
 O'Dea. On August 29 Hurley was dragged out of bed 
 and kicked, and some shots were fired over his head. 
 On November 18 Patrick Halloran was shot, and he died 
 from his wounds on December 7, 1881. On November 
 28 five shots from a revolver were fired into the house 
 of James Reddan. He was not killed ; but he lost his 
 reason from the shock and has been ever since an in- 
 mate of a lunatic asylum. Mr. Enright was boycotted 
 during the whole of this time, and these three poor un- 
 fortunate men, who had been guilty of nothing except 
 trying to earn a living by hard work as labourers, were, 
 one of them murdered, one of them injured, and one of 
 them driven out of his mind. We have here a good 
 illustration of the truth of the strong judicial denuncia- 
 tion of these dreadful deeds by Lord Fitzgerald, who 
 pointed out that these outrages do not injure the land- 
 lords one-tenth part as much as they injure poor men 
 who have done nothing of which complaint can pro- 
 perly be made. On October 3, 1881, an attempt was 
 made to blow up the house of a man named Littleton, 
 who had taken a surrendered farm. It was not 
 even an evicted farm. They attempted to blow 
 up his house with gunpowder simply because he bad 
 occupied land which it was intended no one Bhould 
 occupy. On the 23d of the same month Michael 
 Maroney was shot dead before his wife and children 
 because he had paid rent. His brother was also 
 shot at, but he was providentially missed. On the 24th 
 the house of a person named Bentley was fired into and 
 the windows were broken. On the 25th a man named 
 M'Mahon was shot dead in an out-house because he was 
 suspected of having disclosed the secrets of either the 
 moonlighters or the Land Leaguers. In the same month 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
62 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 a fresh attempt was made to injure Bentley by firing at 
 him when he and his wife were on the public road. 
 There are other cases of shooting at the end of 1881, 
 but they do not present such characteristic features as 
 to render it necessary to mention them. I now wish to 
 mention the case of a man named Perry, which ex- 
 tends over the years 1881 and 1882, and is connected 
 also with the murder of a man named Michael Morony 
 on February 25, 1882. Mr. Perry was a landlord 
 who had previously been on perfectly good terms with 
 his people. In the early part of 1881 he could not get 
 any rent, and, accordingly, acting partly for himself 
 and partly for other persons, he took steps to issue 
 process for the recovery of rent. On B%rch 27 his 
 house was fired into. On April 10 a Land League 
 meeting was held at Feakle, near which place Mr. 
 Browne, for whom Perry was agent, had some pro- 
 perty. At that meeting land-grabbers were denounced. 
 On January 1, 1882, these notices were circulated with 
 reference to Mr. Perry : — " Boycott Perry. Have 
 nothing to do with him, or by the Immaculate Jesus, 
 I'll cripple his worthless existence. Beware of Moon- 
 light, or by Christ of Heaven his body will burst by 
 Captain Starlight and Tom Brown also." " Boycott 
 Perry. Pay no rent. Any person having anything what- 
 soever to do with the infernal sceptical ruffian Charlie 
 Perry will get the contents of the Captain's brains, 
 breaker. Look out.— Captain Moonlight." " Take 
 notice. — Any person working, buying, or selling for 
 the Perries, the infernal bastards of Tom Browne, I 
 pledge myself before Christ that I will let his blood 
 flow at no distant date. — Captain Moonlight." Then, 
 on February 19, this notice was posted : — 
 
 " Any person coming to pay rent to that son of a boor 
 Perry, or coming to settle with him in any way, I am still 
 thirsty for their blood. So by the God of Heaven don't 
 be the cause of my coming from Templemore or if 
 you do I will pay the rent for you to the last farthing. 
 And ye land-jobbers that are in the habit of buying 
 the grass in the lands of Newgrove, clear out on the 
 1st day of March instant or by the Immaculate Jesus I 
 will clear you out. Clear out. — Captain Moonlight." 
 At this tinw one of the Ladies' Land League or- 
 ganizers, Miss M'Cormick, was travelling through the 
 district and advising the tenants not to pay rent. In 
 the early part of the same year Michael Morony had 
 paid his rent, and on February 25, 1882, he was fired 
 at and wounded, and died within seven or eight days. 
 Another man in the same neighbourhood was stabbed 
 in the leg because he would not answer the question 
 whether or not he had paid his rent, and five or six 
 other men were all threatened at the same time with 
 violence because they had either paid their rent or 
 were suspected of having paid it. One wonders how 
 it could ever be made to appear that the Land League 
 representatives in these districts were persons who 
 had a iond fide constitutional work to perform, and who 
 were doing a work which was not connected in any 
 Way with the deplorable acts that were committed. 
 With reference to Clare, there are one or two other 
 caseswhichl will summarize. On January 25, 1882. John 
 
 Lemaire was shot dead. He was caretaker for Mr. 
 Maroney, who was being rigidly boycotted. Mr. Lloyd, 
 the resident magistrate, was fired at on February 12 in 
 the same year, the only offence being that he did his 
 duty as a resident magistrate. There were two or 
 three other instances in the beginning of 1882 also, 
 of outrages by firing into persons' houses. One was 
 very remarkable, because there can be no doubt of the 
 person who had committed the outrage, and his defence 
 was undertaken by the Land League ; the promise 
 given by Mr. 3iggar with reference to the defence of 
 prisoners was performed. That was the case of a man 
 who was an army pensioner, but I am unable at present 
 to give his name. I propose now for the short period 
 of time at my disposal this afternoon to go back to the 
 story, so far as I have laid it before your Lordships, 
 after the autumn of 1881. In the first place, though I 
 have not been able to confine myself absolutely to the 
 years 1881 and 1882, I have shown your Lordships what 
 was the character of the work done under the Land 
 League and the character of the speeches delivered at 
 Land League meetings down to October, 1881, and 
 during the time Mr. Parnell was confined in Kilmain- 
 ham. Later on, as I have already told your Lordships, 
 I shall have to refer to the speeches delivered in 1885 
 and 1886 and the outrages which followed those 
 speeches and show your Lordships that what was stated, 
 in " Parnellism and Crime " was true — that the same 
 sort of work was being carried on under the name of 
 the National League. From the month of October, 
 1881, down to May, 1882, Mr. Parnell was in Kilmain- 
 ham. Your Lordships must not suppose that there was 
 no communication with Mr. Parnell during that time. 
 In connexion with a document, to which I should like 
 to refer in the course of a very few minutes, it has 
 been suggested that there was a difficulty in documents 
 being got out of Kilmainham. I think it will appeal 
 there was not the slightest difficulty in documents 
 being got out of Kilmainham. In the first place, tho 
 "No-rent Manifesto," signed by Mr. Parnell, was 
 got out of Kilmainham, as appears from the statements 
 of Mr. Parnell himself, by the action of Dr. Kenny, to 
 whom a testimonial was given for the part he had 
 played in getting that manifesto out of Kilmainham. In 
 the course of the trial of " O'Donnell v. Walter," 
 I may remind your Lordships, a letter was produced 
 from Mr. Parnell to Mr. O'Donnell which came out of 
 Kilmainham, and which the governors, the officers, and 
 the warders had never seen, and, if it be the subject of 
 dispute, we shall bring evidence to show that docu- 
 ments were freely passed from those inside to those 
 outside; nay, more, appeared in the public Press, for 
 during the time Mr. Parnell and his associates were 
 in Kilmainham United Ireland was published in Paris. 
 Egan and Campbell were in Paris, and matter went 
 over to Paris, possibly written by Win. O'Brien, but at 
 any rate approved by him, which subsequently 
 appeared in United Ireland. I mention that because it 
 is said that one of the reasons why certainly one of 
 the documents was a forgery is that it was impossible 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
Mie Special Commission, October 23, 1888. 
 
 fcs 
 
 for such a letter to have got out, as the governor must 
 have seen it, and that therefore it was impossible for 
 such a letter to have been written. Before I come to 
 that letter I have to describe as well as I can what 
 was passing in reference to the Land League and its 
 operations in 1881 and the early part of 1882. I have 
 already told your Lordships that the Ladies' Land 
 League took the place, so far as the organization 
 is concerned, of the Land League. It has had 
 the control of the money and to a certain extent the 
 records of the Land League. There was also 
 started an English branch of the Land League, of 
 which Frank Byrne was secretary. He has not been 
 in England — in the United Kingdom — since February 
 or March, 1883. Egan, who was treasurer of the 
 Land League, also has not been in the United 
 Kingdom since that date. Both those gentlemen 
 have been in America, and in close association 
 with them there are several other names to 
 which I shall have to call attention when I deal 
 with the American part of the case. What was Egan 
 doing ? I think you will have no doubt that Egan in 
 Pari3 was arranging for the carrying on of the work 
 of the Land League and providing the funds for that 
 purpose. He was still the treasurer of the Land 
 League. It will probably be proved that a very con- 
 siderable sum of money had been transferred to Paris ; 
 but, be that as it may, Egan, one of the persons 
 against whom most serious accusations are made, was 
 carrying on the work of the League in Paris in the 
 same way as from the time that he left Ireland. Egan 
 went to Paris in the early part of 1881, shortly after 
 the time or about the time that Sheridan had been 
 arrested. I shall put in evidence some documents 
 passing from Egan, and I shall ask your Lordships to 
 draw your own conclusion as to what those documents 
 mean. Egan left for Paris in 1881, and left Paris for 
 America in 1883. He was back in England at some 
 time between the two dates. Statements were made 
 in 1883 by the informers with regard to the Phoonix 
 Park murders which caused more than one person to 
 leave England or the place where he was and go to 
 America, and Egan was one of those. On October 25, 
 1881, Egan wrote from Paris this letter to James 
 Carey : — 
 
 " 25th Octr. 1881. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I have by this post sent M. two 
 hundred Pounds ; he will give you what you want. 
 When will you undertake to get to work and give us 
 value for our money ? 
 
 " I am, dear Sir, Faithfully yrs 
 
 " Patk. Eqan. 
 
 " Jas. Carey, Esq." 
 
 I do not know whether that will be said to be a 
 forgery. If so, it is another instance of somebody's 
 handwriting being most successfully forged. But if it 
 be genuine what does it mean 1 " M " refers to 
 Mullett who was involved in the Phoenix Park 
 murders. " When will you undertake to get to work 
 and give us value for our money !" Whom is that 
 
 letter written to? To James Carey. It seems to me 
 impossible to reconcile the contents of that letter with 
 any innocent and honest purpose which could have been 
 expressed in plain language indicating for what object 
 the money was intended. But, be that as it may, when 
 we come to consider what was the position of Egan 
 and for what purpose that £200 was sent, I shall be 
 able to criticize any suggestion that maybe made. He 
 undoubtedly was clearly personally connected with 
 Carey, and I shall lay before your Lordships, as 
 having a very direct bearing upon the question o^ 
 handwriting, other letters which passed at the same 
 time between Egan and Carey. They are dated 
 November 9 and 27 and December 20, 1881. There is 
 one important fact in connexion with these letters which 
 I shall mention now in the course of my opening. 
 I stated in opening the case of " O'Donnell v. Walter" 
 with regard to those three letters which were found 
 in the house of James Carey that in the case of one 
 the body of the letter was in the handwriting of 
 Campbell. I had no instructions then as to whether 
 Campbell was in Paris at the time that that letter was 
 written. It will turn out in the evidence I shall 
 be able to put before you that Campbell was in 
 Paris at the time that that letter was written, 
 and that he appears to have acted in that particular 
 case, as in other cases, as secretary for persons 
 with whom he was connected. I only refer to 
 the matter for the purpose of at once stating 
 before your Lordships the extent to which we have 
 been able to identify and prove handwriting, having 
 got genuine specimens of Mr. Campbell's handwriting 
 and the undoubted letter he wrote to Quinn respecting 
 the Land League books in 1881, and having been able 
 to compare that with the specimen of handwriting 
 which, without any previous knowledge, those who were 
 advising The Times in the matter of handwriting de- 
 tected as the handwriting of Mr. Campbell. Of 
 course, it is perfectly possible for Egan to have been 
 acquainted with Carey and yet not have known what 
 Carey's antecedents were or what he was mixed up 
 with. Your Lordships will have to consider that care- 
 fully when you have heard the whole of the evidence 
 in this case. I am passing, in order to keep it abso- 
 lutely distinct, everything which was occurring be- 
 tween the American and the English branches at this 
 time. I merely mention that there are some important 
 matters that occurred on the other side of the Atlantic 
 with which some prominent members of the Land 
 League in Ireland were undoubtedly connected. I pass 
 at once to the next document which we will put in 
 evidence. It is one which has given rise to the sug- 
 gestion by my learned friend that it is a forgery : — 
 
 " 9, 1, 82 
 " Dear E., — What are these fellows waiting for ? This 
 inaction is inexcusable. Our best men are in prison and 
 nothing is being done. Let there be an end of- this 
 hesitancy. Prompt action is called for. You undertook 
 to make it hot for old Forster and Co. Let us have 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
hi 
 
 The Special Commission, October 23, 1883! 
 
 Eome evidence of your power to do so. My health is 
 good — thanks. " Yours very truly, 
 
 " Ohas. S. Paknell." 
 At present I am not able to state before your Lord- 
 ships in whose handwriting the body of that letter is. 
 In all probability, before the end of this case your 
 Lordships will have an opportunity of forming a judg- 
 ment as to whose handwriting the body of the letter 
 is in. To the particular expressions in it I do not 
 attach any great importance. It does not seem to me 
 that it would be fair or right to assume that the ex- 
 pression " make it hot for old Forster and Company" 
 necessarily meant any outrage on Mr. Forster himself, 
 because it is an expression which had undoubtedly been 
 used by Mr. Parnell in connexion with other matters 
 previously, and may well have referred to what I may 
 call general outrage — outrages which would embarrass 
 Mr. Forster and which would impede the Government of 
 which he was the representative. And I should not wish 
 to suggest that anything further is necessarily involved in 
 the language, or to press the matter further than it ought 
 to be pressed. And there is another reason for saying 
 that — that, in regard to the knowledge of Mr. Parnell of 
 what Egan was doing, or of what Egan had done, and 
 of what had been done in the past years by the Land 
 League and its representatives, after what I have 
 already stated, I think you will have no doubt that Mr. 
 Parnell was thoroughly acquainted with everything 
 that was going on. I do not believe it possible for Mr. 
 Parnell to state, in a manner which will entitle him to 
 credit, that he was wholly ignorant as to what had 
 been done in past years by' the direct representatives of 
 the Land League ; and that being so, this proof of 
 communication with Egan, whatever it may amount to 
 is only one incident in connexion with the whole 
 story, whereby intimate relations between Mr. 
 Parnell and Mr. Egan are established. Then 
 again, of course, it relates solely to Mr. Parnell, 
 and possibly to the other person who wrote the 
 body of the letter which he sent. It has nothing 
 to do with Mr. Matthew Harris, or Mr. Biggar, 
 or these other persons against whom we repeat 
 we have made charges.charges of which we have formu- 
 lated the particulars. There are matters relating to the 
 ink and to the handwriting of that letter, on which it 
 would be impossible for me to comment at the present 
 time ; but all I can say now is that The Times news- 
 paper believe it to be a genuine document, and will put 
 before your Lordships the full explanation with regard 
 to the letter, and, so far as they are concerned, if they 
 possibly can, every circumstance in connexion with the 
 letter. The way in which it was obtained, and all the 
 other circumstances, will be fully explained. I am 
 perfectly aware that over and over again the word 
 " forgery " has been used for the purpose of suggesting 
 that these letters are not genuine. All I can say is, 
 that your Lordships will have very ample opportunity, 
 before this inquiry terminates, of investigating on 
 which side the truth lies in this respect. I am not at 
 liberty at the present time to mention, nor should I 
 
 do so even if I were at liberty, more names to your 
 Lordships. In all probability long before the end of 
 this inquiry is reached all the names of the persons 
 connected with the way and the circumstances in which 
 these letters were obtained will be laid before your 
 Lordships ; bat, for reasons which are obvious, I decline 
 at the present time to make any statement as to the 
 way in which these letters were obtained, or from 
 whom they were obtained, or as to the sum of money 
 which was paid for them. The facts will in no 
 way be kept back from your Lordships. The sum 
 of money which was paid for them will in no 
 way be kept back. Some money no doubt passed. 
 Of course it is ridiculous to suppose that The 
 Times could obtain letters of this kind without paying 
 for them ; but whether that is a thing which Ihrow- 
 doubt or discredit on the genuineness of the letters, that 
 is a matter which must be considered and carefully 
 weighed. This I may be allowed to say — that not one 
 penny was paid, not one penny was promised, no bar- 
 gain of any sort or kind was made, until the documents 
 had been for months in the hands of The Times, and had 
 been carefully examined by perfectly independent per- 
 sons, and the handwriting had been tested by undoubtedly 
 genuine specimens of Mr. Parnell's handwriting. There- 
 fore it is no case of buying and being determined to use 
 that which had been paid for. The documents, I repeat, 
 were examined by impartial persons with a view to test 
 their genuineness before any use of any sort or kind was 
 made of them, or any promise of the remuneration to 
 be given for them was made. But one word more I 
 may say now on the subject of this letter to avoid repe- 
 tition when I come to a later letter. It is said in con- 
 nexion with this letter and other letters that particular 
 incidents in connexion with the handwriting of the sig- 
 nature of Mr. Parnell are wanting, and explanations 
 have been given by Mr. Parnell — not altogether consistent 
 explanations— from which conclusions might be drawn 
 that the 1 signature is not in his handwriting. Everyone 
 of those explanations we shall be able to deal with by 
 comparison with undoubted specimens of Mr. Parnell's 
 writing. Every one of those suggestions, if repeated, 
 I shall be prepared to meet, and, by the production of 
 undoubted specimens, your Lordships will be able to 
 judge whether the minute criticisms that have been 
 made are worthy of much weight, having regard to the 
 presence or absence of particular features in specimens 
 which are undoubtedly genuine. With regard to this 
 part of the case, I have simply repeated exactly what 
 I said in the trial of " O'Donnell v. Walter," except- 
 ing perhaps this, that I have now indicated that the 
 persons from whom and the way in which the letters 
 were obtained will probably be disclosed to your Lord- 
 ships in the course of this trial. As to what the letter 
 proves, it proves nothing more, and I have never pre- 
 tended that it proved anything more, than this — that 
 here was the most intimate relation between Mr. 
 Parnell and Mr. Egan, and that there existed the 
 most intimate relations between the other gentlemen 
 whose names are mentioned in the particulars and Mr. 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 23 and 24, '1888. 
 
 55 
 
 Egan. Whatever may bo your Lordships' judgment 
 ultimately, you have, I may be permitted to remind 
 you, to deal with the allegations which were made in 
 " Pamellism and Crime," with the real charges and 
 allegations against the persons referred to in the various 
 passages to which I have called attention, from which 
 it will appear, as I have said, that the charge against Mr. 
 Farnell is that ho was from beginning to end connected 
 with the men who were carrying out these outrages, 
 and that the force by which he was working.unless sup- 
 ported by the conspiracy of the Land League, could not 
 prevail or succeed in effecting one-half of the objects 
 which it did succeed in effecting in tyrannizing over 
 the inhabitants of Ireland. With the other circum- 
 stances in connexion with the imprisonment of Mr. Par- 
 nell I have very little to say. I have to detail to your 
 Lordships certain incideuts not referred to in detail 
 in my opening in " O'Dounell v. Walter " in further- 
 ance of the view I am now pressing on your Lord- 
 ships. There was an intimate relation between Mr. 
 Parnell and those who had been actually organizers of 
 the outrages. That particular part of the story I would 
 ask your Lordships to let me postpone until to-morrow. 
 I will utilize the brief period before the adjournment 
 by just indicating to your Lordships what had hap- 
 pened prior to the month of May, 1882, at which 
 time the particular incident to which I shall refer to- 
 morrow occurred. Sheridan had, as your Lordships 
 have already been told, been arrested in the year 1381. 
 He was released. After his release, and during the 
 earlier part of 1882, he was going about Ireland dis- 
 guised as a priest. There will, I think, be evidence to 
 put before your Lordships to place beyond all doubt 
 that Sheridan was organizing outrages in the West 
 of Ireland. Boyton was also organizing outrages, 
 or these meetings which led to outrages, and which 
 were followed by outrages in other parts of Ireland, 
 particularly in Leinster. And whatever may be your 
 Lordships' views as to the difficulty or ease with which 
 communications passed from one side of the walls of 
 Kilmainham to the other, your Lordships will, I think, 
 have no doubt that Mr. Parnell knew perfectly well, 
 not only of the outrages which had taken place, of the 
 outrages which followed from the speeches which had 
 been made, but knew the persons who had been mainly 
 instrumental in the organizing of these outrages. I 
 have mentioned that Sheridan was one of the persons 
 who was chief organizer in the West, that Boyton was 
 one of the persons who was chief organizer of Lein- 
 ster. I shall give your Lordships the outline 
 of the evidence, on which I think your Lord- 
 ships will come to the conclusion that there 
 was the most intimate knowledge on the part of 
 Mr. Parnell, not only as to what work Sheridan and 
 Boyton had been engaged in, but also as to what their 
 influence and power was. Davitt at this time was in 
 Portland Prison, and was not released until the 6th of 
 May, 1882. The circumstances under which Davitt was 
 released I shall have to explain to your Lordships. My 
 reason for mentioning it is this— that it will, I think, 
 
 turn out that there were no means of communication 
 between Davitt and Mr. Parnell prior to Davitt's re- 
 lease on May 6. When Davitt was released on that 
 date Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon went down to Port- 
 land and had a very long interview with Davitt before 
 he was released ; nay, more, I think it will turn out that 
 Davitt's release was postponed at the request of 
 Mr. Pamell until he and Mr. Dillon had an oppor- 
 tunity of seeing Mr. Davitt. I mention it now 
 for this purpose ; I have told your Lordships that 
 Mr. Parnell had intimate knowledge of what Sheridan 
 and Boyton had been doing during the time he was 
 imprisoned and before. It is no part of my case 
 that Mr. Davitt, being in Portland, had the same means 
 of information ; in fact, beyond the references that are 
 made to Mr. Davitt in " Pamellism and Crime," as to 
 his connexion with Fenianism some long time before, 
 and beyond a few speeches in which Mr. Davitt 
 undoubtedly, did support the total and entire separa- 
 tion of Ireland from Great Britain, I am not aware 
 that Mr. Davitt did take any active part in the organi- 
 zation of the Land League. Certainly, so far as I know 
 on my instructions, this tyranny which operated upon 
 the tenants, the poor men who were occupying land 
 as distinguished from persons in high political places, 
 was not a part of the views advocated by Mr. 
 Davitt. The organization which The Times attacked, 
 which The Times said was supported by boycotting 
 and the sanction of murder, was the Land League 
 organization. At the head of the organization was 
 Mr. Parnell and a number of other persons whose 
 names I have mentioned ; but, so far as I know, Mr. 
 Davitt was not connected with the particular part of 
 the organization which carried on in Ireland agrarian 
 agitation as I have described it, during the years 1880, 
 1881, and 1882. I wish to make that statement because 
 it will leave me free to approach at once to- 
 morrow a very remarkable circumstance which will 
 show clearly that Mr. Parnell was intimately acquainted 
 with the way in which this conspiracy had been 
 worked, the persons who had worked it, and the effect 
 that organization had upon the agrarian and poorer 
 members of the population in Ireland. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24. 
 
 Mr. Biggar appeared in person. 
 
 On the Commissioners taking their seats this 
 morning, 
 
 Sib C. Russell said, — My Lords, I am still in a 
 difficulty with regard to my application for further 
 discovery. My learned friend asked yesterday to have 
 the matter postponed on the ground that he had not 
 had time to prepare his affidavit, but even now I have 
 not received a copy of it. My learned friend's client 
 had all day yesterday to prepare it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I did not see the affidavit 
 until yesterday morning. 
 
 Sir Charles Kussjsll.— It was served the day before 
 yesterday. 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
m 
 
 *Th.e Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I beg my learned friend's 
 pardon. I saw the affidavit which had been handed to 
 my client the previous day only yesterday morning. An 
 affidavit in reply was made either last night or this 
 morning, and I believe that Mr. Soames, who is not in 
 Court at this moment, will immediately hand my 
 learned friend a copy of it. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell.— It is rather difficult to deal 
 with the matter in the absence of the affidavit. 
 - The Attorney-General. — I have sent for one. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell, — Then I will proceed in its 
 absence. I daresay that I shall get a copy of it some 
 time. The affidavit of Mr. Lewis, to which my learned 
 friend has referred, states that, " in addition to the 
 letters which purport to be written by the said Mr. 
 Parnell, and which he alleges to be forgeries, I am 
 informed and believe that the said defendants, or their 
 solicitors, have in their possession forged letters 
 which are alleged to have been signed by Mr. Dillon, 
 M.P., Mr. Biggar, M.P., and other members of Parlia- 
 ment, which said letters have not been disclosed by 
 the said defendants or their solicitors." It is upon 
 that affidavit that the present application for further 
 discovery is founded, but in point of fact that affidavit 
 was hardly needed, . because the affidavit of the 
 defendants in " O'Donnell v. Walter and Another " 
 puts the matter very clearly. In that affidavit they 
 admitted that certain documents were contained in a 
 box marked with the letter A. Your Lordships will 
 observe that in an ordinary action it would not be a 
 sufficient discovery to say that a number or bundle of 
 documents were contained in a particular box. My 
 learned friend says that he objects to produce the 
 documents referred to in the first part of the second 
 schedule to Mr. Soames's first affidavit, upon the ground 
 that they were documents which were obtained after 
 the commencement of the action of " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter " for the use of the advisers and solicitors of 
 the defendants in that action and for the purposes of 
 the said action. Your Lordships will recollect that the 
 doctrine of privilege does not extend to a case where 
 the documents are already in existence aliunde, but 
 merely to such documents as have been created for the 
 purposes of the action, or, in other words, such docu- 
 ments as do not profess to be original documents, such 
 as these letters purport to be, but are merely drawn up 
 for the purpose of instructing the solicitors and 
 advising the counsel in a particular case. They admit 
 that they have a large bundle of these documents, the 
 number of which we cannot tell — they merely refer to 
 a bundle — which they do not deDy, on the contrary, 
 they admit, to be material to the case ; and if 
 these documents comprise what purport to be original 
 letters of Mr. Dillon and Mr. Biggar and others, then 
 it is very important for us to see them. I have not 
 seen the fresh affidavit which Mr. Soames has made, 
 
 The Attorney-General, producing Mr. Soames's 
 affidavit, said, — I will read it. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell. — I am very much obliged to 
 you, but I am quite able to read it myself. 
 
 The Attorney-General then handed the affidavit to 
 Sir C. Russell. 
 
 Sir Chaeles Russell. — This is what Mr. Soames 
 says : — ^ 
 
 " I, Joseph Soames, of 58, Lincoln's-inn-fields, in 
 the county of Middlesex, solicitor, make oath, and say 
 as follows : — ; 
 
 " 1. That I have read what purports to be a copy of 
 an affidavit of George H. Lewis in support of applica- 
 tion for further and better discovery of documents. 
 
 "2. I received from a person in America certain 
 documents, which I believe are the documents referred 
 to in the said affidavit, though I do not recollect any 
 purporting to be signed by Mr. Biggar. 
 
 " 3. The said documents were, I am informed and 
 believe, handed to the said person by a person passing 
 under the name of Roberts. Two of them were sent 
 to me in the first instance, and I at once discovered 
 that they were not genuine. The person who sent them 
 to me discovered that the others were not genuine 
 immediately he saw them, and on that ground did not 
 forward them to me. He afterwards handed them to 
 ms when he came to England, and seeing that they 
 were clearly not genuine, I considered they were in 
 no way relevant to the matters in question in the 
 action of 'O'Donnell v. Walter," or to the present 
 proceedings. I put them on one side as worthless and 
 immaterial. They have always been so regarded, and 
 I do not .believe that they were ever seen by my 
 clients or either of them. 
 
 " 4. I cannot say if all the said documents are in 
 my possession now or not, as I do not remember how 
 many there were. Some of them are in my possession, 
 bat they were all received by me after the commence, 
 ment of the said action, and only as solicitor for the 
 defendants in the said action and for the purposes of 
 the said action." 
 
 Therefore Mr. Soames does not deny, on the contrary 
 he admits, the possession of documents which were 
 acquired by someone acting in the interests of his 
 clients, and which have been proved to be forged docu- 
 ments, and he admits that some were obtained in 
 America and some here ; but he says nothing to 
 identify them as being the documents in the box. 
 beyond saying that they were acquired for the pur- 
 poses of the defendants in the action of " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter." I think, therefore, that these documents do 
 not come within the doctrine of privilege, even if that 
 doctrine applied to such a case as this. Your Lord- 
 ships will recollect that the Aet of Parliament, to avoid 
 any objection of the character now made by my learned 
 friend, gives your Lordships power to order discovery 
 of any documents whatever. I will upon this point 
 refer your Lordships to section 2 of the Act. Your 
 Lordships will observe that in the earlier part of that 
 section it is enacted that " the Commissioners shall 
 for the purpose of the inquiry under this Act have, in 
 addition to the special powers hereinafter provided, all 
 such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in Her 
 Majesty's High Court of Justice, or in any Judge 
 thereof, on the occasion of any action, including all- 
 powers, rights, and privileges in respect of the follow 
 ing matters ;" and then, by subsection 3, it is enacted 
 that " the Commissioners may, if they think fit, order 
 that any document or documents in the possession of 
 
 Application for Further Discovery. 
 
The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 57 
 
 any party appearing at the inquiry stall be produced for 
 the inspection of any other such party." That subsec- 
 tion, therefore, gives your Lordships power to override 
 this particular privilege, even if it exists in this case. 
 In order to show your Lordships that I have rightly 
 stated the doctrine of discovery, I will refer you to 
 the last case, or at all events the most authoritative 
 case, which was decided in the Court of Appeal. It is 
 the case of " Pearce v. Foster," and it is reported in 
 15 Q.B.D., at page 118. The Master of the Rolls 
 says : — 
 
 "In this case the affidavit of the plaintiff a p. 
 pears to me in substance to state that the documents in 
 question are documents which were prepared by the 
 solicitor in an action for use in the conduct of an 
 action, and that they were so prepared to be used for 
 the purpose of private and confidential communication 
 between counsel, solicitor, and client in relation to an 
 action. It seems to me, therefore, that they fall 
 within the class of documents with regard to which 
 there is a professional privilege, on the ground that 
 they are brought into existence for the purposes or in 
 the course of professional communication between 
 solicitor and client. I do not think that where docu- 
 ments are already in existence aliunde the mere fact of 
 their being handed to a solicitor for the purposes of the 
 conduct of an action can create a privilege ; but where 
 documents are brought into existence by a solici- 
 tor, or through a solicitor, for the purposes of con- 
 sultation with such solicitor, with a view to his 
 giving professional advice or to the conduct of 
 an action, these are in the nature of professional 
 communications, and are, as such, privileged." 
 Of course it cannot be said that these were documents 
 called into existence either for the purposes of the 
 action of " O'Donnell v. Walter and Another " or of 
 this investigation. Whether they were brought into 
 existence by some other persons for an entirely 
 different purpose is an entirely different question. 
 On these grounds, my Lords, I claim inspection of all 
 these documents. 
 
 Mr. R. T. Reid. — I have no desire to cover any 
 ground that my learned friend has covered, but I 
 desire to fortify the argument he has put forward by 
 other matter shortly stated. The Attorney-General in 
 the course of his speech has furnished the most ample 
 grounds for his application. He has referred to the 
 existence of a letter dated in August, 18S1, in relation 
 to the moonlighters who were wounded by the police, 
 and in respect of whom application was made for relief 
 to the Land League, which is signed " J. F.," and 
 the Attorney-General says that those are the initials of 
 John Fergusson, of Glasgow. That document is not 
 set forth in the affidavit of discovery, and I submit that 
 it is one of the most relevant documents that can well 
 be conceived,having regard to the nature of the Attorney- 
 General's opening.andl respectfullyclaim the right to see 
 that document and to have it disclosed. Another matter 
 that ought to be disclosed is the bundle of documents 
 which are said to have been handed to some person by 
 a clerk in the employ of the League. These documents 
 were not created in any sense for the purposes of the 
 action of " O'Donnell v. Walter " or for those of this 
 
 investigation, and if they are genuine — and of their 
 genuineness or otherwise I know nothing — they ought 
 most certainly to be disclosed, in order to give those 
 whom I represent an opportunity of stating their case, 
 If they are not genuine they are still more material as 
 showing matters of importance from another point of 
 view. Again, the Attorney-General has referred to a 
 variety of -different speeches which have been made in 
 different places,and hehasrelied on those speeches as afford- 
 ing evidence of some complicity with crime on the part 
 of persons incriminated. The Attorney-General does not 
 deny the fact that they are merely a few out of a good 
 many speeches, and I say that those other speeches to 
 which he refers have not been set forth in the affi- 
 davit of documents nor is any reference made to them, 
 except that mention is made of the contents of a box 
 and a bundle of documents. More than that, the 
 Attorney-General has referred to some other corro 
 spondence, and I respectfully submit that in addition 
 to those documents the existence of which is admitted 
 in the affidavits, there have been opened by the 
 Attorney-General, not only as material but crucial, 
 documents on a variety of matters which find no place 
 whatever in the affidavits before you, although they 
 would be incontestably inadmissible in an action be- 
 tween parties, and how much more so in an inquiry of 
 this character ? 
 
 The Attokney-Genekal. — With regard to the sub- 
 stance of my learned friend's affidavit I will deal 
 with that first. I am not going to say anything about 
 the jurisdiction of this Court. Your Lordships have 
 full power to order any document to be seen, and 
 therefore I shall say nothing more on that point. This 
 application was made with reference to certain other 
 documents which Mr. Soames has in his possession, 
 and no such application could possibly have been made 
 but from some communication made to the defendants, 
 the particulars of which have not been disclosed. The 
 affidavit made by Mr. George Lewis is remarkable. It 
 may be allowed that Mr. George Lewis is as expert a 
 solicitor as there is in London. He says : — " I am in- 
 formed and believe that in addition to letters purport- 
 ing to be written by Mr. Farnell there are other letters 
 in their possession alleged, to have been written and 
 signed by Mr. Dillon and Mr. Biggar." He does not 
 pretend that these documents are material. He does 
 not suggest that they are material to any issue raised 
 in " Parnellism and Crime " or in " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter." He merely says that he has been informed 
 that my clients have in their possession certain 
 documents which, he says, are not genuine. What 
 does the affidavit of Mr. Soames show ? It 
 shows that some person was attempting to piny 
 a trick upon either The Times or their representatives, 
 and somehow or other the information that that 
 trick was attempted to be played was communicated 
 to Mr. George Lewis. In all probability in the course 
 of this case your Lordships will learn by whom that 
 communication was made, and possibly from whom th9 
 original documents emanated. The question whether 
 
 Application for Further Discovery. 
 
53 
 
 The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 the letters are genuine or not, as far as Mr. Parnell is 
 concerned, is a matter of great importance. It was 
 stated just now by Sir Charles Kussell that it was the 
 most important issue in the case, but I think I made 
 it clear yesterday that when the substauce of the real 
 charges and allegations originally made in " Par- 
 nellism and Crime" are examined, the genuineness of 
 Mr. Parnell's letters will be found to be by no means 
 the most important issue. Be that as it may, how can 
 it be suggested that the existence of documents, 
 genuine or otherwise, alleged to be signed by Mr. 
 Dillon, Mr. Biggar, and other members of Parliament, 
 not said to come from the same source, should be 
 material? It is simply for the purpose of suggesting 
 that The Times is in possession of some documents not 
 genuine that this application is made. I have no objec- 
 tion that the documents should be seen if your Lord- 
 ships think that they ought to be seeD. But with refer- 
 ence to this application having been made because my 
 clients have not disclosed, I respectfully but 
 emphatically protest against that assumption, because 
 those who advise my learned friend know perfectly 
 well that they have not any materiality, and they 
 have not dared to put into their affidavit that they 
 were material to the issue raised. Now, as to the next 
 point, whether there has been a sufficient disclosure, 
 my learned friend says that the documents were referred 
 to by the defendants in " O'Donnell v. Walter" as a 
 bundle of papers, contained in a box marked A. Sir 
 C. Kussell suggests that an improper affidavit of docu- 
 ments was made. My client instructs me that at the 
 time of the affidavit being prepared he offered to 
 lubmit the documents put into the box to the Secretary 
 jf the Commission, in order to be identified as coming 
 svithin the rule your Lordships laid down at the pre- 
 liminary meeting, when your Lordships dealt with this 
 question. On that occasion your Lordship said : — 
 
 " In addition to any grounds of privilege which 
 may be made in the usual way by Mr. Graham's clients, 
 the Court will take upon itself to consider what docu- 
 ments it would be right should be produced for the 
 inspection of Sir Charles Russell's clients, and for that 
 purpose we shall upon those points upon which 
 a difference arises exercise our own judgment, and in 
 order that that power which we desire to reserve for 
 ourselves should be preserved intact, we do not 
 require the schedule which will be made by Mr. 
 Graham's clients to be made in such a shape as to dis- 
 close anything as to which they desiro to raise a ques- 
 tion before us. They will schedule their documents in 
 such a way as will not disclose by the scheduling that 
 which they desire to have our opinion upon with regard 
 to the fitness of producing the particular document — as 
 for instance, to give an illustration, documents, as is 
 usual in these cases, obtained by the solicitors for the 
 purposes of litigation. Well, that would be a head of 
 privilege ; and so any other ground of objecting to pro- 
 ducing certain documents may be specified by Mr. 
 Graham's clients." 
 
 Mr. Soames, who is responsible for this affidavit, 
 had, of course, to decide what was material and what 
 was not. I need scarcely repeat the observation I 
 have made that, having regard to the main charges or 
 
 to this particular charge, the possession of a hundred 
 other documents having no relation to the particular 
 issue raised would not be material. How could the 
 possession of documents which Mr. Soames swears 
 he at once discovered not to be genuine have any bear- 
 ing on the investigation as to whether other documents 
 are genuine ? How can the documents which the agent 
 of Mr. Soames in America discovered not to be 
 genuine be material ? They were placed on one side as 
 worthless and immaterial, and I do not believe that 
 they were seen by my clients. Until we have the 
 means of knowing from whom Mr. George Lewis 
 obtained information as to these documents they ought 
 not to be seen. With reference to Mr. Eeid's applica- 
 tion, it is entirely unsupported and novel. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — It is the same application. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My learned friend is 
 asking that he should see the proofs of my witnesses. 
 Every one of these documents has come into the posses- 
 sion of The Times in the course of this litigation and 
 for the purposes of this litigation. Take the case of 
 the speeches, which are the proofs of the witnesses 
 which will be tested by cross-examination. Is it to be 
 said that my learned friend is to have not only the proofs 
 of those speeches, but also of some other speeches which 
 he has the same access to as I have ? My learned friend 
 said that I admitted that there were other speeches : 
 but what I said was that there were other meetings, 
 and that I regretted that I was not able to produce 
 reports of the speeches that were delivered at them. It 
 has never been the practice of ordinary Courts of law, 
 and it ought not to be of this Commission, that the 
 speeches which are the proofs of the witnesses as to 
 the utterances of these men should be produced. As to 
 the letter of Timothy Horan, that is part of the proof 
 of my case, and it is one of the documents as to 
 which privilege has been claimed, and I should like 
 to know by what affidavit they could claim to see it. 
 No case, I submit, has been made out for the produc- 
 tion of this document, for it has come to the know- 
 ledge of our solicitor in the course of getting up the 
 case and is part of our proof. And documents which 
 have come into existence in the course of getting up 
 a case are always privileged, and ought not to be 
 allowed to be seen by the other side. What was 
 decided in " Pearce v. Poster " was that the mere 
 fact that a document had come into the possession of 
 a party's solicitor in getting up a case was no ground 
 for its being privileged if it was otherwise a docu- 
 ment that ought to be disclosed. But here the docu- 
 ments that my friend Beeks to see are documents that 
 are part of the proof in our case. If my learned 
 friend makes a substantive application with regard to 
 Land League papers, and moves on affidavit, I shall be 
 prepared to meet such application. My learned friend 
 has said that I stated that I had certain books of the 
 League. I said nothing of the kind. I have not, and 
 have not seen anything that could be described as a 
 book of the Land League. On the contrary, I have to 
 regret the total and absolute disappearance of the books 
 
 Application for Farther Discovery. 
 
The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 59 
 
 of the League. I respectfully submit there is no ground 
 for this application of Sir Charles Russell. With 
 regard to Mr. Reid's application I also submit that my 
 clients have fully discharged their duty as to 
 discovery. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — My learned friend has expended a 
 great deal of argument on a matter which is compara- 
 tively trivial. All I said about this tffidavit was 
 that when privilege is claimed the rules of the Court 
 require that the documents with respect to which 
 such privilege is claimed shall be enumerated and not 
 generally described, and that has not been done in this 
 case. But with reference to the substance of this 
 application, I, on the occasion of the preliminary 
 meeting, called attention to this matter. I said, 
 " Here is a case in which one side produces letters 
 alleged to be genuine, and which on the other side 
 are denounced as forgeries. The statement is made 
 that these have been brought to The Times, and that 
 its representatives have been imposed on." Surely 
 it is of the greatest consequence that we should know 
 whether these documents that have been produced 
 are a selection from a larger number that have beon 
 imposed on them. Mr. Soames says that he received 
 from a person in America certain documents which I 
 believe are the documents referred to in the affidavit. 
 But who was this person ? I am not asking his name. 
 It is admitted that he was an agent of The Times in 
 America, acting bond fide on their behalf in purchasing 
 or endeavouring to acquire documents which they 
 believed to be material to these charges. " The said 
 documents were, as I am informed and believe," says 
 Mr. Soames, " handed to the said person by a man 
 named Roberts," and then it is said that they are not 
 believed to be genuine. Surely we should see these 
 documents, coming as they appear to do from some 
 manufactory of forged documents. Can it be said that 
 it is not materia] how many more forged letters there 
 are ? Surely it is most material that the Court should 
 have every one of these documents before it, and that 
 The Times should help in attaining this object, 
 especially as my learned friend is instructed to express 
 his anxiety and readiness that the whole of the truth 
 should be probed to the very bottom. On my learned 
 friend's own allegation that they are forgeries their 
 materiality is manifest. Does Mr. Soames suggest that 
 they are not material ? If he thought they were 
 not material he would have made no reference to them 
 at all. If he did not believe they were material, 
 they would not have found a place in the affidavit. 
 But they are in the affidavit of documents. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I beg your pardon, Sir 
 Charles. Can you refer me to any paragraph in the 
 affidavit ? My learned friend is absolutely misin- 
 structed. They have never been referred to either 
 directly or indirectly in any affidavit of Mr. Soames 
 until this affidavit made this morning. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Sorely my learned friend is mis- 
 taken. I am referring to the affidavit of documents in 
 which they say : — " We have in our possession or 
 
 power the documents relating to the matters in question 
 in this Commission set forth in the first schedule thereto 
 and in the second part of the said schedule. And the 
 second part of the said schedule contains a reference to 
 a bundle of documents contained in a box which is pro- 
 duced and marked with the letter A." 
 
 The Attorney-General.— But those letters are not 
 in the box. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — What letters ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The letters you are now 
 asking to see. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Well, that makes the confusion 
 worse confounded. What is in the box ? Certainly 
 up to this moment I was under the distinct impression, 
 and I fancy that everybody who has heard the discus- 
 sion was under the impression, that these letters were 
 in the box. 
 
 The President. — I have never been under that im- 
 pression. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — Nor I. It never was sug- 
 gested until Mr. Lewis started it, and then came Mr. 
 Soames's answer. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I was under that impression, but if 
 I am wrong the argumeut I was using must go by the 
 board. The question still remains for your Lordships' 
 decision whether these letters are or are not material. 
 With regard to the rest of the documents I do not 
 quite follow my learned friend's contention. He has 
 referred to them in his opening speech, and he can 
 scarcely say they are not material. He has referred 
 to the letter alleged to have been written by Horan in 
 Cork to Kenny of the Laud League in Dublin. He 
 cannot say this is not a material letter. And if it is 
 we are entitled to see it. Lastly, let me remind your 
 Lordships that these are all documents said to have 
 been in existence as far back as 1881 and 1882, years, 
 therefore, before the action of " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter," and years before this Commission. These 
 are the grounds on which I submit we are entitled to 
 have full discovery. Let me, however, make a sugges- 
 tion. We desire — I will not make professions — I will 
 leave that to my learned friend — but I would suggest 
 to your Lordships that, if you have any doubt about this 
 matter, you should yourselves see this bundle of 
 documents and these letters and yourselves examine 
 them fully and thoroughly. If there be reasons which 
 operate upon your Lordships' minds why we should 
 not have these in the interests of justice and truth, we 
 will submit to your Lordships' ruling and judgment in 
 the matter. But unless there exist in your Lordships' 
 minds such reasons as I have referred to, I submit that 
 we are entitled to have inspection of such documents 
 and copies of them. 
 
 After consultation, 
 
 The President said,— I think it will be found that I 
 made some observations at the preliminary meeting in 
 anticipation of some such proposal as this. I under- 
 stand distinctly from you, Mr. Attorney, that you do 
 not object to our seeing these letters. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Yes, my Lord, and more 
 
 Application for Further Discovery. 
 
60 
 
 The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 than that. I am perfectly willing that the whole of 
 these documents and the entire contents of the box 
 should be seen by your Lordships. 
 
 The President.— I understand, Sir Charles, that that 
 is your suggestion. 
 
 Sib C. Btjssell.— Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — I can only say, speaking for myself, 
 that I am obliged to counsel for this suggestion, which 
 I think will lead to the best settlement of the dis- 
 cussion which has arisen. Although, no doubt, it is a 
 very onerous duty to be imposed upon us, yet we accept 
 it. We will ourselves personally examine the docu- 
 ments for which privilege has been claimed and which 
 are now enclosed in the box. That has only been 
 done for the purpose of identification, and whether 
 numbers are affixed to the documents or not it makes 
 no difference, if we can be certain as to their identity. 
 Then there arises the question of certain other docu- 
 ments which it is admitted are not in the box. your 
 consent extends to them also, I suppose ? 
 
 The Attorney-Geneem. — Certainly. 
 
 The President. — Very well ; we will look into the 
 documents and we will inform you of the result of our 
 investigation. Box A has been put into the hands of the 
 Secretary of the Commission. The other documents 
 can be put in a box marked B. 
 
 Sib C. Bttsseix. — I have now another application to 
 make, my Lords— namely, an application for further 
 particulars. Your Lordships will probably recollect that 
 this matter was a good deal discussed at the prelimi- 
 nary meeting, and an order was made which called 
 upon the defendants to give the best particulars they 
 could of the charges and allegations which they pro- 
 posed to support by evidence, specifying so far as they 
 could the charges and the names of the persons against 
 whom the charges were respectively made. I will 
 assume that the particulars which have been delivered 
 are familiar to your Lordships. I gather from my 
 learned friend's opening, so far as it has gone, and 
 his reading of a great number of speeches, some 
 delivered by very obscure persons, that he alleges that 
 all the persons scheduled in the affidavit of particulars 
 were eDgaged in a combination, or organization, or 
 conspiracy, and I gather that he intends to ask your 
 Lordships to attribute to those persons directly named 
 all that was done by any one connected with this 
 alleged combination, organization, or conspiracy. 
 That is a view which will be contested by us when 
 the proper time comes for his endeavouring to support 
 it by evidence. In addition, I find only two charges 
 against particular individuals — firet the charge of 
 making certain speeches, and then the charge against 
 Mr. Parnell of having written the letters already re- 
 ferred to. Now we do not complain of anything in the 
 particulars, though we shall have to complain of a 
 good deal that is not in them. With the exception of 
 the case of Mr. Parnell there is nothing in these parti- 
 culars which will tell any one of the 65 persons 
 charged what is the charge against him. Therefore I 
 want to know whether the Attorney-General alleges 
 
 that any one of these. 65 persons himself incited to out- 
 rage or was a party directly to outrage or a party 
 directly to the application of funds for the purposes of 
 outrage, or is. his case solely based on the general 
 allegation to which I have referred ? If it is we shall 
 know where we are. If it is not, and it is intended 
 to be alleged that any person named in the schedule 
 was a party beforehand or concerted previously in 
 regard to any outrage, or was guilty of connivance or 
 complicity or was an accessory afterwards to the com- 
 mission of crime or outrage, then I say the simple 
 rules of justice require that such person should be told 
 what that outrage was. I would direct your Lordships' 
 attention to the curious phraseology of paragraph 8 of the 
 particulars: — "It is charged and alleged that the members 
 of Parliament mentioned in the schedule approved, and 
 by their acts and conduct led people to believe that 
 they approved, of resistance to the law and the com- 
 mission of outrage." Your Lordships will observe 
 that the acts and conduct referred to are not acts and 
 conduct connected with resistance to the law and with 
 outrages, but such acts and conduct as " led people to 
 believe " that they approved of such resistance to the 
 law and outrages. So again in another paragraph they 
 are charged with being parties to payments for certain 
 purposes. What payments ? By whom made, to whom 
 made ? I ask for particulars on these points. There 
 is one other matter to which I desire to refer. I inti- 
 mated to your Lordships on the first day that it is 
 obvious from these particulars that the defendants in 
 the case of " O'Donnell v. Walter " have considered 
 that they are not bound to give particulars of the charges 
 against " other persons." I submit that we are entitled 
 to such particulars, especially having regard to the line 
 taken by the Attorney-General, who, as I gather from 
 his speech, charges all those whose names are scheduled 
 with responsibility for the acts of all persons who were 
 in any way connected with this alleged conspiracy. One 
 of these persons, possibly the most prominent person, 
 Mr. Michael Davitt, who was unquestionably the 
 founder of the Land League, is here, and, I believe, 
 has an application to make to your Lordships on this 
 point. His name does not appear in the particulars. 
 These are the grounds upon which I submit that, in the 
 interests of truth and justice, which my learned friend 
 so frequently invokes, we are entitled to further par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 Mr. Beid. — With reference to the other members, 
 exclusive of Mr. Parnell, I wish to refer your Lord- 
 ships to paragraph 14 of the particulars of charges : — 
 " When on certain occasions they considered it politic 
 to denounce, and did denounce, certain crimes in 
 public, they afterwards made communications to their 
 associates and others with the intention of leading them 
 to believe that such denunciation was not sincere." I 
 submit that some further particulars of this allegation 
 ought also to be given, so that those whom it affects 
 may meet it. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I, my Lords, have also an application to 
 make, I desire to ask your Lordships for leave to ap- 
 
 Application for Further Particulars, 
 
The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 61 
 
 pear at this inquiry. In his speech in the case of 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter " the Attorney-General made 
 serious charges against me which I should like to read 
 to your Lordships. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I have no wish that Mr. 
 
 Davitt should not appear. I see no reason why he 
 
 should not. 
 
 The President. — You are plainly entitled to appear. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Leave is required, my 
 
 Lords, under the Act. 
 
 The President. — Well, you have leave to appear,Mr, 
 Davitt. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I have also to ask that particulars of 
 the charges against me may be delivered. 
 
 The President. — I shall make the same order in 
 your case that I did in another. You will be put in 
 the same position as the clients of Sir Charles Russell. 
 Mr. Biggar. — I beg to give notice of a similar appli- 
 cation for particulars in regard to myself. It will be 
 convenient if I can get to know from the representa- 
 tives of The Times what they charge me with. I am 
 charged with being mixed up with certain persons, 
 many of whose names I do not even know, and the 
 majority of whom I do not know personally. It is only 
 fair that I should know which of these 14 charges 
 against me the Attorney-General intends to proceed 
 with. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Mr. Biggar has put his 
 point very clearly, but my answer is that he was repre- 
 sented at the preliminary inquiry by Sir Charles 
 Russell, and an order as to particulars was then made 
 which applied to his case. 
 
 The President. — But Mr. Biggar now appears per- 
 sonally. 
 
 Sir C. Rttssell. — I stated at the time that I only 
 appeared for Mr. Biggar on that occasion for the pur- 
 poses of that occasion only. 
 
 The Attorney- General.— Well, Mr. Biggar has 
 been dealt with, rightly or wrongly, in the order for 
 particulars already made. With regard to the substance 
 of this matter, I read on Monday to your Lordships a 
 great quantity of matter — I fear I was wearying your 
 Lordships — from "Parnellism and Crime," and I 
 pointed out that the charges as summarized were the 
 charges and allegations made, but- that that in no way 
 fettered your Lordships' judgment hereafter. Your 
 Lordship said I had made out that I was not going 
 beyond the charges made in the action of " O'Donnell 
 v. Walter and Another." 
 
 The President. — What I intended to convey was this, 
 that you justified the particulars as representing the 
 charges and allegations referred to in the Act. 
 The Attorney-General. — Exactly, my Lord. 
 The President. — I did not intend to deal with their 
 sufficiency, or whether there were other charges that 
 did not appear in the particulars. 
 
 The ' Attorney-General.— Certainly, my Lords. I 
 was endeavouring to say that in my own way. The 
 question is what are the charges of which we propose 
 to give evidence ; and my answer is that they are 
 
 included in our particulars. These charges are charges 
 of conspiracy— charges of being party to a conspiracy 
 with wicked objects and with objects which were 
 carried out by means of criminal acts ; and to suggest 
 that I am to give particulars of all the acts I am 
 going to prove would be to impose on me the task of 
 giving in detail the evidence, that each of my witnesses 
 is going to give. An order for discovery was made 
 against Mr. Parnell, Mr. Biggar, Mr. Harrington, and 
 Mr. Justin M'Carthy ; but what was the result ? Why, 
 Mr. Parnell himself, who was the president of the Land 
 League, stated in his affidavit in reply that he had 
 not, and had not had, any documents of the Land 
 League except one letter addressed to him by Frank 
 Byrne, and dated July 1, 1880. 
 The President. — This is a sort of tu quoque. 
 The Attorney-General.— No, not quite. My friend 
 asks for particulars of the overt acts. But my case 
 does not depend on overt acts only ; my case depends 
 on the fact of those persons attending at meetings at 
 which certain things were determined to be done, and, 
 in consequence of these meetings, certain acts being 
 done. It is unreasonable to ask me to give particulars 
 of facts many of which are not and cannot be within 
 my knowledge. All I know is that certain members of 
 the Land League went down to different districts and 
 made speeches, and that certain acts followed — we say, 
 as a consequence of those speeches. And we say that 
 all the persons whose names are mentioned in the par- 
 ticulars are legally responsible for what took place in 
 consequence of the conspiracy. In regard to those 
 speeches full particulars have been given. All the meet" 
 ings of which we propose to give evidence have been 
 specified. 
 
 The President. — The attendance at the meeting and 
 the date of the meeting ? 
 The Attorney-General. — Yes. 
 The President. — Well, I imagine the nature of the 
 application is that if you have anything else that you 
 can specify, then you ought to do so. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Practically what is asked 
 is that I should state the evidence which I intend to 
 give in support of my case. Let me take this instance. 
 Supposing that at a Land League meeting it was de- 
 termined that Matthew Harris should be sent as 
 organizer to a certain place, and supposing that at that 
 particular meeting certain members were present when 
 Matthew Harris's report wasreceived, ami to be asked 
 to state which of them were parties to the acts that sub- 
 sequently occurred? Supposing it was a standing order 
 of the League that all persons charged with shooting 
 at landlords should be defended by Land League 
 funds, it is impossible for me to give the names of the 
 persons present when that standing order was passed. 
 Then we say that they were parties to and cognizant of 
 payment of moneys for the commission of crimes, 
 and as testimonials and rewards to persons who had 
 been convicted of crimes. I have often mentioned that 
 the fact that moneys were paid would be proved, not 
 by proving the particular payments which particular^ 
 
 Application for Further Particulars. 
 
62 
 
 The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 individuals knew of, but by proving what was the daily 
 practice of the League.with which we shall submit these 
 gentlemen were well acquainted. Then, again, we 
 have said that, with knowledge that crimes, outrages, and 
 acts of boycotting and intimidation had followed the 
 speeches, they expressed no bond fide disapproval. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— I made no application with regard 
 to that. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am pointing out that 
 where we could give the particulars we have given 
 them. We have fulfilled the onus which is cast upon us, 
 and we ought not to be asked to give particulars of 
 every overt act. My learned friend said, " We wish 
 to know whether we are going to be charged with in- 
 citing to or conniving at particular crimes." My charge 
 and allegation is this — that you incited and approved 
 of and connived at a series of crimes ; not one crime, 
 but hundreds of crimes. And I ask your Lordships, dealing 
 with the matter as a 6ystem, whether I have not shown 
 there was a system, a continuous system, during the 
 years of 1881 and 1882, whereby the decrees of the 
 Land League were enforced by the commission of 
 crime. All I can say is, " You connived at every 
 one of these crimes," and they cannot get up and say 
 these particulars are not sufficient in the middle of my 
 opening. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I made the application at the first 
 sitting of the Court. 
 
 The Attorney-Gen eral. — I beg my learned friend's 
 pardon. He did nothing of the kind. He indicated 
 that he had two applications to make, and, mentioning 
 one — viz., that for discovery, asked that it might be 
 postponed to yesterday morning. My charge is not that 
 Mr. Parnell knew of the commission of particular 
 crimes, that poor Eafferty was to be carded or that 
 another person was to be murdered ; but that he and his 
 friends on the Land League committee were parties 
 to the system I have described, that they approved of 
 it, allowed it to be carried out, and that even after 
 that system had been shown to have these dire effects 
 they went on doing the same thing. That is the charge, 
 and I respectfully submit that unless I am to prove the 
 whole of my case on paper in the first instance, unless I 
 am to write down the whole of the evidence of each of 
 my witnesses, I submit that I am not called upon to do 
 anything more than I have done, and that your Lord- 
 ships ought not to make any further order. Rightly or 
 wrongly Tlie Times newspaper has made certain charges, 
 and your Lordships said the other day, " We think it 
 right that you should indicate in respect of which 
 charges you propose to offer evidence ;" but the duty of 
 inquiring rests with your Lordships and not with The 
 Times. If I had gone out of this Court your Lordships could 
 not have refused to discharge the duty which the Act of 
 Parliament imposed on you. I desire, however, to put 
 before your Loruships all the facts I can with regard to 
 the matter ; but information comes to us day by day 
 with regard to matters of detail, and things which I 
 could not have put in particulars the day before yester- 
 day I might be able to put in now. They are proofs 
 
 of the charges made, and unless your Lordships think I 
 ought at once to disclose certain special incidents in 
 which we may be able to show more intimate know- 
 ledge on the part of some individuals than others with 
 crimes, no further order ought to be made. Take the 
 case of Mr. Parnell. My learned friend has said that 
 the only important question with regard to him is 
 whether he wrote the letters attributed to him. 
 Sir C. Russell. — I never said so. 
 
 , The Attorney-General. — Or take the case of Mr. 
 Biggar, Mr. Harrington, or Mr. Harris. I have been 
 opening in detail to your Lordships particulars of 
 various acts of several of those gentlemen. Is it in 
 accordance with what your Lordships intended ought 
 to be imposed on The Times that they should give 
 further particulars as they got information from wit- 
 nesses from time to time ? I respectfully submit that 
 unless your contention is that justice requires that my 
 whole case should be put on paper before you, I have 
 done all that your Lordships intended that I should do. 
 I have stated with great particularity the charges I 
 make. I have said, " You, Mr. Parnell, did know that 
 certain acts followed certain speeches, and you 
 approved of those speeches." If my learned friend 
 says, " You made charges in ' Parnellism and 
 Crime ' which you have not now included in the 
 particulars," it does not at all follow that no 
 evidence will ultimately be given upon them. Your 
 Lordships never intended that the inquiry should be 
 limited to those particular instances which we were 
 able to give. Your Lordships said, "If you will 
 honestly do your work, we will endeavour to do ours," 
 and we have intimated in quite the best way we can 
 what wo do allege. All I am now doing is to lay 
 before your Lordships the evidence I propose to tender 
 in support of the very specific charges I make. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, the pith of this matter 
 may be stated in a sentence. Either my lean" el 
 friend's clients are instructed that there are definite 
 charges proper to be made against particular in- 
 dividuals of facts of incitement to or connivance at 
 crime before or after the commission of that crime, 
 further and other than mere membership in this 
 association or conspiracy, or they are not. If my 
 learned friend says he has not any materials for such 
 specific allegation, then my application falls to the 
 ground. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Nothing of the sort. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— If, on the other hand, he has 
 evidence in support of such specific allegation, then 
 surely tho interests of common truth and justice 
 require that we should be told by the advocate of 
 truth and justice what these charges are and what 
 particulars he has of them. Let me give an illustra- 
 tion. My learned friend referred yesterday to a case, 
 the unhappy murder of Mr. Herbert, which occurred 
 on March 30, 1882. In his opening my learned friend 
 sought to connect that murder with a speech made at 
 Knoeknabnll in the month of June, 1881. 
 
 Application for Further Particulars. 
 
The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 63 
 
 The President. — Is that speech among the speeches 
 referred to in the schedule ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — No, my Lord, and that is the point 
 to which I was going to call attention. It is not 
 charged that any member of Parliament was present at 
 that meeting, and my learned friend has alleged that 
 he is in a position to make definite charges of a 
 specific character, other than membership in this 
 organization, in connexion with that incident. I want 
 to know why we are not to know what these charges 
 are. Of course I am only referring to matters which 
 are now in their knowledge, and not to matters which 
 may hereafter be brought to it ; but I knew of no 
 reason why, in regard to matter which they have now 
 in their knowledge, they should not give particulars, 
 in order that the persons incriminated in this manner 
 may have an opportunity of dealing with them fairly 
 and fully, by the cross-examination of the witnesses, 
 so as to understand what the position of things really 
 is. My learned friend has put it upon me that I have 
 said that the only important charge against Mr. 
 Parnell is that of the letters. I have never said so. 
 I have said that is one of the most important charges, 
 if not the most important charge in this matter, as, 
 indeed, it certainly is the only charge that has any 
 novelty about it. So far as the other charges go, they 
 are a mere rechauffi of what was published and 
 discussed years ago. But that does not relieve this 
 Court of the duty, as I would respectfully submit, nor 
 my learned friends of the obligation to take care that 
 where there is a definite charge made against any one 
 of these 65 members, that charge should be made 
 plainly, so that the party concerned shall have an 
 opportunity of meeting it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Would you look at page 
 22 of the proceedings at the preliminary meeting of 
 the Court ? 
 
 Sib C. RrnsELL. — After that discussion the order 
 was made that particulars should be given of the 
 charges whioh are respectively made and of the 
 charges against each of the persons. There is nothing 
 in these particulars which would show what is charged 
 against any one person beyond the fact that he was a 
 member of this organization. 
 
 After consultation with the other Commissioners, 
 
 The President said :— The particulars which have 
 been given may be said generally to disclose a charge 
 of conspiracy to bring about certain ends by illegal 
 means, and that must be dealt with in the way in 
 which charges of conspiracy are usually dealt with. 
 It is not necessary that all the details of the overt 
 acts should be staled in the particulars. The object 
 of particulars is to inform the persons accused of the 
 nature of the charge brought against them, in order 
 that they may be prepared to meet it. We are of 
 opinion that these particulars do fulfil the conditions 
 required by the practice of the law in that respect. 
 Undoubtedly if there be any particular incidents with 
 regard to individuals of which information could be 
 given other than the general connexion with the organi- 
 
 zations that have been referred to, I must say that I 
 think it would be desirable that information upon 
 those points should be given, in order that opportunity 
 might be afforded for preparing for the cross-examina- 
 tion of the witnesses ; but in these matters it is im- 
 possible to search the consciences of the people con« 
 cerned, and I think there is no reason to suggest that 
 these particulars have not been drawn with a desire to 
 give such information as it is in the power of the 
 clients of the Attorney-General to give at this stage. 
 The Attorney-General is opening his case with 
 great particularity, and he has indicated the nature 
 of the evidence which he proposes to lay before us. 
 There has, therefore, been an opportunity of seeing 
 many matters which may be met by countervailing evi- 
 dence or by cross-examination of the witnesses called 
 in support of the statements made. If we see that 
 there are points upon which it would be right that there 
 should be delay io order that Sir Charles Russell's 
 clients may inform themselves further than they are at 
 present informed, we will grant an opportunity of 
 allowing that ; but there is no reason at this stage of 
 the proceedings to require the defendants in the action 
 of " O'Donnell v. Walter " to give further particulars 
 than they have already given. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, as there has 
 been an interlude in my opening, I should like to 
 mention a matter which must be formally brought 
 before your Lordships, and that is the question of the 
 expediency of making an order against the Hibernian 
 Bank for the production of bank-books. The only reason 
 given by the bank for refusing to produce their books is 
 that counsel has advised them to decline to do so. I 
 propose that an affidavit should be filed of the service 
 of your Lordships' order on the bank, and I should then 
 ask your Lordships to name a day on which an applica- 
 tion might be taken. 
 
 The President. — Will it be necessary to come to us ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— In the action of " O'Don- 
 nell v. Walter " we had to go to the Court for the 
 purpose of getting production, but we did not get it 
 then. The order was not obeyed. I am afraid it will 
 be necessary to come to your Lordships. 
 
 The President. — If the bank ultimately refuse to 
 produce their books we shall be obliged to have recourse 
 to our powers ; but we shall not do that without giving 
 them an opportunity of appearing here. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Perhaps the better course 
 would be that I should mention the matter formally, 
 and if the bank do not intend to comply with the 
 order, they can be called upon to appear on Monday or 
 Tuesday. Before I resume my opening I have one 
 other remark to make, and that is that as Mr. Davitt 
 has appeared upon this inquiry, I must ask him for an 
 affidavit of documents. 
 
 The President signified assent. 
 
 The Attorney-General then resumed his opening 
 address. He said, — Your Lordships will recollect that 
 I had arrived last night, when the Court adjourned, at 
 the discussion of certain incidents prior to the month 
 
 Application for Further Particulars. 
 
64 
 
 The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 of May, 1882. I should indicate to your Lordships 
 that there are two other letters which passed early in 
 1882 which are of importance apart from the ordinary 
 question of handwriting — two letters believed to be in 
 the handwriting of Patrick Egan. One is under date 
 March 8, 1882 :— 
 
 " Dear Sir,— Your presence in the West is urgently 
 asked for. The thing must be done promptly. Send 
 reply to address already given you. Yours truly, 
 Patrick Egan." 
 
 I am not able to state at the present time to whom 
 that was addressed. The second letter is under date 
 March 11, 1882 :— 
 
 " Dear Sir, — As I understand your letter which 
 reached me to-day, you cannot act as directed unless I 
 forward you money by Monday's post. Well, here is 
 £50 ; more if required. Under existing circumstances, 
 what you suggest would not be entertained. I remain, 
 dear Sir, yours truly, Patrick Egan." 
 
 I do not read the other documents referred to in the 
 course of the proceedings in " O'Donnell v. Walter " 
 prior to that date, as I am not able to say they have 
 any direct bearing on the matter except in regard to 
 the question of handwriting. Now I go to a part of 
 the case which requires rather careful treatment from 
 me, and which will, in our view, form an important 
 feature or incident in connexion with this matter. I 
 have many times suggested to your Lordships that I 
 should submit that there was no doubt of any kind, nor 
 could be aDy doubt, that Mr. Parnell was personally 
 acquainted with what was the outcome of the action of 
 the Land League, and that ultimately he would not be 
 allowed to say that he was not responsible for what the 
 Land League had done, and for what the individuals with 
 whom he was personally connected had done in further- 
 ance of the cause of the Land League ; for what had 
 been done by such men as Sheridan, Egan, Harris, 
 Gordon, Brennan, Nally, Boy ton, Biggar, and others. 
 Now I approach an incident in the case which, if the 
 evidence I shall produce before you be in accordance 
 with my instructions, will prove conclusively that Mr. 
 Parnell did know what had been done by Sheridan, 
 Egan, and Boyton. I mention these three names, not 
 for the purpose of suggesting that he did not know 
 what was done by the others, but because the incident 
 to which I am about to refer only shows, if it be accu- 
 rate, specifically that he did know in reference to these 
 particular individuals ; and that is most important, 
 because if the account of what passed between 
 Mr. Parnell and the witness I shall call be 
 true, undoubtedly Mr. Parnell did know that 
 Sheridan had been actively and intimately engaged 
 in the promotion of outrages in the West, 
 that Boyton had been engaged in the promotion of 
 outrages in Leinster, and that Egan had been supplying 
 funds with which outrages had been promoted, not 
 only in those places, but elsewhere. I am sure I shall 
 not be misunderstood.but I will repeat what I said this 
 morning— it is no part of my case to suggest that Mr. 
 Parnell knew the names of the particular individuals 
 fa be assaulted or the particular landlord against 
 
 whom an outrage was contemplated, but my case is 
 that he knew that those outrages were necessary as part 
 of the system. Iu the early part of 1882 there were 
 negotiations between Captain O'Shea and Mr. Parnell. 
 Mr. Parnell was in Kilmainham, and he and the other 
 persons there had a large amount of freedom with regard 
 to communication with the outside world. They 
 associated together and they had also certain other 
 privileges which persons in confinement do not ordinarily 
 have. They were, of course, not convicted prisoners 
 in any way, and it was natural they should have such 
 indulgence. In the early part of April Mr. Parnell 
 was released on parole and went to Paris, in conse- 
 quence of the death of a nephew. He did undoubtedly, 
 on the occasion of his journey either to or from Paris, 
 see Captain O'Shea. Subsequently to that Captain 
 O'Shea went to Kilmainham for the purpose of having 
 a special interview with Mr. Parnell. I think I can 
 actually prove the exact date. Mr. Parnell returned 
 to Kilmainham in April, and the day on which Captain 
 O'Shea went there was April 27, and he saw Mr. 
 Parnell on the next day. Subsequently, on the night 
 of May 6 or morning of May 7, which was the day 
 after the Phcenix Park murders, there were further inter- 
 views between Captain O'Shea and Mr. Parnell. With 
 the ordinary political aspect of this discussion I have 
 nothing to do ; I have nothing to do with the ques- 
 tion of whether Mr. Parnell was right or wrong in the 
 bargain into which he entered ; but it has a direct 
 bearing in regard to his position towards the American 
 section and his knowledge of what had been going on 
 in Ireland. The general outline of the discussion had 
 reference to the position to be taken up by Mr. Par- 
 nell in regard to the land question in Ireland, and 
 while Mr. Parnell did not wish that the question of his 
 personal release should be prominently brought for- 
 ward, the fact was that that release and the release of 
 others was the basis of the proceedings. The question 
 arose as to whether or not Mr. Parnell would be able 
 to control those who were with him in Kilmainham at 
 the time and those who were not with him, but with 
 whom he was connected. The question arose as to 
 whether or not a particular line of policy, which would 
 cause the land question to assume a different aspect, 
 which would be accepted by Mr. Parnell, would be 
 accepted by those with whom he was associated, and 
 particularly those on the other side of the water — in 
 America ; and the main anxiety on the part of those 
 wtio were negotiating with Mr. Parnell was to put an 
 end to those outrages, and the question directly arose 
 between Mr. Parnell and Captain O'Shea as to whether 
 or not Mr. Parnell would, and could, assist in the 
 putting down of outrages. Before I tell your Lordships 
 what Mr. Parnell said, as I am instructed, I ask your 
 Lordships to bear in mind what effect this evidence has 
 upon what I have already said — that from 1880 up to 
 the time of his being put in prison— a period of 20 
 months— Mr. Parnell did not move hand or foot to stop 
 the outrages ; neither in writing nor by speech had he 
 done one single act or taken one single step which 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Cbmmissibn, October 24,* 1888. 
 
 65 
 
 would have tended to put them down. I think it will 
 turn out that there can be no mistake of recollection in 
 this matter, for it is in writing, and I think it will 
 appear from what is in writing that the offer of Mr. 
 Parnell, in the event of an arrangement being made of 
 which he could approve, was that he would assist to 
 his utmost to put down outrage. All 1 can say is this 
 —it seems to me that if as a public man Mr. Parnell 
 could, by adopting that course, do anything to arrest 
 those outrages, it should have been done long before. 
 The offer exists, and the sole use I make of this is to 
 show what was in the mind of Mr. Parnell. The 
 question arose as to whether he could control his com- 
 rades, and thereupon Mr. Parnell said certain of his 
 comrades must not be released, at any rate at present, 
 and he stated that among others Thomas Brennan, who 
 had been the secretary of the League and intimately 
 connected with the Land League doings, must be kept 
 out of Ireland or be kept in prison. I shall ask your 
 Lordships to draw the conclusion, if that be true, as to 
 the knowledge in Mr. Pamell's breast with regard to 
 what Thomas Brennan had been connected with, prior 
 to his being imprisoned in Kihnainham. A question 
 then arose as to Michael Davitt. Davitt was in Port- 
 land. There had been no communication, so far as I 
 know, between Mr. Davitt and Mr. Parnell, between 
 Portland and Kilmainham. It was believed that 
 Michael Davitt would be strongly opposed to the with- 
 drawal of the No-rent Manifesto. He had been 
 no party to it, but it was believed that there might be 
 a difficulty in getting his assent to some part of the 
 policy which Mr. Parnell was prepared to advocate . The 
 question arose as to bow Michael Davitt was to be 
 dealt with. Mr. Parnell then stated he considered it 
 essential that Davitt should be let out, and probably, 
 from what one now sees and looking to Davitt's in- 
 fluence, Mr. Parnell was right. He did ask that Davitt's 
 release should be postponed until Mr. Dillon and Mr. 
 Parnell had had an opportunity of seeing him ; and, 
 as I shall tell your Lordships presently, that course was 
 adopted, for Michael Davitt was not released from Port- 
 land until May 6, the day of the Phoenix Park murders. 
 The question arose as to how they were to stop those 
 outrages. The burning question which was recognized 
 at that time by the Government of the day as that of 
 the greatest importance, so far as the statement I am 
 putting before your Lordships is concerned, was how to 
 put an end to this horrible system of outrage, and Mr. 
 Parnell stated distinctly that he had every con- 
 fidence—a confidence shared by those who were act- 
 ing with him — that the exertions they would be able to 
 make would be sufficient to enable them to 6top those 
 outrages. If it be true that Mr. Parnell had no know- 
 ledge of these outrages, what was the good of any such 
 Suggestions or any such course being proposed? My Lords, 
 the matter does not stop there. The question then arose 
 as to who and what would be the best persons and 
 means for putting an end to the outrages, whereupon 
 Mr. Parnell said that Sheridan must be allowed toicome 
 back. Sheridan was at that time out of Ireland, owing, 
 
 to some proceedings — a warrant or something of that 
 kind (it will be proved what it was) had been taken 
 out against him and he could not return. Mr. Parnell 
 said Sheridan must be allowed to return ; he also said 
 thatBoyton — mentioning his influence and the sphere of 
 his influence, Leinster — must be allowed to be at large, 
 and would be useful for the purpose of putting down 
 those outrages, and he stated the districts in which 
 Sheridan's and Boyton's influence would] be useful, and 
 he also referred to Egan. The question then arose in 
 most anxious conversation between Mr. Parnell and 
 Captain O'Shea as to whether or not Mr. Parnell was 
 satisfied that he would be able to control those men 
 who had been so much mixed up in outrages ; and Mr.Par- 
 nell said that if he got the " first run " of Egan, 
 Sheridan, and Boyton, he had no doubt that he would be 
 able to control them. In other words, that his influence 
 over them was such that they would be willing to 
 abandon the policy they had been previously pursuing 
 and to adopt a policy in accordance with the views of 
 Mr. Parnell at that time. Of course, I am only indicating 
 the evidence which, according to my instructions, I 
 shall be able to lay before your Lordships. If it be 
 true, there is an end of any suggestion that Mr. 
 Parnell was not cognizant of what Sheridan, Boyton, 
 and Egan were doing. I am dealing with 1882, when 
 it was the interest of Mr. Parnell to make such an 
 arrangement as would enable him to be in accord with 
 the Government of the day. Of course, if he made 
 this arrangement he would be able to leave Kilmain- 
 ham, and, although he repeated more than once he was 
 very anxious that his personal release should not be 
 prominently put forward, it was one of the matters 
 with regard to which he was very naturally anxious. 
 The fact that outrages had been carried on as a matter 
 of system formed the subject of most anxious discus- 
 sion, and all I can say in parting from this part of the 
 case is that the importance of the matter cannot be 
 exaggerated. If the documents which will be produced 
 are genuine — and I do not at present understand why 
 they should be alleged to be other than genuine if the 
 account of Captain O'Shea is accurate — there cannot 
 be the slightest doubt in your Lordships' minds that 
 Mr. Pamell was fully acquainted with the circum- 
 stances under which Sheridan, Egan, and Boyton had 
 been working. A very important matter in that con- 
 nexion was the statement made that some members 
 should not be released — that some persons in Kilmain- 
 ham ought to be still kept in confinement, and among 
 those Brennan, the secretary of the Land League. In 
 accordance with the arrangement, Mr. Parnell was 
 released from Kilmainham together with Mr. Dillon 
 and others. I mentioned that Mr, Parnell had stipulated 
 that he should see Davitt, and he and Mr. Dillon went 
 down to Portland and had an interview of one or two 
 hours with Mr. Davitt on the day of his release. I am 
 not able to say what passed, but so far as we can judge 
 from the public utterances of Mr. Davitt afterwards, 
 he was very much opposed indeed to the policy which 
 ,Mr. Parnell had at that time initiated, very much 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
66 
 
 The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 opposed to anything which would be a step in the 
 direction of conciliation between the English (aovern- 
 inent and the Irish party. Davitt never made any 
 secret of his principles ; from beginning to end they have 
 been absolutely opposed to any recognition of land- 
 lords or English government in regard to Ireland. At 
 that time there undoubtedly was, if his public utter- 
 ances are to be relied upon, some hesitation on 
 Davitt's part in accepting the view put forward by 
 Mr. Parnell. A difficulty arose with regard to the 
 withdrawal of the prohibition of the presence of 
 Sheridan in Ireland, and at the request of Mr. Parnell, 
 Captain O'Shea went to Sir W. Harcourt with refer- 
 ence to Sheridan's arrest. I am, of course, not in a 
 position to state what passed between Captain O'Shea 
 and Sir W. Harcourt, but Captain O'Shea came back 
 to Mr. Parnell and told him of the difficulties, where- 
 upon Mr. Parnell told him at once that if Sheridan was 
 not allowed to come back very great difficulties 
 indeed would arise, and he was afraid he would not be 
 able to communicate with Sheridan, and I think he 
 went off, and on coming back said he had seen Mr. 
 O'Kelly or some other gentleman who could commu- 
 nicate with him. Practically speaking, I have sulli- 
 cientlj' put before you the outline of what I am pre- 
 pared to prove with reference to Mr. ParneU's 
 part in connexion with what has been called the 
 " Kilmainham Treaty." Its importance, from our 
 point of view, is simply this — that it shows the 
 knowledge tjhich Mr. Parnell bad as to what had been 
 the woik of the organization before ; and, further, it 
 shows a promise on the part of Mr. Parnell to do 
 his utmost to put down outrage. If Mr. Parnell 
 was in a position to put down outrage I cannot help 
 repeating the question — Why was it he hud not done his 
 utmost to put down outrage befoie ? And if it be 
 alleged by his counsel or by Mr. Parnell that he did 
 his utmost to put down outrage before, respectfully I 
 ask, and I shall ask Mr. Parnell in the box, what 
 steps he did take to put down outrages prior to 
 May 6, 1882 ? On that day occurred the terrible 
 tragedy in Phcenix Park. It is no part of my case to 
 suggest, nor do I propose to give any evidence to sug- 
 gest, that prior to the Phosnix Park murders Mr. 
 Parnell had any knowledge of any such murder being 
 contemplated. It will be part of my case that he sent 
 a letter respecting the Phoenix Park murders, and it 
 will be my object to show that the necessities of the 
 position of Mr. Parnell at that time undoubtedly 
 placed him in a difficulty, and made it not only 
 probable, but almost necessary, that some such step 
 should be taken as the making of a statement or 
 writing some such letter as was written respecting 
 the murders. He was engaged in the promotion of a 
 system of which outrage was of necessity the out- 
 come. In the particular position in which he was 
 then placed such an occurrence was about the worst 
 thing that could possibly happen from his point of 
 view. It so aroused public excitement that the carry- 
 ing out of the previously arranged plan became almost 
 
 an impossibility. The occurrence of that horrible 
 tragedy on May 6 put Mr. Parnell in the greatest 
 difficulty. On the night of the 6th or morning of the 
 7th Captain O'Shea again saw Mr. Parnell, and the 
 events that had occurred rendered that discussion of a 
 character not likely to be forgotten. There are also 
 circumstances in connexion with it and what was 
 actually occurring which will enable your Lordships to 
 determine on which side truth rests, if there be, as I do 
 not anticipate there is to be, any serious difference of 
 testimony in regard to that matter. On the day after 
 the murder the manifesto signed by Mr. Parnell, Mr. 
 Davitt, and Mr. Dillon was issued : — 
 
 " To the People of Ireland. — On the eve of what 
 seemed a bright future for our country, that evil 
 destiny which has apparently pursued us for centuries 
 has struck another blow at our hopes, which cannot be 
 exaggerated in its disastrous consequences. In this 
 hour of sorrowful gloom we venture to give an ex- 
 pression of our profoundest sympathy with the people 
 of Ireland in the calamity that has befallen our cause 
 through a horrible deed, and to those who had deter- 
 mined at the last hour that a policy of conciliation 
 should supplant that of terrorism and national distrust." 
 My Lords, the " policy of conciliation " supplanting 
 " that of terrorism and national distrust " undoubtedly 
 referred to the policy which Mr. Parnell hoped to 
 carry out by means of the arrangements he had been 
 making. 
 
 " We earnestly hope that the attitude and action of 
 the whole Irish people will show the world that assas- 
 sination such as has startled us almost to the abandon- 
 ment of hope for our country's future is deeply and 
 religiously abhorrent to their every feeling and in- 
 stinct. We appeal to you tu show by every manner of 
 expression that almost universal feeling of horror 
 which this assassination has excited. No people feels 
 so intense a detestation of its atrocity, or so deep a 
 sympathy for those whose hearts must be seared by it, 
 as the nation upon whose prospects and reviving hopes 
 it may entail consequences more ruinous than have 
 fallen to the lot of unhappy Ireland during the present 
 generation. We feel that no act has ever been perpe- 
 trated in our country during the exciting struggles for 
 social and political rights of the past 50 years that 
 has so stained the name of hospitable Ireland as this 
 cowardly and unprovoked assassination of a friendly 
 stranger, and that until the murderers of Lord 
 Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke are brought to i 
 justice that stain will sully our country's name. 
 
 " ClIAKLES S. PAKHELL. 
 
 " John Dillon. 
 
 " Michael Davitt." 
 
 My Lords, it will be proved by Captain O'Shea that 
 Mr. Parnell objected to sign that document, and only 
 signed it under the necessities of the case and 
 objecting to its terms. For reasons that will very 
 clearly appear, it undoubtedly put him in very great 
 peril. It will appear before your Lordships in the 
 course of this case that the relations between Mr. 
 Parnell and the extreme party in America were very 
 intimate, and that there had been from the year 
 1879-80 down to 1882 the working with a common pur- 
 pose—namely, the sepaiation of Ireland from England 
 as the only means of binding together the extreme 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 67 
 
 section with the more moderate section ; and as I 
 stated on the first day, and as I shall, I trust, be able 
 to prove before your Lordships by public utterances, 
 it was that arrangement, and that only, that secured 
 for the Irish Land League the support of the American 
 money, which could not be got except from persons 
 who subscribed with a view to rooting out landlords 
 and the complete separation of Ireland from England ; 
 and the terms on which that support was given practi- 
 cally involved the consideration that the objects of 
 the associates should be the same. Mr. Parnell, 
 therefore, could not sign that statement, nor could 
 he make the statement which he did afterwards make 
 in Parliament, without very great personal danger. 
 There is not the slightest doubt, and it will be proved 
 by Captain O'Shea, that Mr. Parnell was himself in 
 personal peril, that he applied for police protection, and 
 was exceedingly anxious with regard to his personal 
 safety. That there were circumstances which might 
 lead Mr. Parnell to consider himself in danger I think 
 I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships when you know 
 what were the relations existing at this time between 
 the various sections of the organization to which I 
 have referred. Subsequently to the issue of the 
 manifesto and the occurrence of the Phoenix Park 
 assassinations some question arose as to what steps 
 should be taken to discover the murderers. Whereupon 
 Egan, the Land League treasurer, threatened to resign 
 if any of the Land League funds should be voted for a 
 reward for the discovery of. the murderers. That, upon 
 my instructions, will be placed beyond all doubt by a 
 telegram sent by Egan himself, and I submit that if 
 this incident be true it shows how severe was the 
 pressure put upon Mr. Parnell by the course of events. 
 Here was Mr. Parnell professing in England that the 
 stain would neve- be removed frum Ireland until the 
 murderers should have been discovered, while Egan, 
 the treasurer of the League, is threatening to resign if 
 any money is set apart out of the funds of the League 
 for the purpose of rewarding those who should discover 
 the assassins. It will appear in the course of this 
 inquiry that certain persons by no means always spoke 
 of this horrible tragedy as a murder, that it has been 
 regarded as one of the victories of the extreme party, 
 and that the men who have so regarded it have from 
 time to time been in very close connexion with the 
 representatives- of Mr. Parnell. Of course, no man is 
 responsible for all the views that may be held by every 
 person with whom he comes in contact. At the same 
 time, if it be correct that the views to which I have 
 referred have been held by Egan and the party with 
 whom he is now associated, it will show your Lord- 
 ships the extreme probability, I might say the 
 necessity, of the position then taken up by Egan that 9 
 he would not consent that a contribution should be 
 made out of the funds of the League to a reward for 
 the detection of the murderers. On May 8 Mr. Parnell 
 made a speech in Parliament denouncing the murders, 
 and there is no doubt, if the letter of May 15 was 
 signed by Mr. Parnell, that it was written in reply to 
 
 remonstrances as to the course which he had taken, 
 coming from members of the extreme party. Let 
 me pause to consider the difficulty of Mr. Parnell's 
 position and the necessity of some such action on his 
 part as the writing of that letter. The case which I 
 have to present to your Lordships is that the extreme 
 party did not regard the murders in the Phoenix Park as 
 being acts of wickedness or acts of which they should ex- 
 press disapproval. On subsequent dates in America there 
 have actually been celebrations of the anniversary of the 
 tragedy. The party in America notonlydid not disapprove 
 it, but approved it. In addition to other circumstances 
 it led to the institution of the " Martyrs' Fund," which 
 was a fund for subsidizing the families of men who had 
 died upon the scaffold. I may mention that no prisoner 
 who had ' pleaded guilty and no person who had given 
 evidence could participate in the fund. All these 
 things being taken into consideration, it is impossible 
 to exaggerate the difficulties in which Mr. Parnell was 
 placed. His organization had been receiving thousands 
 and thousands — nay, tens of thousands — of pounds from 
 America, with the clear and distinct understanding that 
 the object for which the joint organization was to 
 work was total separation, and that the object was to 
 be attained by any convenient means. I have no doubt 
 that Mr. Parnell may have deeply regretted the con- 
 nexion that did exist between the organization in Ire- 
 land and the organization in America, but there it 
 was, and be had to act accordingly. Your Lordships 
 are aware that it is said that on May 15 Mr. Parr.ell 
 wrote the letter which I will shortly read. When I 
 have read it I shall say one or two words upon a 
 subject to which I referred last night — namely, the 
 question of its being genuine or not. The letter 
 runs : — 
 
 " 15-5.82. 
 " Dear Sir, — I am not surprised at your friend's 
 anger, but he and you should know that to denounce 
 the murders was the only course open to us. To do 
 that promptly was plainly our best policy. But you 
 can tell him and all others concerned that, though I 
 regret the accident of Lord F. Cavendish's death.I can- 
 not refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his 
 deserts. You are at liberty to show him this and 
 others whom you can trust also, but let not -my 
 address be known. He can write to House of 
 Commons. " Yours very truly, 
 
 ' " CnAs. S. Paknell." 
 
 Your Lordships will note that the words " the only 
 course *' were originally written instead of the worde 
 " our best policy." The words are erased. I would 
 rather not indicate at present the argument that I 
 shall base upon that, but it is right that I should draw 
 attention to it. 
 
 The Prestdext.— Have you any photographs of this 
 document ? 
 
 The Attokney-GenerAL.— -My learned friend at the 
 preliminary sitting suggested that the method according 
 to which facsimile copies had been taken would not: 
 he likely to suit bis purpose. The originals have since 
 
 Thejipeechof the ^Attorney-General, 
 
 a-2 
 
68 
 
 The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 been inspected by Mr. Parnell, Mr. Campbell, and 
 possibly by others. 
 
 Sir C. Russell— We are anxious to have photo- 
 graphs. 
 
 The President.— I stated that if printing in fac- 
 simile should not be thought sufficient, photographs 
 would have to be taken. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— We have written several times 
 asking that photographs should be taken. We do not 
 think the other method sufficient. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Your Lordships will see 
 the original. 
 
 The President.— I can then form an opinion as to 
 the necessity of having it photographed. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I have not seen the original, and 
 cannot form an opinion. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — You will not be allowed 
 to form and express an opinion, Sir Charles. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Surely I can form an opinion for 
 myself. 
 
 The original document having been shown to the 
 President, 
 
 The Attorney-General continued : — Our allegation 
 is that the body of the letter is in the handwriting of 
 Mr. Campbell, who undoubtedly did write many letters 
 for Mr. Parnell. I shall submit many specimens of 
 Campbell's handwriting, and draw your attention to its 
 peculiarities. Your Lordships will not expect me to 
 deal at present with those peculiarities, but I do think 
 it right to state now one matter in connexion with the 
 statements of Mr. Parnell with respect to this letter. 
 It will be proved before you that the first statement 
 which he made, when he had seen the facsimile, was 
 that the signature was not at all like his, and that 
 be had never used such a signature. He said that 
 the initial letter was formed in a way which he had 
 never adopted, and there were a number of other 
 minute criticisms relating to the presence or absence 
 of particular strokes and terminations. The letter was 
 published on April 18, 1887. Your Lordships will find 
 some of Mr. Paraell's observations respecting it printed 
 on page 230 of the Blue-book. The Times immediately 
 replied, calling attention to the fact that they 
 possessed undoubtedly contemporaneous signatures of 
 Mr. Parnell's in which would be found the particular 
 features to which he had called attention in his criti- 
 cisms. But there is another matter of even greater 
 importance. It will be proved that after the produc- 
 tion of the letter during the trial of " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter " Mr. Parnell again made a statement. He 
 said, having seen the facsimile again, that it was a 
 facsimile of a signature which he used to write up tc 
 the end of the year 1879 and which he then purposely 
 ceased to use. I shall have to call attention to the 
 difference between these statements. They seem to 
 me to afford some ground for criticism whenever the 
 question whether the signature is genuine or forged 
 may come to be considered. If Mr. Parnell's 
 second explanation should be repeated before 
 your Lordships, I shall produce undoubtedly genuine 
 
 signatures written long after the date when 
 this particular form of signature is said by him 
 to have been abandoned for a definite reason ; 
 and it will be found that they contain the characteristic 
 features which are found in the original form. I 
 can understand the almost paramount necessity that 
 Mr. Parnell should write such a letter, having regard 
 to the position in which he was placed. There was a 
 large section of malcontents who did regard the 
 removal of any Irish official as being merely an act 
 of warfare. A number of persons urged that any 
 Englishman who went to Ireland to take office was a 
 person who must be removed by the means which had 
 been employed against Lord F. Cavendish and Mr. 
 Burke. There are two- other letters to which I think 
 I ought here to call attention. I do not know whether 
 your Lordships will care to see them. 
 
 The President.— Are they to be photographed ? 
 
 Sir C, Russell.— We desire that photographs should 
 be taken of them. 
 
 The President. — Then undoubtedly you may have 
 them. I gave that direction before. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Two other letters were 
 written on June 16, 1882. Both are alleged by my 
 learned friend's client to be forgeries. I will read 
 them : — 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I am sure you will feel that I could 
 not appear in Parliament in the face of this thing " 
 unless I condemned it. Our position there is always 
 difficult to maintain. It would *be untenable but for 
 the course we took. That is the truth. I can eay 
 no more . ' ' Yours very truly, 
 
 " Chas S. Parnell." 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I shall always be anxious to have the 
 good will of your friends, but why do they impugn my 
 motives ? I could not consent io the conditions they 
 would impose, but I accept the entire responsibility for 
 what we have done. " Yours very truly, 
 
 " Ciias. S. Parnell." 
 
 We say that the bodies of these letters are in the 
 handwriting of Campbell. No one can maintain that 
 the letters are unreasonable or unnatural. Remon- 
 strances by an extreme section, saying, " We require 
 you to do " such or such a thing would naturally 
 be met by some such replies. I will ask your Lordships 
 to look at the signatures. My only comment upon 
 them at present will be this, that if they are forgeries 
 it is about the clumsiest thing that was ever done, and 
 the forger mast have been about as foolish a man as 
 can be imagined. Your Lordships will probably have 
 some information as to the condition of Mr. Parnell's 
 health at this time and evidence relating to the features 
 of the handwriting as affected by his state of health. 
 But I shall submit that it by no means detracts from 
 the probability that the signatures are genuine that 
 there are in them certain characteristics which differ 
 from those in the preceding signatures. If these 
 letters had been the work of a skilful forger many 
 things would be found in them which are absent and 
 certain things which are present would be absent. I 
 wish to bring home to your mind that in the very difficult 
 
 The Saeech of the Attorney-General 
 
The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 69 
 
 position in which Mr. Parnell was placed it was essen- 
 tial that some such letters should be written. He was 
 of course responsible for the difficulties of that position, 
 assuming that they were to a great extent of his own 
 creation. What we must do is to consider what light 
 that responsibility throws upon the probabilities of the 
 case. I said a word or two yesterday as to my hope and 
 expectation that the whole history of these letters 
 would be disclosed before your Lordships. As far as 
 we can undertake this shall be done, and the names of 
 the persons from whom the letters were obtained shall 
 be placed before you, assuming that it is possible for 
 as to undertake to place them before you. 
 
 The President.— What is the meaning of that limita- 
 tion ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My next sentence would 
 have contained the necessary explanation. At the time 
 when the letters were obtained certain pledges 
 were given with regard to non-disclosure by the 
 persons to whom the documents were committed. 
 It may have been for good reasons or for bad reasons, 
 but the pledges were given. Serious personal danger 
 was apprehended, and that danger is not yet believed 
 to have ceased to exist. But my clients are in hopes 
 that the pledges given will be cancelled, and that they 
 will have a perfectly free hand with reference to the 
 persons from whom the letters were obtained. As far 
 as they can they will endeavour to make it certain that 
 your Lordships shall have full information as to the 
 custody from which these letters came, and as to the 
 circumstances of their preservation. More I cannot say, 
 but I felt it myduty to say this because at the time of 
 the trial of " O'Donnell v. Walter " none of the 
 pledges which had been given had been cancelled. The 
 Times had given such pledges that, cost what it might, 
 they could not go back upon them. But now my clients 
 have been partly released from these pledges, and 
 possibly before the end of these proceedings they will 
 be released still further. I have never detracted from 
 the importance of this part of the case. I have never 
 suggested that it was not a matter to be inquired into , 
 because, if genuine, these letters are a clear proof of 
 knowledge ; but, as I have said many times in the 
 course of the last two days, it affects Mr. Parnell alone. 
 It does not affect Mr. Biggar, or Harris, or any of the 
 others whose names have been given, and it does not 
 in any way relieve Mr. Parnell from the responsi- 
 bility which rests upon him of disproving the con- 
 nexion which we allege existed between him and the 
 organization which I have described. Your Lordships 
 will understand with what object a short time ago my 
 learned friend made the observation that my address 
 was a mere richauffi. I need not tell your Lordships 
 that 'such a suggestion will not deter me from putting 
 before you any part of the evidence which I think 
 necessary to establish my case. But this I do say ; 
 whether the charge has ever been made before or not, 
 it has never been investigated before a legal tribunal, 
 and it is on account of the gravity of the charge that 
 Parliament has thought it necessary that it should be 
 
 investigated. It may be easy to sneer at a charge and 
 to call it a richauffi, but the question is whether it 
 is true or not.and I think that if I succeed in establish- 
 ing the connexion of a number of these persons with 
 outrages, your Lordships will not look upon the charge 
 as less grave because the counsel for the other parties 
 to the proceedings call it a richauffi. I am 
 going to argue presently that Mr. Parnell and his 
 associates, after having been distinctly charged with 
 the consequences of the acts to which I have alluded, 
 continued for months and years the same conduct, 
 leading to the same fearful and awful consequences. 
 By the courtesy of my learned friends, Sir C. 
 Russell and Mr. Asquith, I desire to correct a mistake 
 I made yesterday. I stated in the proceedings of 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter " I had not been instructed to 
 say Mr. Campbell was in Paris at the time the second 
 letter was written by Egan to Carey, and that only came 
 to my knowledge afterwards. I find, my Lords, I was 
 in error. At page 96 of the Blue-book I find I did 
 state that Mr. Campbell was in Paris. Butwhat I ought 
 to have said was that the admission that Mr. Campbell 
 was in Paris had been made after the trial, for it was 
 after the trial that Mr. Parnell, in a public statement 
 which he made when he thought that we had alleged 
 that the body of the January letter had been written by 
 Mr. Campbell, said that could not be the case, because 
 at the end of January, 1881, Mr. Campbell was in 
 Paris ; and I had confused in my mind the fact that 
 Mr. Parnell had admitted that Mr. Campbell was in 
 Paris and that he was in Paris. 
 
 The President. — What is the correction f 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I yesterday stated, my 
 Lords, in referring to the second letter written by Egan 
 to Carey, that the body was in Campbell's handwriting, 
 and that in opening " O'Donnell v. Walter " I was not 
 instructed that Campbell was in Paris at that time. I 
 had been instructed that Campbell was there at that 
 time, but no admission had been made. One of the 
 matters I now wish to refer to is the position of a paper 
 called United Ireland. I do not know whether it is 
 going to be suggested that Mr. Parnell, or the great 
 majority of the gentlemen whose names are included, 
 are not responsible for the utterances of United Ireland. 
 But I prefer to make my statement complete with 
 respect to that. I told your Lordships that United 
 Ireland was started in the month of July, 1881. It was 
 started, practically speaking, by the purchasing up and 
 amalgamation of three papers — the ShamrocJc,the Irish- 
 man, and the Flag of Ireland ; and it was started by 
 Mr. William O'Brien, one of those Charged, and he 
 edited it, and I think it will turn out that he edited 
 it from Kilmainham. It was published in Paris ; but 
 I think it will turn out that a great deal of the matter 
 published was actually written by him at the time he 
 was in Kilmainham. This is a matter in which we 
 say that the knowledge, complicity, and connivance 
 of these gentlemen deserves careful consideration. 
 On the 30th of July. 1881. Mr. William O'Brien pub-, 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
70 
 
 The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 Iished a letter of his own and a letter from Mr. 
 Parnell. This was the letter from Mr. Parnell : — 
 " House of Commons, London, July 30, '81. 
 
 " Dear Sir,— I have become aware that a company 
 has been formed for the purpose, among other objects, 
 of starting a penny weekly national newspaper, which 
 will aim at representing in a thorough and determined 
 manner the spirit of agrarian, industrial, and national 
 ^elf-reliance which is now abroad in Ireland." A very 
 nice name to give the condition of things in Ireland ; 
 I think Mr. Parnell is to be complimented on the choice 
 of his phraseology. '* The paper will be called United 
 Ireland, and its management has been undertaken by 
 Mr. William O'Brien, whose character as an Irish 
 journalist, and whose experience zs Special Land Com- 
 missioner for the Freeman's Journal, peculiarly recom- 
 mend the new journal to the favour of the Irish 
 National Land League, and of all our countrymen 
 who look to the development of native industry and 
 the consolidation of the Irish nation. I have no hesita- 
 tion in saying that, individually, I regard the publica- 
 tion of United Ireland as an important gain to our 
 cause, and without prejudice to any other national 
 journal, I should be glad to see our friends through the 
 country exerting themselves to place the new under- 
 taking fairly before the public. 
 
 " I am, dear Sir, yOurs truly, 
 
 " Chas. S. Paenell. 
 
 " To the Hon. Secty., Branch, I.N.L.L." 
 
 Tour LordBhips will have a great deal of evidence 
 before you as to some of the paragraphs published and 
 of the matters that were written in United Ireland. The 
 letter from Mr. O'Brien, ray Lords, was in these 
 terms : — 
 
 " Office of United Ireland, 33, Lower Abbey- 
 street, Dublin, August 2nd, 1881. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — Mr. Pamell's letter, which you will 
 receive herewith, explains the grounds upon which he 
 asks your assistance, and the assistance of your branch, 
 in securing a good start for the new national penny 
 weekly newspaper, United Ireland, the first number of 
 which will appear on Saturday, 13th of August next. 
 You can render material assistance towards its suc- 
 cess : — 
 
 " 1. By appointing a reliablo agent in any district 
 where the Irishman has not at present an agent, and 
 seeing that the posters, which will btj sent to you by 
 Friday's post, are placarded extensively through your 
 district. 
 
 " 2. By forwarding to the office of United Ireland, 
 weekly, a succinct report ot the proceedings of your 
 branch. I enclose specimen of the sort of thing 
 required . 
 
 " 3. (As to branches in cities and towns.) We intend 
 to publish in our advertising columns weekly, under the 
 head of ' The Trade Directory of the People,' a list of 
 traders in all the cities and country towns of Ireland 
 who seek the patronage of the people. The names will 
 be attractively set forth (as in enclosed specimen) 
 under the head of the county and town they belong to, 
 or, at the option of advertisers, in the general list. 
 Traders will thus be sure of having their names con- 
 stantly under the eyes of the people to whom tbey must 
 look for business. In order that ' The Trade Directory 
 of the People ' may become so full as to include the 
 name of every trader desirous of popular support, and 
 so form a link in the chain of popular organization, we 
 propose to insert such names and addresses as are now 
 forwarded by the secretaries of the local branches at 
 
 extremely moderate prices for long periods ; but, as 
 our advertising space will be limited, we must reserve 
 the power of charging higher rates for names subse- 
 quently received. I enclose slip explaining our rate of 
 charges. May I beg you will be good enough to collect 
 as many advertisements of this class as your branch may 
 be able to furnish, and forward them to the office of 
 United Ireland, 33, Lower Abbey-street, Dublin, at your 
 very earliest convenience, so as to be in time for pub- 
 lication in the first number ? 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 "William O'Brien." 
 
 My object in quoting that letter is to show that Mr. 
 William O'Brien and Mr. Parnell were intimately con- 
 nected with United Ireland, and that it will be found 
 to be connected with the Land League. I ought to 
 have stated that it was owned largely by Mr. Parnell. 
 I have a statement as to the number of the share* 
 holders in it. I think nearly all the capital was 
 owned by Egan, Mr. Parnell, and some small share by 
 Mr. William O'Brien. I think it will appear that they 
 owned that as trustees also, that it was Land League 
 money that was running United Ireland. But what I 
 mention this for i3 mainly to show how United Ireland 
 and the writers in it, for which and for whom Mr. 
 O'Brien was responsible, tieated the conduct to which 
 I have been referring. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. On 
 its reassembling, 
 
 The Attorney-General continued, — My Lords, 
 when your Lordships adjourned, I had spoken of the 
 position of United Ireland in connexion with the Irish 
 party. I now wish to summarize whal; I shall be able 
 to prove from the columns of United Ireland itself. In 
 the first place, from beginning to end, the action that 
 was going on under the Land League was called " The 
 Campaign," the outrages were called" Incidents of the 
 Campaign," and a very large portion of space was de- 
 voted to reports of what was happening at the local 
 League meetings, and to incidents in connexion with 
 evictions, without one single word of other comment 
 against them. An endeavour to tar and half drown a 
 bailiff was called " Bathing a bailiff." An account of 
 moonlighting and persons approaching a place and being 
 shot at was called " An escape," and week by week 
 the details of the outrages were put down, stating what 
 had happened, and as far as I know, my Lords, neither 
 by any expression of opini on in the paper, by any refer- 
 ence to any of those outrages in any articles, was there 
 the slightest syllable which would lead people to sup- 
 pose that the publishers, the writers, and the proprietors 
 of United Ireland disapproved of them, and side by 
 side with them speeches were reported which were 
 practically inciting to the samo conduct. I am not 
 going to read any of these, but it happened that on 
 the 8th of October, 1881, in United Ireland there is a 
 long report of the campaign : — 
 
 " Running for his Life. — A bailiff who some days ago 
 arrived at Cranavone, Cahier, to serve writs on Lord 
 Waterford's property, had to run for his life." 
 
 " Insisting on a Bight. — On Sunday night, when the 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 71 
 
 Athy band returned from the Castle Dermott meeting, 
 they proceeded through the town followed by thousands 
 cheering and groaning for the police. The band refused 
 to cease playing when the police attempted to take 
 away the staff and drums. The crowd surrounded them, 
 and the police were struck and severely kicked. The 
 band continued to play through the principal streets, 
 followed by thousands shouting and groaning the 
 police." 
 
 " The Holy War. — Mr. Patrick Egan, treasurer of the 
 Irish Land League, telegraphed to Father Sheehy con- 
 gratulating him on his release, and hoping he may long 
 be spared to help on the holy war against Saxon rule." 
 That was Eugene Sheehy, who had made some of the 
 most violent speeches. 
 
 "A Land-grabber Confounded. — A man named 
 Dempsey, who had taken a derelict farm near Clara, 
 had employed men to save his hay. Several 
 hundreds of people collected and scattered the party in 
 all directions." 
 
 " Captain Moonlight. — In the town of Scariff 
 notices signed Captain Moonlight, containing threats 
 against any person that would dare speak to the 
 police or supply them with necessaries, had been 
 posted." 
 
 I have only picked some half-dozen out of 20 
 or 30 notices of the kind, and that is in one number. 
 There happens to be a speech of Mr. Famell's in the 
 same number of United Ireland, the 8th of October, 
 
 1881 :— 
 
 " Mr. Parnell in Mallow. — Mr. Parnell, address- 
 ing the people from the balcony in front of the hotel, 
 said : — People of Mallow, — I came here to-night for the 
 purpose of investigating the case of an evicted tenant 
 very close to Mallow, in order to obtain for that 
 tenant the opportunity of availing himself of the bene- 
 fits of the Land Act, if perchance we should find after 
 investigation that there were any benefits in the Land 
 Act. (Cheers, and a Voice, ' Down with Johnson ' ; 
 groans.) I find as a result of my investigation that one 
 ot the worst, one of the most repulsive, cases of land- 
 grabbing exists almost in your very midst, almost with- 
 in a stone's-throw of this town of Mallow. (Cries of 
 .'Shame.') Nay, more ; the Land League of Mallow 
 has actually had the unblushing audacity to apply to 
 us, and to obtain from us, a grant for this evicted 
 tenant — a grant paid out of the hard earnings of your 
 banished countrymen in America. They have actually 
 had the audacity to do this while with the same 
 breath they have sanctioned and they have condoned 
 the eviction. (Groans.) Gentlemen, I don't refer to 
 this to excite any feelings of animosity in your hearts 
 against any individual, but more for the purpose of 
 showing you how necessary it is that we should perfect 
 our organization ; that we should give the greatest 
 attention to details in the investigation of the cases 
 ■which occur in each locality, and I am thankful, led 
 my steps to Mallow ; but I have no doubt that what 
 has happened close by you has happened in many other 
 parts of Ireland. I can only say that nothing shall be 
 wanting on my part to establish, perfect, and maintain 
 such a system of- organization as will prevent the 
 occurrence of such offences in the future. The Mallow 
 branch of the Land League exists to-day, but it will 
 not exist after to-day. We will cut off that rotten 
 branch to-morrow (cheers), and we shall take early 
 steps to establish a new branch of the Land League in 
 Mallow (cheers, and cries of ' It's wanted '), which 
 
 will be in keeping with the principles of Michael 
 Davitt in the future. (Cheers.) Those principles are 
 that no tenant shall pay an unjust rent, that 
 no man shall take a farm from which another has 
 been evicted, and that every Irishman shall combine 
 all his energies towards the destruction of Irish land- 
 lordism and of English misrule in Ireland. (Loud 
 cheers.) I have referred to the case which I came to 
 investigate ; but, gentlemen, I ask you to allow by- 
 gones to be bygones. Let the past be buried, and let 
 us all hope that for the future we shall turn over a 
 new leaf, and that we shall endeavour to put our- 
 selves, as I have said, in line with the rest of our 
 country, and keep the banner of the Land League and 
 of Irish nationality to the front (cheers) ; that wo 
 may show ourselves in this town of Mallow, and in 
 this portion of the county of Cork, as worthy to be 
 Irishmen as the people of Mayo or Galway." 
 
 I only read this speech for the purpose of showing, my 
 Lords, an instance of what I stated in my opening the 
 day before yesterday— that United Irclandvras publishing 
 side by side speeches directed against" land-grabbers," 
 as they are called, and referring to the acts of vio- 
 lence as " incidents of the campaign." Further than 
 that, I particularly call attention to this reference to 
 the people of Mayo and Galway, remembering that it 
 was after a terrible series of outrages had taken place 
 in 1880 and 1881. Now, my Lords, I say again 
 that your Lordships will find that from beginning 
 to end in the history of United Ireland the record of 
 what was described as a war between the Irish and the 
 English people was practically nothing more or less 
 than a record of those outrages which were being com- 
 mitted without, as far as I know, the slightest effort 
 being made to divert the people's mind Erom the result 
 of such terrible consequences. I believe I shall be 
 able to satisfy your Lordships that the speeches that I 
 read yesterday are practically all of them reported by 
 United Ireland or the Freeman's Journal, the latter 
 being a paper with which Mr. William O'Brien was 
 connected before he became the editor of United Ireland. 
 I said that we should submit to your Lordships that it 
 was scarcely possible to understand why, if Mr. Egan's 
 business was constitutional and above board, open to 
 no suspicion, the mere arrest of Sheridan should make 
 it necessary for Mr. Egan to leave the country and go 
 to live in Paris. In the autumn of 1881 Ford tele- 
 graphed to Egan that it was desirable that he should 
 remain in Paris, and not go to Ireland. But I shall 
 prove to your Lordships that the Land League council 
 met in Paris in the month of February, 1881. Mr. 
 Matthew Harris, Kettle, Erennan, O'Kelly, Healy, 
 Biggar, and, I think, Mr. Parnell — as to that I am not 
 perfectly certain — were all present in Paris, and I shall 
 te able also to show your Lordships that during a very 
 considerable portion of the time many of those persons 
 were attending, according to the records of United Ire- 
 land and the Freeman's Journal, the Land League 
 councils as they met in different places from time to 
 time. Now, certain matters we have discovered from 
 documents we have obtained from the possession of 
 Mr. Matthew Harris, of which he has had notice under 
 
 The Sneech of the Attorner-GeneraL 
 
72 
 
 The Special Commission, October 24, 1888 
 
 subposna and which, if he does not produce, I shall be 
 able to prove from copies. And those documents 
 iisclose certain matters which, I think, deserve 
 some slight notice from me. It may be said, 
 "It is quite true Mr. Matthew Harris made 
 these speeches, that he made violent observations 
 which may have led to some such results ; but he did 
 not do so as a member of the Land League, or as con- 
 nected with Dillon, Brennan, Mr. Parnell, Egan, or any 
 of the others." Let us just test that. My Lords, I 
 Bhall be able to prove when Mr. Harris is called that 
 certain documents passed between him and various 
 members of the executive of the Land League which 
 put beyond all question that he was an organizer for 
 the Land League and not a mere private speaker. I 
 will read, first, one of the 22d of May, 1880, from T. 
 Brennan. 
 
 " Irish National Land League Offices 62 Middle 
 Abbey St. Dublin May 22nd 1880. 
 
 " Dear Mr. Harris, When Mr. Davitt was leaving 
 for America he requested me to open whatever letters 
 would come for him and through that means I read 
 your last letter to him. I am sorry to see that your 
 pecuniary affairs are in such a bad state and it strikes 
 me we might be able to do something for you here. I 
 represented the matter to Mr. Parnell and he is 
 anxious that we should make you a grant out of the 
 funds of the League that would in some way com- 
 pensate for all you have lost by the land agitation. Of 
 course no one outside the place here would know any- 
 thing about it. I will have the matter carried through 
 some day next week. You will require Organizers 
 Order properly to carry on the business of the League 
 John Walsh is doing Connaught." [John Walsh was one 
 of the men who made the most violent speeches.] " What 
 would you think of assisting him — think the matter 
 over and let me know your opinion on it. 
 
 " Yours truly " T. Brennan. 
 
 " There will be a meeting in Creggs on 27. Could 
 you attend. T. B." 
 
 That, my Lords, is early in the days of the League. 
 Then there was a letter from Matthew Harris to 
 Brennan : — 
 
 " Sunday May 23 1880. " 
 " My dear Brennan, I am sorry to find that my 
 private affairs have been through the extra kindness 
 of friends subject of discussion in Dublin. I sent Mr. 
 Egan a list of the meetings I attended and informed 
 him of the nature of my position here — a position 
 incurring a large correspondence and its attendant ex- 
 penses for postage &c. Now what I want you to do as a 
 friend and a man who should from your large inter- 
 course with the world have some knowledge of what 
 a decent man's feelings should be what I want you to 
 do is to inform the parties who control affairs or who 
 have to deal with these matters that all I require is 
 my actual outlay and that I do not make any claim 
 whatever on the grounds of pecuniary embarressment 
 losses in trade or business losses of time &c. I kept no 
 memoranda of my outlay but all of you know what 
 travelling is and I would sooner by far that you would 
 be under than over the amount of my expenses. 
 
 ' ' Yours very sincy " M . Haeeis . '•' 
 
 I told your Lordships yesterday that Mr. Harris was 
 
 a builder at Ballinasloe. Then there is a letter from 
 Matthew Harris to Patrick Egan : — 
 
 " P. Egan Esq. 
 
 " Dear Sir " Aug. 20 1880. 
 
 " I intended to enquire from you and Mr. Brennan in 
 Dublin whether the disposition of the funds collected 
 for League purposes reach such service as I have 
 rendered. 
 
 " I have attended public meetings at my own ex- 
 pence in all the places named in attached slip and 
 that be/ore American, money came over and lohilethe movement 
 wanted a helping hand Being recognized as the repre- 
 sentative of the League in the Locality my corre- 
 spondence is something enormous between answering 
 letters about relief branches meetings &c. Along with 
 sacrificing my time I had to provide stamps and 
 stationery yet in no single instance have I left a comr 
 munication unanswered so anxious was I not to give 
 any excuse to the Members of the League. I do not 
 demand any remuneration for my time nor would I 
 except any. What I do need attention to is my 
 travelling Expences postages &c. The only money I 
 got from the League was £2 from Mr. Brennan in 
 Eosscommon £5 to go down & open a branch of the 
 League in the lower part of Eosscommon also £2 to 
 attend the conference in Dublin I had not time or 
 opportunity to enquire after the monetary arrangements 
 f the League but I take it for granted that no body oi 
 men in Society would require me not only to work for 
 nothing but to pay expences incidental to such work. 
 " lam very sincerely " M. Hakris. 
 
 " P.S. — The only place where my expences are paid 
 were Balla and Westport I have not included in 
 enclosed List Iriahtown Tuam Athenry Galway Tallow 
 Cobalow Ballyhouran Castlerea Eoscommon 3 times 
 Loughrea Newbridge Co Galway & Knockrogharry." 
 
 I think your Lordships will see that I have not been 
 incorrect in saying that American moneys were placed 
 at the disposal of the Land League. Then there is the 
 following letter : — 
 
 " 2 North Great Georges St. 
 " Monday 4th April. 
 " My dear Mr Harris 
 
 " I have received your letter of April 2d I agree 
 with you there the state of Mayo requires serious con- 
 sideration I fine however that it will take an organiser 
 of great skill and judgment to do any good there & as 
 yet I have no such man at my command that I can 
 spare for work in Mayo unless you think you could 
 undertake it yourself. Do not fix any meetings Cone- 
 niara without consulting me The end of May is the 
 time. I can think of for any western town I shall be 
 in Ulster for some time after Easter. 
 
 " I shall send you a Statement of the long case by 
 next post It would be well for you to visit Cong and 
 settle this matter if you can. 
 
 " Yours truly " John Dillon." 
 
 Now, my Lords, in the matter of money I desire to put 
 before your Lordships the position Mr. Harris held. 
 It is clear that in the early days he was not regarded 
 as of the same importance. At first he used to receive 
 some small sums, such as £2, but in November, 1880, 
 he got £20 from Brennan and £20 from Egan. On the 
 7th of January, 1881, he received £10 from Egan, and on 
 the 8th £30 from the same person. There are other 
 smaller entries of money which, I think, Mr. Harris 
 will have to admit. It will be exceedingly difficult 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 73 
 
 for any one to suggest that any speeches made by Mr. 
 Harris, if they had the consequences to which I have 
 referred, were made independently and without any 
 connexion and consultation with the members of the 
 Land League, by whom he was, in fact, being paid or 
 employed. Later in that year he undoubtedly attended 
 council meetings of the League with Bgan and Mr. 
 Parnell, and on the 18th of March, 1881, we find him 
 receiving money (£15) from Brennan. I am not sure 
 at the present time that I can identify the actual 
 amount, but he received certain other sums, and when 
 the documents come to be produced no doubt will be 
 left upon your Lordships' minds that he was a paid 
 organizer of the League. Now, my Lords, I shall in 
 all probability — I think, certainly — be able, with the 
 information at present before me, to lay before your 
 Lordships evidence as to how the outrages were 
 carried out. I am afraid that such was the feeling in 
 Ireland, so easy was it to excite the enmity of some of 
 the poor, half -educated, " semi-savage " men, as they 
 have been described by some of their own advocates — 
 by some of the Parnellite party — that a very little 
 money would go a very long way ; but still, at the 
 same time, there is evidence before me that con- 
 siderable sums of money were paid. How was it done ? 
 To a great extent I am in a difficulty, because the 
 books and documents of the League are either not in 
 existence, or, if they are in existence, they have been 
 suppressed. And I do wish to impress upon your Lord- 
 ships that one of the most important matters you will 
 have to inquire into, and which will need the most 
 careful investigation, is as to what has become of the 
 Land League documents and papers. We know that they 
 were removed from Dublin to London in October, 1881. 
 Only one of those on the other side who have made affi- 
 davits refers in any way to these papers — that is, Dr. 
 Kenny, M. P. ,who admits in his affidavit having had a bank 
 book of the Hibernian Bank, a cash book, and a cheque 
 book belonging to the League, and who said that they 
 had been taken away by one W. F. Maloney, who 
 has the same initials as those which appear upon 
 Campbell's letter. It is remarkable that neither the 
 president, nor the treasurer, nor the .secretary of the 
 League have made any statements in their affidavits with 
 regard to the books and papers of the League. If at 
 some time or other your Lordships are in a position to 
 probe this matter to the bottom, it will, on my in- 
 structions, lead to some very remarkable disclosures. 
 It was most impprtant that I should have had the 
 books of the League before me, in order to show how 
 the money was provided for the outrages. I think that 
 it will be shown that the agent of the Land League 
 used to get the money from the treasurer, Mr. Biggar, 
 Mr. Brennan, or Mr. Bgan ; that the agent would take 
 down the £20 or £30 into the district and would dis- 
 tribute it locally to the men who had to carry out the 
 outrages. I do not suggest that Mr. Biggar himself 
 paid the individual who was going to commit the out- 
 rage, but that the money was required for the Land 
 League purposes,and from time to time it was received , 
 
 by persons whose duty it was to distribute it locally. 
 This matter of money is no small or unimportant one 
 in connexion with the case as between the American 
 section and the Irish section. The Freeman's Journal, 
 in which the receipts were acknowledged, shows that 
 between October, 1879, and October, 1881, sums 
 amounting to £144,890 were received by the Land 
 League. Of that sum all that has been accounted foi 
 is £44,877, leaving unaccounted for a sum of upwards 
 of £100,000. Did Mr. Parnell have accounts of thess 
 moneys and of the way in which they were expended, 
 or did he not ? My Lords, if he did not have this ac- 
 count, or if he is unable to give any account of what 
 became of these moneys, then I suggest that the pur- 
 poses for which they were being used would not bear 
 an account being kept. " Oh, it is an old story," says 
 my learned friend ; but that old story is now for the 
 first time being investigated before a judicial tribunal, 
 and it will be extremely important to know what was 
 done with this large sum of money. If this was the 
 constitutional agitation that we are asked to believe 
 it was, why were the books removed to London, whj 
 have they disappeared from London, and where are 
 they now ? Of course my story may be all a fable, and 
 may be simply a matter founded upon rumour oi 
 malicious tale-bearing without foundation. I was ^able 
 yesterday to lay before your Lordships the transaction 
 with Timothy Horan about the man who was shot 
 in the eye, whose name could not be mentioned, 
 and who was not known to any one but tha 
 doctor and the members. If there were many trans« 
 actions of the kind that they had with Timothy 
 Horan, I can well understand why the books of 
 the Land League have disappeared. I do not say 
 that any one of the members of Parliament implicated 
 in the charges had any idea that the document which 
 I read to your Lordships wa3 in existence. I think 
 that your Lordships will have extreme difficulty in 
 getting at the amounts that were paid by the Land 
 League for such purposes, but the instances I shall be 
 able to lay before yon will show yonr Lordships 
 that there was a regular business carried on between 
 the branches and the head office of the Land League, 
 I think that I have now noticed all the incidents priol 
 to May, 1882, on which it is necessary for me to 
 comment in opening my case, and I now pass on to 
 what happened after that month. It will, I think, be 
 convenient if I suggest the topics that remain for ma 
 to deal with. First, there is the connexion — the re- 
 markable connexion — of Frank Byrne with the English 
 Land League, and the connexion of Frank Byrne with 
 Mr. Parnell, and the circumstances under which he fled 
 from justice, and was assisted in his flight by moneys 
 received from Mr. Parnell. Before this tribunal I 
 must assume nothing and take nothing for granted ; but 
 I do not think that it will bo suggested that Frank 
 Byrne was not implicated iD, the Phoenix Park murders, 
 for, according to his public statement, he was un« 
 doubtedly closely connected with them. As I have said, 
 nobody can tell to what extent it may be necessary to 
 
 The Speech, of the Attorney-General. 
 
74 
 
 The Special Commission, October 24, 1SS8. 
 
 investigate these matters. It may be that your Lord- 
 ships will have to exercise your powers to get at the truth 
 to a degree far beyond any statement of facts which 
 I am in a position to prove before you. Therefore, it 
 is that I have at seme little length to lay before your 
 Lordships what we know and what we suggest with 
 regard to Frank Byrne, regarding his connexion with 
 some persons named, and with regard to his escaping 
 from justice in the course of the year 1883. Then, 
 my Lords, I have to deal with the National League. 
 The National League is an organization which took 
 the place of the Land League when the latter was 
 suppressed, and I shall call evidence which will place 
 beyond all question the action of that association. To 
 all intents and purposes, the National League was the 
 same as the Land League. Then I Ehall have to show 
 your Lordships what was the conduct of those who 
 were managing tho affairs of the National League. 
 And, in connexion with that, let me remind your Lord- 
 ships that between 1882 until the end of the year 
 1885, during which period the Crimes Act was in 
 force, the outrages to which I have referred as having 
 taken place during 1880 and 1881 diminished to an enor- 
 mous extent ; and that after the Crimes Act had expired, 
 the tyranny of :he National League, which took the 
 place of the suppressed Land League, commenced, and 
 the same outrages, of the same character, and carried 
 on by the same persons, again became prevalent. 
 I shall have to read to your Lordships, I hope not as 
 many, but still a considerable number of speeches made 
 by the supporters of the National League. I shall show 
 it was distinctly and in plain terms brought to the 
 notice of Mr. Parnell that the action of the Land League 
 had resulted in certain consequences, and that in face 
 of that notice, in face of that warning, he and his im- 
 mediate supporters pursued exactly the same line of 
 conduct with practically the same results. I have 
 also to explain to your Lordships the American con- 
 nexion and the part played by the connexion between 
 the English and .American organizations, and, subject 
 to minor matters, I shall have no fresh subject which 
 it will be material at the present time to bring to 
 your notice. The Crimes Act was passed shortly 
 after the Phoenix Park murders. It was opposed 
 by Mr. Parnell and the Irish members, who were, 
 of course, perfectly within their rights in doing 
 so. During this time there was m existence the British 
 Land League, of which Mr. Justin M'Carthy was 
 president, Mr. Biggar vice-president, Frank Byrne 
 general secretary, and Messrs. Redmond and Quinn 
 treasurers. They had their offices in Westminster, and 
 it is in connexion with the existence of that organi- 
 zation and its presence in Westminster that some very 
 remarkable allegations were made, as to which I have 
 to open to your Lordships the evidence it will be in 
 our power to produce. The offices of this organization 
 were in Palace-chambers, Westminster-bridge, and to 
 those offices members of Parliament had access ; but I 
 should think it is highly probable that a great many of 
 them knew very little at any rate of what was going on 
 
 as far as Byrne was concerned. We have alleged, and 
 as to that evidence will be given, that to those offices 
 were taken the knives with which the Phoenix Park 
 murders were committed, or if not the same knives, 
 knives of an identical character and intended for the 
 same purpose. Now, I 6hall pat this matter shortly 
 before your Lordships, asking attention to the allega- 
 tions made in the course of the trial of " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter." Your Lordships will find in the article of 
 June 13, on page i!54 of the Blue-book, the passage : — 
 
 "It was Frank Byrne.the secretary to the English branch 
 of the League, who procured the weapons with which the 
 crime was perpetrated, and his wife was afterwards feted 
 in New York as the ' brave little woman ' who carried 
 those weapons to Dublin. The offices of the 
 League consisted of a small back room on the entresol 
 floor of Palace-chambers, Bridge-street, Westminster. 
 An adjoining room equally small, with folding doors 
 between, constituted ' the offices of the Irish Parlia- 
 mentary party.' The folding doors stood open, and the 
 Irish M.P.'s escaped asphyxia by using tbe two rooms 
 as one. The regular occupants of the office were Frank 
 Byrne himself, D. M'Sweeney, clerk to the League, 
 now dead, and Mr. II. Campbell, Mr. Parnell's private 
 secretary, and now M.P. for Fermanagh. The treasurer 
 to the League, Mr. Thomas Quinn, now M.P. for 
 Kilkenny, was a frequent visitor, and while in London 
 the Irish M.P.'s were in and out at all hours. The 
 M.P.'s of course held their caucus meetings there, as 
 did also the executive committee of the League. In 
 this office the weapons were kept for several days 
 before Byrne removed them to his home in Peckbam. 
 The knives lay in a paper parcel on the floor ; the 
 Winchester rifle and revolvers, of which so much was 
 heard at the murder trials, lay open to the inspection 
 of the curious. Before the knives reached Falace- 
 cbambers they were intrusted to a Fenian shoemaker 
 in Bethnal-green, who boasts of having made leather 
 sheaths for them. This worthy's services to the cause 
 were rewarded by a ' testimonial,' to promote which 
 Mr. Biggar, M.P., took the chair at a meeting con- 
 vened under the distinguished patronage of the principal 
 London Fenians, a speech by Michael Davitt being the 
 chief attraction of the programme." 
 
 Well, my Lords, in so far as it is material for tho pur- 
 pose of showing the character of Byrne, we shall lay 
 evidence before you to show that that statement of 
 facts is, in all its main details, true — that the knives were 
 procured by Frank Byrne or under his orders and direc- 
 tions, and were taken to Palace-chambers, and that the 
 other weapons referred to in the paragraph I have read 
 were there. Nothing was known practically about this 
 matter until the beginning of 1883, but in the early 
 part of 1883, if I remember right, somewhere about the 
 month of January, a man named Farrell made a state- 
 ment to Inspector Kavnnagh in Ireland. Carey did not 
 make his statement until some time afterwards. The 
 result of the first statement being made, or the result 
 of the knowledge that that statement had been made, 
 was that Mr. Byrne left England and went to France. 
 The excuse made for his departure was that his health 
 was bad, and that he was ordered to Cannes. He 
 dated his letters from there, but, from my instructions, 
 I believe it will appear he never was at Cannes, and 
 that the letters were all written from Paris. But 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 75 
 
 whether it was so or not, the enjoyment o£ the warm 
 air of Cannes did not seem essential, for after the 
 failure of the extradition proceedings in his case, he 
 left the warm climate for which he at first had an 
 attachment, but to which he then seemed to have an 
 objection, and took a sea voyage to America. The 
 allegation is that Frank Byrne was assisted, if he was 
 not actually enabled, to escape by means of a cheque 
 for £100 received from Mr. Parnell, and I desire to 
 state what I am about to prove in reference to this 
 matter. In that connexion I will refer to a letter 
 which will be put in. I do not know at present 
 whether this letter is alleged to be a forgery. There 
 are many letters which are alleged to be forgeries ; in 
 fact, it is something like the alibi in an Irish 
 case in which it was said, " If any document appears 
 in this case against anybody, then it is alleged to be 
 a forgery." I have here a letter, dated February 8,1882 
 — clearly a mistake for 1883, a mistake not unfrequently 
 made early in the year — sent by Frank Byrne.the general 
 secretary of the British Land League, and addressed from 
 the Hotel des Pins, Cannes, France. It runs as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 " To the Executive National League and National 
 League of Great Britain. — Gentlemen, I regret much 
 that since I left home I have not been able to write 
 to you before now, as in addition to my lung complaint 
 I have been suffering from rheumatism in my right 
 hand and arm, which made it impossible for me to 
 write. It is much better now, but still far from being 
 in a state to permit me to write much. I was, as you 
 have no doubt been informed by Mr. M'Sweeney, obliged 
 to leave suddenly by the positive orders of the 
 doctor " (I do not know whether any attempt 
 will be made to prove the positive orders of the 
 doctor or to produce the doctor) " and could not, 
 in consequence, communicate with you previous 
 to my departure. Mr. M'Sweeney will also have 
 informed you that I received the promised cheque, 
 £100, from Mr. Parnell on the day I left London." (I 
 hope that later on we shall have an opportunity of see- 
 ing Mr. Parnell's pass-book, and of investigating the 
 circumstances under which the cheque was given. We 
 shall prove that statement to be a perfectly true state- 
 ment, and there is no reason for supposing that if the 
 letter is genuine the statement is untrue.) " Imme- 
 diately I arrived in Paris I proceeded to discharge all 
 the liabilities for which I had authority, and I now 
 enclose balance-sheet, showing income and expenditure 
 from December SO. You will see I have no account of 
 either since January 28, except so far as recording the 
 receipt of £110 on the 23d, and cash sent to Mr. Walsh 
 for fortnight ending January 20, and my own salary up 
 to Saturday next. The cash sent to Mr. Walsh was not 
 authorized by you, as his returns, which I now enclose, 
 have not yet oome before you. They are of the usual 
 character, and I hope you will adopt them to-morrow 
 night. I shall to-morrow forward to Mr.Quinn cheque 
 or draft for the amount in hand — £35 17s. 7d." (I 
 would ask your Lordships to make a note of those 
 figures, because they appear in another document), 
 " and Mr. M'Sweeney will no doubt supply you with 
 account of receipt and expenditure since January 28, 
 as it is impossible for me to conduct the business of the 
 organization from such a distance, and as it is likely 
 to be some weeks before I shall be fit to return, I would 
 respectfully request you to relieve me for the present 
 
 from the responsibility attached thereto, and I would 
 also suggest that, as your income at present is not 
 large, that you would consider whether you are in a 
 position to continue to pay a salary to an official who 
 cannot perform his duties. While making this sugges- 
 tion, I would also remind you that my position is not 
 an independent one. If not already done, I would 
 advise the official alteration in the name, &c, of the 
 organization, and its announcement to the branches im- 
 mediately. I shall be happy to hear from you in reply, 
 and information on any point you may require I shall, 
 of course, supply at the earliest moment. — I am, 
 gentlemen, yours faithfully, FBANK Byknjs, General 
 Secretary." 
 
 I shall submit to your Lordships that that is undoubtedly 
 a genuine document, sent by Frank Byrne, and that the 
 statements in it were true. Now, I have asked your 
 Lordships to make a note of those figures— £35 17s. 7d., 
 because they occur in another document to which I 
 shall have to call attention. The letter I have just read 
 was dated February 8, 1882, and Frank Byrne stated in 
 that letter that he was going to write to Mr.Quinnnext 
 day. The representatives of The Times obtained that 
 letter, believing it to be a genuine letter, as they now 
 believe it to be, and Mr.* O'Donnell in his action 
 against The Times, among other documents, disclosed a 
 letter from Frank Byrne to Quinn, dated February 10, 
 1883. The original will, of course, be produced before 
 your Lordships, and you will be able to judge from a 
 comparison of the two letters whether the letter I 
 have just read is genuine or not. Now, as to the letter 
 to Mr. Quinn. It is dated from the Hotel des Pins, 
 Cannes, France, February 10, 1883, and runs as follows : — 
 
 " My dear Quinn, — I dare say you will have heard 
 before now that I had left London for a warmer climate, in 
 accordance with the positive orders of the doctor. I 
 was obliged to leave suddenly, or I should have tried to 
 see you before my departure." (Mr. Quinn, my Lords, 
 as I have said, was the treasurer of the British Land 
 League, and I should have thought that the suddenness 
 of Byrne's departure would have made it impossible for 
 him to have seen Mr. Quinn.) " I am glad to say that 
 already I find a considerable improvement. The doctor 
 thinks, however, that as soon as I am sufficiently strong, 
 I should take a long sea voyage, and he recommended 
 America. I do not like the idea ; but if my restora- 
 tion to health depends upon it, of course I must go. I 
 enclose you a cheque for £35 17s. 7d., the amount of 
 cash in my hands belonging to the executive. " (That 
 is the amount I mentioned to your Lordships which 
 Byrne said ho had to return to the execut;v<> of the 
 Land League.) " At the last settling we had you held 
 a sum of £1 6s. Id., so that you will now have 
 £37 3s. 8d. in hand. If you can spare the time and 
 have the inclination, you might drop me a few lines 
 here. I wish you would attend next executive meeting, 
 and inform them of receipt of this, or else write them. 
 I am, dear Quinn, yours faithfully, Frank Byknk." 
 Now, my Lords, the proprietors of The Times had 
 not the slightest knowledge that that document existed 
 or was still to be found, beyond the reforence to it in 
 the letter of February 8, until the affidavit of docu- 
 ments was made by Mr. O'Donnell in his action against 
 The Times. The remarkable coincidence was then 
 noticed that the same sum of money is mentioned in the 
 two letters, and that they are genuine letters. I shall 
 
 The Speech, of the Attorney-General. 
 
76 
 
 The Special Commission, OctODer 24, 1888. 
 
 submit to your Lordships, there can be no doubt. 
 Some explanation has been given with reference to 
 the cheque for £100. It was said that that was a 
 mistake, and that Byrne did not get the £100 from 
 Mr. Farnell, but that, having a number of cheques 
 exactly amounting to £100, he took them to Mr. 
 M'Carthy, who gave him a cheque for £100 in exchange. 
 Well, my Lords, all I can say is this. It is a very ex- 
 traordinary thing, that being the transaction, that there 
 should be references to it of the character to which I 
 have referred, and I shall submit to your Lordships' 
 judgment that it is scarcely probable or possible that 
 such a mistake should be made a day or two after a 
 money transaction had taken place. Besides it was 
 stated Frank Byrne had not got a banking account, 
 whereas in this letter he encloses a cheque for 
 £35 17s. 7d. If necessary, I shall prove that that 
 explanation was given. It will be for your Lord- 
 ships to say whether it is possible to believe any such 
 story, in the face of Byrne's own statement that the 
 £100 had been received from Mr. Parnell. Let us con- 
 sider what happened. Egan, Sheridan, Byrne, and 
 Brennan, all prominently ,connected with the Land 
 League, went to America. I shall ask your Lordships 
 what it was that should cause the treasurer of the 
 Land League to escape to America. It was stated by 
 Sir C. Russell that I had said that a warrant was out 
 against Egan with respect to the Phoenix Park murders. 
 I believe I stated that extradition proceedings were 
 taken for the purpose of getting Egan extradited from 
 Paris to England ; but, whatever it may have been, 
 such was the effect of the disclosures in Dublin that 
 Egan, the treasurer of the Land League, went to 
 America and has remained there, and Sheridan, Byrne, 
 Boyton, and Brennan also went to America. I shall 
 tell your Lordships, in connexion with that point, what 
 happened when those people were in America after- 
 wards, and what was their public conduct ; what was 
 the part they played in connexion with the meetings 
 at which Mr. Parnell, or his representatives sent out 
 by him, were present ; but, at any rate, it will be a 
 matter to which your Lordships will give your very 
 grave and anxious consideration in connexion with any 
 suggestion that those persons were perfectly innocent. 
 If these persons were perfectly innocent, it occurs to 
 one to ask why it is that there should arise in the 
 breasts of all, about the same time, the sudden desire 
 to leave England, Ireland, or even France, and go to 
 America, where, perhaps, a different view might pre- 
 vail as to the part taken by those men in certain trans- 
 actions with regard to which they were accused ? Even 
 after the departure of Byrne, and after circumstances 
 had taken place which must have aroused suspicions in 
 the minds of any persons who had been connected with 
 him that there was something not quite straight with 
 regard to his conduct, you will find resolutions proposed 
 and supported by some of the leading gentlemen whose 
 names are mentioned in those particulars as to Mr. 
 Byrne's conduct having been absolutely straightforward 
 and aboveboard, and to his being in a position to 
 
 meet any charge brought against him. Mr. Byrne has 
 not himself seemed anxious to meet those charges. 
 As far as the story is concerned, I have now, before I 
 come to the other matters I have mentioned, only to 
 remind your Lordships of what was stated to be the ulti- 
 mate result in the matter of money. The Times published 
 a facsimile page of the Irish World. I shall be able to 
 give your Lordships very distinct evidence as to the way 
 in which the Irish World was treated by many of those 
 whose names are included in those particulars and many 
 of the members of the Land League. Your Lordships will 
 see that this facsimile page is a statement as 
 to the series of . funds collected by the instru- 
 mentality of the Irish World for certain pat- 
 riotic objects. There are two or three of them 
 to which I wish to call attention. The Skir- 
 mishing Fund, amounting to g88,306. That fund was at 
 times called the National Fund, and I shall show your 
 Lordships that it was a loan from that fund, for which 
 Mr. Davitt says he is personally responsible, which 
 went to start the Land League. The fund was originally 
 collected for objects in all probability much more 
 violent than even the outrages of whch I have given 
 your Lordships the particulars. On the same page 
 your Lordships will find the Eossa Testimonial. Kossa 
 was one of those who advocated the most violent 
 action towards any person whom he thought an enemy 
 of the policy of which he was the advocate. He advo- 
 cated the use of dynamite and the use of the knife 
 quite openly. The Spread the Light Fund, $7,600. 
 That was a fund, not infrequently referred to, for the 
 purpose of " spreading the light " in Ireland or among 
 the Irish. It consisted mainly in circulating in Ire- 
 land copies of most violent papers, which incited to 
 outrage of all kinds. I could show your Lordships that 
 in connexion with that fund as much as 40,000 copies a 
 week of the Irish World were asked for, and that Mr. 
 Parnell expressed his personal thanks to the Irish 
 World for the great good that it had done to the Land 
 League in Ireland. Among other papers sent was the 
 Irish World, and it was to that paper Mr. Parnell 
 tendered his thanks. The Land League Fund, §343,072, 
 which is divided into two funds— the No-rent Fund 
 and the Land League. You will find the acknowledg- 
 ment of Egan towards the right-hand side of the paper. 
 
 " New York, August 1, 1883. 
 " Eeceived from Patrick Ford the sum of Four Hun- 
 dred and Twenty-four Dollars and Thirty- 
 8343,072.92 six Cents., which is the closing balance 
 of the Irish World Land League Fund, 
 and which with the amount already acknowledged and 
 remitted make a total received from Mr. Ford of three 
 hundred and forty-three thousand and seventy-two dol- 
 lars and ninety-two cents (§343,072.92). 
 
 ' ' Patrick Egan." 
 The Martyrs' Testimonial amounts to $8,000, and 
 I ask your Lordships to note the particulars of 
 that fund. You will find it described at the 
 left of the page as "An Audit of the Martyrs' 
 Fund and the O'Donnell Defence Fund." The 
 persons named as having received money are Jane 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 77 
 
 Mullett, Mrs. Daniel Curley, Mary Kelly, Mary Ann 
 Fagan, Kate Fitzharris, Fanny Eowles, Thomas Brady, 
 and Thomas Hanlon, all of whom were, i£ I am cor- 
 rectly instructed, members of the families of those 
 who were convicted for the murders in the Phoanix 
 Park, and nobody who had pleaded guilty or had given 
 evidence was allowed to participate in this fund. That 
 will show your Lordships what was the kind of view 
 advocated by the American party, with whom, as I shall 
 show, I think beyond all question, Mr. Parnell and 
 his party were in the most close and intimate connexion. 
 The other one was the O'Donnell Defence Fund. I 
 believe that that was a fund for the defence of 
 O'Donnell, who shot Carey. The informer Carey went 
 out from England to the Cape in order, I suppose, that 
 he might in some way lead a better life. He changed 
 ship, and on board the same vessel was O'Donnell, who 
 shot Carey in cold blood, and no less a sum than 
 §55,098, or about £12,000, was subscribed for the 
 purpose of the defence of O'Donnell. The result was 
 that, if I remember rightly, my learned friend Sir Charles 
 Bussell had the honour of defending O'Donnell at the Old 
 Bailey. It can scarcely be that that money was sub- 
 scribed for the purpose of getting a fair trial 
 for O'Donnell at the Old Bailey. The real object 
 was to show that persons would subscribe for 
 any object which might be supposed to enlist 
 the sympathy of the persons subscribing, and to 
 assist the warfare that was being carried on. 
 Now, my Lords, the Martyrs' Fund for the benefit of 
 the relatives of the persons who were connected with 
 this movement was started by Ford, who made the 
 following statement in regard to it in an article in 
 the Irish World :— 
 
 " Sharing in that resolve, I started the Martyrs' 
 Fund. I asked of the Irishmen of America, and I 
 received §8,000 f or the families of the eight martyrs, 
 and my sister Miss Ellen Ford, in company with Miss 
 Maria Doherty, of Worcester, Massachusetts— a lady 
 whose zeal and services for the Land League knew no 
 bounds — by an effort of the will summoned to her 
 assistance courage enough to rise out of a sick bed, 
 where she had lain for six weeks, and braved, the 
 waves and the equinoctial storms to put that money into 
 those people's hands. 
 
 " That money was not given as alms. It was 
 intended as a testimonial to the memory of men who 
 had, in their own way, struck a blow for the independ- 
 snce of Ireland. Whatever may be thought of the 
 method, the underlying principle at least is a heroic 
 one. May God send Ireland more men with hearts 
 like that of Joe Brady 1 " (That was one of the Phcenix 
 Park murderers, my Lords.} 
 
 " * Assassins !' No ; they were heroes who knew how 
 to die for a cause as well as to kill for a cause. The 
 blow they struck caused the enemy's cheek to turn 
 white and the enemy'3 heart to tremble at future 
 possibilities. Never was there such a commotion in 
 that den of robbers — ' What next ?' 
 
 "The next report that rang in the ears of the world 
 was the echo of O'Donnell's shot. The informer was 
 executed, and his dishonoured remains were thrown 
 among the negroes and outcasts of Africa ! 
 
 " But the avenger was in the hands of the foe, and 
 what could his friends do for him ? The first thought 
 that came to my mind, the feeling of those 
 about me, was that a rescue ought to be organized. To 
 do that successfully courage, skill, and money were 
 needed. The men were to be had, but the money was 
 wanting. Now, here a perplexity and a difficulty put 
 in an appearance. It was suggested to me that I might 
 appropriate to that venture the Martyrs' Fund, which 
 as yet was incomplete, and deduct the amount from 
 the contemplated O'Donnell Defence Fund. All this, of 
 course, would have to be done in secret. But the 
 venture, if it miscarried, would place mo in a false 
 light. O'Donnell might die in Africa. He might get a 
 speedy trial and acquittal there. These were remote 
 contingencies indeed, but they were possibilities, 
 nevertheless, and if either of them happened an 
 O'Donnell Defence Fund could not be started ; and 
 then, if the other money were expended meanwhile in 
 fitting out a rescue party, how could the testimonial be 
 given to the families of the martyrs ? I should either 
 have to pay it back out of my own pocket — and that, I 
 submit, could not in fairness be expected of me — or 
 else let things take their course. It might have been 
 all right, but then again it might have turned out all 
 wrong. A simple statement of the facts, doubtless, 
 would satisfy some people, but it would be no answer 
 for others. The persons who would talk loudest are 
 they who had given least or nothing at all. I had no 
 discretion 1 to act in the matter. The only safe course 
 was to stick to the letter of the understanding that 
 existed between the subscribers and myself, whatever 
 the consequences, and so the rescue project was 
 abandoned." 
 
 Then he states how the O'Donnell testimonial was got 
 up. I shall show your Lordships that Mr. Parnell and 
 his immediate allies — gentlemen whose names are 
 mentioned in the particulars — have been the corre- 
 spondents of the Irish World, and that after the date 
 of that article they continued to be its corre- 
 spondents. I shall show that considerable sums of 
 money have been remitted to Ireland from the Irish 
 World and received by Mr. Parnell and his party. 
 This article is the public statement of Ford. How is 
 it to be reconciled with that other statement that 
 until the names of the murderers should have been 
 discovered a stain would rest upon the name of 
 Ireland ? I shall be able to prove to your Lordships by 
 the admissions of members of the organization in 
 Ireland that out of £148,000 received up to October, 
 1881, a very large sum came from Ameriea,and after the 
 date of Ford's article further 6ums were received. 
 What, then, is the position of this party ? The Times 
 has alleged that this conspiracy was fed by American 
 gold subscribed by people who were not only guilty of 
 treasonable practices,but who encouraged outrages of the 
 worst kind. Do you think that a Constitutional party, 
 a bond fide political organization, would have stooped 
 to accept money from such men ? I shall show your 
 Lordships when I take up the American part of this 
 story that, to the knowledge of the persons who were 
 urging that the Irish World should be sent into 
 Ireland and dwelling upon the great benefits that such 
 publications conferred upon the Land League, articles 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
78 
 
 The Special Commission, October 24, 1888. 
 
 were being written in these papers and reports 
 published which were about as bad as anything could 
 be, and which would lead, if acted upon, to the per- 
 petration of, perhaps, worse crimes than the Phconix 
 Park murders. I do not believe that any public state- 
 ment can be produced showing that Mr. Parnell or 
 any one of his followers repudiated Ford, or was 
 ashamed of him. There was at one time, it may be 
 right to mention, a slight estrangement between Mr. 
 Parnell and Ford, apparently due to the former's conduct 
 in connexion with some money matters. Mr. Parnell, 
 I know, expressed the opinion in the House of Com- 
 mons that he would have got as much money if Ford 
 had not been in existence ; but has there ever been any 
 repudiation by any one of the men who were united 
 together as the leaders of the Land League and the 
 National League — any repudiation of the doctrines 
 which Ford was preaching ? I say that in 1885 and 
 1886, as in 1882 and 1883, there stood upon platforms 
 in Ireland representatives of the Irish World and of 
 the American contingent who were undoubtedly in 
 league with Ford. Davitt, Brennan, Quinn, Byrne, 
 and Sheridan were active correspondents of the Irish 
 World. I have said that I desired to show that the 
 conduct of those who were the leaders of the National 
 League was continued after the time when' they had 
 full knowledge of the consequences of their previous 
 actions. In this connexion I shall read, and am 
 entitled to read, the statement made in Mr. 
 Parnell's hearing by Mr. Forster, a statement which 
 gave the most distinct notice to Mr. Parnell, and which 
 was not refuted by him. This is the ancient history of 
 which Sir C. Russell was anxious to remind your Lord- 
 ships. I want to make it perfectly clear that the 
 statement was made in Mr. Parnell's hearing and that 
 he was unable to deny the charge which it contained. 
 Mr. Forster may have been absolutely wrong in the 
 judgment which he formed, but I desire to establish 
 bejond all question that Mr. Parnell knew what was 
 alleged respecting the conduct of the Land League. 
 There can be no doubt of the meaning of this language, 
 and I will adopt it as being a correct description of 
 the charges which were afterwards repeated in " Par- 
 nellism and Crime." Mr. Forster said in the House of 
 Commons on February 22, 1883 : — 
 
 " Do not let the hon. member suppose that I charge 
 him with having planned any murder, or with com- 
 plicity with murder. But I wish there to be no mistake 
 that this I do charge the hon. member and his friends 
 with. He and they allowed themselves to continue the 
 leaders — he the avowed chief — of an organization 
 which not merely ostensibly advised and urged the 
 ruin of those who opposed them, and avowed that doc- 
 trine of ' boycotting ' which was to make life almost 
 more miserable than death, but which set on foot an 
 agitation which organized or promoted outrage and 
 inciied to murder, of which the natural result and out- 
 come was murder ; and the hon. member ought to have 
 known this to be the natural outcome. It is very hard 
 for me to understand how he did not know it and how 
 he did not separate himself from it altogether and 
 disavow and denounce it." 
 
 Now, I assert that when Mr. Parnell spoke ill answer 
 to that charge he did not deny the truth of it. On the 
 contrary, his answer was of a most trumpery and trivial 
 description. He attacked Mr. Forster for referring to 
 the Irish World and to the heading " The Incidents of 
 the Campaign " which had been used while Mr. Parnell 
 was in Kilmainham. He did not, however, explain 
 that a similar heading had been used when he was not 
 in Kilmainham. I refer to this with a view to show 
 your Lordships what was the judgment of a man spe- 
 cially qualified to form an opinion, what was his judg- 
 ment upon the organization with which Mr. Parnell was 
 associated. That was the charge made by Mr. Forster ; 
 that was the charge made by The Times. 
 
 The President. — Your point is that Mr. Parnell did 
 not repudiate it ? 
 
 The Attoeney-Genekal.— Certainly, my Lord. If 
 there were any passage containing a repudiation I 
 would read it. Now I want to put in relief what this 
 charge means. Two things will be proved beyond all 
 question ; one is that concurrently with the spread of 
 the Land League crime is invariably found, marking 
 its steps with blood, and that there is no such crime 
 where the League is not present and where speeches 
 of the kind which I have described are not de- 
 livered. __ From 1877 to 1879 there were 20 
 murders in the whole of Ireland. In 1880, 1881, 
 and part of 1882 there were 50 murders. In 1883 
 and 1884, when the Land League was not able 
 to carry on its work with the same tuccess as pre- 
 viously in consequence of the passing of the Crimes 
 Act, there was only one murder. In 1885 and 1886 
 and a portion of 1887 the number rose to 19. The 
 increase of murders in I860, 1881, and 1882 was due to 
 the action cf the Land League, and in 1885, 1886, 
 and 1887 to the action of the National League. The 
 cases of firing at persons in 1877, 1878, and 1879 were 
 17 ; in 1880, 1881, and 1882 they rose to 148 ; in 1883 
 and 1884 they fell to 16 ; in 1885 and 1886 and part 
 of 18S7 they again rose to 47. If it was not the Land 
 Leagae agitation that brought about this increase of 
 crime why was it committed ? My learned friends may 
 try, but nobody has yet been able to suggest any other 
 cause. Possibly they may be cleverer than people 
 have been hitherto. Then take incendiary fires. In 
 1877, 1878, and 1879 there were 120 ; in 1880, 
 1881, and 1882 there were 776 ; in 1883 and 1884, 
 229 ; and in 1885, 1886, and part of 1887, 322. 
 Firing at the dwelling-house — 1877, 1878, and 1879, 27; 
 1880, 1881, and 1882, 325 ; 1883 and 1884, 37 ; 1885, 
 
 1886, and 1887, 111. Killing and maiming of cattle— 
 1877, 1878, and 1879, 57 ; 1880, 1881, and 1882, 300 ; 
 1883 and 1884, 122 ; 1885, 1886, and 1887, 183. In 
 every case I refer to the broken portion of 1887 and not 
 to the whole year. Threatening letters and notices — 
 1877, 1878, and 1879, 674 ; 1880, 1881, and 1882, 5,536 
 (Will my learned friend suggest that that is not the 
 Land League ?) ; 1883 and 1884, 796 ; 1885, 1886, and' 
 
 1887, 1,154. Intimidation (I do not care much about 
 ' the fiaures. because it mav be serious or not) — 1880. 
 
 The Speech of the Attornev-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 24 and 25, 1888. 
 
 79 
 
 1881, and 1S82, 946 ; 1883 and 1884, 106 ; 1885, 1886, 
 and 1887, 259. When you take the individual counties, 
 in respect of which I read the speeches yesterday, the 
 results are in some cases most remarkable. Kerry. 
 — Firing at the person — 1877, 1878, aud 1879, no offence ; 
 1880, 1881, and 1882, 26. Incendiary fires— 1877, 
 1878, and 1879, 5 ; 1880, 1881, and 1882, 78. Firing 
 into dwelling-house — in the earlier period there was 
 no offence, and in the second period 23. My Lords, did 
 Mr. Parnell know this or not ? I mean equally Mr. 
 Biggar and the other gentlemen. Liid the Famellite party 
 know this or not ; if not, how do they account for their 
 ignorance ? If they did know it, why did they not 
 use a part of their influence — at any rate it could do 
 no harm, it might have done some little good in the 
 matter ? Maiming of cattle— six in the earlier period, 
 25 in the second period ; threatening letters — four in 
 the earlier period, 538 in the second period. Clare. — 
 Firing at the persou — none in the first period, 14 in 
 the second ; incendiary fires — one in the first period, 
 24 in the second ; killing and maiming cattle — one in 
 the first period, 12 in the second ; threatening letters — 
 22 in the first period, 225 in the second. Mayo. — 
 Firing at the person — three in the first period, 13 in 
 the second ; incendiary fires — nine in the first period, 
 15 in the second ; firing at dwelling-house — four in the 
 first period, 18 in the second ; killing and maiming of 
 cattle — none in the Erst period, 49 in the second. 
 
 The President. — Is it necessary to go through all 
 the counties ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — So, my Lord ; it is not 
 necessary 
 
 The President. — You have indicated the line. 
 
 The Attorney -General. — Of course, my Lord. I am 
 mre your Lordships will be able to judge of that. An 
 .ncident in connexion with these crimes whicfer I have 
 aot yet mentioned and to which we attach very con- 
 siderable importance — ordinary agrarian disputes 
 between two tenants who fought about farms, did 
 occur, were known. Bibbonism was known ; outrages 
 which to a certain extent were traceable to Fenianism 
 were known ; but the peculiar feature of the crimes and 
 outrages which characterized this period was this — 
 that they were practised upon a class which had been 
 to a great extent free from such outrages before. Land- 
 lords had been shot ; persons had been killed or 
 assailed from private motives ; but this system, which 
 crushed out the life of the small occupier— of the small 
 tenant — which, practically speaking, prevented a man 
 from taking land because it was the will of the League 
 that it should not be taken, was a completely new 
 thing ; and I think it will be found, when the evidence 
 comes to be examined, that the characteristics of the 
 way in which the outrages were worked to enforce the 
 decrees of the League point to the fact that it was 
 simply a means of carrying out a purpose, and that 
 that purpose was the destruction of the power of the 
 Government which existed or ought to exist, or was sup- 
 posed to exist. I mention that because it is a matter to 
 which I shall ask your Lordships' especial attention. I 
 
 think, my Lords, this would be a convenient point for 
 me to conclude this part of my opening, and with your 
 Lordships' permission I will commence to-morrow by 
 dealing with the connexion between the American 
 organization and the English organization. 
 
 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25. 
 
 The Commissioners having taken their seats upon the 
 bench, 
 
 The Attorney-General rose to continue his speech, 
 and said, — 1 shall resume, my Lords, where I broke off 
 last evening, and shall proceed to show the connexion 
 between the persons whose names are mentioned in 
 the particulars and the American organization or con- 
 spiracy. The appearance of Mr. Davitt before this 
 tribunal necessitates my referring to some other 
 matters which it otherwise would probably not have 
 been necessary to bring at any length before your 
 Lordships. As, however, there are certain circum- 
 stances connected with Mr. Davitt upon which I shall 
 have to give evidence, it is right, I think, that I should 
 now make a reference to such parts of the charges as 
 relate directly to him. There are various passages in 
 ' ' Parnellism and Crime ' ' and in my speech in the case 
 of " O'Donnell v. Walter " which deal with this matter 
 of the connexion of the Irish Land League with the 
 American organization, and I will shortly summarize 
 them. Our allegation is that the Land League organiza- 
 tion, of which Mr. Parnell was president, was in 
 fact originated in America. We allege that it was a 
 conspiracy which was hatched, plotted, and carried out 
 with American money. We allege that among those 
 who were members of this conspiracy in America were 
 persons who weredynamitards, who advocated the use 
 of dynamite, who advocated assassination, and who re- 
 ferred to crimes of the worst description as being mere 
 incidents in carrying out the war. We have put on 
 record what our meaning clearly is, and in the par- 
 ticulars we have given the names of the persons with 
 whom we allege Mr. Parnell and his followers associated, 
 and we have also given very briefly an outline of the 
 character of some of these individuals. Further, we 
 have alleged in our particulars that persons whose 
 names are included among the members of Parliament 
 and others were engaged directly in promoting and 
 disseminating in Ireland literature which incited to 
 sedition, to the commission of crimes, and to outrages, 
 and we mention as among such literature the Irish World, 
 the Chicago Citizen, the Boston Pilot, and United Ir& 
 land. It will be my duty to-day to indicate the evi- 
 dence by which we propose to prove the connexion 
 between the members of Parliament whose names are 
 mentioned in the particulars and the leading members ol 
 the American organization. I wish distinctly to point 
 out incident after incident which will show that con- 
 tinuously from the year 1878 down to 1886 there was 
 the most intimate connexion between Mr. Parnell and 
 his followers and certain men in America, whose names 
 I shall give, and the most active co-operation in 
 carrying out those nefarious practices which are re- 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
80 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 ferred to in " Parnellism and Crime." I should like 
 to mention to your Lordships one or two of the names 
 of those men in America. Patrick Egan, whose name 
 has been already frequently mentioned ; Patrick Ford, 
 who was the editor of the Irish World, and who I shall 
 show remitted thousands and thousands of pounds to the 
 Land League and the National League as the result of 
 subscriptions in America ; Patrick Sheridan, the same 
 man to whom I have already referred as a Land League 
 organizer, and who got up crimes of violence and out- 
 rage. After the month of July, 1883, perhaps earlier, 
 but certainly after that, he was intimately connected 
 with the Irish World. There was also Breslin, a 
 member of the Irish Eepublican Brotherhood, who it 
 is suggested — I do Dot know that I shall be able to 
 prove it — aided in the escape from gaol of Stephens, 
 the head-centre of the Fenians. Then there was the 
 Eev. Eugene] Sheehy, who was connected with out- 
 rages in Ireland ; Condon, who was condemned to 
 death for the murder of Sergeant Brett, and whose 
 sentence was commuted to penal servitude. After his 
 release he went to America, and your Lordships will 
 find him associated with a number of men whose names 
 are mentioned in the particulars. There was also John 
 Finerty, who I shall show on the authority of Mr. 
 Parnell was a dynamitard ; and also James Eedpath, a 
 person to whom I referred yesterday. There was also 
 O'Donovan Eossa, a man who continually advocated crime 
 of the worst description. I may "also mention two other 
 names, Devoy, the Fenian, and E.J. Eowe, who was pre- 
 sident of one of the branches of the American League. 
 Now, my Lords, I shall have to deal particularly with 
 the case of Mr. Davitt, and I think I shall be able to 
 put in writing within the next two days details of 
 other matters which I think ought to be particularly 
 mentioned in reference to Mr. Davitt's case. Your 
 Lordships will find, on admissions made by Mr. Davitt 
 himself, that he, even before the formation of the Land 
 League, secured the co-operation of Patrick Ford and 
 the Irish World and another paper called the Boston 
 Pilot. The extracts I have to read to your Lordships 
 show the character of the literature which was being 
 disseminated by the thousand copies by several of the 
 gentlemen charged, and in respect of which thanks 
 were repeatedly sent over by the most prominent 
 members of the Irish Land League and by many of 
 the most prominent persons who are mentioned in the 
 list. I shall show your Lordships that the experience 
 and support of Patrick Ford and his newspaper were 
 secured by Mr. Davitt himself. By his own admissions 
 Mr. Davitt, it appears, was introduced to Patrick Ford 
 in 1878, and at an interview between them Mr. Ford 
 remonstrated with Mr. Davitt for the somewhat halting 
 and half-hearted policy he advocated. I should have 
 thought that what Mr. Davitt was then advocating 
 went far enough, but it did not go sufficiently far at 
 first to secure the support of Mr. Ford. I shall show your 
 Lordships that for years Mr. Davitt was in communica- 
 tion with Ford, and that he has stated publicly that 
 throughout the whole of the agitation with which he 
 
 was connected during the years 1880 to 1884 Patrick 
 Ford was his counsellor, guide, and friend. The 
 dissemination of literature containing incitement to 
 crime which appeared in every issue of the Irish 
 World was a part of the scheme which it was neces- 
 sary to carry out in order that every part of the com- 
 plete programme might be carried into effect by the 
 one organization. Your Lordships will find that, after 
 an interview with Mr. Ford, Mr. Davitt succeeded in 
 getting him to support the scheme which he publicly 
 enunciated ; and I think I shall be able to read a docu- 
 ment from Davitt's own hand setting forth what that 
 scheme was. Ford was unwilling at first for his paper 
 or organization to assist in any scheme which did not 
 go far enough, and he objected that Davitt's scheme 
 did not go far enough. I think I can now state to 
 your Lordships what was Mr. Davitt's own view 
 before 1879 as to the policy intended to be advocated. 
 I am now about to show that the policy of the Land 
 League — a policy which Mr. Parnell accepted, and of 
 which Mr. Egan, the treasurer, and Mr. Brennan, the 
 secretary of the League, were most active sup- 
 porters — that that policy was hatched in America, and 
 that Davitt expounded it. It was the acquiescence of 
 all parties in that policy which enabled Mr. Parnell 
 to command the enormous amount of American money 
 he did command. I will read a statement of Mr. 
 Davitt himself on this matter. It is contained in a 
 public speech made by him in August, 1878, during 
 one of his first visits to America, in which he said he 
 was anxious le6t the main question of Irish inde- 
 pendence should be lost sight of over minor grievances. 
 He solemnly pledged himself that every effort of his 
 should be employed to avert the danger, and that 
 Irish independence should be always kept as a beacon 
 light ahead ; and on the faith of these pledges he asked 
 the American sympathizers to support the new pro- 
 gramme and enable him to propagate the new gospel. 
 Now, my Lords, I hope I maybe pardoned for repeating 
 from time to time the parts of this case to which 
 my friends and I attach very great importance. We say 
 that what was being done by Mr. Parnell and his followers 
 at home was being done with a view to obtaining the 
 same end. I shall show your Lordships that it was 
 impossible for Mr. Parnell and his followers to break 
 with the extreme American section, which had been the 
 advocate of Communism, of assassination, of crime and 
 outrage, that the same intimate relation was kept up, 
 and " that, notwithstanding distinct knowledge on the 
 part of Mr. Parnell and many of his followers that the 
 persons with whom they had been associating were 
 professed dynamiters and the advocates of 
 assassination, they went on associating with 
 them. I repeat that suoh were the terms which 
 existed between Mr. Parnell and the American 
 section that he could not break with them. 
 In the same year, 1878, in the month of September, 
 Mr. Davitt made this statement : — 
 
 " Twelve or fourteen years ago my boyish heart 
 thrilled with admiration for the men who confronted 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 81 
 
 Ireland's foe, and taught from the dock and the prison 
 the undying principles of Irish Nationality. I became 
 an humble disciple of the same and an enemy to the 
 enemies of my country. In my riper years I have 
 adhered to the principles I then imbibed, and when 
 their profession entailed a like penalty to that which 
 Dr. Luby, Mr. Devoy, General Bourke, and maDy 
 others had to bear, I trust I endured it in a like spirit 
 to theirs, and left behind me a prison record of which 
 my countrymen need not feel ashamed.'' 
 
 Bourke, I may remind your Lordships, was convicted 
 of high treason on April 24, 1866. 
 
 Sra C. Russell. — 1868, according to my proof. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— No ; 1866. Devoy was a 
 convicted Fenian, and my impression is that Luby was 
 also a convicted Fenian. I am not now dealing with the 
 Fenian part of the case otherwise than as an incident 
 of the story. Davitt himself was tried at the Old 
 Bailey before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in connexion 
 with an occurrence at Chester. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — In what year ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — 1868, I think. 
 
 The President.— Bourke was in prison in 1866. I 
 had forgotten the name. Bourke was confined in 
 Clerkenwell Prison. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I do not think that it is 
 the same man. I refer to Thomas Bourke, who was 
 convicted of high treason on April 24, 1866, in Dublin. 
 By an error the date has been printed 186S in Sir C. 
 Russell's proof. Now I will continue to read. Mr. 
 Davitt went on to say : — 
 
 *' You are already aware that my stay in America 
 is to be of short duration, and as a public expression 
 of my opinions as a Nationalist would be injudicious, I 
 therefore refrain from any allusion to them beyond say- 
 ing that my imprisonment has not changed my political 
 convictions in the least, nor lessened my faith in the 
 ultimate triumph of the cause in which they are en- 
 listed. I am under a sincere obligation to the officers 
 and men of the Irish Volunteers for the compliment con- 
 veyed in a special invitation to their annual excursion, 
 and thus enjoy (sic) at once the gratification which the 
 society of so many of Ireland's exiles afford (sic) me, 
 and the, to me, highly interesting spectacle of behold- 
 ing for the first time in my life companies of Irish 
 soldiers armed and uniformed in the national cause. 
 Face to face with the enemy of our country since my 
 birth, I feel proud to-day while gazing upon manly 
 forms and resolute arms pledged to the service of Ire- 
 land alone." 
 
 Davitt will be found to have been in America for the 
 purpose of enlisting the sympathy of the Irish-American 
 party in the movement of which he was an active sup- 
 porter at that time. Two significant resolutions were 
 passed at a meeting on September 24, 1878, in the same 
 tour. They were proposed by Devoy, the Fenian, in 
 the presence of Mr. Davitt. They were : — 
 
 ' ' (1) That we deem the present a fitting opportunity 
 to proclaim our conviction of Ireland's right to an inde- 
 pendent national existence ; that as Ireland has never 
 forfeited her right to independence, and as no action on 
 the part of England has given any justification for an 
 acceptance of the Union, we hereby protest against all 
 
 attempts at compromise, and renew our resolve to work 
 for the complete overthrow of British domination." 
 
 " (2) That the landlord system forced on the Irish 
 people by English legislation is a disgrace to humanity 
 and the civilization of the present century ; that it is 
 the direct cause of the expatriation of millions oE the 
 Irish race and of the miserable condition of the Irish 
 peasantry ; that as the land of Irelaud belongs to the 
 people of Ireland, the abolition of the foreign landlord 
 system and the substitution of one by which the tiller 
 of the soil would be fixed permanently upon it and 
 hold directly of the State is the ouly true solution of 
 the Irish land question, a solution which an Irish Re- 
 public alone can effect." 
 
 The resolutions were unanimously adopted. Now, 
 will your Lordships just consider what was the 
 character of this combined organization in which Mr. 
 Parnell and his followers were taking part ? For the 
 American section it was necessary to state that there 
 would be no compromise, but a complete overthrow of 
 the British dominion. At hundreds of the meetings which 
 were held speeches were made in support of the plan of 
 complete separation. For the American section it was 
 essential that this principle should he a principle of 
 the organization. For the persons at home, on the 
 other hand, the abolition of landlords was to be the 
 special inducement to join in the organization, and 
 the attack upon the landlords, as I have explained, was 
 to satisfy that greed for the land which was well 
 known to exist among the Irish peasantry. The object 
 was to lead the peasants to believe that by adherence and 
 obedience to the laws of the Land League they would 
 ultimately effect the eviction of the landlords from the 
 soil, which would then become the land of the tenant 
 occupier. I wish to pass over much that happened in 
 the same year briefly, bat it is necessary that I should 
 give the outline of what occurred to show the con- 
 tinuous connexion with the American organization of 
 the men to whose names I have drawn attention to-day. 
 On September 26, 1878, there was a meeting to wel- 
 come Condon and Meledy. Condon was originally sen- 
 tenced to death for the murder of Sergeant Brett at 
 Manchester. I cannot at the moment tellyour Lord- 
 ships what Meledy's crime was, but I believe he also 
 was mixed up with that murder. At that meeting 
 there were present, besides Davitt, Devoy, O'Donovan 
 Rossa, John Breslin, Thomas Clarke Luby, John Walsh, 
 and Patrick Ford. All those were there to wel- 
 come Condon and Meledy, and the following address 
 was, in Davifct's presence, presented to Condon and 
 Meledy : — 
 
 " You were tried and convicted in a British Court 
 for participation in a movement for the liberation of 
 our native land— a movement in which we are proud to 
 have borne a part, and which to-day is possessed of a 
 more vigorous vitality than when the three confessors 
 of our political faith gave up their lives for Ireland on 
 
 the Manchester scaffold " 
 
 Your Lordships will remember that " the three con- 
 fessors of our political faith " were Larkin, Allen, 
 and O'Brien, the murderers of Sergeant Brett, whose 
 names were referred to in several of the speeches I 
 read to your Lordships on the first and second days. On 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
82 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 October 13 of the same year, in the presence of Messrs. 
 John Devoy, John J. Breslin, Patrick Meledy, John D. 
 Carroll, and others, Davitt made another speech. He 
 sail) he had no faith in Parliamentary representation 
 through the Home Rule party, the repeal party, or the 
 disruption party. He was in favour of sending repre- 
 sentatives imbued with Nationalist ideas to the British 
 Parliament — men who would not there fear to give ex- 
 pression to the feelings and demands of their con- 
 stituency, and give the world to understand what the 
 Irish people want. He regarded Mr. Parnell, the 
 Obstructionist, as the best Irish representative in the 
 British Parliament. While he did not think Mr. 
 Biggar possessed as much ability, he had the honesty 
 and fearlessness of Mr. Parnell, whom he acknow- 
 ledged as his leader. He referred to Mr. O'Connor 
 Power and his visit to America, and also to Mr. 
 O'Donnell, who, he said, had disgracefully betrayed the 
 trust of the Irish people. Devoy spoke in Mr. Davitt's 
 presence, and this is what Devoy says : — 
 
 " I will say that I endorse the views set forth in the 
 very able lecture you have just heard from Mr. Davitt, 
 »nd that I fully approve of the public policy he pro- 
 poses for the National party. I think, however, that 
 some portions of it require further elaboration and 
 plainer speaking. I think the National party should 
 take a more active part in the public life of the 
 sountry and endeavour to mould public opinion at home 
 ind abroad for the benefit of the National cause. I 
 think we have remained in the background too long, 
 and allowed the country to be misrepresented. I think the 
 time has come when we should step to the front in the 
 broad light of day and proclaim to the world what we 
 want ; that it is time to push aside the men who misre- 
 present Ireland in Parliament and in the local public 
 bodies throughout Ireland. Until this is done we shall be 
 misunderstood on the Continent of Europe, and even 
 here in America, and our cause must suffer in conse- 
 quence." 
 
 He then says in the same speech that Ireland would 
 never be satisfied with federal connexion, and then 
 Bays this : — 
 
 "Now there is one clause in the platform proposed 
 by Mr. Davitfc that I would like to see further elabo- 
 rated and made more clear and distinct — I mean the 
 clause about the land question. The land question is 
 the question of questions in Ireland, and the one upon 
 which the National party must speak out in the plainest 
 language. I am, of course, in favour of stopping evic- 
 tions and encouraging measures looking towards the 
 establishment of a peasant proprietary, but I would go 
 further than that. I think the only true solution of 
 the land question is the abolition of landlordism. The 
 landlord system is the greatest curse inflicted by Eng- 
 land on Ireland, and Ireland will never be prosperous 
 or happy until it is rooted out. The land of Ireland 
 belongs to the people of Ireland and to them alone, and 
 
 we must not be afraid to say so Now I 
 
 believe in Irish independence, but I don't believe it 
 would be worth while to free Ireland if that foreign 
 landlord system were to be left standing. I am in 
 Favour of sweeping away every vestige of the English 
 connexion, and this accursed landlord system above 
 »nd before all." 
 
 If these speeches were delivered in Mr. Davitt's pre- 
 lence. and I do not think he will deny the substance or 
 
 accuracy of the reports of any speeches which were, 
 in fact, delivered before him, I do not think that it 
 can be said he was ignorant of what the aims of the 
 American section were. The Times has said the object 
 of the Land League — the object of Mr. Parnell and the 
 speakers whom he sent out— was to sweep away land- 
 lordism — to root it out of the ground ; and the way they 
 did so was by an organization which tyrannized over 
 the poor tenant, who had never before been attacked, in 
 order to make it impossible for him to carry on thfc 
 relations which had previously existed between landlord 
 and tenant. I have proved what, I believe, is admitted 
 by Mr. Davitt to be a substantially correct review of 
 the programme which he was enunciating in 1878 ; at 
 any rate I have gone some steps on the road to prove 
 to your Lordships that what you heard enunciated in the 
 speeches of the Irish members in 1880, 1881, and 1882 
 had been hatched, deviced, and planned in America by 
 Davitt, who was obtaining the support of America, and 
 was not simply and solely the arrangement or planning 
 of those who had to do with the Irish organization. Ono 
 of the main and principal charges in this indictment of 
 conspiracy against these men is thatjit was a conspiracy 
 with those American Irish who have advocated and still 
 advocate those iniquitous modes of carrying on this con- 
 spiracy, which they called a. bond fde political organiza- 
 tion. Davitt's visit to America was a short one. He 
 advocated those principles, obtained a very large 
 amount of support, and came back to report the result 
 to those at home. As far as I can recollect, the date 
 Mr. Davitt came to England again was the autumn of 
 1878. Your Lordships will find that this arrangement 
 and confederation between the extreme section and the 
 home party was constantly spoken of as " the new 
 departure." It was, as far as we can trace history, 
 the first time that an attempt had been made to 
 bring the Fenian organization, or the outcome of 
 the Fenian organization, by which I mean the extreme 
 party in America, in touch with the land agitation. 
 And in bo far as it gave to Mr. Parnell a power in 
 Parliament which he never had before it was eminently 
 successful. But what The Times has said, and I have 
 repeated so many times in the course of my lengthy 
 address in opening this case, is that that power only 
 could exist by reason of the reign of terror and in- 
 timidation which was rendered effectual by the crimes 
 that were committed. Nothing else could possibly 
 give the force, the vitality, and the power to the 
 organization of which Mr. Parnell was in England the 
 representative. As I said yesterday it created crimes 
 which had never before been heard of in Ireland. There 
 are hundreds of instances of injuries and outrages to 
 persons for paying their rent — simply for paying their 
 rent. I believe it will be proved before your Lord- 
 ships that an outrage upon a person for paying his rent 
 was practically unknown before 1880. I make this 
 statement boldly, and my learned friends may check or 
 disprove it if they can, and I believe it will turn out 
 that the mode of terrorizing by outrages or assaults, 
 firing at persons simply because they had fulfilled their 
 
 The Speech, of the Attorney-GeneraL 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 83 
 
 obligations to their landlord, was absolutely new. And 
 in a few months, my Lords, I may say it grew to be a 
 system, and I think I shall satisfy your Lordships that 
 Davitt in 1878 got the adherence of the American 
 section by telling them that independence would be 
 secured by the driving away of the landlord class, and 
 that the way in which they attempted to uproot the land- 
 lord class was by attacking a class they had never attacked 
 before. Dnless my learned friends are able to displace 
 these premisses, I submit that the logical consequence 
 is that this power of Mr. Farnell and this organiza- 
 tion did rest upon that organized conspiracy for crime 
 and on nothing else. Now, my Lords, I maintained to 
 your Lordships that on this visit Mr Davitt secured 
 the Irish World. I shall be able to prove that inter- 
 views did take place between him and Mr. Ford, and 
 he also secured the interest of the Baton Pilot, which 
 was managed 'by Mr. J. B. O'Reilly, who was, I 
 believe, a Fenian — whether convicted or not I do not 
 know. Now, my Lords, there was in December, 1878, 
 a further statement by Mr. Davitt of what I call the 
 new departure platform. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Where is this ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I believe it was published 
 in Boston on December 8, 1878. 
 
 Mr. Michael Davitt. — I did not come back in 1878 ; 
 it was in September, 1879. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Mr. Davitt will find I do 
 not attach much importance to this date ; but I am 
 now referring to a statement in Mr. Davitt's lecture, 
 published with his authority and edited by himself, 
 and therefore I am satisfied I am quoting something 
 which Mr. Davitt will not repudiate. I think it will 
 be better if I make my statement as to what I am pre- 
 pared to prove, and if I make any mistake then it will 
 fall upon me; but as far as I am able to do so, I 
 shall prove the substantial accuracy of the reports. 
 He asks, " How it is that the Nationalist party is 
 numerically the strongest in sentiment and sympathy 
 while not so in action ?" Assuming the position of a 
 small Tipperary tenant farmer, he answers : — 
 
 " The Nationalist party tells me that when inde- 
 pendence is won I will no longer be at the mercy of 
 an English landlord. . . Yellow meal porridge is a 
 more substantial meal than visionary plenty, and if 
 the Nationalists want me to believe in and labour a 
 little for independence they must first show themselves 
 desirous and strong enongh to ttand between me and the 
 power which a tingle Englishman wields over me (italics 
 in original). . . Let them show that the social well- 
 being of our people is the motive of their actions and 
 aim of their endeavours while striving for the grand 
 object ahead, and then the farming classes in Ireland 
 will rally round them to assist in reaching that 
 object." 
 
 My Lords, it is evident that if that be found to be a 
 correct paraphrase of the argument, it is clear that 
 the object he had in view was to enlist, to get upon 
 their side a class who previously had no sympathy 
 with them. And how? By tyranny, by intimidation; 
 by tyranny over these men who were afraid for their 
 lives of resisting the action of the Irish Leacue. 
 
 Nay, more — I say this, and I give my learned friend 
 the benefit of it — it was by appealing to self- 
 interest, to the greed of the Irish tenant, that this 
 organization also was enabled to a certain extent to 
 obtain its power, because it was by that which I do 
 not hesitate to state to your Lordships is illegal — has 
 been declared to be illegal — by a conspiracy or com- 
 bination to prevent the tenants from paying their 
 rents who were willing to pay, that they were able to 
 enlist, first, those who did not want to pay ; and, 
 secondly, to get under their thumb, aye, and worse 
 than under their thumb, those who were afraid to pay 
 because of the vengeance which might come down 
 upon them. I have taken a series of speeches of 
 Mr. Davitt's in America. I have taken the resolutions 
 to which he gave adherence, I have taken his own 
 explanation of the programme Mr. Davitt advocated, 
 and I say, my Lords, that that shows that this pro- 
 gramme, which had not previously been initiated in 
 Ireland, came from America, and not in any way from 
 the Irish Nationalists on this side. Mr. Davitt 
 having outlined the programme, Mr. Devoy got the 
 Irish Revolutionists to give their assent to the new 
 movement. Thus we have the Fenians, the Revolu- 
 tionists, the extreme party, all working with a com- 
 mon' object. That being so, there was no difficulty 
 then about subscriptions coming from America, and 
 after that your Lordships will find Mr. Ford very 
 shortly working hard to promote this common pur- 
 pose. I am not sure whether Mr. Egan was at 
 that time in America — I rather think he was — 
 bat, immediately on Davitt's having succeeded 
 in obtaining the allegiance of the American 
 section to his new programme, he endeavoured to 
 secure the support of Mr. Parnell and his followers. 
 As far as I can gather from what I shall be able 
 to put before your Lordships, the first offer of negotia- 
 tions with Mr. Farnell and his followers came from 
 Mr. Davitt and not from Mr. Parnell to the American 
 section. I shall be able to show that Patrick Egan, 
 the treasurer, and T. Brennan, the secretary of the 
 League, were the first consulted. It is a very remark- 
 able thing, to which I must call your Lordships' special 
 attention, in connection with my argument yesterday 
 as to Mr. Parnell's position after the Phcenix Park 
 murders, that it will be found from Mr. Davitt's own 
 account of his interviews with Mr. Parnell that at 
 this time Mr. Parnell, although favourably impressed 
 with portions of the new policy, hesitated about 
 throwing himself into it, " fearing that he might be 
 pushed further than he deemed it prudent to go, and 
 fancying that some of its Nationalist advocates 
 harboured insurrectionary projects that might be 
 sprung on the movement during some popular excite- 
 ment." I believe that it will turn out that on that 
 ground there was reluctance on the part of Mr. Parnell 
 to be dragged into this conspiracy in the first instance. 
 What did he mean by ' ' being pushed further tnan he 
 thought it prudent to go ?" Was it into closer connexion 
 with O'Donovan Rossa and Finertv. who advocated 
 
 The SDeech of the Attorney-General 
 
84 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 the blowing up of public buildings and the sacking of 
 London, Manchester, and other cities, as was admitted 
 by Ford in his papers ? It does throw a remarkable 
 light upon the growth of this conspiracy, on the way in 
 which it gradually grew up — aye, and on the way in 
 which the constitutional party were gradually involved 
 in the quagmire and slough of despond,the effects of which 
 they have not shaken off to this day,and which it is doubt- 
 ful whether they ever will shake off. The position of Mr. 
 Parnell was that he feared lest he should be dragged 
 too far, and he hesitated to join the connexion upon 
 the platform upon whioh Mr. Davitt had secured 
 the alliance, support, and adherence of the American 
 party. Early in 1879, before the formation of the Land 
 League, the agitation commenced in Ireland, and it 
 was commenced by a speech of Mr. Davitt's in 
 Milltown, in county Galway. The actual date of the 
 meeting at which that speech was delivered I am 
 afraid I cannot give your Lordships, but I think that it 
 was about the beginning of the year 1879. At that 
 meeting, Mr. Davitt said : — 
 
 " I would advise the tenant farmers to feed them- 
 selves and their children, to live comfortably and 
 decently, to keep their cabins neat, and send their 
 children to school, and if thero was sufficient left to 
 pay the landlords the rent they demand." ... He 
 continued : — " What had organization done for Ire- 
 land ? The organization to which he had the honour to 
 belong — the Fenian organization (loud and prolonged 
 cheers) — that organization disestablished the Irish 
 Church. So said Mr. Gladstone. Well, an organization 
 of the tenant farmers would disestablish the landlords 
 in half the time. (Cheers.)" 
 
 I think that it will turn out that some other of the gentle- 
 men named made speeches at that meeting, but I admit 
 that it was held before the formation of the Land 
 League and before any attempt waB made to form a 
 universal organization. The Land League was actually 
 formed at the Imperial Hotel in Dublin on the 21st of 
 October, 1879, Mr. Parnell being present with Kettle, 
 Egan, and others. It was necessary to obtain funds for 
 starting the Irish Land League, and the question is, 
 where did they come from ? I made a statement yester- 
 day, then supposed to be a mistake, but which I now 
 find to bo perfectly correct — that the money required 
 for starting United Ireland came from America. When 
 it was found necessary to start an auxiliary movement 
 the funds were advanced by Davitt, but the money 
 came from funds in America. The indebtedness for 
 that advance Davitt took upon himself, the money 
 being supplied from the American funds :— • 
 
 " In August, 1879, two months before the Land 
 League was organized, seeing that some money was 
 necessary, I put myself in communication with Patrick 
 Ford, of the Irish World ; John Boyle O'Reilly, of the 
 Boston Pilot ; John Devoy ; the late Patrick Mahon, of 
 Rochester ; and Dr. William Carroll, of Philadelphia. 
 I represented to them, as personal friends of mine, 
 and representative men in America, the importance of 
 this agitation in Ireland. ... I told them the 
 agitation had been carried on to that point at the 
 personal expense of a few men, and that in order that 
 
 it should be made a great movement it would be 
 necessary to start an auxiliary movement in America, 
 so as to allow those who had been driven out of Ire- 
 land by landlordism to co-operate with us in our efforts 
 to drive landlordism out in turn." 
 And then he goes on to state that he took from a fund 
 called the National Fund the sum of £303 8s., which he 
 regarded as a debt for which he considered himself to 
 be personally responsible ; so much so that when Mr. 
 Parnell and Mr. Dillon desired that it should be re- 
 paid Davitt would not allow it to be repaid, alleging 
 that it was a personal debt due from himself. I think 
 that your Lordships will find that the National Fund 
 was another name for the Skirmishing Fund, and that 
 the Skirmishing Fund was one subscribed to lay the 
 great cities of England in ashes. The object with 
 which the subscriptions were obtained was that the 
 money might be available for acts of the greatest 
 violence. It does not much matter for the particular 
 purpose whether the £300 came out of one purse or 
 another. The significant fact is that the advance of this 
 money shows that this movement was not due 
 to the spontaneous action of certain gentlemen 
 anxious to secure a reform of the land laws of 
 their country, but that, on the contrary, it 
 was necessary for starting this agitation on 
 new lines that its promoters should have a considerable 
 sum of money. Your Lordships will find that the 
 movement in Ireland was started with so much energy 
 and spirit that, in the course of two or three years, 
 branches of the organization were established by the 
 hundred wherever they could obtain a footing in the 
 country, and the expenses of these branches no doubt 
 came from the subscriptions that subsequently poured 
 in. Passing as rapidly as I can over the year 1879, I 
 wish to call your Lordships' attention to a statement 
 of Davitt's in writing on the 21st of May, 1884. I, of 
 course, am not going to pass over altogether the inter- 
 vening time, but I wish to show your Lordships that 
 the statements he made in 1879 are only slightly quali« 
 fied by the statements he made in writing afterwards. 
 But what is perhaps of more importance is that I am 
 about to show that this theory ,this principle of the de- 
 struction — thecomplete destruction — of Irishlandlordism 
 was admitted by him to be the main and principal 
 object of this conspiracy and organization which he 
 founded. His letter is a lengthy one, but among other 
 things he says : — 
 
 " The Land League was not of American, but of 
 Mayo origin, as no such name or organization was 
 heard of previous to the holding of a county confer, 
 ence in Castlebar on the 16th of August, 1879, at which) 
 the National Land League of Mayo was established, 
 and a declaration of principles and a policy of agitation 
 proclaimed, upon which the subsequent National Land 
 League of Ireland was modelled. 
 
 " The platform of the Land League from which Mr. 
 Sullivan quotes was not drawn in the City of New 
 York by Irish Nationalists, but in the Imperial Hotel, 
 Dublin, on the 21st of October, 1879, by Messrs. 
 Parnell, Egan, Brennau, Kettle, and your humble sert 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-GeneraL 
 
The Special C6m"inission/October25, 1888. 
 
 85 
 
 vant ; or, more correctly speaking, by two of these 
 gentlemen in consultation with the rest." 
 
 Yes, but Mr. Davitt forgets that he had previously 
 pointed out that the platform on which he was able or 
 hoped to unite all the parties had been previously con- 
 stituted, if not designed, in America in the previous 
 year. He goes on to say : — 
 
 " The first plank of this platform was not a declara- 
 tion for self-government, nor was there any allusion 
 to or demand for self-government in the platform of 
 the Land League, as adopted at the initial meeting in 
 the Imperial Hotel in October, 1879, and from which 
 Mr. Sullivan quotes correctly in reference to a plank 
 which was adopted thereat — namely; peasant pro- 
 prietary." 
 
 He then proceeds to deal with some matters which do 
 not directly bear upon the point to which I am ad- 
 dressing myself. 
 
 Mr. Davitt.— Why not read it all ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I will read it all with 
 the greatest pleasure, but I think, if I am to read the 
 whole of the speeches, instead of my address occupying 
 days, it will occupy weeks. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I do not insist" upon it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I will read anything that 
 is fair, but there is nothing to qualify it. I have not 
 the slightest objection — if it is thought at any time 
 that there is anything to qualify what I am reading, I 
 will read the whole. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Wehave not copies. 
 
 The President. — Are you going to hand in this ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Hot this particular docu- 
 ment, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I have no particulars whatever, so far. 
 
 The President. — It is not a question of particulars. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am reading from an ex- 
 tract from my brief. 
 
 The President. — Quite so ; but it is avowedly a 
 part of a speech ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Yes. 
 
 The President. — I understand what Mr. Davitt ask s 
 for is the opportunity of seeing the whole of the con- 
 text ? 
 
 Mr. Davitt.— Yes. 
 
 The President. — I want to know in what way you 
 will supply that. • 
 
 The Attorney-General 1 . — As a matter of fact, it is 
 E letter I was reading, not a speech. I will give Mr. 
 Davitt a copy of it, and when I put it in, the whole 
 of it will be put in. All I was dealing with at the 
 present time was making clear my point by an extract 
 from the letter. 
 
 The President. — My anxiety at the moment was to 
 satisfy Mr. Davitt. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I hope to get a copy of the speeches. 
 
 The President. — The Attorney-General has under- 
 taken that you shall have a copy of every speech he 
 refers to as implicating you in any way. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Yes ; and every speech 
 
 I read will be printed in the day's note, as your Lord' 
 ship pointed out. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — You are only reading portions of 
 it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My learned friend has 
 again fallen into the same error he made on the first day, 
 I have only got extracts from the speeches. All that 
 I use I shall put in — the whole of it. I believe thai 
 in every single instance, my Lord, my learned friend 
 has got copies of all the speeches I have read. He 
 has already got them from the Freeman's Journal. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I can assure you I have not. 
 
 The Attorney-general.— They are to be found 
 there. 
 
 Sib C. Eussell. — What I was pointing out was that 
 the day's note will only supply what my learned friend 
 reads. 
 
 The President.— Pardon me, I thought it was agreed 
 between you that the whole document of which the 
 Attorney-General read a part should appear in the note, 
 and in that belief I have given directions that there 
 should be a portion enclosed in brackets to show how 
 much was read by the Attorney-General, 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — My Lord, we hear that for tha 
 first time. We understood that to refer simply to the 
 police reports which were supposed by us to have been 
 made for the Government and the marginal notes show- 
 ing by whom they were made. We are glad to hear 
 that statement from your Lordship, but I do not think 
 that the course you have indicated has been followed 
 so far. That undoubtedly will be a great assistance. 
 Then we are to understand that, in every case in which 
 the Attorney-General has read a passage from what 
 purports to be a letter or a speech of any person in- 
 criminated the whole of that letter or the whole of 
 that speech is to be set out in the shorthand notes ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My learned friend will 
 understand nothing of the kind. 
 
 The President.— That is what I did mean. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I intended to explain what 
 was the real fact. 
 
 The President. — I had to choose between two 
 courses, whether or not simply to let the shorthand 
 note represent what fell from the Attorney-General's 
 lips. In that case the remainder of the documents, 
 whatever they are, would not appear, and in that case 
 they would have been put in an appendix. I thought 
 it would be more convenient to all if I had it printed 
 in the text, so to speak, with an indication of how 
 much the Attorney-General had quoted. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— We think that would be a very 
 convenient course, which my learned friend, as I at 
 least understand it, does not assent to. Your Lordship 
 means that whenever my learned friend reads a passage 
 from what purports to be a letter or a speech from any 
 incriminated person that the whole of the context is 
 to appear, and the part not read by the Attorney- 
 General is to appear in brackets. 
 
 The President.— That is my meaning. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — As I have not had the 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
8tf 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 opportunity of saying a word to your Lordship at the 
 present moment, I may say my learned friend is from 
 beginning to end entirely in error. I produce the 
 whole of the extract I have read and the whole report 
 of the speech. I have handed to my learned friend the 
 whole of it, and the whole of it appears upon the note. 
 There has been no keeping back anything. 
 
 The President.— No. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Or suppression by me of 
 any part. 
 
 The President. — Nobody has suggested it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Pardon me. 
 
 The President. - At any rate 1 did not notice it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The persona] observation 
 was made. 
 
 SIR C. Rttssell.— My friend is under a misappre- 
 hension. I was not complaining with regard to those 
 speeches which were read and which purported to be 
 taken by the police-constables. I do not complain with 
 regard to those, because my learned friend handed me 
 copies at the time, and they appeared on the note. 
 But now your Lordship's observation is of wider range 
 — namely, that whenever he is reading speeches or 
 letters, the whole of the text of the speeches and 
 letters is to appear on the note ; the part not read is 
 to appear in brackets. 
 
 The Atttorney-General. — I have not the materials 
 for doing that. 
 
 The President. — If you have not the materials you 
 cannot do it ; .but you are now reading from some 
 document which purports to be what Mr. Davitt has 
 said. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am reading a letter, 
 and I have stated I will put in the whole of it. 
 
 The President.— Perhaps you will continue to do 
 that. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If I might be allowed to 
 make my statement again, I will undertake to put 
 upon the note the whole of every document I have 
 from which I make an abstract. 
 
 The President. — Yes. 
 
 TheATTORNEY-GENERAL.— And I have never attempted 
 or proposed simply to have put in the particular 
 portion I read. 
 
 The President.— We are all agreed. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — Again, in order to prevent any 
 future misunderstanding, does that or does not that 
 apply to the speeches portions of which my learned 
 friend reads — ay or no ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I have not got the whole 
 of the speeches. I have only reports. A man may 
 speak for two hours, but I may have only a few lines 
 of his speech. 
 
 The President.— If you have not got the whole of 
 them it will be open to Sir Charles Eussell to correct 
 you by referring to such reports as do exist ; but what 
 you do use you will put in the whole of it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Without exception the 
 whole extract at my command of every speech I read 
 shall be put in. 
 
 The President. — I will look at the next day's note 
 and see for myself whether it fulfils my idea of what 
 ought to be done. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am informed that in a 
 very large number of instances my learned friend has 
 the reports of the speeches as they appeared in the 
 Freeman's Journal. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — That is correct to a large extent. 
 
 The President. — At all events they are easily ac- 
 cessible to you ? 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — A considerable number of 
 the reports are already in the possession of my 
 learned friend's clients. The application would indi- 
 cate that we had put in only a small part of what I 
 quoted, whereas, in fact, I put in the whole. With 
 regard to the particular matter under discussion, I 
 did not wish to read the whole, because the rest of 
 the document would, to a certain extent, introduce 
 other topics not germane to that with which I was deal- 
 ing at the time. I will now resume by reading that 
 part of the letter which is material to what I was 
 discussing at that particular moment. Mr. Davitt pro- 
 ceeds to say : — 
 
 " The principle upon which the Land League was 
 founded is, as a matter of course, subject for dispute and 
 difference of opinion, and the ' Programme ' which 
 was drawn up by the persons named and embodied in 
 resolutions of the Conference on the 21st of October, 
 1879 (inasmuch as it did not comprise any demand 
 for self-government), cannot be credited with contain- 
 ing the whole ' principle' upon which the Land League 
 was founded. The organizers of the Conference had 
 to consider the advisability of framing such a pro- 
 gramme as would not ' scare ' any timid land reformer 
 away from the projected movement, and it was fur- 
 ther considered necessary to render it eminently con- 
 stitutional for the double purpose of legal protection 
 against the Castle and to enable members of Parlia- 
 ment to defend it within the House of Commons. 
 What, then, was the principle upon which the Land 
 League was founded ? I maintain that it was the 
 complete destruction of Irish landlordism — first, as the 
 system which was responsible for the poverty and 
 periodical famines which have decimated Ireland ; and 
 secondly, because landlordism was a British garrison 
 which barred the way to national independence." 
 At any rate, that passage is very distinct, and it Bhows 
 clearly that the system under which there were any 
 landlords at all was to be swept away, to the complete 
 destruction of Irish landlordism, " because landlordism 
 was a British garrison which barred the way to national 
 independence." Your Lordships may judge from the 
 facts I have presented to you with reference to the 
 objects of this conspiracy whether the allegation 
 we have put into the particulars of " Parnellism and 
 Crime " do not really represent the platform and 
 the objects of the organization by which these sections 
 of the revolutionary movement were bound together. 
 Your Lordbhips will perhaps recollect that I read a 
 statement that Mr. Parnell was afraid that he might 
 be drawn further into the matter than he deemed 
 prudent ; but here is a statement that the House 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 87 
 
 Df Commons and timid land reformers might be 
 Frightened away from the projected movement. But 
 afterwards it was discovered that timid land reformers 
 might be frightened into the movement. What would 
 these timid land reformers have thought if it had 
 been put in black and white that firing into 
 houses and firing at people who had paid their rent 
 was a means by which the land reformer was to bring 
 about the reforms he desired '/ Your Lordships 
 will judge of that matter. Now, my Lords, in 
 She autumn of 1879 Mr. Parnell himself went 
 to America to start the Irish-American Land 
 League, and on the 11th of March, 1880, was held 
 the New York hotel conference. There were present, 
 among others, John Breslin, one of the trustees of the 
 Skirmishing F,und ; Edward Carey ; Dr. Carroll, a 
 trustee of the Skirmishing Fund ; B. O'Meagher 
 Condon, sentenced to death for the murder of Sergeant 
 Brett ; John Devoy, trustee of the Skirmishing Fund ; 
 Mr. T. P. O'Connor, not the member of the Xiouse of 
 Commons, for whom he was mistaken once, owing to 
 the similarity of name ; and Mr. Parnell. The principal 
 thing that was done at that meeting was to start the 
 Irish American Land Organization, and Mr. Parnell 
 asked that there should be formed a National Irish 
 Land League in the United States which should be 
 nuxiliary to the Irish National Land League in 
 Dublin. Beyond the fact of the starting of this 
 organization and that the roll of delegates was 
 called over, I am not at present in a position to 
 give your Lordships any information of what actually 
 passed at that meeting, because I do not think 
 that any public reports of its proceedings appeared ; 
 but I think it is quite possible that in the course 
 of these proceedings some further evidence will 
 be given to your Lordships of what passed at that 
 New York hotel conference. However, it is quite 
 sufficient for my present purpose to show that its 
 object was the starting of this organization to work 
 with the Dublin League, and that the persons who 
 were appointed as delegates included Breslin, Devoy, 
 Carroll, and Condon. Now, my Lords, Mr. Parnell 
 appeared and made a speech on February 23, 1880, at 
 Cincinnati. I have alleged before your Lordships 
 that it was essential for Mr. Parnell to show the 
 American section that he was working for the complete 
 independence of Ireland so as to keep in his platform 
 that one plank which had been so clearly stated by 
 Davitt. In the course of that speeK Mr. Parnell 
 
 said : — 
 
 " We are engaged in a great work in Ireland. . . 
 With your help in keeping our people alive this 
 winter, I feel confident we shall kill the Irish landlord 
 system. And when we have given Ireland to the 
 people of Ireland, we shall have laid the foundation 
 upon which to build our Irish nation. The feudal 
 tenure and the rule of the minority have been the 
 corner-stone of English misrule. Pull out that corner- 
 stone, break it up, destroy it, and you undermine 
 English misgovernment. When we have undermined 
 English misgovernment, we have paved the way for 
 Ireland to take her place among the nations of the 
 
 earth. And let us not forget that that is the ultimate 
 goal at which all we Irishmen aim. None of us — 
 whether we are in America or in Ireland, or wherever 
 we may be — will be satisfied until we have destroyed 
 the last link which keeps Ireland bound to England." 
 
 Now, my Lords, some years afterwards Mr. Parnell 
 repudiated the last sentence of that speech. He wag 
 immediately confronted with the reports of the speech 
 which had never been in any way qualified or 
 repudiated, and, as far as the evidence goes, I think 
 it will be found that, except on that one solitary 
 occasion, Mr. Parnell never denied that that was a 
 correct report ; and I shall show your Lordships that 
 one ground for the temporary quarrel between Mr. 
 Parnell and Mr. Ford was that Mr. Ford contended 
 that Mr. Parnell was wrong to deny that sentence in 
 his speech, and that it was unwise and unnecessary to 
 disavow that particular passage. That was a speech 
 published in the Irish World for the purpose of 
 getting money. It was printed in the Irish World and 
 circulated in America in order to induce the Irish 
 people in America to subscribe to the movement. I 
 shall be able to produce copies of the Irish World and 
 to show that the speech was referred to subsequently, 
 and that the Irish World fund was one of the largest 
 from which the supplies of the Land 'League were 
 drawn. I say, my Lords, it is perfectly clear, from 
 what is known of and recognized as the necessity for 
 drawing together the various strands of the organiza- 
 tion «o as to gather them into one rope — it is perfectly 
 dear from what Davitt had said that Mr. Parnell could 
 not have stirred in America unless he had made that 
 speech. I ask your Lordships to remember that in 
 one of the earlier speeches of Mr. Davitt he distinctly 
 stated that their only goal was to bring about the 
 complete separation of Ireland from England, and he 
 would nover allow that to be driven from his mind. 
 It would indeed have been utterly useless to repudiate 
 that main plank of the American platform, and then to 
 expect American support. I have now a series of 
 letters and telegrams to read to your Lordships which 
 have passed between various representatives of the Irish 
 Land League and Mr. Ford. I will only say letters, 
 my Lords, because the system was that a letter was 
 sent by post — and a letter posted on the 5th of a month 
 would arrive in America about the 12th — and would 
 then be printed in the following issue of the Irish 
 World as a cablegram. In all probability the object of 
 calling them cablegrams was to attach to them some 
 little more importance. On May 6, 1880, Davitt sent 
 this message to the Editor of the Irish World :— 
 " Copies of the Irish World should be sent to all parts 
 of Ireland. Bishop Moran, of Ossory (a nephew of 
 Cardinal Cullen) denounced it and the Land League. 
 May Heaven open his eyes to the truth ! ' Spread the 
 Light.' " I have already called your Lordships' atten- 
 tion to that expression and its peculiar significance, and 
 you will remember that the " Spread the Light Fund " 
 was a fund for spreading this pernicious literature in 
 Ireland. In the year 1880 Mr. Davitt appears to have 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-GeneraL 
 
88 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 gone to America again, and in the course of a tour 
 there he made several speeches, and certainly some 
 of those speeches were worthy of him. My object in 
 calling attention to these speeches is to show that 
 these gentlemen were obliged to advocate, and did 
 advocate, complete separation as distinguished from the 
 destruction of landlordism, which was the topic in 
 Ireland. On August 28, 1880, Mr. Davitt, in a speech 
 at Chicago at the annual picnic of the " United Irish 
 Societies of Chicago," alluded to the seizure of the 
 forty guns by the British constabulary, and declared 
 that the convulsion of horror which grew out of 
 it was because the English Government knew 
 there were men in Ireland to-day absolutely feverish 
 to clutch hundreds and thousands of rifles, in 
 order, not only to abolish Irish Landlordism, but 
 to consummate the hopes of Irishmen of abolishing 
 something else. The penal code, he said, making it a 
 crime to be an Irishman, had been established by Irish 
 landlords, and the people of Ireland to-day in the face 
 of the world were making it a crime to be an Irish 
 landlord. In the evening of the same day Mr. Davitt 
 referred to " the noble work of the Order both here 
 and in Ireland, in its charitable as well as its political 
 aspects. It had been the first organization, as such, 
 that sympathized with the people of Ireland in the 
 warfare against Irish landlordism. If necessary, he 
 was sure that the hands which now dispensed charity 
 would dispense blows to the enemies of Ireland, and 
 that if the people there were ever in a position to 
 strike a blow for independence the Order would 
 nobly respond to their call." In using the words " the 
 noble work of the Order," he referred to the Order of 
 the Hibernians — the " Civic and Military Organizations 
 of the Ancient Order of Hibernians." Then, there having 
 been a speech at the same meeting by Mr. A. Sul- 
 livan, Mr. Davitt made a further speech, in which he 
 said : — 
 
 " The present conflict, if it could be avoided, would 
 not be one of physical force. Ireland had not the 
 means for that, and to engage in premature insurrec- 
 tion would be a mistake, and would be apt to alienate 
 the common-sense people of America. But the Land 
 League was not opposed to the cause of Irish indepen- 
 dence. If Ireland was ever to become independent, 
 however, she must socially emancipate her people by 
 striking off the social fetters that bound their brains 
 and muscles. When that was done Irish brain and 
 muscle would carve out a pathway to Irish freedom." 
 Then, on September 4, .1880, at St Louis, he said : — 
 
 " The practical question of the agitation was, ' How 
 shall we abolish tho landlords, and what shall we put 
 in their place ?' (Cries of ' Shoot them.') No, that 
 was not the remedy. He did not believe in shooting 
 them ; he would instead ' 6hoot ' the system. Shoot- 
 ing landlords would not settle the question. If it would, 
 the question could be easily solved. They had no right 
 to resort to such means, and by doing so they would 
 alienate the sympathies of the American people and of 
 all other peoples. . . . As to compensation to the 
 Irish landlords, he was a good deal like Eedpath, of 
 the New York Tribune, who is doing such noble service 
 by the exposition of the condition of Ireland in his 
 
 letters from that country. Redpath declared that if the 
 Irish landlords received the compensation due to them 
 they should each be sent to prison for ten years. . . 
 If England desired to keep the peace in Ireland and 
 preserve her rule, she will recognize the just demands 
 of the Irish people. Otherwise, the world might some 
 day be startled by some act of Sicilian vengeance 
 that would cause it to stand aghast." 
 Then there is another speech on September 11 of the 
 same year, at Kansas : — 
 
 " In addition to that we have, as you have already 
 been told, declared an unceasing war against land- 
 lordism, not a war to call on our people to shoulder 
 the rifle and go out in open field and settle the 
 question that is now agitating Ireland. Although I am: 
 not opposed to a settlement of that nature providing I 
 could see a chance of success ; but for the fourth time 
 during the present century we have tri%d a physical 
 struggle with England, and instead of hurting England 
 we have generally hurt ourselves. Now I believe it 
 is far better to meet on different ground, and to do 
 battle in a different mode. And in declaring this war 
 against Irish landlords — in not paying rent in order to 
 bring down their garrison in England {sic) — we know 
 we are doing a proper work. We are preparing the 
 way for that independence which yon enjoy in this 
 great American Eepublic. At present, however, we 
 are engaged in a peaceful revolution. . . . James 
 Eedpath, an American who went over to Ireland and 
 travelled considerably in that country, and saw a 
 great number of the impoverished and hard-working 
 class of our people, declared in Dublin that the only 
 compensation he would give the Irish landlords would 
 be about three yards of rope, and, in an emphatic 
 manner so peculiar to Americans, he declared he 
 would make every one of them work three months to 
 earn the rope before he would hang them. Now, I am 
 not in favour of such severe measures as that, although 
 I think a little imprisonment visited upon them would 
 improve their morals." 
 
 Assuming these reports to be substantially accurate — and 
 they were publicly reported in the Press and in no way 
 repudiated or disclaimed by Mr. Davitt — I do not 
 think that after those speeches and utterances it can 
 be suggested that the way in which they were en- 
 deavouring to organize in this matter was other, so far 
 as the American section was concerned, than one which 
 pointed to complete independence as their ultimate 
 goal. Idonot propose at the present time to trouble your 
 Lordships with more detailed extracts — unfortunately 
 I have a good many more extracts with regard to later 
 incidents to which I shall have to refer — but I shall 
 show your Lordships that in the year 1880 they were 
 speaking of dynamite as the new political agent, and 
 were describing the execution of Irish landlords as the 
 execution of land thieves ; and this is important with 
 reference to subsequent conduct. They were also re« 
 commending Irishwomen to throw vitriol upon the 
 persons who came to execute the process of 
 the law. I have not any instructions at the 
 present moment as to whether or not that particular 
 method of carrying on the warfare was known in Ire- 
 land before the year 1880 ; bat be that as it may, upon 
 the instructions I have before me such a kind of resist- 
 ance had not been heard of before. It is significant 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 89 
 
 with the " spread of the light " and the Irish World 
 being sent to all parts of Ireland — it is important to 
 notice that among the recommendations was one to 
 Irishwomen to throw out vitriol on the bailiffs. I 
 have no particular incident in the year 1880 
 with reference to the American connexion, but 
 throughout that year it will be proved that the 
 Irish World was being 6ent to and circulated in large 
 numbers throughout Ireland, and I am instructed that 
 it will be proved that it was circulated to a large 
 extent by the Irish Land League, and that copies were 
 to be found in the hands of the local branches of the 
 Irish Land League. Further, my Lords, I think I shall be 
 able to satisfy you that if these newspapers were sent 
 direct, they were sent by an organization which was 
 not unconnected with the Irish Land League or the 
 American affiliated society. Now I should like to 
 refer to two or three letters which seem to put that 
 beyond doubt, and I will try to read them in order of 
 date. On February 2, 1881, Thomas Brennan, who was 
 secretary of the Irish Land League, wrote the following 
 to Patrick Ford : — 
 
 " The thousand pounds (£1,000) cabled this week by 
 the Irish World is received. Its announcement was 
 received with applause. The substantial aid and con- 
 tinued encouragement which we are receiving from our 
 kindred and the friends of Humanity in America are in- 
 spiriting our people very much ; and in the name of the 
 Land League I beg to tender to the readers of the Irish 
 World and to all co-operators its sincere and most grate- 
 ful acknowledgment." 
 On February 5, 1881, Mr. Parnell telegraphed : — 
 
 " The Land League have scored a victory. The ten-to- 
 two disagreement of the jury, in face of the tremendous 
 pressure of the Court, is everywhere accepted as having 
 the force of an acquittal. . . . Thanks to the Irish 
 World and its readers for their constant co-operation 
 and substantial support in our great cause. Let them 
 have no fear of its ultimate success." 
 I should think that was in reference to the State trial 
 which had just taken place. 
 
 The President. — To whom was that telegram sent ? 
 
 The Attorney-Genebal.'— To Patrick Ford, of the 
 Irish World, my Lord. I hope your Lordships will 
 understand that when I called it a telegram, I meant 
 that it was sent by post, but was published as if it 
 had been received by cable. It was dated from London, 
 January 26, 1881, and it was published in the Irish 
 World on February 5 — nine or ten days afterwards. I 
 do not know whether your Lordships will be of opinion 
 that Mr. Parnell never read the Irish World, but at any 
 rate he knew perfectly well of the subscriptions and 
 of what was going on, and was anxious that it should be 
 continued. On March 9, 1881, Egan telegraphed from 
 Paris. He had gone there because of Sheridan's or 
 Mr. Davitt's arrest, I am not sure which. The tele- 
 gram was to the Irish World, and ran as follows : — 
 " Let the readers of the Irish World and all friends of 
 the Land League accept our warmest thanks for the 
 noble work they are so bravely doing." About the 
 same time, my Lords, the executive of the Irish Land 
 League issued a declaration of its principles, and un- 
 
 doubtedly this declaration was intended for publica- 
 tion in America. I think it was issued in March, 1881, 
 but it was published in America in April, 1881. In 
 that declaration they said : — " We hereby band our- 
 selves together till landlordism, root and branch, shall 
 be abolished." That declaration was sent over to 
 America and published in the Irish World with the 
 names of the executivo of the Irish Land League 
 attached, and, moreover, I think I shall be able to 
 show that Mr. Davitt himself edited that declaration. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — Inasmuch as I was in prison at that 
 time, I hardly think it can be shown I did that. 
 
 The Attokney-Genebal. — I do not think, my Lords, 
 that the interruption of Mr. Davitt is important. That 
 fact can make no possible difference. It was an adroit 
 but somewhat unnecessary interruption, because the 
 names of the executive of the Lund League are affixed 
 to the document. If Mr. Davitt does not accept 
 the, principles of it, of course he will say so. 
 However, I believe it will turn out that that was a 
 document which Mr. Davitt himself had drawn up. 
 On the 25th of May Egan made this communication to 
 Ford, which was published on the 4th of June : — 
 
 " Gladstone is going to hell by rapid transit. The 
 stupidity of his administration is paralleled only by 
 its malevolence. It is amazing how any sensible man 
 dares to pursue so hazardous a course. Such actions 
 only serve to intensify the movement and to hasten 
 the doom of the system which he is trying so despe- 
 rately to uphold. Friends in America ! towards you 
 we turn our eyes. England, too, is watching you. You 
 are the Land League's base of operations. Realize the 
 glorious possibilities of which you are capable ; be 
 faithful to the banner of ' The Land for the People,' 
 which is the initial principle in popular rights ; and 
 with your brothers on this side of the Atlantic now 
 gallantly struggling with landlordism in the first 
 stages of the revolution show a bold and determined 
 front to the foe, give the enemy distinctly to under- 
 stand that you have enlisted for the war, and the suc- 
 cess of the cause of Ireland is beyond doubt assured !" 
 What was the struggle with landlordism in which they 
 were engaging ? Of what operations was America the 
 base ? At that time, in 1881, for a period of 18 months 
 the Land League operations had consisted of boycott- 
 ing, intimidation, and, where necessary, shooting 
 people who took land from which another tenant had 
 been evicted, and in some cases for paying their rents. 
 I ask your Lordships whether it is more than the plain 
 and pitiable truth that it was a conspiracy organized in 
 and connected with America, and that the people were 
 asked to send in their subscriptions to assist in carry- 
 ing on these " operations " of which America was the 
 base. I think your Lordships will be of opinion that 
 the history of the American section of the Irish Land 
 League — which I think has never before been laid 
 fully before the public, certainly never before a judicial 
 tribunal — is worthy of serious consideration. If your 
 Lordships are of opinion that there did exist these two 
 organizations so linked together, the allegations that 
 I have made this morning, and to which I shall have to 
 refer again later on, are not only iproved, but might 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
90 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 have been stated in language infinitely more strong 
 than I have used or than appears in " Parnellism and 
 Crime." On the 22d of June, 1881, published on the 
 2d of July, J. P. Qninn, the secretary to the League, 
 writes : — 
 
 " We again appeal to the lovers of liberty and sym- 
 pathizers with suffering humanity to send the Irish 
 World to Ireland. The success of the cause is to be 
 measured by the extent of the acceptance of its princi- 
 ples. When the Irish World is read in every hamlet in 
 every county, it will be beyond the power of earth and 
 hell to perpetuate landlordism iu Ireland. ' More 
 Light !' " 
 
 The suggestion is made, or may be made, that the 
 Land League and the Parliamentary leaders of this 
 constitutional organization had nothing to do with the 
 Irish World. But they were ready enough to accept 
 the subscriptions collected by the Irish World, and 
 they were willing to teach the poor, miserable, half- 
 educated people of Ireland the doctrines of the Irish 
 World. One of the means by which they carried out 
 their conspiracy was by the dissemination of seditious 
 journals like the Irish World through Ireland, and is it 
 to be wondered at that, assisted b7 the speeches to 
 which I have already referred, the result followed in 
 the crimes which I have detailed ? On the 30lh of June 
 (published on the 9th of July) Quinn writes : — 
 
 " Thomas Brennan — bold and brave Brennan — has 
 been removed from Naas prison to Kilmainham under a 
 strong escort. I visited him, Dillon, and Kettle yester- 
 day. All three well. Brennan reiterated his belief 
 that a strike against rent altogether, cutting off the 
 landlords' supplies completely (sic), as Ireland's only 
 hope for success, and I, his successor and your corre- 
 spondent, heartily endorse Brennan, who speaks for 
 the true apostles of the cause, every one of whom 
 wants to see that movement go forward. The sole re- 
 liance of the cause now is the Irish World. Another 
 20,000 francs received Monday. . . . Men of 
 America 1 We depend more and more upon the Irish 
 World's Light. Spread the Light and all else will 
 follow, and you may be sure there will be ' No 
 Surrender ! ' " 
 
 The " Irish World's Light " it was that got up tnose 
 outrages without which this agitation, like so many 
 previous agitations, would have dwindled away. With- 
 out the system of outrages the organization could not 
 have intimidated the honest and hard-working tenantry 
 of Ireland. On August 3 (published on the 13th of 
 August) Quinn writes : — 
 
 " I had a lengthened interview with Brennan,Kettle, 
 Sheridan, and Boyton on Saturday. . . . All send 
 their grateful thanks to the Reformers of America, and 
 appeal from their prison cells to send the Irish World 
 into Ireland as the only preventative (sic) at the pre- 
 sent moment of keeping the movement out of the 
 hands of time-servers." 
 
 About this time there was a correspondent connected 
 with the Irish World who wrote under the name of 
 " Transatlantic," and whose real name, I believe, was 
 Thomas Mooney, and who, according to the information 
 we have received, appears to have been one of the worst 
 scoundrels that ever lived. He is, I believe, dead now; 
 
 but one cannot help describing him as an infamous 
 scoundrel, who advocated the worst outrages. On the % 
 12th of March this man wrote to the IrishWorld : — 
 
 " London, consisting of 4,000,000 of the wealthiest 
 people in the world, is at the mercy of its criminal 
 classes, who number a quarter of a million. . . . 
 Make a note. Spread the light ! O spread the light ! " 
 On the 24th of September, 1881, " Plenty of Kindling 
 Wood in England " is the heading to another of 
 "Transatlantic's" murderous effusions. The "kind- 
 ling wood " in question, ready " to set the whole 
 working population in a blaze," consists of "the 
 farm labourers, the miners, the factory hands, the million 
 of paupers, 186,000 imprisoned English criminals, the 
 half million of uncaugbt criminals in England," and so 
 on. I believe, as a matter of fact, that when the 
 Irish World is produced, much more in the same strain 
 will be found to be contained in the different articles. 
 It was found necessary about this time to send ovei 
 another delegate to America, and a distinguished 
 person was chosen — Mr. T. P. O'Connor. 
 
 The President. — Will you give us the Christian 
 names ? You have already told us there were two Mr. 
 T. P. O'Connors. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — This was Mr. Thomai 
 Power O'Connor, the present member of Parliament, 
 There was also another Mr. T. P. O'Connor, of Illinois, 
 whom subsequently The Times confused with Mr. T. P. 
 O'Connor, M.P., attributing to the latter a speech mad« 
 by the former. Mr.T. P. O'Connor was sent out by Mr. 
 Parnell as his representative. Mr. Parnell, as appears 
 from the Irish World of October 1, 1881, telegraphed 
 to Mr. Patrick Ford :— " Mr. T. P. O'Connoi 
 will start for America early in October, and will repre- 
 sent my views and those of the Irish organization.'' 
 I mention this for the purpose of making it cleai 
 that the statement of Mr. Parnell that he had no rela- 
 tions with Mr. Ford is absolutely untrue. Shortly 
 before Mr. O'Connor left for America, Quinn, the 
 secretary of the Land League, writes on the 5th oi 
 October (published October 15) : — 
 
 " Numerous applications are daily received at the 
 Land League Executive office for copies of the Irish 
 World. I appeal to our friends in America to furnish 
 us with as many copies as they can, so that we may be 
 able to meet the constant demand for it. Its circula- 
 tion just now can be of immense service to the 
 cause." 
 
 I do not know whether I am going too far in saying 
 that your Lordships can have no doubt that the Irish 
 World was circulated in Ireland by the Land League, 
 and under these circumstances it is difficult to see how 
 they can disclaim all connexion with this seditious 
 literature. Your Lordships will not have forgotten the 
 date of Mr. Parnell's arrest — namely, the 13th of 
 October,1881. On the 14th of October Egan telegraphs 
 to Ford from Paris :—" Again Gladstone and Forstei 
 are at their work of cowardice, meanness, and 
 treachery " ; and on the same day Ford telegraphs t« 
 Egan : — " Meanwhile it would be well for jou to keej 
 out of Ireland."In a telegram to Egan.dated the 17th of 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-GeneraL 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 91 
 
 October, Ford says : — " Communicate with Farnell if 
 possible, consalt with your colleagues, and then issue 
 a manifesto. No rent." To which Bgan replied : — 
 " Your suggestion is approved. Prompt measures are 
 now in progress to procure a general strike against 
 rent. The manifesto will be issued without delay. It 
 is the only weapon now that remains in our hands." 
 Mr. O'Connor went to America, as I have said, and he 
 attended the Chicago Convention. Mr. O'Connor, it 
 appears, considers that he has been libelled by The 
 Times because it was stated that he attended and made 
 a certain speech at the convention of 1886, when it 
 was not he but the other Mr. T. P. O'Connor who 
 made it. But Mr. O'Connor at any rate attended the 
 Convention of 188). Thore were also present at the 
 Convention Breslin, a trustee of the Skirmishing Fund, 
 the Rev. Thomas Conaty, John Devoy, the Fenian, 
 Miss Ellen Ford, John Finerty, dynamiter, Mr. 
 £. M. Healy, Mr. Alexander Sullivan, Rev. Eugene 
 Sheehy, Dr. Wallace, and a man named Mackay, 
 who took the name of Lomasney, and had been 
 previously tried for murder. He disappeared at the 
 time of the London-bridge dynamite explosion, and 
 it is supposed perished in that explosion. Among those 
 who received Mr. O'Connor was Dr. Wallace, who 
 afterwards made a speech, reported in the Irish World 
 complaining of the persons who apologized for the 
 Phoenix Park murders. Mr. T. P. O'Connor, replying 
 to the speeches welcoming him, said : — " What is the 
 English Government based on ? It is based on murder, 
 rapine, violence, confiscation, sacrilege, buckshot, 
 bayonets, and flying columns ? Oh, that these latter 
 were to meet the Irish people of America ; then 
 indeed there would be flying columns !" Mr. T. M. 
 Healy and the Rev. Eugene Sheehy were sent out to 
 supplement Mr. O'Connor's work.On the 10th of Novem- 
 ber the initial meeting of the Convention was held 
 at the Irish World office. Mr. O'Connor, Father 
 Sheehy, Mr. Healy, and Mr. Finerty were present. 
 Mr. Finerty said : — " Ireland is nothing less than 
 England's bitterest foe, and we are nothing less than 
 Ireland's unpurcbasable and uncompromising allies." 
 Mr. O'Connor speaking, not at the Convention, but at 
 & reception that was held, said :— 
 
 " The landlord has not got any rent from the 10,000 
 who are ejected from the farms, and he is not going to 
 get any rent. (Applause.) What becomes of the 10,000 
 farmers meantime ? We will put the tenants near (sic) 
 these farms as we possibly can. They like to have a 
 glimpse of their old home, and if I was an agent of an 
 insurance society I would not like to have my whole 
 organization and corporation dependent on the 10,000 
 farmers who will go into the farms that the other 
 10,000 have been evicted from." 
 
 Now what did this mean ? It meant that a land- 
 grabber was not a person who led a very desirable 
 life. It clearly indicated the policy that was being 
 pursued in Ireland of making the occupation of certain 
 lands practically an impossibility. Father Sheehy also 
 spoke, and said : — ■ 
 
 " I want to tell you here to-night assembled, dele- 
 
 gates of the Irish-American race in America, that ws 
 face landlordism and aim at its utter destruction, but 
 only as a stepping-stone and as a means to a greater and a 
 higher end. . . . Will you be content to go on paying 
 what is called a fair rent — an abomination, a crime, 
 not alone against modern civilization in Ireland, but 
 against common sense, and a blasphemy against God ? I 
 stand here to-night a teacher of morals. I weigh the vorda 
 I utter. I face the responsibility of every word. . . . 
 In France landlordism was swept down and crushed 
 utterly into powder by the armed hand of revolution. 
 If any gentleman will undertake the commission he 
 will have my benediction. I look also into their hearts 
 and I see a burning love of Ireland and burning 
 hatred of England. I do not measure my words where 
 there is a question of England. I say that there is only 
 one enemy on this earth of Ireland, and that enemy is 
 Eugland. ... I have asked Americans why you who 
 are not born in Ireland, who do not hope to see Ireland, 
 why is it you are into this ? It is not so much love 
 for the old country as hatred of that country's enemy. 
 It is the two feelings combined that nurse the hopes, 
 nerve the resolves, and fire the souls of men, and nerve 
 the arms of men to have a blow at England." 
 
 Our charge is that the Land League organization was 
 in association with an organization that was established 
 in America for the attainment of objects by 
 practices absolutely wicked. It will not remove the 
 sting of the charges and allegations made to say that 
 such views might be advocated bond fide as political 
 views. We are dealing with the way the funds were 
 obtained in America, and that was by advocating the 
 gross transgression of the law. Mr. Healy said : — 
 
 " For what is the business for which this Convention 
 has assembled ? It is the purpose of revenge as I take 
 it ; revenge upon the enemy which drove you and 
 your fathers forth from your own land. (A voice, 
 'Quite right,' and applause.) .... I am in favour of no 
 rent, not merely as a temporary policy, butfor all time." 
 
 A resolution was carried that-—" This Convention 
 declares English rule in Ireland to be without either 
 legal or moral sanction." Egan telegraphed to the Con- 
 vention : — " In the name of the Irish National Land 
 League and Labour and Industrial Union I greet 
 the great Irish National Convention at Chicago." 
 The Times has said, and The Times repeats, that this 
 whole organization found its source in America, and I 
 venture to think that if I establish that these speeches 
 were made and so treated by Mr. O'Connor and Mr. 
 Healy, your Lordships will have no difficulty in coming 
 to the conclusion that the real headquarters of the 
 Land League were not in Dublin, but at Chicago. Dr. 
 Betts, the president of the Convention, in presence of 
 Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Healy, said : — 
 
 " Gentlemen, I have a message for you. There are 
 certain grave reasons — reasons that are quite satisfac- 
 tory to us — and would be if they were known to you, 
 which prevent Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Healy from re- 
 sponding to our loving invitation now, and I trust that 
 every Irishman here will understand that when gentle- 
 men such as Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Healy say that 
 there are reasons why it is better that they should not 
 address an Irish National Convention assembled in 
 Chicago, it ought to be satisfactory, and it is satisfac- 
 tory to every man." 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
92 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 It seems, therefore, that at the actual meeting of the 
 Convention neither Mr. O'Connor nor Mr. Healy 
 spoke. Bat they sat on the platform and listened to 
 the various speeches. Coming now to the year 1882, 
 we find further applications for the despatch of copies 
 of the Irish World to Ireland. On the Hth of March, 
 1882, Brennan sent a message which was published in 
 the columns of the Irish World : — " By all means send 
 the Irish World into Ireland. Its power for good is 
 wonderful." 
 
 SIR C. Ettssell. — Brennan was then in Kilmainham. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Oh, yes ; but that makes 
 no difference. William O'Brien, it was found, edited 
 United Ireland when in prison at Kilmainham almost 
 as effectually as before he got in. Your Lordships will 
 remember that the terrible Phoenix Paik murders took 
 place in the month of May, 1882, and your Lordships 
 ■will not forget that there was published under the 
 signature of Mr. Farnell, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. Davitt 
 a manifesto expressing regret at those murders. Nor 
 will your Lordships forget that Egan telegraphed that 
 ho would resign if any of the Land League funds were 
 offered as a reward. The view that these murders were 
 to be condemned was not shared by the American 
 section who met Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Healy. A 
 meeting was held at New York on May 27, 1882, which 
 is reported in the Irish World, at which Dr. Wallace, 
 to whom I have already referred, was present. This 
 was the Dr. Wallace who welcomed Mr. O'Connor on 
 his arrival in America. A speech was made by Mrs. 
 Parnell, the mother of Mr. C. S. Pamell, in which she 
 said : — 
 
 " I think 1 agree with others that we have been a 
 little too much in a hurry to deprecate the odium of 
 the assassination which has been fixed on us. But times 
 have been so critical that we cannot blame anybody 
 for this. We certainly cannot blame the leaders on the 
 other side of the water when we see the monstrous 
 Coercion Bill born out of the head of Mr. Gladstone." 
 A Dr. Maguire moved a resolution as follows : — • 
 
 " Resolved, — That the employment of brute forces, 
 whether by the dagger of the assassin or by organized 
 military power, and by whomsoever used against the 
 unarmed and defenceless, as instanced respectively 
 the murders of the secretaries, and the slaughter 
 or innocent women and children at Ballina and else- 
 where, is a crime against humanity." 
 
 It was upon this resolution that Mrs. Parnell spoke. 
 Then Major Horgan moved an amendment : — 
 
 " That, while it may be deemed a matter of expe- 
 diency to express regret for the slaying of Cavendish 
 and Burke, we, the Irish exiles of New York, in mass 
 meeting assembled, express our greater regret that 
 England should still continue her old practice of 
 murdering our people in Ireland by buckshot, by 
 bayonet, and starvation, and it is deemed more becom- 
 ing that we, the representatives of the Irish race in 
 this great metropolis of America, should express our 
 sympathy with Gladstone's murdered victims of evic- 
 tion, than by pandering to the wishes of the Lord 
 Norths of to-day, who are the worthy descendants of 
 the butchers of the Wyoming and Cherry Valley mas- 
 
 sacres in our own fair land, and of Drogheda and Wex- 
 ford in the land of our birth.". 
 
 Dr. Wallace said he agreed with Major Horgan's senti- 
 ments, but repudiated his suggestion that the resolu- 
 tions condoled with the British Government. Both the 
 resolution and the amendment were agreed to. On 
 October 28, 1882, Mr. E. J. Rowe, whose name 
 ought to have been included in the particulars, was 
 interviewed, and is reported in the Irish World to have 
 said : — 
 
 " The present Coercion Act is one of the most brutal 
 and bloody measures ever passed to crush a people, and 
 I say that for every murder perpetrated by British 
 officials in Ireland, such as that of Patrick Walsh at 
 Galway, a member of the Koyal Family (so-called) or 
 a British Minister should bite the dust. The echoes of 
 dynamite explosions in England's manufacturing and 
 commercial centres will be the signal for Ireland's 
 freedom. Devastation could be 6pread throughout the 
 length and breadth of England in a night, and it should 
 be done. Oh, that the Irish World would again start 
 a Skirmishing Fund !" 
 
 Is it possible to imagine a more iniquitous suggestion 
 than that ? I ask your Lordships what would be your 
 opinion of an organization which considered it legiti- 
 mate to spread, and used its efforts to spread by means 
 of the Irish World, such views as those in Ireland? 
 And yet I shall show your Lordships that at meeting 
 after meeting persons charged in the particulars 
 associated with men who were advocating such views 
 as these — nay, more, expressed their own Views of the 
 means by which their policy should be carried out. It 
 is not necessary to point out the distinct invita- 
 tion which such language contains to use dynamite for 
 the purpose of destroying the towns of England by 
 starting another Skirmishing Fund, the previous Skir- 
 mishing Fund having been started by the Irish World for 
 exactly similar purposes. In the Irish World of October 
 28, 1882, there appeared the following, signed by 
 " Transatlantic " : — 
 
 " Already the cry of vengeance against landlordism 
 has laid low many of the land-robbers. Within three 
 or four years there fell in the ' land war ' on the land- 
 lords' side— Lord Leitrim, Lord Mountmorris, Lord 
 Cavendish, Secretary Burke, Mr. Herbert of Kil- 
 kenny [Killarney], Mr. Bourke, Loughrea, his 
 military protector, Blake of Loughrea, his bailiff, 
 Boyde of Kilkenny (Boyd of New Boss ?), 
 Wheeler of county Limerick, together with some 40 
 to 50 bailiffs and informers. On the people's side 
 only two have yet been hanged, and not over ten are in 
 penal servitude for terms of five, seven, and 14 years. 
 These may be amnestied sooner than the land-robbers 
 imagine. . . ." 
 
 I appeal to your Lordships' judgment. Can you wonder 
 that " Transatlantic " should have been denounced 
 as one of the greatest ruffians and scoundrels who ever 
 attempted to strike terror in the public mind ? Can 
 anything be more horrible than this kind of preaching 
 to the unfortunate tenants that the landlords and 
 bailiffs and informers who are shot fall in warfare ; 
 that there have been many of them killed ; that only 
 two persons have been killed on the people's side, and 
 
 The SBeech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 93 
 
 two sentenced to penal servitude, who, it is addedj 
 will probably be amnestied ? Can anything be more 
 horrible than this constant exhortation to do the work 
 of Allen, Larkin, and- O'Brien ? This constant refer- 
 ence to the persons who are carrying on the war is ex- 
 actly the kind of language which the American section 
 desired, and which would be used with a view' to for- 
 ward their plan of complete separation. It has often 
 been said that the most absolute and complete exposi- 
 tion of the policy of the Land League is contained in 
 the memorable words spoken by Mr. Gladstone in 
 February, 1882, when he pointed out that " crime had 
 dogged the steps of the Land League, and that the 
 sanction of boycotting was the murder which was 
 behind it, and which was not to be discovered." That 
 is the point — the murder which was not to be dis- 
 covered. What was the meaning of the observation to 
 which I have just drawn attention — that on the people's 
 6ide only two men had been hanged ? The gist of the 
 observation was that all the others who were guilty 
 had escaped from justice. Mr. Biggar told the people, 
 " If you are charged with shooting a landlord the 
 Land League will take care that yon get a fair 
 trial," and we find that criminal after criminal was 
 defended at the expense of the League. This is the 
 organization that has nothing to do with outrage ! It 
 would be impossible to exaggerate the wickedness, the 
 guilt of men who continued in connexion with 
 people who advocated the dreadful views which I have 
 laid before you. I will show your Lordships that the 
 matter was brought to the notice of Mr. Parnell as far 
 back as 1882 and 1883, and that his representatives, 
 nevertheless, continued to go to America and to associate 
 with the people who held these views, and that sums 
 of money were still received from Patrick Ford and 
 the Irish World. If it were possible to feel respect 
 for any one of those concerned, one might almost feel 
 more respect for the men who openly avowed these 
 views than for men who take advantage of the results 
 of this teaching while pretending to disapprove it. In 
 November, 1881, United Ireland published the names of 
 the editorial, staff of the Irish World. The following 
 extracts are taken from the issue of the 26th, which 
 reports the arrival of Father Sheehy and Mr. Healy in 
 New York :— 
 
 " The steamer France, on which the distin« 
 guished gentlemen sailed from Havre, was due Tues. 
 day, but long before dawn a representative of the Irish 
 World was on his way to the France. He was not long 
 in finding Father Sheehy and Mr. Healy, and in greet' 
 ing them in the name of the Irish people of America. 
 Mr. Healy responded with a few appropriate words, 
 after which the procession took up its way to the Fifth 
 Avenue Hotel, whence Father Sheehy and Mr. Healy 
 drove to the residence of Mr. Patrick Ford." 
 
 " The editorial staff of the Irish World comprises 
 foremost men of the Irish race and ablest pens of the 
 Labour movement, viz.: — ' Transatlantic,' Michael 
 Davitt, Thomas Ainge Devyr, Thomas Brennan, Eev. 
 J. Behan of Ireland, R. Shelton Mackenzie, LL.D.; 
 Prof. Henry Appleton, Henry George, ' W. M. C, 
 Joseph P. Quinn, Anna Parnell. 
 
 " The Land Agitation in Ireland is directly an off- 
 shoot of Irish World teachings. Michael Davitt, the 
 founder of the Land League, and Thomas Brennan and 
 Joseph P. Quinn, secretaries, are its special corre- 
 spondents." 
 
 In the autumn of 1882 Mr. Redmond, M.P.— I think 
 Mr. John Redmond, but I am not quite sure at this 
 moment — was in America, and at about that time, or 
 rather earlier, there were several references, to 
 which your attention will be called, to Mr. Ford's 
 plans for laying London, Liverpool, and other English 
 towns in ashes. Of course there was a great deal of 
 exaggeration about the matter, but it was part of the 
 teaching that brought support to the Skirmishing Fund. 
 On March 3, 1883, the following description appeared 
 in the Irish World of P. J. Sheridan, against whom a 
 warrant was out in connexion with the Phcenix Park 
 murders, and who had fled from England :— 
 
 " Mr. Sheridan was one of the first to jump into the 
 
 ranks of the Land League He went about 
 
 organizing, doing a wonderful work in that way, and 
 causing him to be brought forward as one of the 14 
 traversers in the famous State trials that marked the 
 commencement of the laud agitation. After the failure 
 of the Government in this, Mr. Sheridan returned, 
 went to his work of organization, and continued at it 
 until again stopped by arrest under the Coercion Act. 
 After six months in Kilmainham he was released. 
 While going on with his usual labours of speaking and 
 organizing, he was suddenly called to Dublin to attend 
 a meeting of the executive, only to find Parnell ar- 
 rested and the League about to be suppressed. He 
 assisted in issuing the No-rent Manifesto, and was 
 given the books to carry away and open offices in 
 England, which finding to be impossible, he started for 
 Paris, where Treasurer Egan had reached before him. 
 Here he, with others, established the Land League head- 
 quarters, and carried on the work through the Ladies' 
 Land League and other agencies up to the New De- 
 parture, when he came to America, and has 'jsince been 
 connected with the editorial staff of the Irish World." 
 In considejing the circumstances of this time we 
 see a strange exemplification of the old proverb as to 
 the way in which persons of the same habits congregate 
 together. It is curious to hear of Sherjdan, the or- 
 ganizer of the Land League, a person who was sus- 
 pected of having been connected with the Phoenix 
 Park murders— it is curious to find that he is at once 
 employed on the staff of the Irish World. Surely this 
 was most natural, most fitting, if the views of the pro- 
 prietor of the Irish World were in consonance with 
 Sheridan's practices when on this side of the Atlantic. 
 On March 31 it was Btated in the Irish World that there 
 had been a demonstration at Turners '-hall, in New 
 York. At that meeting O'Donovan Rossa and Finerty 
 spoke, and expressed sorrow because the London dyna- 
 mite explosion had not been more successful. Your 
 Lordships may think that a small matter to refer to ; 
 but, keeping in view the other things to which I have 
 drawn attention, you will see that I have a reason for 
 doing so. It emphasizes the fact that Mr. Parnell was' 
 perfectly well aware that Finerty was an advocate of 
 dynamite. On April 25, 1883, the great Philadelphia 
 Convention was held. There were Dresent, among 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
94 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 others, Brennan, F. Byrne, Mrs. Byrne, Boyton, 
 Condon, Devoy, P. Egan, Finerty, J. H. Parnell 
 (Mr. ParnelFs brother), Mrs. Parnell (his mother), 
 J. Walsh, and O'Donovan Rossa. It is very 
 significant that in April, 1883, barely six weeks 
 after the discoveries in reference to the Phoenix 
 Park murders, you should find in America so many 
 persons who had been intimately connected with the 
 organization which had promoted outrages in Ireland. 
 You know now the names of Brennan. Byrne, Boyton, 
 Egan, and Sheridan. It seems to require some explana- 
 tion how it was that all these gentlemen suddenly 
 went to America about the same time, and how it was 
 that, when in America, they all worked in con- 
 junction with the men who had joined in doing 
 what I have described and whose expressions would 
 show that their opinions were of a violent de- 
 scription, and their aims not altogether legitimate. 
 I think I shall be able to show that there were 
 distinct references to what passed at this Convention 
 at some of the subsequent meetings of the Land 
 League organization. What did pass ? On April 26 
 Mr. Parnell wrote, or there was read, a letter of that 
 date, sent for the purpose of being read at the Conven- 
 tion. The following are the contents of that letter : — 
 
 " My presence at the opening of the most repre- 
 sentative Convention of Irish-American opinion ever 
 assembled being impossible, owing to the necessity of 
 my remaining hero to oppose the Criminal Code Bill, 
 which re-enacts permanently the worst provisions of 
 coercion, and which, if passed, will leave constitu- 
 tional movements at the mercy of the Government, I 
 would ask you to lay my views before the Convention. 
 I would respectfully advise that your platform be so 
 framed as to enable us to continue to accept help 
 from America, and at the same time avoid offering a 
 pretext to the British Government for entirely sup- 
 pressing the national movement in Ireland. In this 
 way only can unity of movement be preserved both in 
 Ireland and America. I have perfect confidence that 
 by prudence, moderation, and firmness the cause of 
 Ireland will continue to advance, and though persecu- 
 tion rests heavily upon us at present, before many 
 years have passed we shall have achieved those great 
 objects for which through many centuries our race has 
 struggled." 
 
 Here we find Mr. Parnell addressing " the most repre- 
 sentative convention of Irisb-American opinion." If 
 these persons formed the " most representative con- 
 vention of IriBh opinion," that title was given to 
 persons who openly avowed that they were willing that 
 dynamite should be use-!, and who associated with 
 people who had been unable to remain in Ireland in 
 consequence of the part which they had taken in the 
 murders which were then forming the subject of in- 
 quiry. This " most representative convention " would 
 not be inaptly described as representing dyna- 
 mitards and Fenians on the one side, and the accom- 
 plices of men who had been guilty of outrage and 
 murder on the other. If that was " the most repre- 
 sentative convention of Irish opinion," you will bo 
 able to form a judgment as to the real bonds of union 
 which bound together the two sections of the organi- 
 
 zation under the rigimc of the men to whose names I 
 have referred. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. On 
 its re-assembling, 
 
 The Attokney-Gzneeal resumed,— The Philadelphia 
 convention was addressed by James Mooney.who said :— 
 
 " To our great disappointment, he (Mr. Parnell) 
 cannot be here to direct and inspire our labours. In 
 unfriendly quarters it is sought to make it appear that 
 he fears to join us, lest words spoken or action taken 
 in our convention might compromise him. Such state- 
 ments are pure falsehoods Though he 
 
 is not here we have to direct our labours to the plan 
 approved by him of the new National League in Ireland. 
 This, together with many forcible expressions of his 
 views that have from time to time reached us, will 
 enable ns still to work under his guidance. Then, 
 too, we have to aid us by wise counsels Patrick Egan, 
 to workers and organizers hardly second in importance 
 to Parnell himself in the successes already achieved. 
 
 We are here to-day, chiefly to reorganize 
 
 upon the same basis as that upon which the new 
 National League in Ireland stands. We shall have the 
 great advantage of the advice and suggestions of one 
 who helped to inaugurate that body." (This probably 
 
 refers to Brennan.) " In spite of England 
 
 the Irish-Americans will be a most important factor in 
 the Irish question till that vexed question shall have 
 
 reached solution It has been truly said oi 
 
 us that we ' bate England with an intensity of detesta- 
 tion unequalled by any class of Irishmen in Ireland.' 
 . . . We can speak, act, organize, in her behalf. 
 To evolve a union in their interests from all the ele- 
 ments that make up our race in America, we are here 
 assembled in this city, auspiciously named ' by 
 brotherly love.' ... In Charles Stewart Parnell 
 the Irish people have a leader whose place in history 
 
 will be a proud one It is our desire to 
 
 unite with the League he has established in Ireland, 
 that we may strengthen and support him in the labours 
 he has undertaken. Setting aside our present views, 
 we must work under his guidance in such a way as to 
 best support and least embarrass him. It is our hope to 
 see him win for Ireland land law reform, local self- 
 government, extension of the franchise, development 
 of industrial interests ; and if all these were done the 
 day would surely dawn brighter for the realization of 
 the hope that would spring up in every Irishman's 
 heart, that under Heaven's blessirg te might still lead 
 onto that best and highest goal — national independence." 
 
 Thomas Brennan (tho secretary of the League) said : — 
 
 " It (landlordism) never can quench the light that 
 has been spread among the Irish people, nor can it 
 retard the consequent growth of Republican ideas. The 
 war for Irish independence must go on. . . . The 
 people may differ as to methods, but in essentials they 
 are as one, aud will bo continue until the victory is 
 gained." 
 
 Egan spoke, and after referring to the Ladies' Land 
 League " under Miss Anna Parnell," said : — 
 
 " While Mrs. Moloney, the president of the Ladies' 
 Land League, would work 14 or 15 hours a day in 
 their office, Miss Parnell, Miss Moore, and Miss 
 Reynolds, who is now in prison, were driving over the 
 roads and bogs, on side-cars, carrying comfort and 
 aBBistance to the evicted tenants. I again thank you 
 for the noble support you have given this movement 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-GeneraL 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 95 
 
 from the beginning. I believe that I can promise you 
 that, nnder the leadership of Mr. Parnell, with your 
 assistance, the glorious goal of Irish independence is 
 near at hand." i 
 
 Then Alexander Sullivan spoke. He was president of 
 one of the American branches of the Land League and 
 also president of the Clan-na-Gael in America. Hesaid: — 
 
 " When we contemplate the intensity of the passion 
 which animates it (i.e., this assemblage) for the sole 
 object we have in view, and the diversity of honest 
 opinion concerning the methods by which that object 
 may be accomplished, it is meet that we should 
 (pray) ! . . . . We are restrained at the same 
 time from stepping outside the functions of auxiliaries 
 to the patriots who are heroically struggling at home 
 and in an alien and hostile Legislature in the vain 
 hope of awakening the long-suspended conscience of a 
 powerful and brutal foe .... We have met, 
 neither on the one hand to dictate to our brethren in 
 Ireland, nor on the other hand to apologize to their 
 and our common enemy for anything. We have met 
 to organize and concentrate all the forces of our race, 
 that their united strength shall be made potential in 
 
 our national struggle In the spirit in which 
 
 Iiobert Emmet died we live ; in his words, we are 
 ' determined on delivering our native country from the 
 yoke of a foreign and unrelenting tyranny,' and ' to 
 place her independence beyond the reach of any power 
 on earth.' " 
 
 I desire to point out to your Lordships, in 
 connexion with these speeches, that there are three 
 names constantly referred to of past patriots in the 
 Irish cause ; they are Wolfe Tone, Emmet, and Lord 
 Edward Fitzgerald ; none of those speakers referred 
 to O'Connell or to Butt. O'Connell was opposed to 
 physical force and the shedding of blood. It is signifi- 
 cant that at those meetings you Qnd a reference to the 
 first three names and not to the others ; they support 
 physical force as distinguished from any Parliamentary 
 work. I mentioned to your Lordships the names of 
 the persons who had escaped. I think I should also 
 tell your Lordships that Brennan had not remained in 
 England even up to that time, but went to Palermo, 
 in Sicily, and it was from Palermo that he had gone to 
 America. There were several references made to the 
 visits of other persons to America. One of those 
 persons was Mr. Matthew Harris. He " called (of 
 course) at the Irish World office, and was cordially 
 greeted by many friends there," and it is reported in 
 the Irish World that Mr. Ford stated to Mr. Matthew 
 Harris " that what some people chose to call the 
 Phoenix Park murders," he no longer thought 
 a crime, but from an Irish standpoint he con- 
 sidered it an execution and not a murder. The 
 statement of Ford was reported in the Irish World 
 on June 23, 1883, and Mr. Matthew Harris was 
 the person who was interviewing Ford in connexion 
 with that statement which he then made. On June 
 30, 1883, there is a reference made to Caffrey in the 
 Irish World. Ho was the fifth man hanged for the 
 Phcenix Park murders. I desire to tell your Lordships, 
 in connexion with the Martyrs' Fund, that because 
 Caffrey had confessed his guilt and expressed his con- 
 
 trition, the Irish World stated that, inasmuch as he 
 had apologized for what he did and tried to explain 
 it away, he thereby suoceeded in depriving him- 
 self of all sympathy, and Caffrey's relations were 
 excluded from participating in the Martyrs' Fund and 
 the distribution of the money collected for the families 
 of the men condemned for the Phoenix Park murders. 
 There is an incident also reported in the Irish World 
 which will place the matter in even a stronger light as 
 to the reasons which led to that exclusion. On July 2, 
 18S3, there was a New York Martyrs' meeting, and I 
 should like to tell your Lordships who were present 
 at that meeting — Frank Byrne and Mrs. Frank Byrne, 
 Patrick Ford, O'Donovan Rossa, P. J. Sheridan, John 
 Walsh, and Hamilton William3. I mention those names ; 
 there are others about whom I am not able to give 
 your Lordships any information. Sheridan was in the 
 chair. The meeting was called to pay homage and 
 honour to the murderers of Phoenix Park, At that meet- 
 ing Frank Byrne, the secretary of the English Land 
 League, who had escaped to America in 1883, made a 
 speech. " I am not," he said, " fastidious as to the 
 methods by which the cause of liberty may be advanced. 
 I do not say you should alone use dynamite or the 
 knife, or the rifle, or Parliamentary agitation" — your 
 Lordships will observe the position in which Parlia- 
 mentary agitation is put — " but I hold no Irishman true 
 who won't use all and each method as the opportunity 
 presents itself." At a Martyrs' meeting held at 
 Chicago on the same day John Finerty spoke and wag 
 reported in the Irish World. He said : — 
 
 " Ireland at home went to the length of repudiating 
 the act, but her thanks vas the passage of the most 
 infamous Coercion Act that Ireland had ever known. 
 There were cities in America that met and repudiated. 
 Chicago never did. They were asked to be ashamed of 
 this act that was committed in Dublin under the 
 impulse of persecuted desperation. They were told if 
 the blow had fallen on some other it would not meet 
 ■with this condemnation ; that Lord Cavendish was an 
 innocent man. In a sense he was an innocent man 
 who died for the crimes of others. . . . They met 
 for the purpose of showing that, although these men 
 committed the act (if they did)— as regarded Cavendish 
 it was not premeditated, as regarded Burke they said 
 nothing — they were less euilty, less cowardly, less 
 treacherous than the English Government that used 
 what it called ' a Constitutional system ' to hunt and 
 hang boys on the testimony of hired informers. . . . 
 For his own part, he had never apologized for any act 
 the Irish people had committed, and never intended to. 
 He was sorry that a worse man than Cavendish was not 
 in his place. If England had minded her own busi- 
 ness, and Cavendish when he came over as a messen- 
 ger of peace had been found in the company of a 
 friend and not an enemy of Ireland, he would have 
 been living to-day. He died because he was in bad 
 company — was with Thomas H. Burke, the Fouche of 
 Ireland. ... He hoped to live to see the days 
 when Ireland would have her own flag and be recog- 
 nized by all the other nations as worthy of being a 
 sister and a peer. Although he didn't believe Parlia- 
 mentary agitation would accomplish much, still he 
 was willing to go with them ; and, as a piece of good 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
96 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 news, lie announced the election in Protestant Ulster 
 of Timothy M. Healy." 
 
 I shall show what the continued relations were 
 between Finerty and the representatives of Mr. 
 Pamell long after Finerty's character was pub- 
 licly known and admitted by Mr. Parnell. So far as 
 regards the year 1883 I do not think I have anything 
 further to announce with regard to the Irish World 
 except the constant receipt of money, which I will take 
 separately. There were many statements in connexion 
 with the Martyrs' Fund. On September 1, 1883, 
 speaking of the Martyrs' Fund, the " martyrs " were 
 stated to be the Phoenix Park murderers, and the money 
 was to be collected for their families " as an incentive 
 to other men to dare and do likewise for Ireland." 
 Tour Lordships will not forget Mr. Parnell's expression 
 in Parliament of his feelings with regard to that murder. 
 Genuine as those feelings may have been, they did not 
 prevent him from associating with men who expressed 
 very different feelings with regard to what occurred in 
 the Phcsnix Park on May 6, 1882. On September 8, 
 1883, Finerty made another speech. He said : — 
 
 " Honest John Mitchell used to say that he was sorry 
 the Irish people h~i not shot half enough Irish land- 
 lords ; he would go further and deliberately say that 
 he was ashamed of the Irish people, if they had powder 
 and shot, they had not shot them all. The whole 
 Cabinet, the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, the 
 Privy Council, were all guilty of murder, and if any 
 man could have power to place them all beneath the 
 single guillotine and lop their heads off at once, that 
 man would be justified in the sight of God and man." 
 Your Lordships will remember the O'Donnell Defence 
 Fund, which was referred to in some of the extracts 
 which I quoted yesterday. It was collected for the 
 defence of O'Donnell, who shot Carey. In order to 
 promote subscriptions to that fund, there were refer- 
 ences to it, and this was the way in which the 
 Rev. George W. Pepper advocated the cause of 
 O'Donnell :— 
 
 "If Ireland possessed 5,000 such men, magnificently 
 gifted men like O'Donnell, her deliverance would be 
 achieved. His shot has reverberated round the world, 
 making English tyranny tremble. The storm raised by 
 the mighty spirit of that heroic man, I trust in God, 
 will tear up, root and branch, traitorism to liberty in 
 my native land." 
 
 The Kev. George W. Pepper was a Methodist minister. 
 My Lords, with reference to the man " Transatlantic, " 
 several of whose utterances or writings I read to-day, 
 I think it will appear, upon the statement of Mr. T. 
 P. O'Connor himself, that " Transatlantic" was the 
 first subscriber to the Land League, and that statement 
 is made by Mr. T. P. O'Connor on the authority of Mr. 
 Parnell himself. I only mention that for the purpose 
 of showing that it was very well known who " Trans- 
 atlantic " was. On September 20, 1883, there was a 
 meeting in Chicago to receive Daniel Curley's widow 
 —that was the widow of the man who had been hanged 
 for the Phoenix Park murders — and Finerty again made 
 a speech. He said :— 
 " He was proud to meet and to greet with them 
 
 upon that platform the widow of the brave and unfor- 
 tunate Daniel Curley. ... It did not become any 
 Irishman the world over to apologize for any act com-' 
 mitted by his outraged countrymen against that in- 
 famous Government. . . . The speaker then said 
 that although his audience and himself might approve 
 of sterner means to effect the liberation of Ireland, if 
 they were immediately available, still they owed a 
 tribute of respect, obedience, and admiration to that 
 great man who had arisen as a morning star on the 
 horizon of Irish politics, Charles Stewart Parnell." 
 On October 13 of the same year the Irish World pub- 
 lished a lecture by P. J. Sheridan, in which he stated 
 he was in favour of " a well-directed scientific war- 
 fare — dynamite and tri-nitroglycerine." This man, it 
 will be remembered, was the chief organizer of the 
 Land League, and at this meeting some of the gentle- 
 men named in the particulars were present. I now 
 come to the year 1884, and your Lordships will find 
 that anniversaries were not confined to the Phcenix 
 Park murders. On May 14 a meeting was held to 
 celebrate the anniversary of the execution of 
 Brady, the man who was supposed to have struck 
 the blow which caused the death of one of the victims, 
 and at that anniversary were present Frank Byrne, 
 Mrs. Frank Byrne, P. B. Egan, O'Donovan Kossa, 
 E. J. Eowe, and Dr. Hamilton Williams, and letters of 
 regret were read from Patrick Ford and others. On 
 that day two speeches were made — one by Frank Byrne, 
 and the other by Dr. Hamilton Williams, Frank Byrne 
 being the man who had been in the employment of the 
 Land League. Dr. Hamilton Williams said : — . 
 
 " He has given to us the weapon, the only weapon, 
 that will be successful, and that is dynamite. . . . 
 We can make the government of Ireland by England 
 one of the most costly experiments that ever the frenzied 
 and crazy imagination ever took in hand ; we can 
 create such a condition of things that to every English 
 Ministry, and every English official in Ireland, it will 
 be absolutely a living hell, and government will be a 
 living death. . . And woe be to the time when any of 
 the wretched Guelphs — the Queen's sons — or the Queen 
 herself dare to put their or her feet on the streets of 
 Dublin, for we mean to take the avenging knife that 
 killed Cassar in the Senate House in Borne, and any 
 man who refuses to recognize this means of dealing with 
 the enemies of Ireland put him outside the camp and 
 have no connexion with him. . . . Do there- 
 fore everything in your power to honour the memories 
 and imitate the deeds of men who through good repute 
 and bad repute proved a strong fidelity to principle and 
 knew how to die . " 
 
 On the same occasion he introduced Mr. Byrne, and 
 said : — 
 
 ' ' I have the pleasure of introducing to you a gen- 
 tleman whom you will be all glad to hear. He has 
 proved himself one of the wisest in council, one of the 
 calmest in debate, one of the bravest that was ever 
 found in the ranks of any revolutionary movement — I 
 allude to Mr. Frank Byrne ; and should I forget to 
 mention the name of Mrs. Byrne, a woman who shows 
 she is as true as steel to all those heroic ideas of woman- 
 hood which typify the feminine character of Ireland." 
 YourLordships may possibly remember that a statement 
 was made in " Parnellism and Crime," on the 
 authority of the Irish World, that Mrs. Byrne was tha 
 
 ffbe Speech of the Attorney-GeneraL 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 97 
 
 woman who had taken across to Ireland the knives 
 with which were committed the Phoenix Park murders. 
 Frank Byrne then spoke. He applauded Joe Brady's 
 " noble act," and said ; — 
 
 " There is one broad statement which I am prepared 
 to make, and it is this; that it is the duty of the Irish 
 people to kill every English official who comes into 
 their country. I would ask you, are you in earnest ? If 
 you want to honour Joe Brady's memory, if you want 
 to imitate his example, you will have to work. I 
 therefore ask those of you present who are prepared 
 to follow the example of Joe Brady to stand up. . . . 
 You who think there are men going from this country 
 to do the work are mistaken. The men at home will do, 
 and all they want is the money and the word of order. 
 Give them the money, and the commands will follow, 
 and the work will be accomplished." 
 O'Donovan Bossa spoke, and said : — " I hold that 
 every Englishman who goes into Ireland for the purpose 
 of administering English law should be slain within 24 
 hours." The meeting resolved — " That they regarded 
 all means looking to the destruction of foreign domina- 
 tion in Ireland to be justifiable and commendable," and 
 " that they would sustain the Emergency Fund." 
 That was a fund which Ford kept, and stated that he 
 never disclosed how it was spent. It was intrusted to 
 him, and he rendered no account of it. It was evidently in- 
 tended for something beyond those funds which had an 
 object which was disclosed. Then, my Lords, occurred 
 the Boston Convention of August 3, 1884. At that con- 
 vention there were present, — Bev. George Betts, T. F. 
 Bourke, Patrick Egan, James Reynolds, Mrs. Parnell, 
 W. E. Eedmond, M.P., Mr. Sexton, M.P., Alexander 
 Sullivan, and Dr. W. B. Wallace. Dr. W. B. Wallace 
 welcomed Mr. T. P. O'Connor and made the speech 
 I read to your Lordships a little time ago. I am 
 sorry that, having two extracts of Sheridan's speech 
 at the New York Martyrs' meeting, one of which is 
 verbatim and the other more condensed, I read the 
 latter. The verbatim extract is as follows : — 
 
 " Sheridan said the object of the meeting was to 
 pay homage and honour to the men who have given up 
 their lives in the cause of Ireland. ... It has 
 been stated that none but men devoid of all humanity 
 would have recourse to certain methods for distressing 
 an enemy not hitherto recognized in civilized warfare. 
 What has brought up this discussion ? The acts of a 
 few brave and dauntless men, who, seeing it impossible 
 to cope with the power of the oppressor by ordinary 
 methods of warfare, loved their country too much to 
 sit down "in despair, and availed themselves of the 
 advantages presented to them by the science of the 
 19th century to see if they could not do it by means 
 hitherto untried. The merl who have been murdered 
 in Dublin were so convinced and so acted. There is 
 no human being here to-night who is not convinced 
 that these men were guided by pure and noble motives. 
 They had suffered no individual wrong at the hands of 
 England. Such were the feelings that actuated those 
 heroic spirits who were murdered on a scaffold in Kil- 
 mainham recently. I hold that men capable of those 
 acts ahd motives are worthy to be placed on the roll 
 of martyrs, side by side with the immortal names of 
 Tone and Fitzgerald, the Sheares, and Emmet, Allen, 
 Larkin, and O'Brien, and all the other noble spirits 
 
 that placed their lives on the altar of Irish freedom. 
 So long as the love of Irish freedom lives the names 
 of Joe Brady, Daniel Curley, Fagan, and the boy- 
 hero, Timothy Kelly, shall be honoured by every Irish 
 patriot. . . . They believed that so long as they 
 could not contend against England with an army and 
 a navy they had a right to have recourse to every 
 means and any methods to put an end at once and for 
 ever to the sufferings of the Irish people. For doing 
 so I maintain that humanity is indebted to them, 
 because their mode of warfare inflicted, her suffering 
 and will produce greater results to the oppressed than 
 the ordinary one of whole destruction by regular 
 armies. . . WJiat is the state of affairs after the ex- 
 plosions in Loudon and Glasgow ? It is patent to the 
 world that the Press of all Europe has been awakened 
 to a sense of our wrong by the explosions in question.. ." 
 
 After saying that in Ireland " the ridiculous idea of 
 facing England with the ordinary methods of 
 war is totally discarded," Sheridan added : — " The 
 present generation feel that if half the energy 
 or the tenth part of the means had been applied to 
 the practice of scientific warfare, Ireland to-day 
 would have a different story to tell. . . . We hope by 
 carrying the war into the heart of England and by 
 having recourse to scientific methods which God has 
 communicated to suffering nationalities to be able to 
 inflict more in one generation of the present than in 
 centuries of the past, and that not by the military 
 action of patriot armies, but by the energetic re- 
 solution of a few earnest and practical men — men pre- 
 pared to lay down their lives. One year of such war- 
 fare, prosecuted vigorously by men capable of directing 
 it, would prove so efficacious a remedy for Irish com- 
 plaints that we should have England on her knees 
 begging us to let her alone. . . ." 
 
 My Lords, I was unfortunately obliged to go back to 
 that speech because I had taken the wrong report. I 
 was relating to your Lordships what happened at the 
 Boston Convention. At the Boston Convention, there 
 being present Mr. Sexton and Mr. Eedmond, a variety 
 of speeches were made, and among others one by 
 Alexander Sullivan and by the Hon M. V. Gannon. 
 Alexander Sullivan called the convention to order (i.e., 
 opened the proceedings). He said : — 
 
 " The memorable Philadelphia Convention organized 
 the Irish National League of America. It is the auxiliary 
 of the Irish National League of Ireland. . . . The Irish 
 National League, whose distinct and avowed purpose is 
 the establishment of the sovereignty of the Irish 
 people in Ireland, is the embodiment of that spirit of 
 liberty. . . . The National League aims not merely 
 at a reduction of rents, not merely at a change from 
 idle proprietors to working proprietors, but at the 
 creation of complete national life and the development 
 of all the diversified industries which render a people 
 self-sustaining and prosperous." 
 
 That statement, my Lords, as to the Irish National 
 League of America being auxiliary to the Irish National 
 League was made in the presence of Mr. Thomas 
 Sexton, Mr. William Eedmond, and Mr. Patrick Egan. 
 
 Xhe Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
9S 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 Mr. Gannon, after referring to the war of American In- 
 dependence, said : — 
 
 '' And those who say to us Irish that we must be 
 eternally attempting some crime in Ireland, aud talk 
 particularly when an exasperated Irishman lifts his 
 weapon against a landlord who has ruined him, know 
 too that on these historic fields Americans were fight- 
 ing against this same enemy of Ireland, with liberty on 
 their lips but bullets in their muskets. (Loud cheers 
 and applause.) While we should sapport ardently, 
 loyally, the constitutional policy laid down by our 
 glorious leader, Mr. Parnell (cheers), yet at the same 
 time we shall not go round with any lying lips, apolo- 
 gizing for any patriot Irishman's crime. (Hear, hear.) 
 When they give back Francis Hynes and place him in 
 the flesh, when they restore in life the murdered Irish- 
 men of this past decade, then, perhaps, we may pass 
 by on the other side and pretend there is a tear in our 
 eye ; but until then it is not our time for crying. 
 (Loud cheering.)" 
 
 I think, my Lords, it may prove that Francis 
 Hynes had been tried and convicted of murder, if 
 I remember right, before Mr. Justice Lawson ; but 
 this was the way in which at this convention, in the 
 presence of these gentlemen, the fate of a man who 
 has been tried and convicted of murder has been spoken 
 of, and other " patriot Irishmen's crimes " are not to 
 be apologized for. At this convention resolutions were 
 passed — 
 
 " That the Irish National League of America hereby 
 expresses its unqualified approval of the course pursued 
 during the past year by Charles Stewart Parnell and 
 the Irish Parliamentary party under his leadership, and 
 pledges itself to support them by every moral and 
 material aid in the contest which they are waging 
 against landlordism and on behalf of Irish national in- 
 dependence, and to this end we commend the Parlia- 
 mentary fund, recently opened by our executive for 
 such purposes, to the generosity which characterizes our 
 countrymen." 
 
 " That the gratitude of the Irish race is due in a par- 
 ticular manner to the executive of the League, Alex- 
 ander Sullivan, for his unselfish devotion to the cause 
 of Ireland, and that in his course he has shown con- 
 summate skill and exalted patriotism." 
 That meeting was addressed by Mr. Sexton. He said : — 
 
 "I am able to say that upon being selected by 
 your committee on resolutions, I find myself heartily 
 in agreement with every resolution, with every prin- 
 ciple of those resolutions, which you have adopted 
 without discussion. . . . We are now approaching 
 the verge of a settlement which will . . . produce 
 such a measure of popular comfort and of social inde- 
 pendence as will render the will of the people irre- 
 sistible, and will render it impossible for any Govern- 
 ment any longer to delay or to defeat our claim for 
 national independence." 
 
 There, my Lords, you have what Mr. Sexton and 
 Mr. Redmond are obliged to say before this Ameri- 
 can audience when it is necessary to strengthen the 
 bonds of sympathy existing between the two organi- 
 zations. Well, if that be proved I do not know 
 how it will be possible for any one to say that this 
 American organization is not part of the same con- 
 spiracy as that which existed in Ireland, and that Mr. 
 Parnell in drawing his supplies from these sources was 
 
 drawing them from men who were in fact his allies, 
 although they had preached such doctrines as the 
 writings of " Transatlantic" and the speeches of Byrne 
 and Williams and many others whose speeches I read 
 this morning would excite ? The statement is made in 
 the Irish World of the 27th of September that Ford had 
 collected $15,000 for the purposes of having Liverpool, 
 Manchester, and other towns in ashes. I do not know 
 whether my learned friends will suggest that this was 
 all wild talk. It was not wild talk when the dyna- 
 mitards came over to England and succeeded in causing 
 explosions which caused death and injured people in 
 various parts of the metropolis, to say nothing of ex- 
 plosions in other parts of the country. Now, my Lords, 
 on the 6th of May, 1885, occurred in New York, and 
 was reported in the Irish World, the Phosnix Park ban- 
 quet. That was a banquet in honour of those who had 
 to do with the Phoenix Park assassinations. The 6th of 
 May, I think, was the exact date of it. Will your 
 Lordships pardon me for one moment ? There is one 
 other matter I shall call attention to in connexion with 
 Patrick Ford. On the 20th of April, 1885, a farewell 
 reception to Mrs. Kenny, who was Miss Hannah Rey- 
 nolds, was held, at which were present Mr. and Mrs. 
 Frank Byrne, Mr. Ford, Mr. Augustine Ford, Condon, 
 and several other persons whose names I will 
 not mention. Miss Reynolds was one of the 
 ladies of the Land League who had been 
 doing the work during the time that Mr. Parnell and 
 others were in prison. Her progress through parts of 
 Ireland was marked by a succession of outrages — her 
 path may be described as being a path of blood ; and, if 
 I remember right, some proceedings were taken against 
 her in consequence of the acts of which she was proved 
 to be guilty. Mr. Frank Byrne made this statement : — 
 " In my capacity as secretary of the Laud Leagne of 
 Great Britain, I naturally became familiar with many 
 facts concerning the noble work being done by the 
 Ladies' Land League, and I found that on every occa- 
 sion where the practical portion of the work was to be 
 done, Miss Reynolds was to be found in the fore- 
 front." 
 
 That was reported in the Irish World of May 2, 1885. 
 Mr. Forrester also spoke of Miss Reynolds at the same 
 meeting. He noted the way in which Miss Reynolds had 
 gone from village to village, "cheering the despondent, 
 warning the wavering, threatening the cowardly," and 
 how when " it was necessary that the inmates of the 
 
 next cabin should be sternly instructed 
 
 that it was their duty to pay no rent," she had given 
 that instruction. Now, my Lords, you will understand 
 what was the knowledge of these gentlemen who 
 approved of the conduct of the organization in Ireland 
 during the time to which this referred. That was 
 exactly the intimidation which has been practised, as 
 we suggest, under . the auspices of the Land League 
 Now. mv Lords, I go to the Phoenix Park banquet, as 
 which were present Frank Byrne, Mrs. Frank Byrne, I 
 do not know whether Mr. P. Bgan was there or not, as 
 there are two Egans, but a Mr. Egan was present, Mr. 
 E. J. Rowe, and Mr. John Walsh. A full report of this 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 99 
 
 occurred in the Irish World of the 16th of May, 
 1885. 
 
 " On Wednesday evening, May 6, 1885, the Phoenix 
 Park anniversary," says the Irish World, " one of the 
 happiest Irish national reunions that has taken place in 
 New York in some time, was held at the Sinclair- 
 house, Broadway. The brilliant gathering of ladies and 
 gentlemen included P. Egan, John Walsh, Austin B. 
 Ford (chairman), Robert E. Ford, Edward J. Howe, 
 Judge M'Carthy, and other members past or present of 
 the constitutional organization." 
 
 This incident was referred to in " rarnellism and 
 Crime." It was a complimentary banquet " to one who 
 was an important, thongh most unpretending, actor in 
 the event that is marked by the 6th of May." The 
 guest of the evening, in the words of Austin Ford, as 
 he presented her with a " well-filled purse," was " a 
 brave little woman, whose memorable courage in con- 
 nexion with the victory in the Phosnix Park three years 
 ago (prolonged applause) is known to us all." The 
 " brave little woman's " name was Mrs. Frank Byrne. 
 John Walsh spoke, and another speaker at the meeting 
 spoke of Joe Brady (one of the Park assassins) as " the 
 modern Coriolanus,who struck a groat blow for literty ; " 
 and Mr. P. Egan moved a vote of thanks " to Patrick 
 Ford for his unswerving loyalty to the Irish cause." 
 On the 23d of November, 1885, was the Manchester 
 Martyrs' anniversary, and your Lordships will find that 
 there were in these instances reports in the Irish World 
 of these proceedings, at which these men, who had 
 literally been convicted criminals, convicted of murder, 
 were treated as being martyrs, captives, and persons 
 whose example should be followed and imitated. There 
 were present Frank Byrne,Mrs. Frank Byrne, several of 
 the Fords, Mr. Parnell's brother.and Edward J. Rowe . 
 Now, I told your Lordships that the Irish World showed 
 sympathy with dynamitards by their speeches and their 
 writings ; but I think you will find that was by no 
 means the only way. In 1885 they opened a fund in 
 their columns for Barton and Cunningham. They were 
 arrested and tried, and, 1 believe, are now undergoing 
 penal servitude for explosions in the House of Commons, 
 the Tower, and the Underground Railway ; and this is 
 the way they were spoken of :— 
 
 " Whether Cunningham and Burton were or were 
 not participators in the acts for which they are now 
 cuffering, they are entitled to the warmest sympathy 
 of the Irish race. If it is true that they endeavoured 
 by waging active war on England to force England to 
 cease plundering and oppressing Ireland, they arc 
 martyrs of Irish liberty." 
 
 My Lords, I scarcely think that your Lordships can be 
 of opinion, in view of what the organization desired to 
 obtain, by any means, however extreme, that it would 
 justify the treatment of such men as either patriots or 
 martyrs of their country. In September of the same 
 year some money was sent for and acknowledged from 
 the trustees of the Emergency Fund to Mr. Parnell, to 
 enable him to purchase the interest in an Irish news- 
 paper — a paper called the Irishman. That is a paper 
 which was amalgamated with and practically ceased 
 to exist when United Ireland held the field, so that there 
 
 was no further necessity for the paper. The 5th of Sep- 
 tember, 1885, is the date of the report that the monej 
 had been sent over. But if it be true that Mr. Parnell 
 was only holding United Ireland as a trustee for the 
 Americans, who held the money, when you come to 
 examine the position of Mr. Parnell and his friends 
 they were to a great extent but puppets in the hands 
 of the people who sent over the money, or they could 
 not have commanded the American sympathy or got the 
 American supplies. I now come to 1886. I shall call 
 your Lordships' attention to the Chicago Convention of 
 1886. This is the Convention in respect of which The 
 Times made a mistake, and said that Mr. T. P. O'Connor 
 was present at that Convention, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor 
 has such an opinion of the gentlemen who were pre- 
 sent there that he alleges that it was a libel upon him. 
 He does not object to his name being mentioned in 
 connexion with earlier conventions, where the same 
 policy was supported and the same persons were pre- 
 sent. But it is a little significant that he should com- 
 plain with reference to this particular mistake which 
 was made in the columns of " Parnellism and 
 Crime," with reference to his attendance at 
 this Convention. This Convention, my Lords, is 
 of very considerable importance. The actual date 
 of the Convention is the 17th or 18th of August, 1886. 
 There were present at that Convention the Rev. George 
 Betts, William O'Brien, John Redmond.and John Deasy ; 
 I think Davitt was present also ; his name is not on the 
 list before me, but I shall assume and shall state that 
 he was there. There were also present. Thomas 
 Brennan, John Devoy, Patrick Egan, Patrick Ford, 
 John Finerty, Mr. T. P. O'Connor of Illinois (which 
 gave rise to the mistake), the Rev. George W. Pepper- 
 that was a Dissenting minister, to whom I have 
 already referred — E. J. Rowe, Alexander Sullivan, Dr. 
 Wallace, and John Walsh. I call your Lordships' 
 attention to the fact that Finerty was present at that 
 meeting, and that he was recognized by Mr. Parnell as 
 a dynamitard. I shall prove that when Mr. Finerty's 
 name was mentioned in the House of Commons by Sir 
 George (then Mr.) Trevelyan, in 1886, Mr. Parnell said 
 that Mr. Finerty was a gentleman who was strongly in 
 favour of dynamite, for the purpose, no doubt, of sug- 
 gesting at that time that there was no connexion 
 between him and members of his party and Mr. 
 Finerty. That was in July, 1886. I shall be able, no 
 doubt 
 
 The President.— What was in July, 1886 ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The statement in the 
 House of Commons, my Lord ; I apologize to your 
 Lordships for making a mistake, it was on the 25th of 
 May, 1886. Mr. Ford had come to Chicago at Mr. Red- 
 mond's special request, and had commissioned him to 
 assist Mr. Davitt and Mr. O'Brien in framing the reso- 
 lutions. Mr. Egan and Mr. Brennan spoke, and Finerty, 
 the dynamiter, spoke at the Convention. He 
 said that whatever Parliament might do for Ireland, 
 they, too, had a long and a terrible account to settle 
 with England. " Let the Irish in Ireland pursue, if 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
 4—2 
 
100 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 they chooso, their paths of peace, bat if they (the 
 American-Irish) could do anything to injure England, to 
 annoy England, to keep her awake o' nights,, they 
 would and they ought to do it." He praised " the 
 sword of the insurgent " and " the poignard of the 
 assassin ;" he begged the " constitutional leaders " 
 " not to be apologizing for their relations with the 
 American-Irish in the House of their common enemy" — 
 no doubt referring to Mr. Redmond, Mr. O'Brien, and 
 Mr. Egan, who were present ; and hoped they would not 
 repeat the conduct of Mr. Parnell, who had expressed 
 disapproval — namely, by withdrawing, or in any way 
 going back as to any statement made as to the 
 American connexion. Mr. Egan congratulated the meet- 
 ing on its " good sense and unity," and Mr. Michael 
 Davitt deprecate a policy of unprofitable revenge. He 
 believed dynamite to be unnecessary, "but he found 
 no fault with Mr. Finerty or Mr. Sullivan for the senti- 
 ments they expressed." 
 
 Mr. Davitt.— May I ask what paper the Attorney- 
 General is reading from ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am quoting from the 
 Irish World of the 28th of August, 1886. I do not know 
 whether or not the reports of the Irish World are sup- 
 posed to be fictitious, or made by other than competent 
 reporters. But if anything of the kind is suggested I 
 am correct, my Lords, in saying that so far as the 
 columns of the Irish World and United Ireland have 
 been searched, there has not been a single correction 
 or withdrawal or abandonment of any statement made, 
 nor anything introduced or written to tone down or 
 qualify it. 
 
 Mr. Davitt.— I only asked the question because The 
 Times had a reporter present, and I should have thought 
 the Attorney-General would have quoted from hislreport. 
 
 The President. — I did not catch the observation. 
 
 Mr. Davitt.— I was saying that I asked the Attorney- 
 General from what, paper he was quoting, inasmuch as 
 The Times, had a reporter at the Convention, and I 
 should have thought the Attorney-General would have 
 quoted from The Times report. 
 
 The President.— That is a fact which would be more 
 properly introduced as evidence, and not by way of 
 interruption. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My Lords, my instruc- 
 tions are that Mr. Davitt's information is not correct, 
 but that we shall see by the evidence. My Lords, at 
 the same meeting Mr. Davitt made a further speech. 
 He said that former insurrections in Ireland had ex- 
 clusively relied on Irish national sentiment. " But Irish 
 national sentiment had not succeeded in winning Irish 
 liberty. Recently they had added the power found in 
 the desire of a people to improve them socially. 
 They had to combine the whole Irish race at home and 
 abroad in one vast movement. . . . Thev had to 
 strike at and cripple the power of Irish landlordism — 
 England's territorial garrison in Ireland— before they 
 could call into the field of action the full force 
 of Irish manhood and Irish national sentiment." 
 
 At the meeting at which that speech was delivered a 
 service of plate was presented to Mr. Patrick Egan, 
 and a telegram' was read from Mr. Parnell thanking 
 the Convention, and declaring that " the ratification 
 of our policy and action, the order, union, and 
 moderation of the proceedings have created a pro- 
 found impression here, and add great strength to our 
 position." I do not know, my Lords, whether in the 
 face of these reports, after what happened in 1886, it 
 will be suggested that the American section and the 
 Irish National League were not still in close alliance, 
 just as in 1881 the American section had been in close 
 alliance with the Land League. I have stated, and I 
 must make good that statement, that Mr. Michael 
 Davitt openly referred to speeches in the Irish World, 
 and I now refer to a letter written by Mr. Davitt as 
 late as the year 1885. This is an extract from a letter 
 of Mr. Davitt's of October 7, 1885. Referring to the 
 whole course the Irish World had taken, he said : — 
 
 "The Irish World, which, of course, means Patrick 
 Ford, has almost always been ' a guide, philosopher, 
 and friend ' of mine since my liberation from Dart- 
 moor ; and if I have had to differ occasionally with 
 some of its teachings and to criticize the wisdom of 
 its plans for the freedom of Ireland, I have never for 
 a moment doubted the unselfish patriotism which 
 prompted such plans, or forgot the unparalleled ser- 
 vices which you rendered to the Land League move- 
 ment from its very inception until its organization — 
 but not its spirit -was suppressed by the Government 
 of England. Indeed, no truthful historian can write 
 the record of that organization and its giant assault 
 upon the citadel of felonious Irish landlordism 
 without recognizing the fact that the chief inspiration 
 of the movement, its spirit, and most of its financial 
 strength came from the Irish World." 
 
 Kow, I do not suppose that Mr. Davitt will 
 repudiate any statement of that kind. If so, Mr. 
 Davitt is one of the witnesses who can give the 
 strongest evidence in support of the view for 
 which we are contending — that there was but 
 one conspiracy, but one organization, and that its 
 object was to attack the felon landlords, to attack 
 the felonious Irish landlords, to drive them out, 
 root and branch, from the Irish soil, and to 
 put the Irish soil in the possession of the Irish 
 tenant, thereby to destroy what has been called 
 on so many occasions the " English garrison " in 
 Ireland. I told your Lordships that I must give you a 
 brief record of the connexion between the Irish World 
 and the Irish National League in the matter, of money. 
 I am not able at present to put in a complete state- 
 ment in regard to thp,t, as the files at my disposal have 
 not yet been completely searched. Your Lordships 
 know there is a summary, signed by Egan, in the sheet 
 which was produced in facsimile in The Times ; but, 
 practically speaking, every one or two issues of the 
 Irish World, sometimes once, sometimes twice, some- 
 times three times in a month, there are acknow- 
 ledged and signed by Patrick Egan various sums 
 of money received on account of the Irish Land 
 League, which undoubtedly formed substantially the 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 101 
 
 principal sources of the funds of the League. 
 I do not want merely to read from " Parnellism 
 and Crime," nor do I want to refer to any state- 
 ment of my own of mere plain facts as to what I 
 shall be able to prove in connexion with Mr. Farnell 
 and Mr. Ford ; but this I respectfully say, that I have 
 to-day travelled over a period of no less than eight 
 years, from 1878 to 1886, and have shown — and, so far 
 as I know at present, there is nothing to contradict the 
 statement I have made — that the initial plan of the 
 Irish Land League emanated from Mr. Davitt after 
 consultation with Mr. Ford in America. I daresay 
 there had been consultations in Ireland before. No 
 doubt Mr. Davitt is a very clever man, and may have 
 originated all those ideas ; but, be that as it may, the 
 Irish Land League did not exist until Mr. Davitt had 
 been to America. He comes back and he has a diffi- 
 culty in inducing Mr. Farnell to assent to the pro- 
 gramme he has proposed, because Mr. Parnell was 
 afraid he might be driven too far. In a fatal hour Mr. 
 Farnell yields, with the result that American money 
 is forthcoming, through the agency of the Irish World, 
 for starting the first initial organization of the National 
 Land League. During the years 1881, 1882, and 1883 
 there are constant and continual references to the ser- 
 vices rendered by the Irish World. During a portion 
 of this time there are undoubted attempts at outrages, 
 gross outrages, in this country, unconnected with 
 the land agitation, which emanated from America, 
 as to which not only the vile criminals who carried 
 them out, but the agents, such as dynamite, by means 
 of which they were carried out, all came from 
 America. As far as can be it will be proved before 
 your Lordships that all the dynamite used in the 
 outrages in this country emanated from America. 
 You have, therefore, got an extreme party placed 
 all the time in immediate alliance with the Land 
 League. And what is going on in Ireland ? Un- 
 fortunate beings are being made to walk to the 
 fullest extent the other plank built up by Mr. 
 Michael Davitt, and victim after victim falls who 
 has committed no offence except that lie has paid 
 bis rent. -All this culminates at a point in the year 1882. 
 Then what do we find during 1883, 1884, 1885, and 
 1886 ? If the story as I have told it is true— and I 
 challenge my learned friends to show that it is not— 
 you have the same intimate connexion between the 
 two conspiracies. Now, my Lords, it only remains for 
 me to follow one part of the story with which I have 
 not yet dealt — namely, whether or not the National 
 League did the same sort of work the Land League 
 has done. I am anxious to-day to complete the case as 
 nearly as possible, though I am afraid I shall not be 
 able to do so in the short time still at my disposal. 
 Now, my Lords, I do not hesitate to say that prior to 
 the year 1883 I have successfully demonstrated that 
 the Land League had been supported by a vile con- 
 spiracy, which only lived by the cruelty it practised 
 on the peasantry in Ireland, What we have to consider 
 now is, aye or no, was the course of conduct pursued , 
 
 by Mr. Parnell and others at the end of 1883, in 1884, 
 1885, and 1886 the same or different from their pre- 
 vious conduct ? Did the National League repent of 
 the evils which bad followed from the course of con« 
 duct pursued by the Land League ? It will be our duty 
 to lay before your Lordships evidence of exactly the 
 same kind, and it is essential that I should demonstrate 
 to your Lordships that I am going to tender evidence 
 which will, I trust, put it clearly before your Lord- 
 ships that after May, 1882, the National League was 
 pursuing exactly the same course of conduct as had 
 been pursued by the Land League prior to that date. 
 The first set of speeches to which I shall call atten* 
 tion are the speeches delivered in the county of Cork, 
 resuming the story of the working of ,the organization 
 in that district. The first speech which I will read was 
 delivered at the Land League meeting at Cullen on 
 June 7, 1885. 
 
 The Pbesident.— The Land League ? 
 
 The Attoeney-Generajl. — No. I mean the National 
 League, which was started in the autumn of 1882. The 
 Land League was supposed to have ceased to exist at 
 that time. At this meeting Mr. M'Carthy, ex-suspect, 
 who was, I think, in Kilmainham with Mr. Farnell, 
 made a speech 6trongly condemnatory of land-grabbers. 
 He fiercely denounced land-grabbers, whom he called 
 on the people to deal with ' ' as Irishmen should deal 
 with their enemies. There is one way you can get rid 
 of this scourge, boycott him, isolate him as accursed 
 by God." The remarks of this speaker, I think it will 
 be proved, were directed against one Cornelius 
 O'Connor, who had taken an evicted farm at 
 Ardnageehy. On June 14, at Hunting-hill, J. Lyons, 
 secretary of the Cork National.Oeague, said the meeting 
 was called to protest against a most unjust eviction, 
 and advised the people to boycott the emergency man 
 or land-grabber ; " they need not give him a drink of 
 water though it would save him from the next world." 
 Speaking at Knocknagree, on the 29th, Mr. Cronin ex- 
 pressed surprise *' that land-grabbing should be 
 allowed to exist in the district, having regard to the 
 perfection of the organization of the people therein. 
 The man who takes up the farm of another is unaer- 
 mining the groundwork of the agitation. He is doing 
 no good to his family, because the very children will 
 not only curse him for his action, but will not care to 
 hear the name of their father mentioned." Mr. Healy 
 — not either of the members of Parliament — -said " grab- 
 bing was growing apace, sustained and fed as it was 
 with the unaccountable immunity with which its disci- 
 ples had been allowed to pursue their villiany." I 
 think there can be no doubt as to what was intended 
 by " immunity." What had previously happened to 
 persons who had "grabbed" land would suggest to 
 the people what course they were intended to pursue. 
 Mr. M'Carthy, at the same meeting, said : — " No word 
 in the English language was sufficient to explain their 
 horror and loathing for the land-grabber, that wretch 
 whom the sooner the Irish people get from the face of 
 the country the better," Mr. Wright, from Phila- 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
102 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 delphia, said, " Earl Spencer is gone, but he has 
 
 got away too easy Perhaps we 
 
 know a great deal. Dynamite to us Americans 
 means the result of wretchedness against oppres- 
 sion." Your Lordships will find not a few cases 
 in which Americans spoke at these meetings. 
 On July 12, at Innishannon, Mr. J. Deasy, M.P., the 
 gentleman who attended the Chicago Convention with 
 Messrs. O'Brien and Redmond, said : — 
 
 " They were assembled under a Conservative Govern- 
 ment without having their right of meeting interfered 
 with. The settlement of the land question was merely 
 a means to an end. Come to your meetings, pass your 
 resolutions, adhere strictly to these resolutions, have 
 no dallying with the land-grabber, hold no communica- 
 tion with him." 
 
 Mr. Kelleher, in the presence of Mr. J. Deasy and Mr. 
 J. Hooper, M.P., alluded to the case of a man who, he 
 said, had been bribing the agent to evict a tenant 
 from his holding, and warned him that "if he con- 
 tinued his nefarious designs he would not only bring 
 down upon himself the vengeance of God, but also the 
 vengeance of man, which was worse than the vengeance 
 of God." At Kealkil, on August 23, Dr. Tanner, 
 M.P., called on the people present, " for God's sake 
 to boycott every man, woman, and child who would 
 not be true and join the national cause." He told the 
 people to be careful not to purchase an article from 
 any one but a Nationalist, and observed that if this 
 would not take effect " the steel would, begob." 
 Speaking at Macroom on September 6, Mr. John 
 O'Connor, M.P., said : — 
 
 " They had driven the Land League — like Samson 
 of old — between the pillars of landlord oppression and 
 English injustice, and had given the structure such a 
 mighty shake that it came tumbling to its base. The 
 Land League was crushed, no doubt, but they were 
 building a new house out of the old material. While 
 we exercise all the power that lies within us in 
 chastising the guilty, we must take care we do not also 
 chastise the innocent." 
 
 rhe speaker then referred to an interference, on the 
 part of the Cork branch of the League, with a decision 
 by another branch, and laid down what he called a 
 little " Land League Law," to the effect that the 
 latter branch was more competent to give an opinion 
 than the former branch, which did not know the cir- 
 cumstances of the case. Here the effigy of a land- 
 grabber was carried through the people, and Mr. 
 O'Connor observed he had no objection to a little 
 amusement, " particularly when that amusement con- 
 sisted in dealing properly with a grabber." Well, I 
 should think, in connexion with the carrying of an 
 effigy through the meeting, (here could not bo a much 
 stronger or simpler method of appealing to an Irish 
 audience than the advice to " deal properly " with the 
 grabber given by Mr. John O'Connor at that meeting. 
 Continuing, Mr. O'Connor said : — 
 
 " Our policy in Parliament will be to do such 
 things ns will bring us every day nearer to the grand 
 goal of our ambition— national independence. We will 
 Dot rest (otit>fied with any half-hearted measures • 
 nothing short of the power to work out our own destiny 
 
 and to be on equal terms with every other nation of 
 the earth." 
 
 Your Lordships will observe thatMr. JohnO'Connor.taking 
 his instructions from his chiefs, or being one of the chiefs 
 himself,knewthatnational independence was the subject 
 which it was essential to put forward as one of the 
 main objects by which his hearers would be excited, 
 otherwise he would not be true to the resolutions 
 passed at the various Conventions in America to 
 which I have been calling attention. On September 
 20, 1885, a meeting was held at Donoughmore, county 
 Cork. There were present Mr. W. Redmond, M.P., 
 and Mr. J. 0. Flynn, Robert Walsh, of Cork, being 
 the speaker. The latter said : — " While Carty clings 
 to that farm below, boycott him ; do not speak to 
 him ; find out where he gets his provisions from ; do 
 not deal with that shopkeeper ; establish a Vigilance 
 Committee for the purpose and make the place as 
 hot as hell for him." At Blackstaff's Cross, county 
 Cork, on the 10th of April, 1885, Mr. Deasy, M.P., 
 denounced Mr. Hamilton Brien as " one of the worst 
 type of Irish agents to be found in Ireland," and 
 advised the boycotting of land-grabbers. To show the 
 extent to which this agitation was being carried on in 
 Cork, on the same day at Cooldorihy, county Cork, iu 
 the presence of J. C. Flynn, William Kelleher said 
 that " the struggle of Whiteboyism is the struggle of 
 to-day." Your Lordships know what Whiteboyism 
 was. A number of Acts were passed to stop offences 
 such as firing at night. The speaker went on to say : — 
 " The Whiteboys, in order to protect their wives 
 and families, had no doubt a desperate struggle with 
 the landlords. I am sorry to say they failed, but 
 please God we shall not fail. The National League 
 has grappled landlordism by the throat ; and if you in 
 this branch of the League, and the branches through- 
 out the country, are faithful and true to the League, 
 that hold will never be loosened until landlordism is 
 completely strangled and until the last vestige of the 
 ruffianly institution is swept out of the country." 
 
 If there were half a dozen ignorant men there who 
 believed that stamping out landlordism would give them 
 their farms for nothing, mere greed would drive them 
 to take those means which were suggested by the 
 speaker, while there would be a considerable number of 
 others who would be afraid to resist. One of the prin- 
 cipal means Mr. Parnell has for rewarding his supporters 
 is by making them members of Parliament for the dis- 
 tricts in which they have been agitators, and this Mr. 
 Flynn was afterwards member for North Cork. On 
 the ISth of October atDurrusMr. Deasy, M. P., said:— 
 " They would be placing themselves within the power 
 of the law if they proposed any resolutions at their 
 League meotings directing their friends to boycott any 
 individual." Your Lordships will observe the in- 
 sidious way in which Mr. Deasy avoided all he thought 
 would place himself within the power of the law. 
 The speaker went on to say : — 
 
 " If they entered into any kind of a conspiracy for 
 the purpose of making life unbearable to those 
 wretches, they would run the risk of having a convic- 
 tion against them. They know the land-grabbers, and 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 103 
 
 nobody need tell them how to deal with them. There 
 need be no discussions at their meetings on the subject 
 at all. If they pursued the constitutional course they 
 had been pursuing for the last five years they would 
 soon see the day when the Irish people would bid 
 defiance to the British Government, and would have 
 supreme control over their own destinies." 
 There you have it again, my Lords — " the same con- 
 stitutional course being pursued as during the last five 
 years " — the constitutional course being murder, intimi- 
 dation and the maiming of cattle. The Rev. Father 
 O'Riordan at the same time said — 
 
 " Are Irishmen, with the brains they have, to be 
 the only people to remain degraded' and depressed ? 
 You shall not, with the political education you have, 
 with the brains you have, and the hearts you have, 
 and the manly figure you have, and the strong arms — 
 which you will keep quiet till your commanders order 
 you — with all these qualities of mind and body you 
 shall not remain any longer the most degraded people 
 on the face of the earth." 
 
 At a meeting at Coachford, county Cork, Dr. Tanner 
 spoke. Dr. Tanner is a gentleman who has a greater 
 command of metaphor and of epithet lhan most of his 
 colleagues. He spoke of the land-grabber as a " rapa- 
 cious beast, too low, too filthy, to take cognizance of, 
 too low to denounce. He is like the leper in the East, 
 or like that other gentleman, and like such a noisome 
 creature, we should treat him in the only way in 
 whicn he ought or can be treated, we should leave him 
 severely alone." Your Lordships will remember that 
 the " severely alone " was the text of Mr. Parnell at 
 liunis in 1880, nearly five years before. " The Irish 
 people would march on until the cord has been snapped 
 which ties them to slavery, and until Ireland will again 
 assert herself an independent, free, and glorious nation." 
 On November 15, 1885, Mr. Lane, M.P., speaking at 
 Midleton, congratulated the people upon the disappear- 
 ance from their midst of " the cursed flag that they 
 had been accustomed to see upon every public plat- 
 form, and he hoped they would never see it again. 
 (Cheers, and groans for the 'Union Jack.') In its 
 place were the banners representing Ireland, and the 
 greater Ireland across the sea. Boycotting was a 
 thoroughly legal weapon, and, powerful and desperate 
 though it was, they were entitled to use it. As hang- 
 ing is a protection to society against the taking of 
 human life, so bpycotting was a protection to the 
 tenant farmers. It was the only weapon they 
 had against the brute force of British laws. 
 Let no tenant go behind the backs of his 
 fellow tenants on any estate and pay his rent 
 after it had been decided to act in concert." 
 Your Lordships will find several references in these 
 later speeches to acting in concert and to the Plan of 
 Campaign, which, I assume your Lordships are aware, 
 was the revival of an old system that there should bo 
 a combination by those who could pay banking the 
 money for the good of all, not one sixpence to go to 
 ' the landlord, those who were willing and able to 
 fulfil their contracts or carry out their existing obliga- 
 tions being prevented by intimidation from doing so. 
 
 Hence the meaning of the observation as to acting ir: 
 concert. On the loth of Dacember Dr. Tanner spoko 
 at Millstreet, county Cork, and aiked the peoplo 
 present to hold up their hands and swear never to take 
 evicted farms. Referring to Mr. Hegarty, he described 
 him as " a vile, creeping reptile, living in their 
 midst, who used his landlord inlluence in maligning 
 the people among whom he lived, who was endeavour- 
 ing to climb to the magistracy, but who would yet be 
 relegated to the lowest depths of a felon's cell." 
 Mr. Hegarty is a gentleman who will be called before 
 your Lordships — a very respectable man who lived for 
 years in peace and quietness with his fellow men, but 
 who had the pluck and determination absolutely to 
 decline to knuckle under to the National League. I 
 believe that several attacks have been made upon him, 
 even to the extent of firing at him. He will be 
 able to describe to your Lordships the position a man 
 in Ireland is in if he has the courage to resist the 
 National League and not to mind the attacks upon him. 
 He then describes Mr. Hegarty as " a low, creeping 
 reptile, who did not deserve the name of a human 
 being, whose proper definition would be a ' thing,' 
 but since he should call him something, he would 
 call him the lowest of created beings, a creeping louse. 
 As long as Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty was in their midst 
 there never would be peace in Millstreet." He then 
 called on all who wished Mr. Hegarty away to put 
 up their hands. Thereupon the whole crowd lifted their 
 hands, groaning and booing. Well, my Lords, it cer- 
 tainly does seem an extraordinary thing that this kind 
 of speech should be made for the purpose of forward- 
 ing a bond fide political organization or any organiza- 
 tion which pursues constitutional means. Now on 
 August 22, 188G, Mr. Uilhooly, M.P., spoke at Kealkil, 
 county Cork. He said :— 
 
 " Become members of the National League, which 
 is the only power to protect you from the landlords, 
 and, above all things, be determined that you will not 
 surrender the land you have tilled and slaved on to a 
 horde of miserable vampires who have no right to that 
 land. During the last two years two millions of 
 our people have been murdered by landlordism, 
 aided by English law in Ireland, and it is your duty 
 to combine and determine that you never again will 
 be driven from the homes which are your right. 
 We have in the neighbourhood of Bantry some of 
 the most miserable vampires that ever cursed the face 
 of the earth. We have that cursed militiaman, Lord 
 Bantry, who hag returned to occupy the home where 
 his father kept the paternal seat at Blackrock House." 
 He then denounced Mr. Bird, J. P. and land agent, for 
 having served writs of ejectment on tenants ; also 
 Mr. Barrett, J. P. Both these names yon will find, my 
 Lords, that it is important to remember. He denounced 
 land-grabbers, and observed that : — 
 
 " The grabbers in this locality will find that ic will 
 be impossible for them to keep a hold of their farms. 
 The people should boycott them as they would a 
 venomous serpent, and also any shopkeepers who sup- 
 ported them. It was not by a ' wishy-washy ' sort of 
 organization, or by going and joining the National 
 League, they could do anything, but by acting as men, 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
104 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 by being fearless of the consequences. If they had to 
 go to gaol, go to gaol ; let no punishment that can 
 be inflicted prevent you from preserving your families 
 from landlordism. Notwithstanding every means 
 which could be employed by the English Government 
 to stamp out the spirit of the Irish people, the spirit 
 to-day lives, thank God, and the Irish people are more 
 hopeful and nearer to win back the God-given right of 
 self-government than at any period of Irish history 
 since the English invader laid his unholy foot on the 
 soil of our country." 
 
 Itlv Lords, it is perfectly clear from the reports of 
 these speeches that these speakers had all had the 
 same text given to them — were told that they were 
 to preach national independence and the sweeping 
 away of landlordism, and following out these lines 
 they one and all appeal to that for the purpose of se- 
 curing the American support and that of the extreme 
 section to which I have made such frequent reference. 
 The actual foundation of the Plan of Campaign was in 
 October, 1886. On the 7th of November, 1886, Mr. 
 W. J. Lane, M.P., spoke at Youghal. He said he did 
 not think that the local branch of the League had 
 sliown that activity for the past six or eight months 
 which it ought to have shown, and which, if it had 
 shown, there would not be three or four vacant farms 
 in the immediate neighbourhood of their town. If 
 such farms were not boycotted within the next week, 
 he would say the branches were not doing their duty. 
 (Cheers.) There was not a district in Ireland at the 
 present moment where there are not a few boycotted, 
 and strictly boycotted farms. These farms serve to the 
 surrounding landlords the very same purpose that an 
 old hat on the top of a stick serves crows in the 
 potato field. He counselled the tenants on the Ponsonby 
 estate to demand what reduction they considered fair, 
 and if that reduction were refused he explained to 
 them what they should do. 
 
 " In those good old days when the English Govern- 
 ment used to go to war — before they were muzzled by 
 Mr. Parnell and made the laughing-stock of the world 
 — it was a rule of the British Army that every man 
 who deserted his ranks in presence of the enemy was 
 shot on the spot. We are told to look up to the 
 British Government as models of law and order, and 
 if we might take a leaf out of their book, I would 
 say this, that every tenant farmer who is found turn- 
 ing his back on his comrades deserves to be shot. But, 
 my friends, understand me thoroughly. We have given 
 up the use of firearms in our warfare, we have a more 
 powerful weapon at present, and one that is able to 
 deal a deadlier blow than any firearm ever invented, 
 and that is the weapon of boycotting." (I wonder 
 whether Mr. Lane pointed out to his hearers that boy- 
 cotting in the end means killing the man if he did not 
 submit through the boycotting.) " We have heard it 
 said by landlords and land-grabbers that they would a 
 great deal sooner be shot than boycotted. And there- 
 fore I say when you have deserters in the National 
 ranks, instead of shooting them as the English Govern- 
 ment deals with its deserters, we will boycott them. 
 Mind that ! Let that be fully understood, now, because 
 these people have been treated with too much con- 
 sideration in the past. It is not the landlords that 
 have the fixing of rents at present ; it is the tenants. 
 
 If the tenants are true to their colours, they can fix 
 the rents, and not the landlords." 
 
 Father Hayes, an Irish-American priest, thanked them 
 for the enthusiastic reception they had given him ; 
 he knew it was intended for the great Republic of 
 America. (Cheers.) Whenever he spoke in America he 
 never had a Government reporter on the platform to 
 bulldog him. 
 
 " They were not accustomed there to those objects 
 of servitude, of slavery, and of foreign domina- 
 tion. But, whoever else he may bulldog, this 
 child of the American Republic he will not 
 bulldog. Between the English Government and 
 the Irish landlords, as between two millstones, 
 the very life has been crushed out of Ireland. 
 In the name of the God of freedom, of truth, and of 
 justice, what is the remedy ? Is it by physical force, 
 or is it by moral force ? I know there are some 
 people on earth, and a great many perhaps, here, who 
 think that no good can be done without dynamite, 
 powder, and blood, andl that no triumph can be 
 achieved without these evils that shake the pillars of 
 the globe and make thrones and principalities and 
 republics totter and rush down in chaos before the 
 stormy wrath and execrations of revolutionary men. 
 I hold that physical force should never be employed 
 except where you can employ it successfully, and then 
 only as supplementary to moral force, and when moral 
 force has been despised. Evidently we have lost our 
 time in petitioning England. Will we now petition 
 the landlords that they may have mercy on us and 
 spare us — a plutocracy of thieves, held together by 
 the cohesive power of public plunder, wringing their 
 wealth from the sweat of the Irish poor ? What, then 
 is the remedy ? Let every man stand to his gun ; no 
 neutrals, as my friend Dr. Ronayne said ; every man 
 and woman can do something. Any one that is not 
 with us is against us. Some of the ancient Republics 
 that are no more condemned to death any citizen that 
 remained neutral when his country entered on a 
 troubled time. Ireland is in trouble and affliction, 
 and if that law were applied to Youghal — I am sorry 
 to say it, but I am one of those who speak the truth 
 and shame the devil— -if that law were applied to 
 Youghal, one-half of us should be doomed to death long 
 ago. The first remedy is perfect unity. Unity is 
 strength, and in strength is victory. Any one that is 
 not with you heart and soul, go, mark him well, 
 whether he be Churchman or layman, Catholic or 
 Protestant. You must make no distinction on the 
 score of nationality. If you had a Catholic that was 
 a renegade to your National League, and if you had a 
 Protestant that was true to his country, you should 
 patronize the Protestant and condemn the Catholic. 
 Put him where the Redeemer of the world put 
 Iscariot,and you do not need to be any more just than 
 your Redeemer. I tell you that if, in spite of moral 
 means, that still England remains the England of all 
 history, brutal in the superlative degree — I tell you 
 we have something in America that will give her a 
 rude awakening, and she got a taste of it in Parlia- 
 ment in the dynamite explosions. If nothing but 
 explosions will make an impression on England — I do 
 not advise you anything, but we in America would 
 pelt the powder that would not do us justice with the 
 lightnings of Heaven and the fires of hell." 
 Mr. John Hyde, of Killeagh, said that " a great deal 
 had been Baid about tyrannical landlords, but they 
 had in their midst a land-grabber of the deepest dye, 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 25 and 26, 1888. 
 
 105 
 
 and that is Bill Daly." I have only two more, if I 
 may be allowed to finish them, my Lords. Mr. J. C. 
 Flynn, M.P., said :— 
 
 " The plain truth is this, that the land of Ireland 
 this year has produced no rent ; and what I should 
 advise is that where abatements are not given, then 
 let there be no rent. The man who is a member of 
 the Irish Parliamentary party has land which appears 
 to be of that kind from which Sir James Caird said 
 six months ago that all economic rent had dis- 
 appeared. The conduct of Sir Joseph N. M'Kenna is 
 bad, especially because he is a member of the 
 National party, and because he is supposed to repre- 
 sent the justice of the tenantry and people of Ireland. 
 Mr. Lane has told you, and I repeat it, that the atti- 
 tude of Mr. Ponsonby and Sir Joseph M'Kenna, and 
 the attitude of all other landlords in this district, 
 will be measured by the strength and determination 
 he meets from the people. Let the farmers show at 
 the present time the same determination that one man 
 —Tim Hurley — showed a fortnight ago, and the ques- 
 tion is settled, and the rents of Ireland will come 
 down." 
 
 After that was a speech by the renowned Dr. Tanner, 
 at Molly M'Carthy's Bridge, county Cork, (on January 
 23, 1S87. Dr. Tanner said :— 
 
 " The Plan of Campaign had been proclaimed, but 
 then they (the Government) proclaim a great many 
 things. In point of fact, if I am tired of anything, I 
 am rather tired of tearing up the Queen's proclama- 
 tions. (Cheers.)" He commended boycotting as a 
 most powerful, serviceable weapon, and called upon 
 the people to boycott any man who is an enemy of the 
 country. He was not, he said, going to specify any 
 particular cases ; they knew the difference between 
 right and wrong, and he called upon them "in all 
 wrong cases, or cases of grabbing, or emergency men, 
 or ruffians and scoundrels of that type, distinctly to 
 boycott all such. We all know the way they treat 
 renegades and ruffians in Millstreet. (A voice. — 
 * Hegarty.') Some one mentioned the name Hegarty. 
 (Groans.) I was speaking about that creature this 
 morning, and as I told the people in Ballyvourney 
 this morning, so I tell you now, the creature is going 
 down-hill too quick. [I cannot help thinking, my 
 Lords, that this must have been in 1886, and not 
 1887.] I am not going to deal with men of that class, 
 stamp, or abstraction. Their foul deeds are on them 
 — the brand of Cain — and their fellow men are able to 
 discriminate between them and .honest and just men. 
 I draw a difference between a viper and a boa con- 
 strictor. One is a miserable, mean, grovelling, 
 crawling reptile, the other is a reptile of a more 
 noble stamp. So, my friends, you are able to draw 
 the difference, and I will leave the matter in your 
 hands. I am not going to deal with these men, 
 because they are beneath contempt — Hegarty and that 
 lot." 
 
 Tour Lordships see it was so well organized that in 
 all cases " of grabbing or emergency men " the 
 people were enabled to recognize what they had to do. 
 Dr. Tanner, speaking at Coolderrihy, county Cork, on 
 the 25th of January, 1887, said that he, as their repre- 
 sentative, was the general in command of the Irish 
 National League of Mid-Cork ; that Kilmichael should 
 send forward its company to march shoulder to shoulder 
 with the regiment, to meet the enemy in the gap. " If a 
 
 soldier enlisted in the Army was required by his 
 colonel to march with his comrades to meet the enemy 
 at the gap and fell out of the ranks, well, he would be 
 shot. The men who will not obey me as their colonel 
 and join the National League, well, I would not say 
 they should be shot, bat they should be roughly treated. 
 I won't be accountable for their lives, and may be tho 
 daylight would be seen through them in bullet holes." 
 My Lords, I have read this series of speeches from 
 1.S85 to 1887, and I submit there is practically no 
 difference between the conduct pursued by the 
 National League speakers during that period and that 
 pursued by the Land League speakers in the previous 
 period. 
 
 FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26. 
 
 Mr. Davitt appeared in person. 
 
 The Commissioners having taken their seats upon the 
 bench, 
 
 The Attorney-General said,— Might I venture 
 my Lords, to refer to a matter which your Lordships 
 were good enough to say I might mention again and 
 that you would consider the application — namely, as 
 to the number of days a week that your Lordships will 
 sit ? It will be necessary in the course of our case to 
 call witnesses from various localities, and it will be 
 almost impossible to have them here at the same time. 
 It would therefore, I think, bo a great saving of time 
 if we could marshal the evidence so as to deal with 
 different districts on the same days. Under these cir« 
 cumstances I think it would be a saving of time if the 
 Commission only sat four days a week — Monday, 
 Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, and we should then 
 have the intervening day. 
 
 The President. — We are desirous of meeting your 
 views with regard to the number of days a week that 
 we should sit, but we think that whatever days we sit 
 they should be continuous. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Then it had better be 
 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday — or Tues- 
 day, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I rather think Tuesday, Wednesday, 
 Thursday, and Friday would be most convenient. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Well, we will leave the 
 matter in your Lordships' hands. 
 
 The President. — I myself am disposed to sit so as 
 to leave Saturday and Monday free. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — That course certainly has 
 its advantages. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Be it so, then, my Lords. There 
 is another matter which I should like to mention. It 
 would be a great saving of time if the Attorney-General 
 were to give us reasonable notice of the order in 
 which he proposes to take the different classes of evi» 
 dence. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— So far as I possibly can I 
 will meet my learned friend's wish, but I cannot pro« 
 mise to do so exhaustively, because we shall not 
 always be able to get all the witnesses we desire from 
 the same district together. 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
106 
 
 The Special Commission, October 25, 1888. 
 
 SlE C. RCS3ELL.— There is one other matter. We 
 should wish, as early as is convenient to yonr Lord- 
 ships, to know the result of the inspection of the docu- 
 ments in the box and of the documents alleged to be 
 forged, which it was agreed were to be examined by 
 your Lordships. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — There were also some 
 documents mentioned in the affidavit of Mr. Lewis. 
 
 The President. — I do not remember. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I would ask your Lord- 
 ships to look at these documents also. The affidavit 
 states they have been lodged for the use of the Corn- 
 mission only and nobody else. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The matter stands thus, my Lords. 
 The affidavit states that they are documents which 
 Mr. Lewis thinks he ought to disclose. They were 
 a batch of documents which came to an English member 
 of Parliament from America, and which he thought 
 might have an important bearing on some part of the 
 ca.se. We have no objection, however, that these 
 should be seen by your Lordships. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I have not yet got the particulars 
 which were promised to me, my Lords. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I shall tak3 care that tho 
 particulars are delivered to Mr. Davitt to-morrow. 
 
 The Attorney-General, resuming his speech, said, 
 — I referred yesterday to the outrages that followed 
 the Cork speeches, and with reference to them and the 
 outrages in the various counties of Kerry, Galway, 
 C'auc, and Mayo, which I have selected for tho pur- 
 pose of illustrating to your Lordships the character of 
 the organization and the nature of its work. I desire 
 to state to your Lordships what my allegation is with 
 respect to those years. It is that the National 
 League pursued identically the same methods and 
 course of action and with the same objects as the Land 
 League. Your Lordships will find again organizers 
 sent down to organize or revive the flagging interests 
 of the organization in various counties ; and these 
 organizers went about delivering the same kind of 
 speeches, giving the same advice, and inviting those 
 whom they addressed to take part in the same conduct, 
 and your Lordships wdl find theso speeches followed 
 by outrages of the same description and scarcely fewer 
 in number. I am glad to say that in some districts the 
 outrages were slightly less in number, due in a great 
 degree to the fact that there was an increase of tho 
 police force in those districts where the speeches were 
 delivered. Your Lordships will also find that that 
 organization of outrage pursued by the branches of the 
 organization had been practically reduced to a 
 system, and as soon as any person was found 
 r.ot to obey the orders of the National League 
 bo was either boycotted at once, or notice 
 was given to him that ho would be boycotted. 
 Heferencc also was modo to what had happened to 
 boycotted persons in other districts in previous times, 
 with the result, as your Lordships can well understand, 
 that there was in a great many instances immediate 
 obedience to the commands of the League and to the 
 
 orders which the League Council cave, which they 
 intended to be enforced first by boycotting, and then, if 
 necessary, by outrage. During this time, in 1885 and 
 1886, the League held courts, summoning people before 
 them, and fining them for not obeying the edicts of the 
 League, fining them for not obeying its edicts with refer- 
 ence to payment of rent, and for other circumstances in 
 connexion with their conduct towards their neighbours. 
 In many instances there was complete submission, and 
 the most abject terror prevailed among the people 
 summoned to these courts ; in fact, it was scarcely 
 possible for anybody who had not got very large 
 means, and who was not endowed with a very 
 courageous temperament, to resist what he would be 
 subjected to by the commands of the League. Very 
 remarkable instances will be proved of men being 
 summoned and of resolutions being passed at League 
 meetings and of men being boycotted and moonlighted 
 in consequence — that is to say, their names having 
 been mentioned as men who had offended, in the 
 same night or within a few hours or days moonlight 
 operations icommenced against them. Of course, it 
 may be said that this was all entirely independent of 
 the organization, and that it was all the work of some 
 secret society ; but it will be for your Lordships to 
 judge, when the evidence is laid before you, whether 
 any such view as that is possible. I should also 
 ment'on one other matter in connexion with the action 
 of the League at this time, and that is the way in 
 which many of the papers referred to in the particulars 
 were worked. Your Lordships will find that in a good 
 many of the counties the names of the persons offend- 
 ing were mentioned in par-era which were under the 
 immediate control of many gentlemen whose names are 
 included in the particulars— as, for instance, the 
 Kerry Sentinel, which is, I believe, if not owned by, 
 largely under the control of, one of the Messrs. 
 Harrington. Reports of all that was being done in 
 those parts of Kerry where the League was holding 
 meetings were published in that paper, and it was 
 undoubtedly used as a means of enforcing the com- 
 mands of the League, and for deterring people either 
 from disregarding the rules of the League or from 
 being willing to fight the Council. The extent to which 
 in many districts boycotting and intimidation of the 
 extreme kind were carried can scarcely be exaggerated 
 or stated in too atrong terms. There was the most 
 absolute and complete system. For instance, if any- 
 body who might be owed two or three years' rent — I 
 am not now speaking of large landowners, but of 
 persons quito in a small way — offered to receive a 
 very small portion of that rent, say a year, or a year 
 and a-half's rent, from his tenant who was perfectly 
 willing to pay apart from the tyranny of the League — 
 if it were known that any such arrangement was about 
 to be made, that man's name was published, frequently 
 all his servants employed on his farm were threatened, 
 and having no means, no power to resist, and no place 
 to which they could go for aid, in numbers of instances 
 such people were absolutely ruined. In the case of 
 
 Tho Speech of the Attorney-GeneraL 
 
The Special Commission, October" 26," 1888. 
 
 107 
 
 dairy farming, there were especially mauy instances 
 in whioh the orders of the League not having been 
 obeyed, the servants at work in connexion with the 
 dairy were threatened and had to leave, and the 
 cattle would die because their owners could not get 
 people to undertake the work of looking after them. 
 There is one other matter that I must mention to your 
 Lordships, and that is this, that a very large number 
 of persons were undoubtedly willing to fulfil their 
 obligations if they had been left alone, and from 
 evidence that will be laid before your Lordships it 
 will be found that in a large number of instances 
 persons would pay their rent secretly, would come by 
 night and ask that they might be served with writs 
 before they paid, asked even that pressure by distress 
 might be put upon them, and in some cases that they 
 might be served with notices of eviction. What was the 
 meaning of such conduct as that ? It could only mean 
 that there was a terrorism exercised over them all 
 this time by some system of which they were in 
 abject fear. I do not suppose that ultimately it will 
 he seriously denied that, whoever it was at the back 
 of the local branches of the National League, whether 
 it was the Parnellite party or not, it was intended 
 that this should be the kind of process whereby their 
 power would bo obtained over the occupiers of the 
 land, and persons who otherwise would have been 
 willing to remain on the same relations to their land- 
 lords as had existed before were, practically speaking, 
 coerced into a resistance to every kind of legal pro- 
 cess. There are other minor methods your Lordships 
 will have to deal with, such as the interference with 
 justice, the preventing of the giving of evidence and 
 the intimidation of jurors, and matters of that kind. 
 As to these I shall be able to give your Lordships 
 many instances, though I do not by any means say that 
 I propose to open anything more than a part of the 
 cases, and only those cases which appear to require 
 some special notice. Now, my Lords, among other 
 matters that were developed during this period was 
 the Plan of Campaign. I stated yesterday that 
 that rras nothing more nor less than a system 
 iuitiated by one Pinton Lalor as far back as 1848. 
 The Plan of Campaign has been declared to be illegal 
 by every tribunal in Ireland which has expressed an 
 opinion on the matter, and I think nobody with the 
 most elementary knowledge of law could come to any 
 but one conclusion. It appears to have been this 
 process — assuming there were a number of tenants on 
 an estate, a great many who could pay their rents and 
 some who could not, the Plan of Campaign came in. 
 It was an arrangement whereby they were all forced to 
 agree that no more should be paid than a certain 
 amount, and if that amount was not accepted nobody 
 was to pay anything, but that all the money they should 
 be willing to pay should be handed over to a third 
 person, to be used, not for payment of rent, but for 
 other purposes, for the supposed well-being of the 
 persons who had declined to pay, or of other persons 
 who were carrying on the land warfare. The Plan of 
 
 Campaign had this incident in connexion with it, that, 
 practically speaking, it reduced the amount that each 
 tenant paid to the sum which the poorest or the most 
 stubborn of them was able or willing to pay ; inasmuch 
 as it was a principle of the Plan that nobody should 
 go behind the back of any of the others and pay, they 
 were all brought down to the level of what the person 
 who was the most impecunious or stubborn was willing 
 or able to contribute towards payment of his rent. And 
 when the Plan was started your Lordships will find that 
 over and over again persons were boycotted because 
 they would not join the Plan. Persons were named at 
 those meetings because it was supposed they had paid 
 their rent behind the back of the general combination 
 or organization of those who were united together in 
 the Plan of Campaign of the particular place, and I 
 will show your Lordships that the leaders of this 
 party, by which I mean such gentlemen as Mr. 
 Dillon, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Deasy, Mr. Sheehy, 
 M.P. (whose name is spelled in the same way as that 
 of Father Sheehy, to whom I have frequently referred), 
 and many other persons, to whose speeches I shall 
 have to refer, who are persons charged in these pro- 
 ceedings, went about threatening those who would not 
 join the Plan of Campaign and who would not agree 
 to this imposed arrangement, whereby an agreed 
 amount should be paid, and that, not to the landlord, 
 but to the trustee of the Plan of Campaign. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am very loth to interfere if 
 your Lordships desire to go into this matter, but to the 
 best of my recollection there is no reference to the 
 Plan of Campaign in ** Parnellism and Crime," and 
 certainly not, so far as I am aware, in the particulars 
 that have been delivered. Of course, if my learned 
 friend desires, he may apply to amend his particulars. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I beg your pardon,. Sir 
 Charles, it will not require any amendment of the 
 particulars. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I am, of course, surprised, because 
 this was the subject of discussion in Court. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I have nothing whatever 
 to do with any discussion ; I do not know to what my 
 learned friend refers. If your Lordships will kindly 
 look at paragraph 5 in the, print of the particulars :— 
 " One of the immediate objects of the said conspiracy 
 or organization was to promote an agrarian agitation 
 against the payment of agricultural rents, thereby 
 securing the co-operation of the tenant-farmers of Ire- 
 laud, and at the same time the impoverishment and 
 ultimate expulsion from the country of the Irish land- 
 lords, who were styled ' the English garrison.' " Then, 
 " The organization was actively engaged in the 
 following matters : — 1. The promotion of and incit- 
 ing to the commission of crimes, outrages, boycott- 
 ing, and intimidation. ... 4. Holding meetings 
 and procuring to be made speeches, inciting to the 
 commission of crimes, outrages, boycotting, and 
 intimidation. ... 6. Advocating resistance to 
 law and the constituted authorities, and impeding 
 the detection and punishment of crime 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
IDS 
 
 The Special Commission, October 26/ 1888. 
 
 8. It is charged and alleged that the member* of 
 Parliament mentioned in the schedule approved and 
 by their acts and conduct led people to believe that 
 they approved of resistance to the law and the com- 
 mission of crimes, outrages, and acts of boycotting and 
 intimidation when committed in furtherance of the 
 objects and resolutions of the said societies, and that 
 persons who engaged in the commission of such crimes, 
 outrages, and acts would receive the support and pro- 
 tection of the said societies and of their organization 
 and influence. The acts and conduct specially 
 referred to are as follows ' " 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is " the acts and conduct 
 which led people to believe." 
 
 The Attorney-General.— No, the acts and conduct 
 of the persons named in the particulars. My learned 
 friend fell into the same error before. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I beg the Attorney-General's 
 pardon, I fell into no error before ; the acts and 
 conduct are act3 and conduct which led people to 
 believe. 
 
 The ^Attorney-General, continuing : — " 9. They 
 attended meetings of the said societies and other 
 meetings at various places, and made speeches, and 
 caused and procured speeches to be made inciting to 
 the commission of crimes, outrages, boycotting, and 
 intimidation." I assert, my Lords, that in their 
 speeches it will be found that they had incited to 
 intimidate, boycott, and, if necessary, outrage persons 
 who would not join the Plan of Campaign. Paragraph 
 11. " With knowledge that crimes, outrages, and acts of 
 boycotting and intimidation had followed the delivery 
 of speeches at the meetings, they expressed no bond 
 Jide disapproval or public condemnation ; but, on the 
 contrary, continued to be leading and active members 
 of the said societies, and to subscribe to their funds." 
 I do not know, my Lords, whether my learned friend 
 will say that does not apply to the Plan of Campaign. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Might I point out, my Lords, that 
 the particulars are only intended to be a specification 
 of the charges contained in " Parnellism and Crime," 
 and therefore, even if my learned friend shows that 
 the particulars refer to the Plan of Campaign that is 
 not enough — he must also show that it is referred to in 
 " Parnellism and Crime." 
 
 The President.— According to the Attorney-General's 
 statement, his contention is that this Plan of Cam- 
 paign was one of the means of intimidation, and 
 therefore it would be included under that general 
 head. It is certain that, in the particulars, there is no 
 mention of the Plan of Campaign by name. I think 
 Sir C. Russell is right — that you have to show that the 
 Plan of Campaign is included in the charges and 
 allegations, and, if it is referred to specifically, of 
 course we shall be glad to have our attention called to it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I have not the slightest 
 difficulty in doing so. I have sent for the actual pages 
 in which the references are made. I did not know that 
 any point of this kind was to have been raised, or I 
 should have been prepared for it. I will undertake to 
 
 show your Lordships the passages in which the Plan of 
 Campaign is referred to in my speech in " O'Donnell 
 v. Walter." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My recollection, and that of my 
 learned friends, is that there is no reference whatever. 
 Subject to that protest, I am quite willing my learned 
 friend should go on. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I will show in tha 
 Blue-book the passages in my speech in which 
 references to the Plan of Campaign form a 
 part, and my own recollection is that it is re- 
 ferred to in terms, although, of course, I cannot 
 pretend to carry all those facts in my head. 
 I come now to the Cork outrages which followed tha 
 speeches which I have referred to, and I will giva 
 you first the particulars of the case of Mr. 
 Hegarty, who was referred to by name in 
 several of the speeches delivered by Dr. Tanner. 
 The fight between Mr. Hegarty and his oppo- 
 nents began as far back as the year 1881. Mr. 
 Hegarty set the Land League at defiance. He had 
 previously beeD singularly popular, and although all 
 kinds of attempts were made to intimidate him, and 
 those who served under him, he succeeded practically 
 in beating the League. Many references in 1880, 
 1881, and 1882 were made in the earlier proceedings 
 of the Land League to Mr. Hegarty, and as far back 
 as 1881 sums of money were sent from the central 
 organization in Dublin in order to support tha 
 families of persons who had been imprisoned or other- 
 wise punished for breaches of the law against Mr. 
 Hegarty. Proceedings were taken against persons 
 who boycotted him, who endeavoured to injure him 
 in his status and in his trade,. and the offences having 
 been proved against the accused parties, as much as 
 £50 was sent by the Dublin branch of the League to 
 help the families of these persons who had been con- 
 victed according to law. From time to time a great; 
 many complaints were made that people did not join 
 in the fight against Mr. Hegarty as vigorously as 
 they ought. In 1S84 speeches delivered at Land 
 League meetings — speeches which I have not yet 
 read, but which will be put in evidence — called atten- 
 tion to the fact that somehow or other persons did not 
 seem to be so willing as they should be to take part in 
 the plan or operations of the Land League in the par- 
 ticular locality where Mr. Hegarty resided. On the 
 13th of December, 1885, resolutions condemning 
 Mr. Hegarty by name were passed by the local 
 branch of the Land League. And two days after- 
 wards there came the speeches made by Dr. Tanner 
 with reference to Mr. Hegarty's conduct. Mr. 
 Hegarty was constantly followed about by members 
 of the local Land League and attempts were made to 
 intimidate him ; but, as I have said, he was bold 
 enough to set these men at defiance, and he took care, 
 as far as he possibly could, that those under him 
 should not suffer. He supported the families of those who 
 were intimidated or boycotted simply because they 
 worked for him, and by this and other means ha 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 109 
 
 seemed to have beaten the National League. In con- 
 sequence, it was apparently determined that some 
 stronger action should be taken, and you will find that 
 on several' occasions personal violence was threatened 
 against the people who worked for Mr. Hegarty. In 
 1881 a man in his employment had had his ears slit 
 open. Later on threatening letters and notices were 
 sent to persons simply and solely because they dealt 
 with Mr. Hegarty. On the 6th of April, 1885, Mr. 
 Hegarty, upon whose life a previous attempt had 
 been made, was shot at by men from behind a 
 wall while he was driving home in a dog-cart with a 
 servant named Thomas Norton. On the 16th of. April, 
 1887, as he was driving from the railway station at 
 Millstreet shots were again fired at him ; the first 
 missed, but the second struck him on the right shoulder 
 and head. Sixteen grains of shot entered his skin and 
 he was wounded severely. This took place at a quarter 
 to 9 o'clock. Some policemen were not far off at the 
 time, and they endeavoured to track and .trace the 
 men who had committed the outrage, but they could 
 not be found, and no one was ever brought to justice 
 for this affair. It will be proved before your Lordships 
 that there was an organized system of terrorism in 
 Millstreet for four or five years, but that prior to the 
 existence of the Land League it was a peaceful 
 neighbourhood. As I have said, Mr. Hegarty was a 
 popular man, and in the period of four or five years, at 
 the end of which he was shot, the only offence of which 
 he was guilty was that he would not knuckle down 
 under the attacks of the Land League, and that not- 
 withstanding that they boycotted his customers and 
 intimidated his servants and shot at him, he con- 
 tinued to contest and fight against this detestable 
 tyranny. Perhaps when the evidence is given, Sir 
 Charles Russell will be able to show in cross-examina- 
 tion that it was not the local Land League that was 
 responsible for this tyranny. On August 8, 1885, 
 occurred the outrage against Timothy Hayes, at 
 Clonakilty, who was fired at and wounded. He 
 was caretaker of a farm which had been occupied by 
 a man named Jeremiah M'Carthy. He was shot in 
 the legs. I should like here to draw attention to a 
 very remarkable fact in connexion with some of these 
 outrages. In several of the speeches — perhaps I 
 should say, in more than one of the speeches that will 
 be proved before your Lordships, directions were 
 given, or rather suggestions were made, that it was 
 not necessary to shoot men dead, and that they 
 could be shot in the legs, and after that advice 
 was given numbers of these poor people were 
 shot in the legs. Of course they not infrequently 
 died from the effects of their injuries. But 
 I think your Lordships will come to the conclusion, 
 if the evidence I shall lay before you is true, that 
 there had been that degree of brutality in the way in 
 which the boycotting was supported by subsequent 
 outrage, that even the minutice of the way in which 
 crime should be carried out were instructed to men 
 who might have gone in some blundering way, and 
 
 instead of wounding them have shot them dead on tha 
 spot. Certainly after these speeches there were many 
 more outrages of shooting in the legs than had been 
 known before. On September 27, 1885, John 
 Callaghan's house was fired into at Glounamuckla, near 
 Kanturk. He was a farmer who had been willing 
 to defend himself. On September 27 a party came to 
 his place and endeavoured to get into his house. It 
 was a party who apparently had gone round threatening 
 people not to pay rent. Callaghan would not let them 
 in, whereupon they fired gunshots through his windows. 
 They did not hit him ; but ultimately they threatened 
 him that if he did not give up the arms with which ha 
 was defending himself they would do worse ror him, 
 and as a matter of fact he did give them one of his 
 guns and they went away. On December 22 occurred the 
 outrage on Richard Williams, nearWhite bay, county Cork, 
 a so-called " land-grabber," the " leper," the " loath: 
 some creature," a person of the same character as 
 those who had been so frequently denounced. He was 
 in bed in his house when a person knocked at his door 
 and asked for a light. He opened the door to see 
 who' it was, whereupon he was shot in the legs by 
 some person outside, and was seriously ill from the 
 shot. He was rigidly boycotted for some months after- 
 wards, and, whether it was necessary or not, he was 
 under police protection, and he had the greatest 
 difficulty in getting food or anything of the kind, 
 showing that these men were not satisfied with the 
 act of wounding, but were determined as far as they 
 could that this man should not continue, to gain his 
 living by occupying this piece of land. On January 13, 
 1886, occurred the murder of John Regan. That is 
 very remarkable as showing how they have found it 
 necessary to deal with poor people who, previously to 
 this conspiracy, had not been subjected to these out- 
 rages. Regan had been a sub-tenant of a man named 
 Sullivan, who was tenant of Mr. Beamish. Mr. 
 Sullivan was evicted, but Regan remained on, as sub- 
 tenant. They first attacked Mr. Beamish. It may 
 possibly be that they did it because there had been 
 some' dispute between Sullivan and Beamish ; but that 
 could not have affected this unfortunate sub-tenant. 
 They proceeded to destroy Beamish's crops, which 
 they burnt, then to slaughter his cattle — three of his 
 heifers. In November, 1882, they burnt his crops ; in 
 August, 1883 — the outrage on Regan was in 1886, but 
 I am stating the previous history that led up to the 
 outrage on Regan — in August, 1883, they broke down 
 his fruit trees ; in December, 1885, they killed three 
 of his heifers ; in the same month they broke down 
 his fences. All that this man did was to remonstrata 
 with the party when they came on to break down 
 Beamish's fences. This poor unfortunate man, on 
 December 25, standing on the land, part of which he 
 had occupied for years as sub-tenant of Sullivan's, 
 remonstrated with them ; they threw stones at him at 
 the time and fired shots at him, but did not hit him. 
 On December 29, at a quarter to 6, he was fired at at 
 his own house, wounded, and died on January 13 from 
 
 The Sneech of the Attorney-General 
 
110 
 
 The Spec ; al Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 the effects of that shot. I think it will be proved 
 that those who were engaged in that outrage were 
 undoubtedly members of the branch of the National 
 League in that neighbourhood. Be that as it may, 
 somehow or other there was such a system of tyranny 
 that, as they could not successfully terrorize over or 
 tyrannize over the master, they went to the poor 
 unfortunate man who said, " You ought to be ashamed 
 of yourselves," or something of that kind, and they 
 fired at him and he died from the effects of the out- 
 rage. I submit that is one of the outrages of which 
 the National League, as the Land League before it, 
 has said, " Very well, then ; if we cannot boycott and 
 intimidate the landlord, then we will boycott and 
 nltimately kill the poor people by whom the landlords 
 were able to make their land to a certain extent pro- 
 ductive." They were, by that means, showing that 
 the landlord garrison would ultimately be rooted out 
 of the land. On February 15 of the same year 
 occurred the outrage on Denis Brennan. He was a 
 sheriff's officer ; he was fired at with revolvers in the 
 course, not, I believe, of the execution of his duty, but 
 simply in returning to his house. I am not sure 
 whether on that occasion Brennan was injured — I think 
 not ; but at any rate he was shot at by more than one 
 revolver shot, and I believe I may have some 
 evidence to put before your Lordships as to the 
 revolvers that were being used in very many of these 
 outrages. At this time in this neighbourhood, in the 
 county of Cork, there occurred a large number of 
 outrages in connexion with a place which ultimately 
 became notorious — I mean Mitchelstown. Evidence 
 will be laid before your Lordships as to these outrages, 
 which occurred in the month of September, 1886, 
 before the period of the riot. I shall bring forward 
 numberless instances of boycotting and intimidation in 
 the neighbourhood of Mitchelstown, and endeavours 
 to prevent people from pursuing their ordinary vocations 
 —in many cases threatening them with death if 
 they did not obey the orders of the League. 
 On the 29th of November, 1886, an occurrence took 
 place, of which the full details must be given you. We 
 shall show the part some of the leading men took to 
 prevent the proper trial of prisoners, or the proper ex- 
 ecution of the process of the law. There was to be at 
 Cork a trial of 30 prisoners for firing at houses, moon- 
 lighting, and being in the possession of dynamite. I 
 have on a previous occasion told your Lordships that I 
 believed we should be able to satisfy you that there were 
 many persons who had been nlembers of the Land 
 League who'did not approve the action which led to 
 outrage. But on this occasion Mr. John O'Connor, a 
 member of Parliament, one of the persons charged en 
 the 29th of November when the assizes were just goirg 
 to commence, went to Cork. There had been a good 
 many jurors in Cork who had done their duty accord- 
 ing to their oaths, and there had been some instances — 
 not very many, bnt at all events some instances 
 of convictions in Cork. Mr. Jehu O'Connor evidently 
 thought that it was necessary that the jurcrs of the 
 
 town should know what view would be taken of their 
 conduct if they dared to convict. The names of 
 the persons who served upon juries in Cork were 
 known, and Mr. John O'Connor, marching with the 
 prisoners from the railway station to the place of trial, 
 repeatedly stopped opposite the houses of some of those 
 jurors, and threatened them, shouting " Down with 
 the Cork jurors, down with the English law." He forced 
 himself in among the prisoners and called on them to 
 " have courage this time, that they should have a fair 
 trial this time." He also shouted, " they can bring 
 up any man they like to Cork and hang him," and 
 " They hanged Gough and Barrett here, but by God 
 they'll not hang you here this time if we can help it." 
 Now, my Lords, Gough and Barrett were two men who 
 were hanged for the murder of a man named Brown 
 to whom I have already referred, and who is alluded 
 to in so many of the speeches I have read to your 
 Lordships. Mr. John O'Connor also cried out, " Groans 
 for the Cork jurors," and " Cheers for the Kerry 
 prisoners." On the 1st of December, 1886, two days 
 afterwards, Mr. John O'Connor and Dr. Tanner were 
 at the same place, and escorted Tim Hurley from the 
 railway to the Court-house. Hurley had been out on 
 bail, and he was charged with the possession of dyna- 
 mite, and was to appear at the assizes for trial. A 
 short time before a meeting had been prevented — very 
 properly so, if I may so suggest, at a time when these 
 trials were going on — and while he with other Nation- 
 alists was escorting Tim Hurley fron the railway sta- 
 tion, he shouted out "We were prevented the other 
 evening by a paltry little fellow called Shannon from 
 holding our meeting ; we hold it now in spite of them. 
 Justice is polluted within the four walls of that build- 
 ing — we must have justice. We demand that Hurley 
 will have a fair trial, and we will see he gets it or 
 know for what." Now, my Lords, with regard to two 
 of the Cork jurors, Messrs. Cronin and M'Mahon, 
 who were serving upon that occasion, immediately after 
 this trial notices were extensively circulated in the 
 county to boycott them, and the consequence 
 was that they suffered pecuniary injury. It is 
 exceedingly important that your Lordships should 
 fully appreciate the result of such action as this, 
 in which sympathy was expressed for those who 
 had suffered the punishment of the law, and in which 
 persons who had done their duty were intimidated. 
 In the same way there was an organized attempt to 
 intimidate the tenants on the Ponsonby estate, when 
 extremely violent speeches were made by Mr. Lane 
 M.P. I am not going to stop to read Mr. Lane'a 
 speeches, hut the actual date of the speech to 
 which I refer is the 7th of November, 1886. That 
 speech was followed by a series of outrages of greater 
 or less violence, in many cases the outrages being 
 committed against persons who would not join the 
 Plan of Campaign, and would not agree to become 
 parties to that which was then supported by Mr. 
 Lane with reference to the Ponsonby estate. In 
 the course of his speech Mr. Lane said -that 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
The Special Commission, October 26, 1883. 
 
 Ill 
 
 land-grabbers were to be boycotted, and wero not to 
 be allowed to possess land within the town, and 
 that similar treatment was to be extended to other 
 persons who were sufficiently hardy to pay their rents 
 behind the backs of the men who were unwilling to 
 pay. On the 14th of February, 1887, there also 
 occurred an outrage on Thomas O'Keefe and 
 Cornelius Greedy. On the 25th of January, 1887, there 
 had been a violent speech made by Dr. Tarmer against 
 persons who would not join the National League. 
 O'Keefe and Creedy declined to'join the National 
 League. They wero then simply taking care of land 
 for some landlord in the district ; I forget his name 
 for the moment, but it will be furnished to your 
 Lordships by-and-by. Ten or fifteen days after Dr. 
 Tanner's speech, O'Keefe and Creedy and a third man 
 named Murphy— I do not kuow whether Murphy's 
 name had been rublicly mentioned before, but cer- 
 tainly those of O'Keefe and Creedy had been — 
 because they declined to have anything to do with the 
 National League,were assailed. The house in which 
 they lived was attacked, their aims were taken from 
 them,ard they were robbed of their money. I shall be 
 able to call Creedy, and your Lordships will learnfrom 
 him the reason why he declined to join the League. 
 I ought not perhaps to have mentioned Creedy's name 
 before calling him, but the mischief is done now. 
 On the 6th of February, 1887, occurred the 
 firing into the dwelling-house of Philip Cremin, of 
 Rathcoole. He had taken some land from which some 
 person had been previously evicted, and therefore 
 he was a land-grabber, one of a class of men who had 
 been denounced on the 23d of January previously by 
 Dr. Tanner and Mr. O'Hea. On the 6th of February, 
 about 6 o'clock in the evening, Cremin and his wife 
 were sitting in their house when several bullets 
 fired from either rifles or revolvers passed between 
 them, but they providentially escaped being struck 
 by them. Immediately after Cremin was boycotted 
 and was stoned on his way to chapel. The sole 
 offence that he had given was to endeavour to 
 make a living by occupying land from which another 
 person had been evicted, part of ' the illegal 
 rule of trie National League being that no person 
 should be allowed to occupy any evicted piece of land. 
 On the 3d of February, 1887, there occurred an 
 outrage on two girls, daughters of a man named 
 Murphy. I am now about to refer to particulars which 
 were perfectly well known at the time the outrage 
 was committed. On the 23d of January Dr. Tanner and 
 Mr. O'Hea had told the people that nobody should 
 associate with the police. These two young girls 
 were supposed to have spoken to policemen. On the 
 3d of February their house was entered, their hair 
 was cut off, and tar was poured upon their heads. 
 This, my Lords, may of course be said to be only a 
 National League joke, but it shows what were the 
 effects of speeches like those of Dr. Tanner and Mr. 
 O'Hea, seeing that a few days after they were made 
 somebody who was supposed to have spoken to the 
 
 police was ill-treated. On the 2d of April, 1887, 
 occurred the fixing into the dwelling of Cornelius 
 Regan, another man who had occupied land, and the 
 sole cause of complaint against whom was that he had 
 paid his rent against the wishes of the other tenants. 
 As far back as February, 1886, he had been threatened 
 that if he paid his rent it would be the worse for him. 
 The notices which he received will be put in. He 
 was willing to make an agreement with his landlord 
 to pay his rent with 30 per cent, abatement, hut the 
 other tenants on the same estate said that 30 per 
 cent, abatement was not enough, and they wanted 
 him to join the National League and to decline to pay 
 rent with so small a reduction. His refusal to 
 comply with their request was the sole reason why 
 they attacked him and his wife in the night, 
 and fired into the room in which he and his 
 wife were with guns loaded with slugs, iron 
 nails, and small pieces of iron. I do not propose to 
 open before your Lordships subsequent outrages ; it is 
 not necessary for the purposes of my case that I 
 should do so, because my charge was made in March, 
 1887. But it must not be supposed that by abstaining 
 from indicating the evidence that I cannot, if neces- 
 sary, produce that evidence, and 1 shall, if it be neces- 
 sary, show that this combined organization and con- 
 spiracy to effect illegal purposes by illegal means has 
 continued its practices from the early part of 1887 
 down to the present time. If these gentlemen who 
 made such speeches as 1 have referred to profess that 
 they did not understand what the effect of those 
 speeches and the consequences of their conduct would 
 be, I shall show your Lordships that they continued to 
 make those speeches ' long after they had h»d very 
 practical and sad experience of the result of those 
 speeches and that conduct. I do not think that it can 
 possibly be suggested, in the face of the evidence I shall 
 lay before you, that there was merely what I may 
 call an unfortunate coincidence between speeches 
 made by persons who delivered them with other ob- 
 jects than to bring about certain actions, and the 
 consequences which followed them and which appear 
 to be the natural result of those speeches. I am not 
 going to read the speeches which were made in other 
 counties, but in connexion with what I have said I 
 shall put in a most violent speech made by Mr. Dillon, 
 M.P., on the 7th of November, 1886, at Keenagh, in 
 county Longford, of which I have a very full report, j 
 am not going to read the speech now, but I will give my 
 learned friend the reference to it. This speech shows 
 that there was a principle being preached by members 
 of Parliament. In that speech Mr. Dillon alludes to 
 what had been done in Kerry and other places, and 
 asks the people of Longford and Westmeath to do the 
 same. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Let me have a copy of the speech. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have not a particle of 
 objection to the whole of this speech going in as apart 
 of what I am going to prove. It is a speech of some 
 eight or nine pages long. I will hand it to my 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
112 
 
 The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 learned friend, and it may appear as though I had read 
 the whole of it at the present time. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I think it had bettor be put in 
 in the ordinary coarse. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I beg your pardon ; I 
 have referred to it now, and I think it better it should 
 go in at the present time. If my learned friend wishes 
 me to read it now I will do so. I have handed my 
 learned friend a copy of the speech in the same way as 
 I have done the other speeches, and I will treat it as 
 being a speech I have referred to as a specimen not 
 dealing altogether with the county of Longford, but re- 
 ferred to because I have just previously made the ob- 
 servation that this was in practice preached as a 
 system, that this was preached as something which 
 was to be practised by reference to what had been 
 done in other counties and other places. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I only asked for a copy of it — that is all. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I quite agree. I shall be 
 glad to give you a copy. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not find it is in the particu- 
 lars. That is the reason we asked for a copy. 
 
 The Attop.ney-General. — As a matter of fact, I 
 believe it is in the particulars ; but I will take care 
 the particulars are amended if it be not. (A communi- 
 cation was here made to the Attorney-General,) My 
 Lords, I find that my learned friend is right. It is not 
 in the particulars. I will see that the particulars 
 are amended so as to include the further speches. 
 
 The President. — Take care that is done, and the 
 sooner it is done the less ground for complaint there 
 will be. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Your Lordship is quite 
 right, and I will take care that the particulars are 
 amended as soon as possible. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We are not making any complaint 
 at all. My learned friend Mr. Reid merely asked for 
 a copy of the speech. 
 
 The Attorney-General, — I will take care that to- 
 morrow the particulars are amended. 
 
 The President. — Not only with regard to this 
 speech. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— No ; I mean with regard 
 to other speeches ; because we may have received, and 
 I think we have received, several other speeches since 
 the time those particulars were delivered. Now, my 
 Lords, I want to read a few speeches that were de- 
 livered in the county Clare. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — All I was suggesting was that if 
 my learned friend did not propose to read it now it had 
 better not go in now, but in the ordinary course. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Then I had better read it 
 now. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am sure I do not want it read. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My learned friend could 
 not be unreasonable. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I do not wish to be. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I will just read as many 
 passages from this speech as I contend make good my 
 
 proposition. I do not want to do more than that, and 
 I only hoped for once I might possibly save a little 
 time. In the early part of this speech Mr. John Dillon 
 said this 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Read it all. 
 
 TheATTOMNEY-GENERAL. — I will read it all if you wish. 
 
 The President. — No, do not be induced to read it. 
 You, Sir Charles, do not wish this to be made an 
 exception to the rule we have already made ? The por- 
 tion which is read will be indicated in some way or other. 
 
 Sir C. Russeil. — No, my Lord ; on the contrary 
 I wish that the rule should be followed. This is a long 
 speech, and my learned friend proposes that the whole 
 of it should be printed, although he only intends to 
 read certain passages in it. To that I have no objec- 
 tion. On the contrary, I want it to be done. 
 
 The Attorney-General commenced to read certain 
 paragraphs only of the speech, when 
 
 Mr. Reid said, — May I ask my learned friend as he 
 is reading this, and as I am appearing for Mr. Dillon, 
 whether he will read the passage where he stopped 
 with reference to the Woodford matter ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — After that observation, I 
 think that it is better to read the whole of it. I am 
 sorry to weary your Lordships, but I have no 
 doubt that observations will be made upon me if I do 
 not. Therefore I will read it. It is as follows : — 
 
 " Men of Longford and Westmeath, could any one 
 for a moment doubt when looking at the thousands 
 that are around this platform to-day that if you were 
 but organized among yourselves, and acted together 
 loyally, one man with his neighbour, under proper 
 leadership, you need have no fear for Lord Annaly or 
 Matthew Weld O'Connor in this part of the country. 
 (Groans.) You know as well as I know, that the only 
 thing to stand between you, the people of Longford, 
 and perfect freedom in your own homes, ay, and low 
 rents on your own farms, is the difficulty to get you to 
 organize together and follow as one man the lines 
 which we have laid down for you. If Lord Annaly or 
 Colonel King-Harman believed for one moment 
 (groans) that you, the people of Longford, would 
 follow out the policy which we recommend to you and 
 not betray each other and would take no terms one 
 man that was not given to all, I say if they believed 
 that to-morrow you could fix your own rent. The 
 reason why they show you no mercy here in Longford — ■ 
 the reason why Lord Annaly refuses a penny of reduc- 
 tion, while the Marquis of Lansdowne in Kerry is 
 giving 20 per cent., ay, on the judicial rents — the 
 reason is, because in Kerry they know how to stand up 
 and defend their homes, and because in Longford you 
 have been too quiet. (Cheers.) Believe me, if in the 
 South of Ireland the landlords are very gentle — not all 
 of them, but a great many of them, and those the 
 biggest fish — and are givinggood reductions on the judi- 
 cial rents, while I am sorry to say that the landlords 
 here won't give a reduction on the old rents even. 
 (Cheers.) Well, now, who have you to blame for 
 that ? Yourselves, and no one else. If you organize 
 in this county ; if you did as the Kerry boys did — 
 I don't mean to say by that I want you to become 
 moonlighters. What I mean to say is this, that you 
 must show the landlords, you must show the agents, 
 you must show the bailiffs, and every single man who 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 113 
 
 hangs round the rent office if he is against the tenant 
 you can make him suffer for it. (Cheers.) Look at 
 the lesson that has been taught the people of Ireland 
 by the people of Woodford. Now, I say to you, how- 
 are you to make those men who stand by the land- 
 lords, who assist in their evil work — I ask, how are 
 you to make them suffer ? I don't mean to assert to 
 commit any act of violence ; on the contrary, I have 
 always warned the people of Ireland against that 
 course. What I do say I know by experience — that 
 where the people are organized, and are loyal to each 
 other, they can make those men suffer and tremble in 
 their shoes without raising a single finger against 
 them." 
 
 Yes ; but if these men have courage enough to stand 
 their suffering,inilicted upon them by the organization, 
 they will find that the fingers will be raised against 
 them. Mr. Dillon goes on to say : — 
 
 " I have seen men the most bloody and overbearing 
 hungry landlords — I have seen them come to the com- 
 mittee of the League branch begging for mercy, men 
 who, a short time before would have given very little 
 mercy to any farmer in the country. So I say you must 
 learn, if you want to have any justice here in Long- 
 ford, you must learn to direct attention to bailiffs and 
 agents. Now, I want to say a few words about the lesson 
 that has been taught to Ireland by the little parish of 
 Woodford, in the south of Galway. (Cheers.) Now, 
 the people of Woodford had a man to deal with, as 
 tough a customer as any landlord in Ireland ; in the 
 first place a rich man — very rich ; and in the second 
 place he lives -away in London, no one knows where. 
 Now, the people in Woodford — there are 320 tenants 
 in that parish, but it is only portion of the estate, and 
 last November, only one year ago, these people asked 
 for a reduction of rent, 25 per cent. Well, Lord Clan- 
 ricarde did not take the trouble of answering their 
 letter ; he never noticed it, although a bishop's name 
 was signed at foot. The people, 320 tenants in 
 Woodford, came to the result that they would not pay 
 one shilling until a reduction was given them. That 
 struggle commenced a year ago, and I wanted to lay 
 before you the net result of that year in Woodford. 
 The Government have expended thousands of pounds 
 in an expedition to that country ; Lord Clanricarde 
 must have lost at the very least £3,000. What did he 
 succeed in doing for all this outlay on the people of 
 Woodford ? He has only got six men out of their 
 houses. He has got six men evicted. It took him a 
 good long time — a whole year — to get these six men 
 out of their houses ; and recollect that the 320 tenants 
 have not paid one shilling yet, nor will they pay a 
 shilling. (Cheers.)" 
 
 Your Lordships will be able to judge how far that 
 passage will assist my learned friend. 
 
 The President. — I must again say this, Mr. 
 Attorney-General, you have done all you have 
 in compliance with Mr. Reid's request, but you 
 must act upon your own judgment now. You must 
 not read the whole of the speech if you do not 
 think it to be material to your case. It will all be 
 printed, and wo shall have an opportunity of seeing 
 the context. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have handed a copy of 
 the whole speech to my learned friend. Now I will 
 read the part of the speech which I was about to read 
 before. Mr. Dillon goes on to say :— 
 
 " He picked out — of course landlords always do. He 
 picks out four men to pay their rent. A great many 
 of these Woodford tenants are too poor to pay, as 
 many of you are. He picked out those he knew to be 
 of good reputation in the parish of Woodford, and ha 
 went into the place with 800 men at his back. Well, 
 now, although no blow was struck, it took those 800 
 men ten days to get those four men out of their 
 homes, and this has been the result. That took place 
 two months ago, and Lord Clanricarde has done nothing 
 more since The people of Wood- 
 ford have set an example that they have a right to be 
 proud of, and all Ireland should be thankful to them. 
 When the four men were selected to be evicted they 
 defied him ; and although they are out of their homes 
 to-day they are none the worse of that. They have 
 comfortable houses provided for them, and they are 
 supported by the public funds of the country, and they 
 will be supported as long as there is an organization in 
 Ireland on behalf of the tenants. They were the first 
 to fall in the struggle, which will benefit the popula- 
 tion of Woodford and keep back the evietors from the 
 door of the poor man. They fell in the struggle which 
 has done good to the tenants' cause all over Ireland 
 and in America. Now, what I say is this, that if we 
 had 30 or 40 or 200 Woodfords in Ireland, where would 
 the landlords be f If it took so many thousand pounds 
 to evict those four tenants of Lord Clanricarde's. If 
 all Ireland was organized as Woodford the Irish 
 tenants' case was settled. There would be no rack- 
 rent or oppression in this country. The only difficulty 
 we have to contend with is the difficulty of getting 
 the Deople to organize amongst themselves. This is 
 the case, I find— I am sorry to find— in many 
 districts in Ireland. While they like very much to 
 read descriptions of fights in other countries, while 
 they are very glad to get all the benefits they can by 
 the fight, they don't like to fight the battle them- 
 selves. I say that the secret of success is this, to have 
 every parish in Ireland stand out at the same time, 
 and the Government would not attempt to carry out a 
 war of extermination against all. The difficulty is 
 that when a parish like Woodford makes a gallant 
 stand it is almost alone. Now, I said a few moments 
 ago that the men evicted in Woodford are none the 
 worse for being evicted, and I say it again, they are 
 none the worse of it, because in point of money they 
 are richer men to-day than ever they were in their 
 lives, and know perfectly well that before this war is 
 done they will be back in their farms at a lower rent. 
 No man, of course, dare take the farms, and no man 
 ever will, as long as they are out of their farms." 
 
 What does that expression mean I should like to 
 know? " No man, of course, dare take their farms." 
 The speaker goes on to say : — 
 
 " Clanricarde instead of getting his rent, he 
 has two or three Emergency men in each farm 
 with five policemen to guard the three Emer- 
 gency men. (Groans.) So it must cost him at 
 least £4 a week to guard each farm. How long do 
 you think he is going on with that game ? And if ho 
 goes to evict ten or 15 more, likely he will have 
 to pay £40 or £50 to protect these farm3 ; and all I 
 can say is, that as long as he likes to go on with that 
 game, I am quite ready too. (Cheers.) Meanwhile the 
 rest of the people of that parish have stood like men, 
 and not one shilling will he get from the people of 
 Woodford until he reinstates these tenants and gives 
 the rest good terms." 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
114 
 
 The Special Commission, October 26, 1S88. 
 
 My Lords, this is a Court of law, and I ask your Lord- 
 ships to judge whether that is an instigation to legal 
 or to illegal conduct. Mr. Dillon goes on to say : — 
 
 " Now, I want to say this, that the people in 
 America — the Irish in America — are assembling in great 
 meetings now, and collecting money for evicted 
 tenants. Now, we expect to get very large sums, and 
 this I want to say to the people of Ireland, that we 
 shall take care in Dublin that the money goes to 
 tenants in those parishes who are fighting like men for 
 their rights (cheers), and not a shilling of American 
 money shall we send to any district which will lie 
 down and allow themselves to be trampled upon, and 
 every penny of it shall be sent to districts where we see 
 the people standing up like men for their rights — and 
 remember that the right thing to do is help those who 
 have the courage to help themselves. (Cheers.)" 
 
 Is that instigating to legal conduct and to obedience to the 
 law ? Is it not the clearest and the plainest invitation to 
 those men to break the law, to decline to pay the rent 
 which they can pay, and to assure them that if they 
 decline to pay it they will be supported by American 
 money ? The speaker goes on to say : — 
 
 " I have a word to say on this question of rents 
 here. You know perfectly well that the men who went 
 in recently on the estates of Lord Annaly and King- 
 Harman to the Courts- got very different reductions 
 from those who went in two or three years ago. I 
 don't know whether any of you recollect that when 
 the Land Act was first passed we advised you not to be 
 in a hurry going into the Land Courts, and I am sorry 
 that the Irish tenants who went into the Land Courts 
 against the advice of Mr. Parnell and the League 
 would give a great deal they had not gone in at all. 
 Now, the men who w.ere slow to go into the Court are 
 the men who are getting justice, and, in my opinion, 
 the Land Courts never did begin to give justice until 
 last year. What do we see at the last Land Sessions ? 
 Why we see Lord Annaly's rents and King-Harman's 
 rents were cut down in many cases 50 per cent., and 
 in many other cases 40, and in some of Lord Annaly's 
 as much as 60 per cent. Now, in the face of this, can 
 these men have the audacity to say they won't give 
 reductions to the men who are broken down with rack- 
 rents and obliged to go into the Courts, or who went 
 into the Land Courts too soon and got no decent reduc- 
 tion ? All I can say is this, that if the people here 
 submit to such treatment as that, they deserve very 
 little sympathy from the rest of Ireland. Now, I want 
 to direct your attention for a few moments to what 
 took place in the Court-house, Ballinasloe, about a 
 fortnight ago, in reference to the question of Griffith's 
 valuation as a test relating to rent. Mr. Kaue, who 
 was President of that Commission, said — he was giving 
 judgment on some cases which had been heard at 
 Strokestown. He said: — ' In reference to these cases, 
 and a good many others, I think they ought to be enough 
 to remove from the minds of the people the idea 
 that Government valuation was a good guide to the 
 value of the land, and to show that the valuation was 
 in some cases utterly and disproportionately high.' 
 Then he went on to give judgments, and 1 ask 
 you to listen to some of the judgments he gave. The 
 first is Michael Harlow, valuation £5 14s., judicial 
 rent £3 ; Pat Harlow, valuation £13 12s., judicial rent 
 £8 5s. ; you see these are nearly 40 per cent, below 
 Griffith's. The valuation in the next is £10 lis. 
 judicial rent £6 ; valuation £20, judicial rent £14. 
 
 Now, I say that those of you who are making 
 up your minds to pay a fair rent should care- 
 fully consider these decisions of the Land 
 Court. I long ago made up my mind from 
 observation of a certain class of land in Mayo and Itos- 
 common which I knew something of, Griffith's valua- 
 tion in many cases is nearly double the valuation of 
 the land. Now, in my opinion, on poor, light land and 
 land that used to be 'tilled, Griffith's valuation is 
 above double the value, and the Land Commissioners 
 are only discovering that now. If you had taken our 
 advice three or four years ago and held away from the 
 Land Courts ; if you had not been so anxious to get in, 
 they would have done justice then instead of now. 
 They, therefore, saw this, when they saw you all so 
 anxious and in such a hurry to get in — it was like the 
 old story — ' Come into my parlour, said the spider to 
 the fly.' If you had not gone in such a hurry they 
 would have begun to give big reductions, but when you 
 went in a hurry and a rush ' We have you here now and 
 we will give you very little.' Now, while the men who 
 have not gone in yet are the lucky men, they did not 
 go in too soon. But what was it, and why, I want to 
 ark you, why is it that this year the Land Commis- 
 sioners are giving so much better terms ? The one 
 reason, I am certain, because the land agitation is 
 rising again, and the moment agitation rises again in 
 the country, the country begins to organize, and that 
 moment the farmers get better terms from the land- 
 lords. (Cheers.) Now, see what in going on in the 
 county Kerry. Kerry, up till recently was the worst 
 treated county in all Ireland. The rents were higher, and 
 there were more evictions by far than in any other 
 county in Ireland. The Kerry people did not lie down. 
 The Kerry people showed some fight. The Kerry 
 people showed that if farms were evicted no man would 
 step into his neighbour's shoes, and to-day in the 
 county Kerry there are 300 or 4C0 farms on which no 
 man dare lay his foot." 
 
 Now, I would call the attention of your Lordships to 
 these words. What is the meaning of this reference to 
 the alleged fact that " in Kerry there are 300 or 400 
 farms on which no man dare lay his foot?" It maybe 
 said that I am guilty of repetition, but I wish to im- 
 press on your Lordships the result of this organization — 
 that people dared not take land even under a lawful 
 bargain, and here is Mr. Dillon boasting that in con- 
 sequence of moonlighting, of firing into houses, of 
 murders and wouudings, there were 400 farms in Kerry 
 on which no man dare lay his foot. This speech was 
 a direct invitation to the people to imitate this con- 
 duct. Mr. Dillon proceeds : — 
 
 " What is the result of that? The result is that 
 they 6ent down a general officer named Buller to put 
 down moonlighting and coerce the Kerry tenants. But 
 wait till I tell you what happened. General Buller 
 had not been two months in Kerry before he began to 
 coerce the Kerry landlords, nut the tenants. And at 
 the present moment in Kerry it is the Kerry landlords 
 who are down on General Buller, and not the tenants. 
 The other day when Lord Kenmare assembled a largo 
 force of police for the purpose of carrying out these 
 evictions we have heard so much about, General 
 Buller ordered the police to go home and sent a cir- 
 cular to Lord Kenmare ; ho would not allow any police 
 to evictions uutil he had first found whether the 
 eviction was cruel or not. (Loud choers.) Well, that is 
 exactly what we asked the Government to do two 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October '26, 1888. 
 
 115 
 
 years ago, and what we asked them to do last year 
 and last spring, and they said they would do nothing 
 of the sort ; and do you believe they would do it now 
 if the Kerry people had submitted peaceably to be 
 driven out of their homes ? As long as the Irish 
 people submitted in peace to be persecuted and exter- 
 minated, so long no one had a word of mercy for 
 them ; but when they arose as in Kerry, and struck 
 back blow for blow against their oppressors, then the 
 Government began to think there must be some justice 
 in the people's claim. The lesson 1 have to teach you 
 is this, If you want to save yourselves from cruel ex- 
 terminating ruin and extermination, if you want to 
 prevent men — every man of you according as you get 
 too poor to pay— irom heing driven from your homes, 
 and with nobody to sympathize with you, you must 
 begin in time, you must organize now, you must stand 
 shoulder to shoulder — those who can pay side by side 
 with those who cannot pay ; you must show the land- 
 lords and the Government that if they are going to ex- 
 tremes to harass the tenantry of Longford, you will 
 want a general officer down here, as in Kerry." 
 Then, after a reference to persons who had assisted in 
 previous agitation, occurs this passage : — 
 
 " We call upon you to adopt this policy in order to 
 destroy that system which has been the curse of 
 Ireland, and which has ruined the homes of her people 
 and driven thousands out of this country. We call upon 
 you to adopt this policy, and to destroy that gang of 
 men called landlords (cheers and groans), who never 
 in the past history of Ireland have shown the smallest 
 sympathy for her people or the smallest interest in 
 her welfare, and who in every demand that has been 
 made in the past to set free our country and assert 
 her nationality, these landlords have always stood 
 as foremost, and cruellest, and bloodiest to put down 
 the national ranks. Believe me when I tell you until 
 you have done this, and taken out of the hearts of the 
 Irish farmer that fear, which is too much, of the 
 agent and the landlord, you never will see in Ireland a 
 free people, and you never will see this country able 
 to make its own laws. On the other hand, if you, by 
 following the policy we recommend to you, crush 
 
 landlordism and its agents " 
 
 I notice that when yesterday I, by accident, used the 
 words " exterminate landlords " in a speech of Mr. 
 Davitt's instead of '• exterminate landlordism " I 
 was corrected ; but to " exterminate landlordism " 
 means exterminating the landlords who are in the posi- 
 tion of persons to whom the " ism " can be applied. I 
 submit it is true that at this time there was a 
 determined and organized attempt to break down the 
 ordinary relations of landlord and tenant, upon which 
 the position of landlord and tenant rested and was 
 established. Mr. Dillon proceeds : — 
 
 " If you do that, you will have for yourselves not 
 only happy and fiee homeB, but for your country free- 
 dom and independence. Because that power which has 
 sat between you — in the path of Ireland in the past, 
 that power which has more than anything else under 
 the sun denied Ireland the liberty and right to govern 
 her own country, that power which has poured upon 
 our country poverty, disturbance, destruction, and 
 misery — has been, I say, more than anything else under 
 the sun, the power of Irish rack-renting and evicting 
 landlordism. (Cheers.) And if you will only make 
 up your minds to organjze, and follow the example set 
 to you by Kerry and by Woodford, you will enable us 
 
 to crush that power, and to put an end for ever in 
 Ireland to tyranny, extermination, and rack-rent. I 
 have only to say, in conclusion, that I advise every one 
 here who is listening to me to-day to take up and 
 read the ' Plan of Campaign ' which was published 
 in United Ireland, to keep that in bis house, and when- 
 ever any estate is going to organize, and demand 
 terms from the landlords, that they follow as nearly 
 as they can the policy which is there laid down, and 
 which we have carefully thought out for the guidanco 
 of the people of this country. If they will do that, as 
 I have no doubt, they will succeed. But, in con- 
 clusion, I appeal to you all in this struggle, in order 
 that this policy may have an effect, let every indi- 
 vidual man in every parish enrol himself in the ranks 
 of the' League, attend the meetings, and elect officers 
 in whom you have every confidence as honest men, and 
 when you have elected the men in whom you have 
 confidence, then follow these men on to victory." 
 I come now to the speeches delivered in the county 
 Clare in 1885, 1886, and 1887. I have a great number, 
 but I will only read a few. 
 
 The President. — Do you not think that the speeches 
 which you have already read have given us a suilicieut 
 indication of your line of argument ? But I do not 
 wish in any way to check you. 
 
 Sin C. EirssELL.— I shall be quite satisfied if my 
 friend hands me copies of the speeches on which he relies. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am very much obliged 
 to your Lordship for this intimation. But I think I 
 must trouble your Lordships with one or two more 
 speeches. 
 
 The President. — Having said what I have, I leave 
 the matter entirely to you. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— ThaDk you, my Lord. Your 
 Lordships will notice that I have made a selection of 
 counties. I might have travelled all over Ireland, but 
 I have not done so. I have, however, after consultation 
 with my learned friends Sir H. James and Mr. Murphy, 
 thought it necessary in the exercise of my responsibility 
 to call attention to many speeches, because they are by 
 different speakers, and they show, as I allege, the 
 nature of the organization. But I will be as brief as 
 I can. I quite understand your Lordship's suggestion, 
 and I shall, as far as I can consistently with my duty, 
 shorten the quotations I have to make. At Kilkishin, 
 county Clare, on the 1st of March, 1885, Mr. P. J. 
 M'Namara, who was a National League organizer in 
 more than one county, made a most violent speech, in 
 the course of which he said, " Propagate the seed of 
 the National Land League — what the men on the Man- 
 chester scaffold died for. If you want to achieve what 
 they did, join the League as a means. Dublin Castle 
 must fall." On the 24th of May, 1885, speaking at 
 Tulla, county Clare,Mr. William O'Brien, M. 1\, said : — 
 
 " Three years ago, when the Crimes Act began, it 
 found the country staggering after a fearful series of 
 blows, and with nothing but an infant organization 
 struggling into existence. Has it crushed that organiza- 
 tion? No ; on the contrary, the three years that 
 have passed of merciless and bloody coercion have 
 only braced up the strength and courage of the Irish 
 nation and cemented them together perhaps in an 
 organization the most methodical, deeply rooted, and 
 
 The Speech of the Attomey-GeneraL 
 
116 
 
 The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 most formidable that ever threatened English rnle in 
 Ireland. If they passed the Crimes Act for the purpose 
 of putting down boycotting and popularizing land-grab, 
 bers, I don't think they have succeeded in either of 
 these objects. I am sorry to think, by one of your 
 resolutions, that the land-grabber is aspeeies of reptile 
 not yet quite extinct, but wherever I find a land-grab- 
 ber still poisoning the air I generally find it is the 
 fault of the people rather than the law, because I defy 
 all the Crimes Acts that were ever passed to prevent 
 the people from making a land-grabber — a man who 
 steals his neighbour's farm and cuts his neighbour's 
 throat — to make him feel that he is an outcast and an 
 object of scorn and contempt and loathing in the sight 
 of his neighbours. They may prevent you calling it boy- 
 cotting, but boycotting by any other name is just as 
 effectual a process. In fact, it sometimes occurred to 
 me that, next to Mr. Harrington, Earl Spencer is the 
 best organizer the League ever had. He has improved 
 our organization, for by his proclamation he drove the 
 people from big meetings, where little practical work 
 was done, to private meetings, where there was less 
 talk and more work. Nothing can prevent you con- 
 tinuing the glorious work begun by Michael Davitt at 
 Irishtown and exterminating landlordism root and 
 branch, and all its seed, breed, and generation. It 
 has pleased God that our lot has been cast in days 
 when we can enjoy the religious equality, education, 
 political power, and social emancipation that our fore- 
 fathers sighed for and spilled their blood for in many a 
 hopeless age, and we would be unworthy of our ances- 
 tors, we would deserve the scorn and indignation of 
 those that would come after us, if, in this day of 
 dawning hope and power for the Irish, we ever falter 
 or flinch until we have banished the twin demons of 
 landlordism and of English rule for ever from our 
 shores (cheers), and until we have planted on the 
 highest pinnacle of Dublin Castle the flag of a re- 
 deemed and regenerated Irish nation." 
 
 What right have these members of Parliament, these 
 eloquent and powerful Irish speakers, to go about 
 advising the people to treat those who take evicted 
 farms as lepers and outcasts ? What right have they to 
 denounce him as a " land-grabber, " and to urge that 
 he should be treated as a reptile ? What sin has he 
 committed ? Who is there who will stand up and say 
 that such a man ought to be loathed and intimidated 
 and treated as a leper, and even shot ? I hope, at any 
 rate, I am not going too far when I say that that is a 
 view that will not commend itself to any judicial 
 tribunal in any part of the United Kingdom. I shall 
 now call your Lordships' attention to a series of 
 speeches made at Enuis on the 20th of November, 1886, 
 by Mr. Cox, Mr. Kenny, and Mr. Redmond. Mr. J. E. 
 Cox, M.P., said : — " If there was anything needed to 
 keep up the patriotic spirit, is it not enough for us to 
 remember the cause in which O'Connell failed, in 
 which Lord Edward and Emmet and Wolfe Tone 
 failed, and the men of '48 and '67, and that it is given 
 to us to accomplish ? " Mr. Kenny, M.P., said :— 
 
 " You know what these men are, and you must 
 know also how to fight against them. You know that 
 they are all of the same kidney as Marcus Keane and 
 Dick Stackpool, and,' if they could, would not only 
 quench the fire of every tenant-farmer in the county 
 Clare, but would pull down the houses around the 
 Nationalists of Ennis. Now, men of Ennis. I heard 
 
 somebody in the crowd asking me about Maurice 
 O'Halloran. Well, perhaps Mr. Cox does not know 
 Mr. Maurice as well as I do. I promise you I know 
 him, and I will think of him ; I know it was he who 
 set the bloodhounds on the track of the innocent boys 
 that are now in penal servitude for life for doing nothing. 
 I know it was he that sent the Delahuntys to a living 
 tomb, and I promise for that, though Maurice has four 
 ' V's' on his arm, I will strip them off his arm yet. 
 I promise you that the blackguards and Shoneens will 
 not always have the government of this country in 
 their hands, and then what we say will be the law of 
 the land, and we will take this system of tyranny and 
 oppression out of the hands of the blackguards who are 
 now doing the bidding of the Engljsh Government in 
 this country. You do not know the day, nor the hour, 
 nor the moment the landlords or their agents may set 
 themselves to depopulate the country around hear. You 
 do not know the day you may be called upon to act 
 like the men of Woodford. If you join the League you 
 will show the world that you are as good men as the 
 people of Woodford, and when the people of this 
 country may be attacked, as attacked they will, you 
 must show that you are as well able to resist bailiff 
 and agent as the people of Woodford were. You know 
 how the bailiffs and agents were cured in Woodford, 
 and it is a good example if they try to trample you in 
 Clare." 
 
 I would ask your Lordships to notice the concluding 
 sentence of this speech. But a few months before at 
 Woodford a bailiff named Finlay had been " cured " 
 by being shot, and it is impossible to suppose any 
 other interpretation of this reference to the curing of 
 bailiffs at Woodford than that it was intended to ad- 
 vise the people to act in the way that had led to the 
 death of Finlay. Mr. J. E. Redmond, M.P., was in- 
 troduced to the meeting as the author of " The Truth 
 about '98." He said that— 
 
 " The Home Rule movement had been pushed into 
 its present position by the land movement for the 
 past five or six years, and that to-day, when the 
 triumph of the Home Rule movement had been 
 postponed for a while, it was their manifest duty 
 and their wisest policy to fall back again upon the 
 weapon of the land question. The Home Rule Bill 
 of Mr. Gladstone offered a settlement, not only of the 
 Home Rule question, but of the land question, and 
 the people of Ireland, with that excessive justice 
 which has always characterized them in the past, were 
 willing, in order to bring about a settlement, to agree 
 to extravagant terms of generosity to the landlords. 
 The landlords deliberately refused that chance, and 
 to-day the responsibility be upon their heads if 
 we are forced before the Home Rule question is 
 settled so to drive them on the question of the land, 
 that they in the end will be driven a beggared and 
 God-forsaken and bankrupt race." 
 
 On the 21st of November, the next day, further 
 speeches were delivered by Mr. Kenny and Mr. Red- 
 mond at Tulla, in the same county, showing that these 
 men were going the round of the county and " orga- 
 nizing it." Mr. Kenny, M.P., denounced Head Con- 
 stable O'Halloran as " a miserable and putrid com- 
 panion " of General Buller'e, and advised the tenants 
 on the estates of Colonel and Captain O'Callaghan to 
 adopt the Plan of Campaign. Mr. J. E. Redmond, 
 M.P., called upon the people in the presence of the 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 117 
 
 Government reporter to lift up their hands and pro- 
 mise and declare that the Plan of Campaign will be 
 adopted on every estate in the county of Clare. 
 
 " They will find among every large body of men 
 some sneaking and treacherous cowards sneaking 
 behind the backs of their fellows, sneaking in and 
 secretly paying the rent, and in this way selfishly saving 
 themselves and exposing their brothers to the horrors 
 of eviction. This must b8 guarded against if the land- 
 lord is to be beaten, and the tenants are to win." 
 I would now call attention to the speeches delivered 
 on the 23d of January, 1887, by Mr. S. J. Meany and 
 Mr. Cox, M.P. Mr. Meany said : — 
 
 " Every one knows, who knows my record, that if I 
 had my will I would have another Plan of Campaign. 
 However, we must not imperil the great cause, we 
 must not endanger the triumph of what they call a con- 
 stitutional success, by the teaching of any unconstitu- 
 tional doctrine. This I must say in defence of my own 
 career, that I have made a vow which can know no 
 release but in its fulfilment, and in my calm judgment 
 and deliberate opinion I give my full and entire 
 adhesion to the doctrine of the Irish Parliamentary 
 party as an educational process and experiment towards 
 a final end. (Cheers.) However, my friends, as a repre- 
 sentative of the American Press, I shall have pride and 
 pleasure in giving to the American people the assurance 
 of your earnestness and support,as I give you a thorough 
 assurance that in heart and soul, in sentiment and 
 sympathy, your brothers across the Atlantic are with 
 you and with Parnell, with justice to Ireland, full, 
 free, and complete. (Cheers.) Ireland shall be free 
 from the centre to the sea, with a free green flag 
 flying over a free green land, and God save Ireland from 
 the treachery of her own sons as well as from the 
 tyranny of the British Government. I tell you here 
 to-day, my friends, openly and boldly, to train, drill, 
 and arm. (' Bravo.') Don't say bravo till you know 
 what I mean. Train yourself in the exercise of pru- 
 dence, drill yourself in the quality of self-restraint, and 
 arm yourselves with a firm resolve not to be tempted 
 into crime, no matter what the provocation — that is 1 
 the training, drilling, and arming I mean." 
 Mr. Cox, M.P., moved this resolution : — 
 
 " That we renew our condemnation of the land- 
 grabber, emergency-man, and their aiders, abettors, and 
 supporters," and said, "No man should be found in 
 the country so vile or base as to take possession of a 
 farm from which a tenant was evicted for non-payment 
 of impossible rent. If any man had the audacity or 
 the temerity to take that farm, with a heart bad and 
 black enoughto take possession of that farm, the strength 
 and manhood of the country would come to the assistance 
 of the wicked and make it so hot, or rather so cold, for 
 the wretched land-grabber that he would be very glad to 
 be banished out of that place. Well, you have some 
 evicted farms on the estate of Stackpoole Mahon 
 here. I am very glad hearing you express your 
 opinions by these hearty groans, and I hope that 
 there is honesty and sincerity and manhood behind 
 these groans, and that you will put your preachings by 
 groans into practice, and that you will allow no man 
 to take possession of those farms. This is one of the 
 great tactics of warfare, that you are not to quit 
 either of the outposts conquered, but fight them all 
 along the line. Whenever a landlord evicts a tenant 
 for non-payment of an impossible rent we have an 
 outpost conquered as long as the farm remains idle and 
 vacant, but if we allow the land-grabber to take 
 
 possession of that farm, then it is a fort or outpost 
 taken from us. You must see that there is manhood 
 and strength enough in this part of the country that no 
 contemptible creature in the shape of a land-grab'ocr 
 will take possession of it. If there is a shopkeeper 
 or tradesman in this country who will supply 
 emergency men in possession of an evicted farm that 
 man is not one whit worse or less contemptible than 
 the emergency man or landlord himself. You must 
 fight this battle all along the line ; wherever you see 
 a weak point in the enemy's ranks, charge there." 
 Such is the speech of Mr. Cox, a member of the 
 National League and one of Mr. Parnell's Parlia- 
 mentary followers, and this is in January, 1887. Your 
 Lordships will not fail to notice that Mr. Cox, Mr. 
 Redmond, and Mr. Kenny, and this American, Meany, 
 are all there together taking part in " organizing " 
 the county, or whatever other word is the proper name 
 by which to describe what they were doing. There 
 are in the county Clare many outrages, but I will pick 
 out two which have a direct bearing on the suggestions 
 made in that speech of Mr. Cox. One of these occurred 
 in April, 1885. This case covers a considerable period 
 of time, and is a good illustration of the way in 
 which this system was worked. 
 
 The President. — I thought you said you were giving 
 an illustration of the effect of Mr. Cox's speeches. Is 
 not this before the speeches of Mr. Cox which you have 
 read ? 
 
 The Attoeney-Geueeal. — Yes, that is so ; but at 
 any rate it is an instance of the practices which Mr. 
 Cox advocated. I admit it is before Mr. Cox delivered 
 his speech. A man named Perry was agent to a Mr. 
 Brown, who had let a house in the village of Tulla 
 at a rent of £2. The tenant, a man named Conheady, 
 had occupied it for many years. About the end of 18S4 
 the lease fell in, and Perry wanted to raise the rent 
 from £2 to £3, which Conheady refused to pay, and he 
 gave up the house. A butcher named M'Namara, of 
 Tulla, took the house at the rent of £3, which, having 
 regard to the fact that it was situated in a village, 
 does not appear to have been a very high rent. Perry 
 was summoned before the League, and he did not 
 attend. M'Namara was then summoned before the 
 League and ordered to give up the house. He asked 
 for time, but before he could get another house he was 
 boycotted and could do no business whatever. Perry's 
 labourers were ordered by the League to leave Perry's 
 employment, which they did. They afterwards 
 attended before the League committee and asked per- 
 mission to return to their employment, as they could not 
 get any other ; but this was refused. Your Lordships 
 will hear again and again of this Land League com- 
 mittee. On Easter Sunday, the 5th of April, Perry 
 was fired at in broad daylight as he was returning 
 home from church. Perry was then boycotted. He 
 could not get men to save his harvest, and had to 
 employ men from the Property Defence Association in 
 Dublin. His brother, George Perry, also suffered on 
 his account. A man named Hogan, who took hay from 
 him in lieu of wages, was noticed to attend before tha 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
118 
 
 The" Special Commission, October*26, 1888. 
 
 League at Tulla on the 6th of September, 1885, and, 
 having presumably failed to satisfy the committee, that 
 came night his house was broken into, he was dragged 
 out in front, and severely beaten with sticks. M'Namara 
 left the house in September, 1S85. It remained 
 untenanted till June, 1886, when it was given back 
 to the former tenant. I submit that this was only an 
 instance of the organized system of intimidation that 
 was carried on. The other case I will mention is 
 that of John Byers, which exemplifies the practical 
 carrying out of the advice given by Mr. Cox. Your 
 Lordships will recollect that he said, " We have an 
 outpost so long as the evicted farm remains idle and 
 vacant, but if we allow the land-grabber to take 
 possession of that farm then it is a fort or outpost 
 taken from, us." In November, 1886, Timothy and 
 Thomas Lynch were evicted from a farm which they 
 held from Mrs. O'Grady at Clenagh, county Clare. 
 Immediately after the eviction, John Byers and 
 Michael M'Manus, employis of the Property Defence 
 Association, were placed in charge of the evicted farm 
 as caretakers and were afforded police protection. 
 On the 23d of January, 1887, a meeting was held in 
 the neighbourhood which was attended by Mr. John 
 O'Connor, M.F. The notice calling the meeting 
 stated that it would be held under the auspices of 
 the National League, and that its object was to call 
 attention to the action of evictors and rack-renters in 
 the locality. " Some are already evicted and some 
 are under sentence," said the notice. Mr. Cox recom- 
 mended that emergency men should be boycotted. This 
 meeting was on the 23d of January, 1887. On the 14th 
 of February, 1887, Byers and M'Manus, accompanied 
 by a sergeant of the constabulary as an escort, were 
 returning from the railway statiou at Ballycar, and 
 when only a few yards from the station six shots were 
 fired at them. Byers received a charge of shot in tho 
 loins, from the effects of which he died two days after- 
 wards. A coffin could not be procured for his remains 
 in Ennis, and one had to be sent from Dublin. "His 
 wife, who arrived just in time to see him die, was 
 groaned and jeered at. M'Manus was wounded in the 
 elbow, and the sergeant received a charge of shot in 
 his side. I would ask your Lordships what judgment 
 you will form when you bear in mind the speeches 
 delivered at the recent meeting which directly pointed 
 to these unfortunate individuals, who in what they 
 were doing were merely earning their livelihood. 
 There are a few speeches — only a few I am glad to 
 say — delivered in the county Mayo about this timo to 
 which I intend to refer. On the 20th of September, 
 1885, a meeting was held at Glenvalley to establish 
 a branch of the National League. The delegates 
 were James Leonard and John Mulligan. Leonard 
 said : — 
 
 " The grabber was in their midst, to have no deal- 
 ings with him, no nfatter where he was met ; to shun 
 him. Do him no injury, either by burning his house 
 or murdering him [here the speaker smiled, and looked 
 and raised his hand in the direction of the house of 
 John Began, which was in view of tho meeting]. 
 
 Denounced landlordism, and told the people to pay 
 no rent ; to keep their money in their pocket, as they 
 would be very soon called upon to pay the cursed set 
 of landlords.'" 
 John Mulligan said — 
 
 " They all knew that the object of this meeting 
 was to organize a branch of the Irish National 
 League, and to denounce land-grabbing, grass-grabbing, 
 and landlordism. He was sorry a case of the kind 
 occurred close to where the meeting was held, and 
 also another case at Stonehall. Now the punishmeul 
 for that crime of grabbing was to hold no communi- 
 cation, directly or indirectly, with him ; to pass him 
 by on the road, as if he was some unclean reptile. 
 That such men were the curse of this country, and the 
 friend of the vampire class — the landlords. Such a 
 man was worse than the devil, and should be con- 
 signed to the lower pits of hell." 
 It is noticeable that in the whole of these speeches 
 the " land-grabber " is spoken of with even more 
 bitterness than the landlord. On the 27th of 
 September, 1885, at Irishtown, P. J. Gordon, whom 
 your Lordships may remember was an organizer in 
 several parts of Ireland at an earlier period, con- 
 demned land-grabbing and said the land-grabber was 
 " accursed of God " and ought to be boycotted " in 
 the market place and the chapel." At Castlebar, on 
 the 3d of November, 1885, Mr. Pamell, Mr. Sexton, 
 Mr. O'Kelly, and Mr. Dillon were present. A Mr. 
 P. W. Nally, whose violent speeches delivered on 
 other occasions I havo already read, and who was 
 undergoing ten years' penal servitude for conspiracy 
 to murder, was nominated by the delegates ta 
 he Convention as Parliamentary candidate for 
 the county. But after a stormy meeting the 
 delegates were over-ridden by Mr. Parnell 
 and his selections were nominated. Mr. Parnell and 
 Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Kelly and Mr. Sexton, however, all 
 spoke in high terms of Mr. P. W. Nally. 
 
 SlE C. Ru"83ELr,. — You are mistaken, I think. It waa 
 J. W. Nally that was proposed as a delegate. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — That is quite another 
 person, as I think will turn out. But for the purposes 
 of my argument it makes no difference, for both of 
 them made speeches and there was not much to choose 
 between the violence of one and the other. I am told 
 it was P. W. Nally. 
 
 Sir C. EUS3ELL.— I think you will find it was not. 
 He was known as Scrab Nally. 
 
 Tho Attorney-General. — It is quite possible I may 
 be mistaken ; but I am stating what I believe to be 
 the facts. Mr. Dillon at this Convention said he had 
 spoken to the leaders of the National movement in 
 America, and they were anxious that Mr. Parnell 
 should be loyally supported in order to see what his 
 policy would do. The Irish Nationalists in America 
 would prefer, if the opportunity arose, to appeal to a 
 different tribunal from the English Parliament. Thej 
 are anxious that for tho present, when there is no 
 opportunity of doing anything in the active field, that 
 their support would be given to Mr. Parnell, because 
 they believe and are convinced that Mr. Parnell and 
 his party are honest enemies of English rule. Is not 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-GeneraL 
 
The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 119 
 
 Mr. Parnell and his party an enemy of English rale in 
 Ireland ? " Let you all join the League, and put 
 down land- grabbing. Any man who evicts a man, you 
 know how to take action accordingly." 
 At the same meeting Mr. Parnell said : — 
 
 " I tell you this to-day, that whenever 90 honest 
 Irishmen have been returned to the English House of 
 Commons it will be the last time they will ever be 
 returned there. Mr. Nally is a man who has performed 
 great and important services to the cause of the Land 
 League. I believe of him that he is one of the many 
 victims to the infamous system which existed in this 
 country during the three years of the Coercion Act. I 
 believe he is a victim of the conspiracy which was 
 formed between Red Spencer and the informers of this 
 country. I am convinced he is innocent of all crime, 
 and in a marked degree of the offence with which he 
 was charged, and I consider it is our duty not to rest 
 until we have caused the prison doors to be opened on 
 these men." (That shows clearly, my Lords, that the 
 Nally referred to was the man who had been sent to 
 penal servitude.) " I have to declare that we shall 
 never accept, either expressly or implicitly, anything 
 but the full and complete right to govern and manage 
 our own affairs, and work for our own nation, and to 
 secure for her — free from outside control — the right to 
 pursue her own course among the people of the world." 
 
 Tour Lordships will know why I have read that 
 speech, for you will remember that in his Cincinnati 
 speech, which I read yesterday, Mr. Parnell said he 
 wished to see the last link which bound Ireland to the 
 United Kingdom dissolved. Here, again, we have 
 practically the same sentiment expressed, and your 
 Lordships will find that in many cases Mr. Parnell has 
 made speeches which would render it impossible to 
 believe that he did not say what he was represented as 
 saying at Cincinnati. On January 10, 1886, Mr.. J. J. 
 Louden, one of the officials both of the Land League aud 
 of the National League, made a speech, at which Mr. 
 Hastings, of Louisberg, a representative of the Irish 
 World, was present, and in the presence of this American 
 representative, we have from Mr. Louden the same 
 enunciation of the purpose which was put forward by 
 Mr. Davitt in America, and adopted by him as the first 
 plank of the Land League platform. I shall show that 
 on January 19,1886, at Claremorris,speeches were made 
 by Mr. P. J. Gordon and Mr. John Redmond, and in 
 that speech of Mr. P. J. Gordon, made in the presence 
 of Mr. John Redmond, three men — Kilkenny, John 
 Walsh, and Fitzpatrick — were referred to by name and 
 denounced as land-grabbers in the strongest possible 
 language, as well as some other men in the neighbour- 
 hood who had been guilty of the same offence, and the 
 people were told how they were to deal with land- 
 grabbers. On March 21, 3887, atBallinrobe, Mr. Crilly, 
 M.P./attended a National League meeting, and Mr. 
 P. J. Gordon spoke in his presence. He said : — 
 
 " I feel glorious in the hope that my speech will 
 be in Castle company with Mr. Crilly's, fearless of the 
 consequences of a prosecution from the Government. 
 We have adopted the Plan of Campaign on the 
 property of Daly, and intend to follow it up until the 
 vestige of landlordism is swept from Ireland. Cecil 
 Roche put them out on the road at the point of the 
 
 bayonet ; it was then that I came to the front in 
 defiance of any British law to help this great struggle. 
 If the glory of England is worth fighting for, the 
 honour of Ireland is worth fighting for. I ask you to 
 adopt the Flan of Campaign, no matter in what 
 property the land thief has demanded you to pay the 
 full rent. Arise to your feet like men and like women ! 
 Try and leave your hand on your breast. You are bound 
 as honest Irishmen to fight out the land thief, and 
 against the bloody British Government. There is 
 another fouler wretch than the landlord — the land- 
 grabber. Fight it out manfully ; landlords and land- 
 grabbers shall be put into one ship and banished. I 
 helped to sole, beel, and welt the land thief, and put 
 a pair of toe-caps on the land-grabber. That is my pro- 
 fession, and that I am proud to boast of here. I am 
 determined to finish it, and I will fight out that battle 
 until Mr. Daly and every other rack-renter in the parish 
 is brought to his knees. I am prepared by one solemn 
 pledge, and that pledge is — to stand by my people 
 until landlordism is crushed. Mr. Daly has robbed and 
 plundered the country, and has told them in the court- 
 houses, and if we cannot bury him in a small coffin, 
 we will press him in a large one." 
 Now, my Lords, I will take but one representative 
 outrage in the county of Mayo, and that is the firing 
 into the dwelling of Michael Gillespie at Ballyduff on 
 December 25, 1886. In November, 1886, a man 
 named Burke was holding a farm. He got into 
 difficulties, and a grocer named Moran sued him for 
 his debts. I ask your Lordships just to note this, that 
 it has nothing in the world to do with the land agita- 
 tion. Your Lordships will see how the organization is 
 nsed. The work is spread at the instance of the 
 ordinary creditor. Moran sold the farm, he got posses- 
 sion of it, and put in a small cottier named Michael 
 Gillespie, who lived on the farm in another capacity, 
 as caretaker. There is no question here of eviction of 
 another tenant, or of taking possession of the land. 
 The unfortunate man Gillespie was put in to take 
 possession when Moran had recovered the farm in an 
 action of debt. In December of the same year some 
 men fired shots through Gillespie's window, and served 
 a notice upon him informing him that if he did not 
 cease to negotiate with the land-grabber Moran for 
 buying Burke's farm, he would be treated in the same 
 way as other land-grabbers. I pick that case out for 
 the purpose of calling your Lordships' attention to the 
 fact that this tyranny seemed to be made available for 
 any person who desired to complain, and who was in a 
 position to command the services and the revenues of 
 the organization ; and the sole cause of complaint 
 against this unfortunate man was that he had been 
 put in to take charge of the farm when Moran 
 obtained possession of it in satisfaction of his debts. 
 Now, my Lords, I am obliged to call attention to a 
 series of speeches in Galway, from which I am glad 
 to say I can make a considerable expurgation ; but 
 there are certain speeches which I think it right to 
 read as they deal with certain specific outrages which 
 will form the subjeot of evidence to be laid before 
 your Lordships. I think the earliest of these speeches 
 I can summarize. A meeting was held at Kilkerrin on 
 April 12, 1885, at which were present Mr. James 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
120 
 
 The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 O'Connor, of United Ireland, Mr. Crilly, M.P., and Mr. 
 P. J. Gordon, but the. speeches on that occasion, your 
 Lordships will find, are principally composed of abuse 
 of the Royal Family and references to the Mahdi. On 
 April 19 of the same year Mr. Matthew Harris made a 
 speech at Kilreecle, in which he also condemned the 
 visit of the Prince of Wales and eulogized the Mabdi. 
 On August 4, 1885, Mr. O'Connor, of United Ireland, 
 Matthew Harris, and Mr. Lanagan again made speeches. 
 I will hand copies of them to my learned friends, but 
 I do not want to read them now. On August 9, 1885, 
 at a League meeting at Kinvara, Father Considine, 
 C.C., made a speech, in which he said : — 
 
 " In this great struggle in which you are engaged 
 your worst enemies are men of your own stamp. The 
 landlords are a bad lot, the agents are a bad lot, the 
 bailiffs are a bad lot and ali their satellites, but the 
 land-grabber is the worst. '(' He is, they are in this 
 parish.') They are ; and these are the men that are 
 renegades to the cause of Ireland." 
 
 Then, my Lords, a meeting was held at Loughrea on 
 September 10, 1885, at ' which were present A. 
 O'Connor, M.P., Mat Harris, M.P., John Sweeney, 
 J. Kennedy, Martin O'Halloran, and P. Cowley. The 
 two speeches I wish to read are those of O'Connor and 
 Matthew Harris. Mr. O'Connor said : — 
 
 " Though you have been good enough to receive my 
 name with applause, I regret to find that it would 
 almost have been better for me to be denied the 
 name of O'Connor — (Lord Dunsandle's agent was a Mr. 
 O'Connor)— when coming to this neighbourhood, for I 
 believe there are bad men of that name around here 
 (Cries, ' There are.'). Well, I hope if there is one 
 man that disgraces the name he shall have some time 
 or other to feel the displeasure of his countrymen. 
 While we deplore the sufferings of the people, we have 
 at least the consolation that there is not another dis- 
 trict in Ireland has shown any such determined front 
 to landlordism, and I hope that same spirit will 
 continue implacable until the battle is won. The 
 landlords now receive contempt and opposition ; but 
 the snake is scotched, not billed. We have further 
 accounts to reckon up. One commotion is just over, 
 and we are entering on another. I don't live in Kil- 
 tulla ; if I were, I should be ashamed. You will 
 always find that wherever the organization of the 
 people is weak or doubtful, there landlordism will 
 soon be raised up again, and you will have evictions, 
 and be once more at the mercy of agents and their 
 understrappers. There is but one thing to be done 
 against all this ruffianly gang ; you must stand to- 
 gether and let them see that the people will not 
 allow themselves to be evicted ; you have no right 
 to be evicted ; you must not be evicted." (I do 
 not know, my Lords, what that can be except an 
 invitation to the people to resist the ordinary process 
 of the law.) " Many and many a time you have shown 
 a determined front, and I hope that whenever it is 
 necessary you will be prepared to show that spirit 
 again. I know perfectly well the great, brave hearts 
 that beat within those gray coats in front of me. I 
 know perfectly well you would be ready to shoulder a 
 musket in the cause of Ireland if she called upon you 
 to-day. There are occasions when what is good at one 
 time is not necessarily good at another ; for instance 
 in '98 and in latter days, which we won't allude to. 
 
 Now, one of the greatest difficulties we have had to 
 contend with has been caused by certain kind of out- 
 rages. I don't want to be preaching to you. I can 
 perfectly well understand a man evicted on the road- 
 side, seeing his wife and children in ruin and desola- 
 tion, taking up a gun and shooting the landlord. I 
 can quite understand a man to whom a puppy of an 
 agent is insolent at once turning on him and giving 
 him a good thrashing. It is about the best treatment 
 he could receive ; but however one may deplore the 
 terrible state of things of which these evils are the 
 natural outcome, any one can see there is nothing very 
 natural about it. There is one form of outrage, to my 
 mind, most distasteful, and every man of human feel- 
 ing, of decent humanity, ought to put his face against 
 it, and bring the perpetrators to justice. I mean 
 those men who put aside every feeling of humanity and 
 mutilate dumb beasts. If I saw a man doing it 1 would 
 ab once arrest that man and bring him to justice. He 
 disgraces his country. I do not believe there are any 
 men about Loughrea who would allow such things as 
 that, because I know the men of Loughrea. 1 know 
 Loughrea has furnished some of the best material in 
 Ireland. They are men who do the real work when it 
 is to be done. I hope our enemies in England will not 
 be able to point to one of these scenes in this district. 
 There is no need for that. (Voice. — ' Shooting land- 
 lords is no harm. ')" 
 
 Idonotat present comment upon the distinction drawn Dy 
 Mr. O'Connor between shaoting a landlord and thrashing 
 the agent and the killing of animals. Harris said : — 
 " In' all Ireland there is not to be found a mora 
 patriotic, a more energetic people than in Loughrea. 
 In fact, they are so inclined for the work that in these 
 latter days when things are become so,cooled down, it 
 has been said the men of Loughrea are very little good 
 in the calm, but the very best in the storm. Well, fot 
 my part, I hope I won't be long until we have another 
 storm, and then the men of Loughrea will come for- 
 ward in the future, as they have in the glorious days 
 of the Land League." 
 
 My Lords, Loughrea was the district in which there 
 had been several of the very worst murders that had 
 taken place in Ireland. 
 The President.— Is this Harris or O'Connor ? 
 The Attormey-General.— Harris, my Lord. Your 
 Lordships can well understand the system that those 
 gentlemen were pursuing, that of making evictions as 
 expensive as they could, so that either the landlords 
 might not be able to stand the expense, or that the 
 money they lost might be many times greater than ths 
 value of the house or the amount that was due, in ordei 
 to prevent any payment of rent and thereby further the 
 scheme which was to crush the landlords by making the 
 land unproductive in their hands. I do not know 
 whether these speeches are relied on as speeches telling 
 the people not to commit crimes. I think, my Lords, 
 on the contrary, every statement delivered will ba 
 found to be a direct incentive to crime, and where any 
 observations were made in deprecation of crime, thev 
 were made in such a way that anybody hearing them 
 would understand that the crimes were nevertheless not 
 really distasteful to the persons making the speechei 
 in which the observations occurred. At a meeting 
 held at Ahaecragh on October 10, 1885, James Kil- 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 2G, 1888. 
 
 121 
 
 martin said one of the telegrams from America read at 
 the Convention m Dublin had more weight than all 
 other telegrams that came, and that was, " We send 
 you £10,000 for bullets, but not a penny for rack- 
 rents." James O'Connor, of United Ireland, asked the 
 people to stick to their organization ; each man to 
 his part in the fierce struggle they were about to enter 
 upon. They were on the verge of a critical struggle, 
 and he had no doubt the struggle of 1879 and 1880 was 
 nothing in gravity and importance to that which was 
 about to be forced upon the people bv rack-renting 
 landlords. " Our action with the landlords will be 
 much like the badger in the barrel. Every one of you," 
 he said, " must become a badger, and if the landlord 
 forces you in a corner I think when he sees you 
 have teeth he won't battle to get you out. I 
 think before May nest it would be better for them if 
 they had never instructed their lawyers to issue writs. 
 It will be utterly impossible for the farmers to pay 
 the rack-rents or even the judicial rack-rents this 
 winter. If they (the landlords) do not come to a 
 settlement with you, you can let them go to the devil. 
 What reduction you are to get should be determined 
 by the people themselves. Who can prevent you from 
 rising in church and leaving if a land-grabber enter ? 
 The people of Galway are determined to fight their 
 landlords inch by inch and foot by foot." Then there 
 was a meeting at Ballinasloe, which I only mention 
 because of the fact that representatives from New 
 York were present. I believe Mr. Larkin, of New 
 York, and Matthew Harris took part in the meeting, 
 and the date was October 18, 1885. At Athenry, on 
 October 26, Matthew Harris spoke again, and John 
 Dillon also spoke. Harris said : — 
 
 " For many years it was in my power to go into 
 the House of Commons, but I shared with my fellow- 
 countrymen a strong prejudice against entering that 
 English House, and I wish to tell you, and to tell you 
 distinctly here to-day, that if I go into the House of 
 Commons, I go into the House — the citadel of the 
 enemy, and that I do not go there for the purpose of 
 assisting that House, or the members of that House, in 
 any effort they may make to oppress Ireland, or any other 
 nationality under English rule. If I go in there it will be 
 alone in the interests of my country, and I shall face 
 theij in the interests of our common humanity against 
 that monstrous Government, that Government of > 
 iniquity that has done more evil than any Government 
 ever done (sic) since the creation of the world. In 
 the future I may not be as free to talk as in the past, 
 for I shall have to guide my course by the advice of 
 the Irish people and the Parliamentary party, but in 
 doing so I shall not deviate a hair's-breadth from prin- 
 ciple. I shall always keep in my mind— first, the 
 independence of my country, and, secondly, the total and 
 absolute abolition of landlordism. As to joining 
 the Irish party, if I find myself in such a posi- 
 tion after joining it as that in the' House of Commons 
 I could not progress in that direction towards the two 
 great objects I mentioned, 1 would no more stay with 
 that party in that House than I would remain in a 
 certain place which I won't mention. Let the de- 
 mocracy of the country, the Nationalists of the 
 country, get their lines firmly fixed upon a great object 
 
 — the independence of this old country. Keep a strong 
 determined animus against England in your hearts, and 
 do not mind Englishmen, for they are your enemies. 
 They have destroyed, and are every day endeavouring 
 to destroy you, so that it behoves you as Irishmen to 
 keep a firm front against these men, and join together 
 in an organization throughout the country in every 
 possible way ; the organization may be objectionable 
 in one sense, but as long as it is against England it has 
 good in it." 
 
 I am not aware whether Mr. Matthew Harris sup- 
 ported the party on whose nomination he was elected 
 to Parliament, on the ground that he was able 
 through them to secure the two objects for which he 
 contended — namely, the independence of his countrj 
 and the total and absolute abolition of landlordism, 
 Mr. John Dillon said : — 
 
 ' ' We a-ra "at electing ordinary members of Parlia- 
 ment, we are electing members of an army, who are 
 to go under a special discipline to carry out the work 
 under enormous difficulty." (I ask your Lordships to 
 specially note this.) " You must remember that we 
 are carrying out these conventions under the eye of 
 the Irish people in America, and all over the world, 
 who are watching to see whether Mr. Parnell is in 
 the same position to-day that he was in some time 
 ago." 
 
 I think your Lordships will have no doubt that Mr, 
 Parnell is in the same position to-day that he was 
 some time ago — namely, that he dared not break with 
 his friends in America. 
 
 " I received a newspaper from a friend of mine to- 
 day, Mr. Patrick Egan, from Nebraska, in America, 
 and in that newspaper were two columns of most im- 
 portant news from Ireland, that a great new rebellion 
 had broken out in the Irish Parliamentary party. It 
 was said by Mr. J. O'Connor Power and Frank 
 H. O'Domiell that Mr. Tim Healy had deserted Mr. 
 Parnell, and that it was expected the Irish people 
 would not further submit to Mr. Parnell's dictatorship. 
 These are the kind of lies that are continually circu- 
 lated in America. Many poor men iu America, in the 
 Rocky Mountains, and all over the country, get sick 
 when they read stuff like this, and ask what is coming 
 over the Irish people ; but what must be the delight 
 and exultation with»which the Irish race in America 
 will read the telegrams that will go forth in 
 to-morrow's papers containing the news that the 
 Galway Convention accepted every name that Mr. 
 Parnell has put forward ?" 
 
 I stated to your Lordships, and I do not think it will 
 be disputed, that the members of Mr ParaelPs party 
 returned to Parliament in 1885 and 1886 were to a 
 very large extent — a very large proportion of them 
 were — nominees of Mr. Parnell, and they were men who 
 had gained his support and claimed his nomination by 
 reason of the services they had rendered to the Land 
 League and the National League, and that is a dis- 
 tinct reference by Mr. Dillon to the fact that the 
 nominees of Mr. Parneli were being put forward for 
 the purpose of election to the British House of 
 Commons. My Lords, I will put in the whole speech, 
 but will only read certain portions, those parts which 
 I have read being marked. At a very important 
 meeting at Portumna on November 15, 1885, Matthew 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
122 
 
 The Special Commission, October 2fi, 1888. 
 
 Harris, James Lynam, and James Kimiartin were pre- 
 sent. Your Lordships will remember that James Kil- 
 martin made a great many speeches, and Lynam is a 
 man who has been constantly speaking, and who was 
 sent down by the Land League, I think, bat certainly 
 by the National League. I do not wish to read all 
 Lynam's speech, but there are two or three passages in 
 the speech delivered before Mr. Harris which are 
 certainly worthy of notice. Jamos Lynam said : — 
 
 " I know well the responsibility that I incur 
 in addressing you here to-day. In the first place 
 I address you as one of. yourselves, one of the people. 
 I know that every word I speak may be watched and 
 thrown in the face of my great leader and chief, 
 Parnell. I am proud to call him my friend who 
 is now doing ten years' penal servitude." (That, 
 my Lords, was a man named Nally.) " Well, at 
 that time the Irish Times attacked Mr. Parnell, 
 and they said the class of men he backed up 
 were the men who were encouraging outrages. Now, 
 Mr. Nally never encouraged outrages ; my friend 
 * Scrab ' did that, and ho knew what he was about. 
 I will tell you what John Stuart Mill said about the 
 shooting of a landlord. It was in reference to a great 
 charge that the English Times brought against Mr. 
 Parnell, saying that the men he was taking into the 
 House of Commons were the men who were encourag- 
 ing the shooting of landlords. John Stuart Mill said 
 that the shooting of a bad landlord was an act of de- 
 fensive warfare. Well, how can a man who had 
 nothing left but his potato, and see that potato taken 
 from him, and nothing left for the comfort of his 
 family, be looked upon as anything else than acting 
 on the defensive ? Now, I would like the Government 
 note-taker to take that down. Pat Nally never en- 
 couraged in any way what John Stuart Mill justified ; 
 but now I will ask you, let you commit no outrages, 
 and I hope I am not insulting you, because I know 
 you are men. I can see by your earnest faces that 
 you are, and, as I said, you understand your responsi- 
 bility. Commit no outrage ; what I mean is this — 
 don't be burning hayricks or strawricks, don't be 
 cutting the tail off a mule jackass, and things like 
 that I mean when I am talking about outrages. But I 
 am not going to tell you that you should not boycott 
 a land-grabber." 
 
 My Lords, I hope I nmy be ^allowed to pause 
 to point out again the extraordinary way in 
 which land-grabbing is referred to by these 
 speakers. They knew perfectly well what boy- 
 cotting a land-grabber led to, and the contrast 
 drawn between cutting off the tail of a mule jackass 
 and boycotting a land-grabber is very significant : — 
 
 " When you meet a land-grabber on the road, a very 
 safe practice for you, gentlemen, would be to put the 
 cross of Christ on your forehead. And also, when you 
 meet one of those cowardly, sneaking, low-lifed curs 
 that goes sneaking to the big fellows that they might 
 get into their graces, do the same thing, put the cross 
 of Christ on your forehead." 
 
 Then follow other references to Mr. Parnell, in which 
 he says, " If he gets justice to the Irish people it is 
 all well, no matter through what channel it comes." 
 I will read what Mr. Matthew Harris said : — 
 
 " It behoved them to come together and ally 
 themselves, one man with another, to put a bold, a 
 stern front against landlordism and the agents of land- 
 
 lordism in this country. All around they see signs of 
 the clouds breaking ; they see every indication that in 
 the near future their country shall be different and 
 their people in a different position, but that should 
 not for one moment prevent them from striking at the 
 tyrant that's at their door. He counselled the tenants 
 of Lord Clanricarde to meet together and draw up a 
 document containing their demand for a fair reduction 
 of rent, to keep clear of agents and bailiffs, to pre- 
 sent this demand to Lord Clanricarde, and if he re- 
 fused to grant the abatement demanded to put the 
 money in the bank." 
 
 The reference is to the Plan of Campaign. The re- 
 mainder of his speech is more historical, but contains 
 nothing fresh when compared with the previous 
 speeches of Mat Harris. At the end of the meeting 
 Lynam spoke again. He said : — 
 
 " He was a young man yet, and if he had his 
 way of thinking they should have rifles in their hands, 
 because if they had an opportunity the true heart, the 
 strong arm of the poorest man in the crowd, could 
 pierce a tyrant's heart twice as soon as the speech of 
 his friend Mat Harris. ' Don't be cutting the tail of 
 a jackass, or burning straw stacks. When I speak of a 
 jackass I don't mean a landlord. Cut the tail off the 
 landlords as soon as you like. Devil a much of a tail 
 the landlords have left.' " 
 
 I think your Lordships will be able to judge of what the 
 effect of such speeches as those would be upon persons 
 who were minded to commit outrages, when the con- 
 trast is drawn between the animal upon which outrages 
 were not to be committed and the landlord, upon 
 whom they might be committed " as soon as they 
 liked." A meeting was held at Curteen, county 
 Galway, on November 29, 1885, at which Mr. D. 
 Sheehy, M.P., and Mr. Matthew Harris spoke. Mr. 
 Sheehy said : — 
 
 " We have two battles to fight ; one is to fight 
 against this class " (landlords and land-grabbers), " and 
 the other against the English Government. The land- 
 lord class will support the English Government in 
 keeping the red banner of England over this country 
 for many a day to come. Little as our forces in Ire- 
 land are, great are the forces that the scattered sons of 
 the Clan-na-Gael bear in other countries. And all 
 these forces are with us to a man, ready to send us 
 their dollars, ay, and to back their dollars with men, 
 if need be." 
 
 Mr. Matthew Harris made a speech, which I will 
 put in, but I will not read it at the present 
 time. On November 18, 1885, occurs a speech 
 of Mr. John Eoche, at Woodford, in which 
 he refers by nickname to an unfortunate man 
 named Finlay. The passage in the speech runs : — 
 " The landlords had their ' Balaclava ' serving pro- 
 cesses, hut the people would have their Fontenoy. " I 
 am informed, my Lords, that the Irish people have 
 always considered the battle of Fontenoy as a victory 
 of the Irish over the English nation ; and " Bala- 
 clava " was the nickname of Finlay. He was a pen- 
 sioner, he was very well known in the district, and 
 popular among the people to whom he was known. I 
 wish to call attention to a speech of Father Egan, 
 Catholic curate, of Woodford, on December 6. 1885, 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 123 
 
 at Ballingar, county Galway. There were several 
 other persons present at this meeting, but I am not 
 sure I can give the names atpresent. I call attention 
 to this passage in Father Egan's speech : — 
 
 " Our people have been exterminated. Mr. Chamber- 
 lain told us the other day we were only four millions ; 
 but beyond the Atlantic wave, in far distant 
 Australia and in the hearts of the manufacturing 
 towns of England, our Irish brothers live. They are 
 true sons, and they are in sympathy in heart and soul 
 with us if we strike for Ireland, and thank God we 
 have a base of operations outside the reach of 
 English law. That was the spirit of the old Land 
 League, it is a greater strength of the National 
 League, and I believe myself that with the spirit 
 that is in our people here and abroad it is but a short 
 outlook until we see the sunburst of green Ireland 
 shooting forth in all its glory ; and if any miserable 
 clique, a few individuals — a hundred or two, as we 
 see by the elections — think they can stand in the way 
 of a nation's progress we will tell them to get out of 
 the way or be crushed to the earth." 
 
 My Lords, there are two or three speeches in the year 
 1886 I desire to refer to. It is important that I 
 should call attention to a speech of the famous Mr. 
 Tully on March 14, 1886. He was the man who got 
 the name of " Dr." He was a working man who on 
 repeated occasions recommended to the people of 
 Ireland his " pills " ; indicating that he had 
 pills which he kept in a bottle, and that when- 
 ever they were administered his patients never re- 
 quired any more medicine of any sort or kind. 
 He was called Dr. Tully. He made a speech 
 at Tynagh, county Galway. He was constantly 
 speaking on those occasions with Mr. Matthew 
 Harris. He spoke on March 14, 1886, and said : — 
 
 ' ' I will first commence with landlordism ; the land- 
 lord of this soil is not now alive, and where is he 
 now ? The note-taker cannot tell. We fought a 
 battle there in Woodford, honourable in the broad 
 daylight. Well, talking about landlords' minions and 
 tools, no surrender to a tyrannical landlord, or to 
 Tom, Dick, and Harry. My heart is beating now to 
 do away with landlordism. I stand here to-day — I am 
 paid for standing here to-day, though I am a doctor too." 
 I think your Lordships will have no doubt about who 
 paid Dr. Tully.' 
 
 " ' I have my diploma here in my hand. I tell you 
 about this Tommy, what is he doing, prowling about 
 the country ? They will do anything that Tommy 
 tells them. When you did not bring turnips he will 
 say, "I want my rent." There is another man, Clarke, 
 that despotical despot. How dare he, Clarke, the 
 despotical despot, come here ? I dare that man to 
 come forward. Is there any man here to support 
 him ? He was a friend of mine once, but I found 
 him out. I challenge any man to vote for him — I 
 dare any man in the National League to vote for 
 him, and if he does, so help my God I will use my 
 medicine on him and I will use it. I did not give 
 it to any man here yet. If ye want to give him a 
 dose apply to mo, and I will give him a cure. The 
 M'Donaghs grabbed that farm there in Drimna, they 
 5heriffed out my sister ; I challenge them to surrender 
 that farm now at once.' The chairman here interfered, 
 and objected to the speaker's remarks, as he said he 
 would be responsible, as did also Tim Clarke, who 
 
 told Tully to go away. Tully said that he would not 
 go, that he would be responsible himself. Tim Clarke 
 then asked him to withdraw the expression, which 
 Tully said ' I will withdraw it. I call upon the 
 tradesmen, smiths, and carpenters not to speak to him. 
 You can use the medicine that I will give you — any 
 man can use it — a boy can use it. If a mild dose 
 does not do, give it to him strong, and if he dies in a 
 field bury him there. I am standing as a soldier here 
 to-day, and I did not care if my head was blown off. 
 I call for a show of hands for Cunningham. I see 
 some of them not putting up their hands. Take a note 
 of them. I promise whoever I give my medicine to, 
 he must give me a guarantee that he will use my 
 medicine on the proper men. I -tell you my medicine 
 made policemen walk through bogs and mountains. 
 Don't allow any man in this parish to vote for that 
 despot.' " 
 
 I suppose it may be suggested by those who either 
 were present or who knew of speeches of this kind 
 being delivered that snch speeches were so exag- 
 gerated that they had no effect. I do not think the 
 history of Ireland will support snch a suggestion as 
 that. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Who was the chairman ? 
 
 The Attoeney-GeneeAL. — I will try to find out and 
 will let you know. My Lords, there was also a meeting 
 held in Portumna on September 26, 1886, at which 
 Francis Sully, Matthew Harris, James Lynam, John 
 Roche, and Thomas Burke were present. I put in the 
 speeches made on that occasion by Matthew Harris and 
 Lynam, but I do not wish to read them at present. 
 Now, my Lords, I will read to you a speech of Mr. 
 John Dillon's at Loughrea on October 16, 1886. He 
 said : — 
 
 ' ' The whole secret of the power of the people lay in 
 the fact that an evicted farm must not be touched, and 
 whenever it is touched it is the duty of the people to 
 bring to bear upon the individual who is traitor enough 
 to touch it the influence of the public opinion of his 
 neighbours to make him feel so long as he betrays his 
 people ho will be detested by every honest man. Let 
 the soil of Ireland be owned by men who live in Ire- 
 land, the men who love Ireland and desire to see their 
 country free. When they have brought about this state 
 of things,when ihey have put the landlords down, these 
 wretches who have trampled upon every effort in tho 
 past — when we have put them down, then I say that 
 Irish liberty will be won, and it will be for the Irish 
 people to say what amount of liberty they want." 
 On October 19, 1886, there was a meeting at Cappa- 
 con, county Galway, at which Mr. Sheehy, M.F., was 
 present, and the famous Dr. Tally spoke. With refe- 
 rence to the suggestion that any of those gentlemen 
 charged in the particulars knew nothing of the kind of 
 language he was using, I would ask your Lordships to 
 let me read Tally's speech made in the presence of Mr. 
 Sheehy. He " declared to God he hated landlordism 
 and their tools. Does blind Lewis and Downey call to 
 your houses now ? Cut off Lewis's supplies and cut off 
 Downey ; and if any man at this meeting breaks through 
 the resolutions passed here to-night, I will give him a 
 dose of my medicino, and if the usual dose given does 
 not do I will make it stronger ; and if that does 
 not do, I will give him pills as hard as ever he got in 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-Gen eraL 
 
124 
 
 The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 his life." Kr. Sheehy also spoke,and I put in his speech. 
 On November 21, 1886, at Kylebeg, county Galway, 
 David Sheehy, M.P., said :— " He could not congra- 
 tulate the people on their adherence to the League 
 principles, seeing that they permitted a grabber to 
 move among them for five years. He believed that if 
 there was a proper spirit this grabber would have 
 been long since brought to his knees. It was evident 
 the people had not made it hot enough for him." I 
 shall call your Lordships' attention, or evidence will 
 be given in reference to what happened to a man 
 named Kennedy. Kylebeg, where the meeting was 
 held, was close to his farm, and shortly afterwards he 
 was summoned to appear before the Land League, and 
 proceedings taken against him because he was supposed 
 to have lived among them five years as a land-grabber. 
 Mr. Sheehy made a speech on the same day at Killi- 
 more, which I will pat in without reading. Then I 
 will call attention, my Lords, to a speech of Mr. 
 Matthew Harris on December 19, 1886, at Aughrim, in 
 county Galway. I need not read it, but will put it in 
 on the note. The one passage to which I refer is that 
 he alluded to land-grabbing as " the greatest curse in 
 the world," and said, further, that " it is such a curse 
 that the man who commits himself on the supposition 
 that he is not committing land-grabbing, and being 
 accused of it, he has to go before the branch and clear 
 himself, and do whatever they desire him to do." My 
 Lords, will it be suggested after that, that those speeches 
 were not made in connexion with the Land League ? 
 There is a distinct statement that he has to go before 
 the branch and clear himself and do whatever they 
 desire him to do. Mr. David Sheehy, at the same 
 meeting, made a speech of which I will put in a copy. 
 Father Coen, parish priest, was present, and it is 
 very important there to notice that Mr. Sheehy said 
 he repeated every word he said at Kylebeg ; and, with 
 reference to the case of the man Kennedy, he asked 
 the people never to drop the curtain on that subject 
 until Kylebeg was in possession of the rightful owner 
 of that little farm, and that rightful owner was not 
 Kennedy but Mrs. Dempsey. 
 
 At this point the Commissioners adjourned for 
 luncheon. On their return, 
 
 The ATTOBNEY-GENEEAi, resuming, said : — It is only 
 necessary, my Lords, for mo to call attention to, I 
 think, three outrages ; but a considerable number took 
 place in the areas with which I am now dealing. 
 My object is to direct my learned friends' minds to 
 them, and also to show to your Lordships how we 
 propose to connect the outrage directly with the 
 speech of Dr. Tully — the speech made in the presence 
 of other members of the Land League, in which the 
 mode of treating obnoxious persons was referred to. 
 Your Lordships will remember a speech in which it 
 was stated the Irish people had their Fontenoy and 
 the landlords their Balaclava. Patrick Finlay, who 
 was known by the nickname of " Balaclava," owing, I 
 suppose, to the fact of his having been present at that 
 
 battle, was a man who, although a process-server, had 
 lived for, I think, some 20 years in the village of 
 Woodford, and had been on friendly terms with the 
 persons among whom he dwelt. He was a pensioner, 
 and simply used to supplement what little living he had 
 by serving process of law ; and I hope it will be along 
 time before it ought to or can be seriously suggested 
 that simply carrying out the process of law should 
 subject a man to such peril as this unfortunate man 
 was subjected to. John Roche made a speech, to 
 which I have already referred. Shortly after that 
 time Tully was in gaol. The meeting at which that 
 speech was made having taken place towards the end 
 of December, on December 26,1885, Finlay's windows 
 were broken, but no harm was done to him. On De- 
 cember 27 another meeting of the National League 
 took place, at which short speeches were made. 
 Father Egan, I think the parish priest, Father Fahy, 
 and John Roche — the same man to whose speech I 
 have referred — were present. Roche said : — " Our 
 doctor is in gaol; but we have a receipt for more power- 
 ful medicine, one dose of which, if properly adminis- 
 tered, is stronger than ten of the doctor's bottles." 
 Father Fahy and Father Egan both spoke, and told the 
 people not to recognize persons who supported emer- 
 gency men or police, and to stand together determinedly. 
 In the month of February Finlay was under police 
 protection, for he had been previously boycotted for 
 about a year. On March 3, 1886, he was not engaged 
 in serving process, but went out without the police 
 to get some timber from a wood near his house. He 
 was there shot dead, his jawbone being broken by a 
 bullet, and several pellet wounds were in his body. 
 The person from whom a coffin could ordinarily have 
 been obtained was Carey, the secretary of the 
 National League, and he and other persons con- 
 nected with the League refused to supply the 
 materials for the coffin. His widow was also boy- 
 cotted, and no one would give her food or fire. I 
 will ask your Lordships to consider if outrages fol- 
 lowed from less violent speeches, what was likely to 
 occur after such a speech as that I have referred to ? 
 In the month of May in the same year William 
 Conway cut some turf for Sir Henry Burke. In a 
 few days the National League at Woodford issued a 
 notice to the people not to take grass land and not to 
 cut turf for any landlord. On May 15, the whole of 
 Conway's stock, pigs, goats, geese, and fowl, and his 
 outhouses were burnt. There are, besides, several 
 other cases in Galway from which we shall ask your 
 Lordships to infer that during 1885 and 1886 there 
 was a continuation of the same incitements as I have 
 referred to in connexion with the years 1881 and 
 1882, followed by the same results. Now I turn to 
 the last county to which it is necessary to call 
 attention in the same way. If I were to go through 
 all the outrages in this county the list would be 
 found to be an exceedingly long one. But by picking 
 out five or six typical cases I think I shall be able to 
 show that the advice of Mr. Dillon, that the men of 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 125 
 
 Kerry should do as they had done before, and that 
 other counties should follow the example of those in 
 Kerry and thereby put an end to the landlord system, 
 was not forgotten. There was a meeting at Killarney 
 on August 30, 1885. Mr. J. D. Sheehan said " the 
 programme before the country was independence for 
 Ireland ; all other issues had been thrown away ; 
 they would proclaim themselves free and fight for it 
 if necessary. Where the people are rack-rented let 
 them come to our branch meetings, and we'll tell 
 them what to do." Mr. T. M. Healy, M.P., spoke 
 " against landlordism and land-grabbing, and condemned 
 those who had taken grass lands in Lord Kenmare's de- 
 mesne. In no part of Ireland was landlordism so odious 
 as in Kerry. We will expedite the departure of vultures 
 and harpies from this district. While you are secure in 
 your holdings, so long as you pay your rent, our 
 object is that you should be secure in your holdings 
 without having to pay any rent. My experience of 
 the Land League times is that the rich farmers are to 
 be distrusted. They sneaked into the office, and paid 
 behind backs. Now my advice to you would be if 
 you enter into a combination to take proper pre- 
 cautions that no man breaks the line. Bank your 
 rents in the name of trustees, and say, we 
 will demand a reduction, and stand by it." 
 He condemned outrages, though not unequivocally, 
 and pointed out " that instead of resorting to outrages 
 they could resort to boycotting. The people in their 
 struggle for independence had behind them the 
 momentum and force of the great land movement." 
 The following three resolutions were proposed : — (1) 
 National independence ; (2) No farmer to make use 
 of the Land Purchase Act, except with the approval 
 of his branch of the Land League ; (3) Condemnation 
 and utter abhorrence of land-grabbing. Your Lordships 
 are supposed to take judicial notice of the fact that 
 an Act was passed in 1885, known as Lord Ashbourne's 
 Land Purchase Act, under which a tenant is enabled 
 by the State to purchase the land which he occupies 
 on very favourable terms, the purchase-money being 
 repaid by instalments spread over 49 years. I ask 
 you to observe the extent to which it was thought 
 desirable that the organization should interfere with 
 the execution of a scheme of legislation which was 
 highly beneficial to the tenants of Ireland. No one 
 who has watched the working of the Act can have any 
 doubt that from the point of view of the tenant it is 
 exceedingly beneficial. But it would not serve the 
 purposes of the National League that the Act should 
 be worked, and accordingly it was determined that, 
 except with the approval of a branch of the League, 
 no one ought to make use of the clauses of the 
 measure. I submit that that showed as clearly as 
 anything could that it was the intention of those 
 who were advocating and taking part in this con- 
 spiracy that nothing should be done which might 
 bring benefit to the tenant unless it furthered the 
 great object of sweeping away the landlords, obtaining 
 the land rent-free, and establishing national indepen- 
 
 dence. Mr. W. O'Brien, M.P., at the same meeting, 
 said : — 
 
 " The Irish people were not afraid to be extreme in 
 the days of Earl Spencer and the Crimes Act, in the 
 days when to be extreme involved execution, and the 
 prison, and the plank-bed, and so forth. We were 
 not afraid to be extreme then, and we are not ashamed 
 to be moderate now, when it would he quite safe to be 
 extreme. Mr. Parnell will give them such war as 80 
 guerillas can carry on in the heart of that English 
 Parliament, and such war as the Irish people are able 
 to carry on outside that Parliament with the weapon of 
 the franchise, of what they call the boycotting pike, 
 or with any other weapon that time or opportunity 
 may offer us (cheers), or those who may act for us, for 
 it will be carried on until the fabric of Irish freedom 
 shall rise side by side with that of England, or on the 
 ruins of England's greatness and her empire. (Cheers.) 
 The English people in politics are the merest pack of 
 fools, for they will do as they are told to do. We need 
 not care for the gabble of English Liberal spouters." 
 At Kenmare,on September 20, Mr. J. D. O'Sullivan said 
 ' that outrages, at least some of them, were a disgrace 
 and should be condemned. Land-grabbing was as bad as 
 moonlighting." That, my Lords, I suppose, is an illus« 
 tration of the mode in which outrages were ! con> 
 demned. Mr. E. Harrington said " that it would be 
 their own fault if the land-grabber or the vile emer- 
 gency man showed his head among them. He did not 
 counsel any act of indiscretion ; there were a thousand 
 ways in which they could make these vile wretches 
 feel their position." On September 29, at Tralee, 
 Michael Davitt unveiled a memorial cross to Allen, 
 Larkin, and O'Brien, which, he said, was typical of 
 faith and fatherland. " Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien 
 had proudly died and offered up their lives as sacri- 
 fices on the altar of Irish freedom. They had been 
 foully struck down and done to death by England's 
 Government. I know that neither of these men fired 
 that shot. I have several times spoken in America to 
 the man who fired it." Mr. Davitt does not seem to have 
 done anything to bring this criminal to justice. " This fact 
 was known to the English Government of the day; but these 
 men were immolated in order to satiate English vengeance 
 against Irish independence. Our vigil will he patient 
 and watchful, and the day will come when not only the 
 butchery in Manchester will be avenged, but the social 
 crimes committed against the Irish people will also 
 be avenged. If you or I might be called on to-morrow, 
 or five years hence, to follow the example of Allen, 
 Larkin, and O'Brien, it is our holy duty to emulate 
 them and prove, if necessary, that death alone will be 
 welcome to you in the cause of Irish liberty." My 
 Lords, I do not think a more monstrous statement could 
 be made by a constitutional agitator than that the 
 Governmenb that allowed these criminals to be hanged 
 knew that they were not guilty. On January 6, 1886, 
 a meeting was held at Knocknagoshill. The Rev. Mr. 
 Casey, P.P., said " he attended to denounce land- 
 grabbers as the curse of the country. They should be 
 passed by on tho streets with scorn and contempt, and 
 no person should speak to or look at them. He advised 
 them to pay no rent, except a fair rent, which thi* 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
126 
 
 The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 year he believed to be no rent." He denounced out- 
 rages. The reporter says that nearly all the speakers 
 at this meeting denounced the commission of outrage ; 
 but, with the exception of Father Casey, they qualified 
 their denunciation by adding the words " at present." 
 I call attention, my Lords, to the fact that, in this 
 speech, side by side with the denunciation of out- 
 rages, there is a denunciation of land-grabbers. Mr. 
 E. Harrington, M.P., who also spoke, recommended 
 " that land-grabbers or grass-grabbers, or persons who 
 cut rushes on evicted farms, should be shunned. Those 
 people who cut rushes on such farms should know that 
 that was grabbing ; that those rushes pointed their 
 tapering heads to Heaven, as if to invoke vengeance on 
 the man who grabbed them off evicted farms. Do not 
 commit any outrages, as at the present time they only 
 injure the best interests of the country, and strengthen 
 the hands of our enemies." Observe that there is not 
 here one word of denunciation against outrages on the 
 ground that they are in themselves wicked and wrong. 
 Mr. J. D. Sheehan, M.P., asked the people " to use 
 to the best advantage boycotting — that powerful in- 
 strument which they possessed against the land and 
 grass grabber. He knew that there were plenty of 
 people about the locality who had received processes 
 for rent, and warned them against going behind their 
 neighbours' backs to pay their rents. Any such man 
 should be treated as a grabber. They heard a lot about 
 fair rent, but he considered a fair rent to be no rent." 
 He also spoke against the commission of outrages, as 
 at present, when the goal was so nearly reached, they 
 might injure the cause. Dr. Moriarty.of Listowel.said 
 that he was intimately acquainted with all the great 
 Nationalists of England, Scotland, and America, and 
 was an ardent follower of that great man James 
 Stephens (he was the Fenian Head Centre), and would 
 alwajs remain a follower of his. He said : — " We 
 are not at present able or prepared to use force, but 
 England knows that if we were the Irish race all the 
 world over would take part in the fight for freedom. 
 And let England beware, for the sword of vengeance 
 is hanging over her head, and when it falls Irishmen 
 will be found in their places, and theirs will be the 
 hands that will cause the fall. The grabber should 
 be boycotted. If he be sick, go for the priest ; but let 
 no person go for a doctor, as such people are not 
 worthy of being kept alive. Don't go to his funeral ; 
 let him have no funeral ; let him ' go down to the 
 vile dust from where he sprung, unwept, unhonourcd 
 and unsung.' His wife may go to his grave and fire a 
 pop-gun over him if she likes." Mr. P. O'Sullivan, 
 president of the Knocknagoshill branch of the Land 
 League, 6aid " he would be glad to see all the land 
 lords buried six feet under ground, and would like to 
 see them all in ' Fiddlers'-green,' seven miles below 
 the ' hot place.' " Mr. J. Stack, M.P., said " ho 
 was going into the British Parliament House a 
 sworn enemy of the Sandes, the Herberts, the Hus- 
 seys, the Headleys, and Kenmares, and would not 
 rest until he saw the total extinction of landlordism." 
 
 Now, I shall make a few observations upon some of 
 the outrages that occurred in Kerry, which county, 
 according to so many speakers, deserved the palm for 
 the way in which the inhabitants treated land-grabbers, 
 the followers of the League having taken well to heart 
 the advice given in a speech which I shall put in : — 
 " The landlord is too well protected. Do not mind 
 him. Shoot the land-grabber instead." The first case 
 to which I shall call attention is that of Michael 
 Moriarty. In the autumn of 1884 he sent some cattle 
 to graze upon a farm from which a man had been 
 evicted, and, as far as my information goes, his only 
 crime was that he had sent his cattle to graze upon this 
 unoccupied land nearKillorglin. His offence was not 
 discovered for some time, but ultimately it was, and 
 on March 5, 1865, he was shot at, and the bullet 
 passed through his clothes. The outrage was com- 
 mitted at about a quarter past 8 in the evening. On 
 December 7, 1885, William Williams, a farmer, was 
 shot at. He resided on the property of Mr. Orpen, at 
 Brewsterfield, Killarney. Mr. Orpen, who had been 
 exceedingly popular among his tenants, had a dispute 
 with one of their number in March, 1884. The tenant 
 was evicted, and after the eviction the local branch 
 of the National League endeavoured to annoy Mr. 
 Orpen by boycotting and intimidation. Williams 
 worked on the evicted farm for Mr. Orpen, and on 
 December 7 a party of 15 or 20 men went to his 
 house, broke in the door with large stones, and 
 forced their way into his room. Williams called out 
 that if they did not go he would fire upon them. They 
 then shot at him through the windows of the house, 
 and a quantity, of shot lodged in the head of the bed 
 near which he was standing. He was injured by some 
 grains of shot, which glanced off his head. As the men 
 were going away he fired his revolver at them. The 
 sole reason for the outrage was that he had worked on 
 this evicted farm for Mr. Orpen. On January 30, 
 1886, an outrage was committed upon Giles Eae, an 
 old man 72 years of age. Eae, who had only one 
 arm, had been a process server at Killiney. In the 
 month, of October, 1885, Eae was mobbed, and on 
 January 26 he served another writ. On the 30th five 
 moonlighters entered Eae's kitchen, and in the 
 presence of his wife seized the old man, and with 
 some sharp instrument like a razor sliced off one of 
 his ears. It was some hours before any one heard of 
 the outrage, the wife being too ill and terrified to 
 give an alarm. I believe it will be proved that the 
 only causo for this brutal outrage was that the un- 
 fortunate man had served a writ in respect of some 
 demand for rent. On May 6, 1886, Cornelius Kearney 
 was fired at at half-past 10. The shock made him 
 seriously ill, and he died not long afterwards. He had 
 refused to join either the Land League or the 
 National League, and had been warned in the autumn 
 not to send his horse to a particular blacksmith or his 
 cow to an obnoxious individual who possessed a bull. 
 Now, I wish to call attention to the case of a man 
 named O'Connor, who evicted a tenant and went to 
 
 Tie Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 127 
 
 live upon the land himself. This was not a case of 
 preventing a landlord from letting his land, but of 
 actually preventing him from occupying it. On June 6, 
 1886, a man in his employment was warned not to 
 work for Mr. O'Connor, and was shot at. Other men 
 were also warned not to work for him. After the 
 occurrence on the Gth of June O'Connor made his 
 peace with the local branch of the Land League, and 
 his was described as " establishing the Land League 
 in the district." There were reports of the circum- 
 stances in the Kerry Weekly Reporter and other local 
 newspapers, which described O'Connor's offence as an 
 offence against the resolutions of the local branch of 
 the League. In the same year a poor man, John 
 Conway, of Kilgulbin, cut some turf, and, this 
 act being viewed with displeasure, he was shot 
 in the right knee. Sorely wounded as he was, 
 he went to the Land League offices, asked for 
 forgiveness, and promised not to offend any more. 
 I think, my Lords, we shall produce tho resolutions 
 of the branch of the League in that case, and the 
 report of the discussion which took place as to 
 whether this man was to be forgiven or not for his 
 supposed offences against the League. These, my 
 Lords, will be all fair specimens of the things which 
 took place in the National League. John Conway 
 appeared before the meeting, on being communicated 
 with by the secretary of the Abbeydorney branch of 
 the Irish National League. The meeting of the Abbey- 
 dorney branch is reported in the Kerry Weekly fieporlcr 
 of the 7th of August, 1886 :— 
 
 "Irish National League meeting, 1st of August, 
 1886. Abbejdorney branch. John Bunyan, P.L.G., 
 in the chair. John Conway appeared before the meet- 
 ing, on being communicated with by the secretary, to 
 answer a charge preferred against him a month since. 
 It appears Conway cut turf in a bog at Ardrahan, 
 to which he had no especial right ; that the farmers 
 whose farms surround this bog had the privilege of 
 grazing their cattle thereon, which privilege has 
 become a right through lapse of time ; that any of 
 these farmers have not cut turf in the bog on this 
 year, but their right might have been weakened 
 thereby, but Conway cut the turf against the expressed 
 wish of his surrounding neighbours, who were of 
 opinion that Conway's action amounted to an invasion 
 of their right. As Conway had been fired at recently, 
 the decision come to was that the League, in order to 
 show its abhorrence ot outrage, would exculpate Con- 
 way, but requested him to forego any interference in 
 the future with the Ardrahan side of the bog, and also 
 with the Baltovin side, until his father's right would 
 devolve on him, to which Conway assented. The 
 greatest sympathy was manifested by those present 
 towards the unfortunate man, as he was scarcely able 
 to move with the aid of a walking-stick on account 
 of the bullet wound he had received in the leg from 
 the party that visited him." 
 
 Your Lordships will find that that gentleman was 
 summoned first, did not appear, and then he was shot, 
 and then he did appear. On the 3d of June, 1886, 
 there is the case of Patrick Tanguey. He was a bog 
 ranger on the property of Mr. Richard Going. He was 
 
 at one time a member of the National League. Thera 
 was some suspicion suggested that he had obtained turf 
 from persons who had no right to it, and on the 3d of 
 June, 1886, two men armed came to his house, and on 
 asking him whether he was still continuing to work for 
 his landlord, he said, " Not since October last." 
 They shot him, and he received a charge of shot in his 
 legs, which caused a large wound, from which he bled 
 to death in a very few minutes. My Lords, so far as I 
 understand, the only offence which that poor man was 
 said to be guilty of was that he had, on behalf of his 
 landlord, been party to some persons cutting turf 
 against the views of those people who had determined 
 that only those who had previously been tenants should 
 have any turf from the property at all. In the year 
 1886 Arthur Gloster was bailiff to Lord Kenmare. On. 
 the 7th of June, 1886, at 1 45 a.m., a quantity of 
 dynamite was exploded in the attempt to blow up 
 Gloster's house. The people attempted to find out who 
 had been taking part in the outrage, and found a 
 loaded rifle and a six-chambered revolver. I shall 
 have some evidence to put before your Lordships 
 as to where that rifle and revolver came from, and pos- 
 sibly something in reference to the dynamite as well. 
 My Lords, there was a series of outrages in this year, 
 a great many of them connected simply and solely, as 
 far as one can judge, with the occupation of land, for 
 taking care of it, or cutting turf, or doing something 
 perfectly harmless in itself, but regarded by those in 
 the neighbourhood and belonging to the League 
 as land-grabbing. And in many of these instances your 
 Lordships will have evidence of the persons going 
 before the League, or being summoned by the League, 
 or receiving notices from the branches of the League 
 in the immediate district. I mentioned that in several 
 of these cases persons were brought up before the 
 local branches of the League. I ought to call your 
 attention, my Lords, to the case of Fitzmaurice, cer- 
 tainly one of the most brutal murders that has ever 
 taken place — James Fitzmaurice, farmer, 60 years of 
 age, who was killed on January 31, 1888. Yowr Lord- 
 ships will have evidence of the attempt to boycott 
 Fitzmaurice, to persecute him so as to make his 
 life intolerable for a period of something like two 
 years or two and a-half years, and you will have 
 evidence before you that the intimidation, cruelty, 
 and ultimate murder of Fitzmaurice was in conse- 
 quence of the direct action of the Lixnaw branch of 
 the National League. It will be said that that branch of 
 the National League was suppressed before the action 
 taken in the murder. It is perfectly true in one sense that 
 it was suppressed ; but, as I said to your Lordships in 
 the course of my speech a few days ago, a thing of 
 this kind is not suppressed in a moment. But the 
 treatment which Fitzmaurice received oommenced 
 much further back than 1888, and my instructions arc 
 that tho National League of Lixnaw contributed to a 
 very great extent by its action to the outrage which 
 occurred. When I said suppressed, I meant that under 
 the Coercion Act of 1837 certain branches of the 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General 
 
128 
 
 The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 National League were suppressed ; and I think it will 
 lie found that statements were made that it could not 
 possibly be that the National League of Lixnaw had 
 anything to do with the murder, because it had been 
 suppressed some five or six weeks. I shall be able to 
 show before your Lordships special resolutions ex- 
 tending much further back. James Fitzmaurice 
 was said to have helped Mr. Hussey over a 
 ditch. Mr. Hussey was a landlord and an agent, 
 and Fitzmaurice was said to have helped him 
 over a ditch. In consequence of that the following 
 resolution appeared in the Kerry Weekly Reporter of the 
 Lixnaw branch of the Irish National League : — " Re- 
 solved — That, as James Fitzmaurice acted the part of 
 a special constable to S. M. Hussey at Ahabeg on the 
 14th inst., we consider that his neighbours should hold 
 no further, intercourse with him." There had been very 
 good organization in Kerry ; they perfectly understood, 
 they did not want any mystic signs or any secret passes 
 or words, they perfectly well understood what their 
 duty was. After that notice Fitzmaurice was boycotted 
 — not at first rigidly, but boycotted. In June, 1887, 
 he was summoned to appear before the Lixnaw branch 
 of the National League. He had allowed his cattle, it 
 appears, to graze upon a farm from which his own 
 brother had been evicted. You would think that was 
 not a very wicked thing, to allow your cattle to run on 
 waste land from which a member of your family had 
 been turned out. Thereupon the Lixnaw branch of the 
 National League resolved — " That, as James Fitz- 
 maurice, of Ahabeg, still persists in allowing hye cattle 
 to graze on the farm from which his brother Edmond 
 was recently evicted, and refuses to give any explana- 
 tion to the League in extenuation of his conduct, we 
 hereby call on the public to mark him as a land- 
 grabber of the most inhuman type." This is the 
 direction that is given to the well-organized county ; 
 this the county whose example is to be imitated ! 
 According to Mr. John Dillon, the boys of Longford were 
 to do as well as the boys of Kerry had done. I suppose 
 it will be suggested that because the League was 
 suppressed in the county of Kerry in September, 1887, 
 that therefore the resolutions of June, 1887, had no 
 effect. Gentlemen who use these arguments, or any- 
 body who represents these arguments before your 
 Lordships will, I think, require something stronger 
 than mere assertion to suggest that an organization 
 which had been promoting outrages in the county of 
 Kerry for five or six years could be suppressed and 
 rendered perfectly harmless in a few hours or a few 
 weeks. On the 23d of October, 1887, the National 
 League again passed a resolution. They " called upon the 
 public to mark, by every constitutional means, their 
 disapprobation of the conduct of James Fitzmaurice, 
 who has been so base and inhuman as to grab his 
 brother's land " — being this, that he had let his cattle 
 graze upon the land from which his brother had been 
 evicted. That was in October, 1887. In 1888— the 
 actual date, I think, was the 31st of January, 1888 — 
 fitzmaurice was shot while he was driving with his 
 
 daughter in his cart at about 5 30 in the morning. His 
 daughter was with him. He never spoke, I believe, 
 beyond the statement that he was shot — he never spoke 
 again. Practically no assistance appears to have been 
 rendered by persons who would have helped the poor 
 girl, for fear of the consequences — there were 
 several who passed and dared not render her any 
 assistance. Your Lordships will find that an 
 inquiry took place on that murder, when persons 
 were charged for that murder. Communications 
 passed between the persons charged and members of 
 the National League. I believe your Lordships will 
 have no doubt whatever that these prisoners were 
 defended— the people who shot Mr. Fitzmaurice — by 
 the money of the National League. I believe I shall be 
 able to lay evidence before you that the National 
 League provided the funds with which the murderers 
 of that man were defended. The persons charged 
 were convicted and hanged. My Lords, this is not 
 a solitary instance by any means of persons who were 
 undoubtedly guilty being singled out by the National 
 League for defence by the League, which, according to 
 Mr. Parnell and his followers, is devoted to carrying 
 out a perfectly constitutional and lawful agitation. I 
 must remind your Lordships that years before it had 
 been promised in a speech that tor anybody charged 
 with shooting a landlord money would be found to 
 defend him. Everything would be done in favour of a 
 person who was charged with shooting a landlord. Well, 
 my Lords, even the bare outline of the story with 
 regard to outrages in these counties is ghastly enough. 
 Before our evidence closes I shall lay before your 
 Lordships instances of speeches and accompanying and 
 consequential outrages which occurred in the various 
 counties. But I am sure you will not forget that 
 one of the strongest arguments I can venture to address 
 to your Lordships is one of a negative character. It 
 is this — you find started in Ireland for the first time a 
 system of crime which, both from its frequency, the 
 character of the crimes, and the circumstances undei 
 which the crimes were committed, was absolutely new. 
 You find that crime was committed against persons 
 who had never before suffered from similar outrages. 
 I believe that what I said yesterday will be fully con- 
 firmed by the witnesses, that the crime of shooting a 
 man for paying hi3 rent was unheard of before 1880, 
 and that after that time such outrages can be numbered 
 literally by the hundred. I shall ask your Lordships 
 to consider if you find that all these speeches were 
 made and this organization existed, I shall ask your 
 Lordships to come to the conclusion that, unless some 
 other cause for the outrages can be found, you will 
 attribute them to these speeches, to these violent 
 speeches, as these crimes were to a great extent perpe- 
 trated by the persons to whom these appeals to their 
 self-interest and to motives of personal aggrandize- 
 ment were made. Again, it is a negative argument 
 that you will not find throughout the whole course of 
 these years one single speech delivered, one single cir- 
 cular issued, one single letter written, or one single 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General, 
 
The Special Commission, October 26, 1888. 
 
 129 
 
 step taken by Mr. Parnell, by Mr. Biggar, by Mr. 
 Davitt, by Mr. O'Brien, by Mr. Harrington, or by any 
 one of the rest of these gentlemen to point out that 
 somebody was carrying out these outrages, and that 
 they ought to determine that they should be put down. 
 On the contrary, during the whole of these years they 
 were absolutely silent, or so far as they did take part 
 they were actually encouraging similar outrages. It was 
 an organized conspiracy, it was a conspiracy which by 
 means of striking at the tenants would do injury to the 
 landlords, and that being done, the result of that would 
 be that the main prop of English rule in Ireland would 
 be destroyed. I shall therefore ask your Lordships 
 to come to the conclusion, if I establish what I have 
 opened to your Lordships, that the organization or con- 
 spiracy was conducted from America, that its policy 
 was formulated in America, that it drew the whole of 
 its financial strength from America, and that it was 
 not possible for the leaders of either the National 
 League or of the Land League to break free from the 
 fetters which bound them to the American section, 
 which fetters compelled them and kept them in the 
 course whereby they were of necessity obliged to advo- 
 cate a system which must be productive of the outrages 
 if it was to be effectual at all. And if it be said that 
 the National League was disconnected from the Land 
 League, that there was a completely new departure in 
 the sense of the National League not pursuing the same 
 means and the same line of policy, I again point to the 
 facts given publicly and distinctly in 1882 and 1883 
 as to what were the consequences of the conduct that 
 was followed by the Land League ; and I call your 
 Lordships' attention to the fact that the same line of 
 conduct was pursued by the National League that was 
 followed by the Land League. I am aware that I 
 have occupied a very considerable portion of your 
 Lordships' time in opening this case. I am afraid I have 
 done little more than indicate a mere outline of the 
 particular classes of evidence which will have to be con- 
 sidered by your Lordships. In all probability there 
 will be called before your Lordships before this inquiry 
 ends persons who actually took part in some of these 
 outrages, who will tell your Lordships not only the 
 kind of way in which the money was paid, but the kind 
 of method which was onfoot for arranging for the perpe- 
 tration of some of these outrages. I am well aware 
 that in this case there may be great difficulty with 
 witnesses of a certain class. Of course in many in- 
 stances the evidence of such witnesses must be regarded 
 with great suspicion, and subjected to most careful 
 examination before it is credited. But, on the other 
 hand, your Lordships have the powers, as Commis- 
 sioners, having regard to the terms of this- Act, of 
 getting at the truth to an extent and in a way in 
 which an ordinary tribunal would possibly have been 
 powerless ; and I think your Lordships will find before 
 the end of this inquiry, if you have disclosed to your 
 Lordships any channel through which the truth — I will 
 not say the truth, but information — can be given which 
 will enable your Lordships to get at the truth, your 
 
 Lordships' powers will be ample to enable you to 
 search this case to the bottom and leave no doubt as to 
 what was the real cause of this horrible system which 
 has prevailed, and as to who are the persons on whom 
 the responsibility ought to rest. It is manifestly not 
 right that I should do anything more at the present 
 stage with that part of the case than indicate to your 
 Lordships that in all probability evidence will be 
 forthcoming, and your Lordships will be able to con- 
 sider whether or not the action of these persons was 
 so absolutely free from suspicion that their organiza^ 
 tion, conspiracy, and League had nothing to do with 
 these terrible crimes. To a very large extent I shall 
 bring knowledge home to all the members who have 
 been charged, all the main leaders, such as Mr. Par- 
 nell, Mr. Biggar, Mr. Harrington, Mr. Matthew Harris, 
 Mr. O'Brien, and Mr. Dillon. There will be no doubt 
 in your Lordships' minds, if I establish the case I have 
 opened, that knowledge of what had been the result of 
 the action of the Land League was brought home to 
 them. But I have said more than once, and I respectfully 
 repeat, that I do not think at the end of this inquiry 
 your Lordships will be able to come to the conclusion 
 that all this was done without the knowledge of these 
 
 -gentlemen, who may profess not to have been per- 
 sonally acquainted with what the Land League and the 
 National League were doing. They were the heads of this 
 organization, they were the officers of this conspiracy, 
 aad it will be for your Lordships to consider, after 
 these witnesses have been submitted to the test of 
 cross-examination, whether you can possibly adopt the 
 view that these gentlemen were the innocent victims 
 of a system intended to be harmless, intended to have 
 neither unlawful purposes nor unlawful means, and by 
 the folly, the wickedness, and the treachery of some of 
 its subordinates were dragged into the system which I 
 have been condemning as strongly as I could in the 
 course of my address. In connexion with this, I cannot 
 help reminding your Lordships of the extraordinary fact 
 that but one gentleman speaks to any documents belong- 
 ing to the Land League ever having been in his posses- 
 sion, and that is only a bank book. The officers, trea- 
 surers, and secretaries have made affidavits as officers 
 of the Land League, and have sworn that they never 
 had in their possession any books or papers relating to 
 the Land League. If these books never did exist, I 
 ask your Lordships to draw your own conclusions as to 
 why they did not exist, and if they did exist and have 
 been got out of the way, I shall ask your Lordships to 
 draw your own conclusions why they are not forth- 
 coming now. The same remark applies to the money, 1 
 In the course of the inquiry your Lordships will sooner 
 or later search out arid be able to form a pretty good 
 judgment as to what became of the balance of £144,000 
 acknowledged to have been received by the Land 
 League, as to what has become of the very large sums 
 of money acknowledged to have been received by the 
 National League. I cannot help thinking that if this 
 League can bear the light of day and criticism, if it 
 be connected with no -crime, * tainted ? with '4'»oi; 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General* 
 
130 The Special Commission, October 26 and 30, 1888. 
 
 outrage, if it was solely to be conducted by con- 
 stitutional methods, we should learn what were 
 the doings, the course of business, the practice 
 and purpose of the Land League, and what has 
 been done with the money and the books. Of course, 
 my Lords, The Times may have been misled or mis- 
 taken in the judgment which it formed of the 
 history of the associations to which it referred ; but 
 if it shows a cause and shows an effect, and if your Lord- 
 ships shall be of opinion that from that cause that 
 effect has been shown to have sprung — that the effect 
 followed the cause — the case of The Times will be esta- 
 blished. If, on the other hand, my learned friends' reply 
 shows that there was some organization, some secret 
 conspiracy, for which the leaders for whom they appear 
 were not responsible, I admit it may be possible to 
 answer the case of The Times. I can only regret that 
 it has been necessary for me to occupy so much of 
 your time, but it was not possible to give a descrip- 
 tion of the case of The Times without making a full 
 and complete statement. There is nobody more alive 
 than I am to the imperfections in my statement, or to 
 the certainty that it will be said afterwards that I did 
 not call attention to certain portions of the evidence. 
 All I can say is this, that I hope hereafter to be 
 able to render assistance in getting at what is the only 
 object of this inquiry, and whatever my learned friend 
 Sir Charles Russell may say or think, the only object 
 of The Times in appearing before your Lordships is 
 that of investigating the whole matter and eliciting 
 what is the truth as to these charges and allega- 
 tions. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — It would be convenient, my Lords, 
 if my learned friend would give us some indication of 
 the course he proposes to pursue with regard to the 
 evidence. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am sure I wish to give 
 my friend every assistance, but it would be impossible 
 to indicate that now. Mr. Soames will communicate 
 to Sir Charles Russell's clients to-morrow morning, as 
 nearly as possible, what the course of the evidence will 
 be. I can only say that I will give every information 
 I can in ample time to Sir Charles Russell and his 
 clients. I should like, before your Lordships adjourn, 
 to mention that Monday is the (lay on which the 
 Hibernian Bank are ordered to appear and produce 
 their books. As your Lordships will not sit on Mon- 
 day, the order will, I suppose, stand for Tuesday. 
 
 The President assented. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— May I also mention a 
 matter which does not actually concern my learned 
 friends ? There are several files of a newspaper which 
 come from the British Museum. They have to be 
 brought here at 11 o'clock and taken away again at 4. 
 The officials of the Museum are not in the least 
 anxious to have them carried backwards and forwards 
 every day, and we should be glad if they could be kept 
 in gome room in this building. The advantage of that 
 
 would be that we could have access to them after 
 4 o'clock. 
 
 The President.— Certainly they can be kept here, 
 as many other documents of infinitely greater value 
 are. Have you anything more to say, Mr. Attorney? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — No, my Lord. 
 
 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30. 
 
 The Special Commission held their sixth sitting to> 
 day at half -past 10 o'clock in No! 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 Their Lordships having taken their seats upon the 
 bench, 
 
 The Attorney-General said, — I have now to make 
 an application to your Lordships with regard to cer- 
 tain Irish banks. I would ask my learned friends for 
 whom they appear. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore.— I appear, with my friend Mr. 
 Fitzgerald, for the Hibernian Bank. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler, Q.C. — I appear for the National 
 Bank. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— On the 17th of Septem- 
 ber last your Lordships made an order that the defend- 
 ants in the case of " O'Donnell v. Walter " "be at 
 liberty upon three days' notice to inspect and take 
 copies of any entries in the books of the Hibernian 
 Bank kept at its head office in Dublin and at its 
 branch bank in Sackville-street, and at its branch bank 
 at Tabbercurry, Sligo, relating to dealings and trans- 
 actions by and between the said bank and the Irish 
 National League " and other leagues which are men- 
 tioned and certain persons named, including Mr. 
 Parnell, Mr. Biggar, and Mr. Egan. A similar order 
 was also made upon the National Bank, and also upon 
 the Munster and Leinster Bank, who, as I under- 
 stand, do not appear. I would ask my learned friends 
 whether these books are here. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler, Q.C. — As far as the National Bank is 
 concerned I may say they are not. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — When the Attorney-General 
 has a right to ask that question I will answer it, but 
 at present I do not feel disposed to do so. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Well, the matter stands in 
 this way. If we do not get inspection under the order 
 to which I have called attention, and which was made 
 under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, I shall 
 have to ask your Lordships for an order that the 
 original books be brought over, and then we shall 
 apply to inspect them, and we shall thus be able to get 
 what we require. The course that we have taken 
 hitherto has been dictated by a desire to save these 
 banks all"4he trouble we possibly could. The 42 and 43 
 Vict., cap. 11, known as the Bankers' Books Evidence 
 Act, 1879, was passed in order to prevent the incon- 
 venience of banks being obliged to produce their 
 original books. Accordingly, by the third section it was 
 enacted that " a copy of any entry in a banker's book 
 shall in all legal proceedings be received as primd 
 facie evidence of such entry and of the matters, 
 
 The Speech of the Attorney-General. 
 
 Application concerning certain Irish Banks. 
 
The Special Commission, October 30, 1888. 
 
 131 
 
 transactions, and accounts therein recorded " ; and 
 section 6 provides that " a banker or officer of a bank 
 shall not in any proceedings to which the bank is not 
 a party be compellable to produce any banker's book, 
 the contents of which can be proved under this Act, 
 or to appear as a witness to prove the matters, trans- 
 actions, and accounts therein recorded, unless by order 
 of a Judge made for special cause." Therefore your 
 Lordships see we have proceeded according to the pro- 
 cedure laid down by this Act. We have endeavoured to 
 get the copies, and if we cannot get these we are 
 entitled to get the original books. The seventh section 
 is as follows : — ' ' On the application of any party to a 
 legal proceeding a Court or Judge may order that 
 such party be at liberty to inspect and take copies of 
 any entries in a banker's book for any of the pur- 
 poses of such proceedings." I would ask your Lord- 
 ships to take notice of the words in this section, 
 " any party to a legal proceeding," and the definition 
 in Clause 10, which says " the expression legal pro- 
 ceeding meaus any civil or criminal proceeding or 
 inquiry in which evidence is or may be given, and 
 includes an arbitration." So your Lordships see 
 we have followed the procedure of the Act, and 
 our application now is for the production of the 
 books themselves. I need scarcely remind your 
 Lordships that under the provisions of the Act con- 
 stituting this Commission your Lordships have all 
 the powers of the High Court of Justice and have 
 ample jurisdiction to make this order. I have, my 
 Lord, in my hand an affidavit which was sworn this 
 morning by Mr. Collins, of the Hibernian Bank. Is 
 there any affidavit of the National Bank ? 
 
 Mr. Wheeler.— No. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Well, I will take the 
 affidavit made on behalf of the Hibernian Bank. Mr. 
 Collins, the secretary of the Hibernian Bank, says :— 
 
 " Id not obeying the order of the 17th of 
 September, 1888, my company have not intended to 
 be wanting in respect to this honourable Commission. 
 Their position is this. ' They feel it their duty as 
 bankers to protect in every way the privacy of their 
 customers' accounts, and not; to disclose the same or 
 give any facilities for inspection until legally bound 
 to do so. They have throughout these proceedings 
 acted by the advice of counsel as hereinafter stated." 
 The affidavit then proceeds to state that Mr. Collins 
 attended on his subpoena to produce certain bank books 
 in the case of " O'Donnell v. Walter," but that he 
 was not called. The affidavit proceeds : — 
 
 " The order of the 17th of September made 
 by this honourable Commission was served on 
 my company on or about the 6th of October, 
 and they at once instructed their solicitors 
 to take the opinion of one of the leading counsel in 
 Ireland, and they were advised by him not to obey 
 that order.and in consequence of that opinion they re- 
 fused to give the inspection demanded. Subsequently, 
 on or about the 22d of October, I was served with a 
 subpoena, dated the 2d of October, to attend and give 
 evidence and produce certain books at this inquiry. 
 My company again laid the matter before the said 
 counsel, and being advised by him that I was bound to 
 
 obey the subpoena, our solicitors on the 24th of October 
 telegraphed to Mr. Soames, the solicitor for Mr. 
 Walter, as follows : — ' Special Commission Act, 1888. — 
 Hibernian Bank official will cross over with books in 
 pursuance of order of Court on receipt of wire from 
 you as to when you require them. Are you likely to 
 want them this week ?' " 
 
 The President. — Then what is all this discussion 
 aboat ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lord, as I under- 
 stand, they will bring the books, but they will not let 
 them be seen. 
 
 The President.— The Court must have them. They 
 are within our jurisdiction. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If the books were here I 
 should not trouble your Lordships with this applica- 
 tion. I should merely ask for leave to inspect them. 
 Mr. Collins's affidavit proceeds : — 
 
 " My company felt it to be their plain duty as 
 bankers not to disclose their customers' accounts, and 
 after the advice they had received from counsel that 
 they would be acting contrary to such duty in allowing 
 any inspection of such accounts unless compelled to do 
 so by an order of a Court of competent jurisdiction 
 made after full discussion. Their only desire has been 
 to do their duty to their customers, and they have 
 never intended to act disrespectfully to this honourable 
 Commission." 
 
 I do not want to prolong this argument in this case of 
 the Hibernian Bank if, as I understand, the books are 
 now in London. The position that they take up is that 
 we are not to be allowed to see them. But I will ask 
 your Lordships to treat them as in the custody of the 
 Commission and allow us to inspect these books in- 
 stead of procuring copies. The originals could not be 
 used if copies were obtained. The objection raised as 
 to disclosing the private affairs of their customers is, 
 of course, one that can have no legal effect or force. 
 
 The President. — The position that they take up is 
 quite intelligible — that they will not disclose their 
 clients' affairs unless they are ordered by a competent 
 Court. 
 
 The Attoeney-General. — With regard to the 
 National Bank, they have made no affidavit, and I 
 understand the books are not in London. I would, 
 therefore, ask your Lordships to enforce the order for 
 inspection that has already been made, or for the pro- 
 duction of the original books as in the case of the 
 Hibernian Bank. In regard to the Munster and 
 Leinster Bank there is no appearance, and I make a 
 similar application. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — I appear, my Lords, in accord- 
 ance with a notice of motion served on the representa- 
 tives of the Hibernian Bank. We have received notice 
 that application would be made to enforce obedience 
 to an order made by your Lordships On the 17th of 
 September. I appear to-day to show that that order 
 was outside your Lordships' jurisdiction. 
 
 The President. — You know our time is very, very 
 valuable, and I understand from the affidavit that has 
 been read that the Hibernian Bank has obeyed the order, 
 and that the books have been brought to London. 
 
 Application concerning certain Irish Banks. 
 
 5-2 
 
132 
 
 The Special Commission, October 30, 1888. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — The bank is prepared to 
 obey 
 
 The President. — Woll, we do not want an acade- 
 mical discussion. If the books are here we order 
 them to be brought into court. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — I have to submit that your 
 Lordships cannot do that. 
 
 The President. — Who is in possession of them ? 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore.— My client. 
 
 The President.— What is his name ? 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — Mr. Collins. He is in posses- 
 sion of the books, and he will obey his subpoena duces 
 tecum when he is called on. 
 
 The President. — He is called on now. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — He cannot, my Lord, be 
 called on now when I am addressing the Court. 
 My position is this — that your Lordships had no power 
 to make the order. 
 
 The President. — And it is because I anticipated your 
 answer that I asked whether the books were here in 
 the possession of some person, and learning that they 
 are, your argument becomes irrelevant. The Court 
 is determined to have such books as it is entitled 
 to have produced. We have it that Mr. Collins is in 
 possession of the books, and the Court will order him 
 to produce them. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — I hope to show your Lord- 
 ships that you had not the power to make this order 
 with regard to bank books in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — The books are now in 
 England. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — I submit) tnat they ought not 
 to be so regarded, and that this order ought not to 
 have been made. My client, however, is quite ready 
 to appear on his subpoena. 
 
 The President. — Then let him come into court. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — If your Lordships please. 
 
 The President. — Well, then, the moment you have 
 done. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — I am here strictly to defend 
 my clients. 
 
 The President. — You are here to show some good 
 cause why we should not have these books. I have 
 told you to pass away from the other arguments, and 
 to go to the substantial question we have to deal 
 with. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore.— I am only here to answer 
 this application, and I submit to your Lordships that 
 upon that application I am entitled to submit that the 
 order was made ultra vires. The question I submit is, 
 first, whether this order is bound to be obeyed. 
 
 The President.— We are not bound to decide any- 
 thing of the kind. The order is for the purpose of 
 getting possession of these books, and when we have 
 got the books we shall be willing to listen to you on 
 the subject. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — After full discussion, I am 
 here to submit to the Court the assistance it ought to 
 have. 
 
 The President. — We are not here for that discus- 
 sion. We want the books. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore.— Well, my Lords, when rny 
 client is called upon by subpoena duces tecum, he will 
 produce the books. 
 
 The President. — Then we will have him at once. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore.— I think your Lordships should 
 hear the argument once and for all. We submit that 
 your Lordships should not order a roving inspection of 
 these books, but when the witness is in the box he 
 should turn to passage after passage. 
 
 The President. — Then if the banks, under cover of 
 protecting their clients' interest, put us to the trouble, 
 we must undergo it ; but we will have the books. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — We do not need more than 
 that. The bankers only desire to protect the interests 
 of their own clients. That is all we mean. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — I should think it meant a 
 great deal more. 
 
 The President.— Whatever object can there be in 
 keeping up this discussion but to throw difficulty in 
 the way of the Court ? The banks claim privilege for 
 their clients, and we consider that when we have got 
 the books we are entitled to look at them. What have 
 you to say against that ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, I wish to say— 
 
 The President.— What have you got to do with it ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, I was about to say 
 that as far as my clients are concerned with these 
 books they make no objection. 
 
 The President.— That is what I should have ex- 
 pected of them. I am very glad to have had your 
 disclaimer, Sir Charles, of this obstructiveness upon 
 the part of others. I anticipated that from the 
 counsel who are engaged in the case. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — And I say the same for my clients. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — And I, for mine. 
 
 The President. — I am glad to hear it ; it is what I 
 expected from both of you. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore.— My Lords, that, of course, 
 relieves my clients of a great part of the difficulty as 
 regards those whose names are in the particulars. The 
 terms of the order which was issued to us mentioned 
 various names. I have not had the time to study 
 whether all of these names are included in the 
 particulars, but I may say that I know that certainly 
 a good many of the persons who are named are not, 
 before your Lordships, parties. There are certain 
 societies, associations, as to which I say nothing, but 
 there are various individuals mentioned. Charles 
 Stewart Parnell is, of course, before your Lordships 
 — Patrick Egan, I think, is not. Mr. Joseph Biggar, 
 Mr. Arthur O'Connor, P. J. Sheridan, Miss Anna 
 Parnell, Mr. E. M. O'Leary, Clara Stritch, Mr. T. 
 Harrington, Mr. T. Hoaly, and Mr. Thomas Sexton— 
 with regard to every one of those ladies or gentle- 
 men who is here to-day I am relieved from the 
 difficulty ; but I should submit to your Lordships as to 
 whether an; action should be taken with regard to the 
 
 Application concerning certain Irish Banks. 
 
The Special Commission, October 30, 1888. 
 
 133 
 
 accounts of those whose names are not in the par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 The President. — Now that we have, happily as I 
 think, come to an understanding upon the subject, I 
 may ask, is it that your clients object to doing that 
 which is really intended in their favour, and to save 
 them from the trouble of being obliged to bring their 
 books a great distance ? That would be effected by 
 allowing copies to be made. If your clients do not 
 object to copies being made, copies of the accounts of 
 those named may be made, and the other matter may 
 stand over. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — My Lords, we shall be quite 
 prepared to make copies of the accounts kept by these 
 societies and of every one of those gentlemen and 
 ladies who, being here represented, have waived the 
 question of privilege. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I had better indicate to 
 your Lordships at once that we certainly shall ask to 
 have the accounts of all who are included in our 
 order, because it is by means of some of these sub- 
 ordinate accounts, as we have suggested, that these 
 moneys have been distributed. As to Patrick Egan, 
 my learned friend says your Lordship ought not to 
 order an inspection of his account. Well, if there is 
 one person whose account it is desirable to know 
 something about, it is Patrick Egan. The custodian 
 of the bankers' books is not the person to take 
 objection ; it is for the parties themselves. 
 
 The President. — The objection takes this form : 
 Sir W. Phillimore argues that we ought not to order 
 the inspection of those persons' accounts. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I shall ask that your 
 Lordships will have inspection of them and give us 
 inspection of them. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — My Lord, with regard to 
 them I am quite aware 
 
 The President. — Ton should argue the question 
 whether or not our order should extend to those persons 
 •who do not appear. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — If your Lordship pleases. A 
 strong opinion has been expressed against such orders 
 being made ex parte. Section 7 of the Bankers Act is 
 so exceedingly wide that unless it is corrected by 
 judicial discretion it might be used to harass people 
 exceedingly. I will refer your Lordships to what was 
 said by Mr. Justice Day in " Davies v. White " (53 
 Law Journal, Q.B.D., 275) :— 
 
 " In this case I do not hesitate to say that the order 
 of March 11 was an order which, whether the learned 
 Judge had jurisdiction to make it or not, was im- 
 properly made ex parte, and it indicates to my mind 
 that the parties who made the application did not 
 expect to succeed in it if it were opposed. The 
 general rule of law is that all proceedings affecting 
 the rights of others are only to be taken when those 
 others have had an opportunity of being heard. I must 
 say that I cannot see any good or legitimate reasons 
 for making an application to search through a man's 
 private banking account without giving him notioe 
 that such an application is about to.be made ; and it 
 is fortunate 'that the London and County; Bank'acteol 
 
 as one would expect that any respectable bank would 
 act, and gave notice to their customer before they 
 allowed his private banking account to be investi- 
 gated in this way." 
 
 Those are the observations upon which I rely. I am 
 quite aware, as I said before, that the seventh section of 
 the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 Vict., cap. 
 11), does give the very largest powers. It is in these 
 terms : — 
 
 " On the application of any party to a legal pro- 
 ceeding a Court or Judge may order that such party be 
 at liberty to inspect and take copies of any entries in 
 a banker's book for any of the purposes of such pro- 
 ceedings. An order under this section may be made 
 either with or without summoning the bank or any 
 other party, and shall be served on the bank three 
 clear days before the same is to be obeyed, unless the 
 Court or Judge otherwise directs." 
 
 Nothing could be larger than those words, but obviously 
 they might be used so as to injure an individual. Sup- 
 pose a tradesman has an action for goods sold and the 
 person to whom they are sold disputes the quality of_ 
 the goods, he might apply to inspect every single item 
 in the plaintiff's banking account. I submit that in the 
 case of a very notorious person such [as Mr. Patrick 
 Egan, who does not appear, if your Lordships think 
 it right that his accounts should be inspected, at 
 any rate your Lordships will not make an order without 
 his having had some formal notice of the proceedings 
 under this Commission ; so also lin the case of any of 
 the ladies mentioned, as, for instance, Miss Anna 
 Parnell, your Lordships will not make that order with- 
 out having heard what those people have i to say. 
 Possibly I might be released if those parties were 
 here. With regard to the other matter, I do not want 
 to give expression to anything which would seem to 
 show a desire to evade your Lordships' jurisdiction. 
 The only way in which your Lordships can do this is by 
 an order to produce the books. With regard to my 
 client, the actual point was raised in the case of 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Not the same point. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore.— I am so instructed. The Times 
 got an order, and the point was taken before Mr. Justice 
 Holmes, who said that the English Courts could not 
 make jurisdiction to disclose bankers' books in Ireland 
 any more than the Irish Courts could do so in England. 
 As a matter of fact, the production was not enforced. 
 Your Lordships, while having all the powers of the 
 High Court of Justice in England, have not all the 
 powers of the High Court of Justice in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. — My Lords, 1 appear for the National 
 Bank, and they desire me to say in the clearest possible 
 way that they are not actuated by any spirit of con- 
 tumacy, but simply appear here to-day in the interests 
 of their clients. They have taken the opinion of the most 
 eminent counsel in Ireland, and have been advised that 
 no order has been served upon the National Bank which 
 they would be justified in obeying. 
 
 The President.— I understood the National Bank; had. 
 its head office in Loudon. 
 
 Application concerning certain Irish Banks. 
 
134 
 
 The Special Commission, October 30, 1888. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler, — I believe not. I believe it has some 
 seven offices in England. 
 
 The President. — Where is the head office ? 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. — I cannot tell your Lordships where 
 the head office is. They have an office in London and 
 some 94 offices scattered elsewhere. 
 
 The President. — Where do the directors meet ? 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. — The directors meet in London. 
 
 The President.— Very well. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. — The summons issued by your Lord- 
 ihips' secretary was served in Dublin. No duty was 
 thrown by that summons upon any person whatever, 
 but that is not the kind or class of objection the 
 National Bank desire to bring before your Lordships 
 to-day. I will call your Lordships' attention to 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — Do you deny or not that 
 we can issue a subposna duces tecum to your bank ? 
 • Mr. Wheeler. — I am disposed to think your Lord- 
 ships can. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — lam disposed to think so, 
 too, because the statute says so. (Laughter.) But when 
 you are subpoenaed to come here and bring the books 
 you resent it. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. — The bankers desire to place the 
 matter before your Lordships in a simple way. 
 There is no feeling of resentment on their part. 
 The application of September 17 was undoubtedly 
 made under the Bankers Act. 
 
 The President. — Which is the office in possession 
 of these books ? 
 
 Mr. Wheeler.— They are in Dublin, my Lord. 
 There are no books here. I wish to call attention to 
 the fact that the summons or order is to inspect and 
 take copies of certain books in Dublin, showing the 
 dealings and transactions of certain persons, some of 
 whom are represented here and some of whom are not. 
 I do not know if a person of the name of Dawson is 
 represented here, or Fern, or Thomas Brennan, Harold 
 Wright, or Wheelan. At all events, this summons says 
 that it is desired to inspect and take copies of certain 
 documents relating to the accounts of various persons, 
 and it was issued under what would appear to be the 
 second section of the Act under which your Lordships 
 are constituted a Special Commission, and that section 
 confers on your Lordships all the powers, rights, and 
 privileges which attach to the office of a Judge of 
 the High Court of Justice, including the compelling 
 the production of documents. This is not an applica- 
 tion that would come within that section. It has been 
 decided in a recent case in the Court of Appeal — 
 " Arnott v. Hayes" (L.E. 36, Ch. D., 731) -that an 
 application of this sort is not an application for dis- 
 covery. I submit that the bank only took the view 
 they were bound to take. They had before them the 
 decision of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench in the 
 case of " O'Donnell v. Walter." In that case an 
 order was obtained in England for the inspection of 
 the books of the Hibernian Bank in Ireland. That 
 order having been obtained, the defendants in that ' 
 action took out a summons in the Court in Ireland, 
 
 which was heard on May 16 of this year.and the Court 
 decided that as there was no pending action in Ireland 
 they had no jurisdiction in the matter. The question 
 turns upon your Lordships' powers under the section 
 of the special Act to which I have called attention. 
 This is an application under section 7 of the Bankers 
 Act, which provides that " on the application of any 
 party to a legal proceeding a Court or Judge may 
 order that such party be at liberty to inspect and 
 take copies of any entries in a banker's book for any 
 of the purposes of such proceedings." With respect to 
 England, a Judge means a Judge of the High Court 
 of Justice ; with respect to Scotland, a Lord Ordinary 
 in Court of Session ; and with respect to Ireland, 
 a Judge of the High Court in Ireland. Therefore, I 
 submit that the Judge making the order must be a 
 Judge of the High Court in the country in which the 
 order is made. That is, I think, all that it is my duty to 
 place before your Lordships, and I would only say further 
 that the bank have acted in this matter on the opinion 
 of the most eminent counsel in Ireland. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I should like, my Lords, 
 to make one or two observations in reply, and especi- 
 ally in regard to the point that the order applies only 
 to the case of persons who have appeared here. With 
 regard to the Hibernian Bank, I am informed that the 
 books are here. Mr. Collins, the secretary, is in 
 court, and the books are in the Chancery-lane Safe 
 Deposit. I shall be able to produce an affidavit to 
 show that the books are actually in your Lordships' 
 jurisdiction at the present moment. With regard to 
 notice being given to persons who have not appeared 
 
 here 
 
 The President.— We need not trouble you on that 
 point, Mr. Attorney. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I wish to say that I can 
 show an affidavit before your Lordships that every one 
 of these accounts is material. 
 
 After a short consultation with the other Commis- 
 sioners, 
 
 The President said,— I have already explained that 
 the powers with whioh the Commission is armed 
 are for the purpose of obtaining such evidence as 
 may be necessary in prosecuting this inquiry. 
 We put aside any other considerations but those 
 that bear on the question, How is this Commis- 
 sion, under the powers which it possesses, to tako 
 such evidence as it considers to be material? 
 With regard to the observations of my brother Day in 
 the case which has been cited of " Davies v. White" 
 I entirely agree. They express in ether words the 
 same idea which I had myself when I said I thought the 
 objection was a respectable one, and not to be dis- 
 carded as unworthy of consideration — namely, that the 
 bank desired to protect their clients' interests and only 
 to act under the order of a competent Court. In the 
 some spirit, when it was pointed out to me a few days 
 ago that the application then made might resolve itself 
 into an application for committal for contempt o£ 
 Court, I Baid of course nothing would be done by us 
 
 Application concerning certain Irish Banks, 
 
The Special Commission, October 30, 1888. 
 
 135 
 
 in that direction without giving the banks an oppor- 
 tunity of being heard, and accordingly they have 
 been heard to-day. But having heard the arguments 
 that have been addressed to us we entertain no doubt 
 that these accounts must be inspected. Dealing with 
 them in order, the Hibernian Bank appears to be a 
 bank located in Dublin, but we have learned from the 
 affidavit which has been read that the officer of that 
 bank, Mr. Collins, has brought over the books of the 
 bank to this country, and that they are now here. It 
 may be that if the strict practice — the formal pro- 
 cess of taking evidence — were to be gone through, 
 it would be necessary to put Mr. Collins now into the 
 box and to call upon him on his subpoena duces tecum to 
 produce these books. If that course had teen followed, 
 and he had produced the books, they would have been 
 taken possession of by the Court, and it would not 
 have been for Mr. Collins nor the bank to have 
 dictated to the Court the manner in which those docu- 
 ments so brought into Court, and in possession of the 
 Court.should be dealt with. But inasmuch as I must say 
 there does not appear to be any intention on the part of 
 the hank — indeed, it is distinctly disavowed — to throw 
 difficulties in the way of the Court, I am content to 
 take the statement which has been made on behalf 
 of the Hibernian Bank, that our decision being given 
 there will be no further difficulty thrown in the way 
 by them. Therefore I say that either the books them- 
 selves must be left in the custody of the Court or 
 copies of the particular accounts must be allowed 
 to be taken for tLc purposes of the case. With regard 
 to the National Bank it has not been denied, and as 
 to that I bhall assume, unless something to the con- 
 trary is said, that the parties will not be put to the 
 trouble of making an affidavit to show that the head- 
 quarters of tne bank are in London ; and assuming that 
 to be the case, and if no subpoena duces tecum has been 
 served upon the officers or directors of the National 
 Bank in London, then I direct that that shall be done, 
 so that their books may also be brought within the 
 jurisdiction of the Court. It will be observed that if 
 it be the fact that the headquarters of the bauk are in 
 London it makes no difference that the books of the 
 bank are in Dublin, inasmuch as even in that case they 
 are within the control of the directors who have their 
 place of business in London. With regard to the 
 Minister Bank, of course they are not here, or we 
 should have dealt with them in the same way in 
 which we have dealt with the Hibernian Bank and the 
 National Bank, after having heard the arguments 
 which they have thought fit to lay before us. There- 
 fore as I understand that a subpoena duces tecum has not 
 been served upon them I beg that it may be served 
 upon them. Now there remains only the question 
 with regard to the persons who have not appeared 
 here, and who, therefore, it has been suggested, are not 
 under our control. We are, however, of opinion that 
 that is not the true view of the case as regards this 
 point. Undoubtedly this power of acting ex parte 
 is one which should be exercised by this Court, 
 
 or, indeed, by any Court which may exercise it, with 
 the greatest care ; but we entertain no doubt whatever 
 that the circumstances of this case are fully sufficient 
 to warrant our making such an order, and accordingly 
 we do make it. 
 
 SlE W. Phillimore.— I should like to comply with 
 your Lordship's order and to be protected, and I should 
 like everything to be done in the most formal manner. 
 Will your Lordships, therefore, allow this gentleman, 
 Mr. Collins, the secretary of the Hibernian Bank, to b« 
 called upon his subpoena 'I 
 
 The President.— Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Collins having been called upon his subpoena, 
 then entered the witness-box, but was not sworn. 
 
 The President, addressing Mr. Collins, said : — Mr. 
 Collins, you have been subpoenaed under a subpeena duces 
 tecum. 
 
 Mr. Collins. — Yes, my Lord, I have. 
 
 The President. — Do you produce the books of the 
 Hibernian Bank ? 
 
 Mr. Collins. — They are not in court, my Lord ; but 
 they are in London. 
 
 The President.— Then will you be kind enough to 
 cause them to be brought here f 
 
 Mr. Collins. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. T. Healy.— My Lord, I am one of the parties to 
 this action. I have hitherto been represented by my 
 learned friend Mr. Keid, who would have stated, had 
 he not left the court, that I now intend to appear for 
 myself. My name is Healy, and I rose to ask whether it 
 would be competent for me to ask this gentleman a 
 question. I may, however, observe that he has not 
 been sworn. 
 
 The President.— No, he is not sworn. If yon 
 desire to treat him as a witness you will be able to 
 call him on a future occasion. He is now only called 
 on his subpoena. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — I wanted to ask him a question. 
 
 The President. — He is not to answer on oath now. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — I wish to make an application to your 
 Lordships with reference to a matter in connexion 
 with this point. 
 
 The President.— Upon this point of the bankers' 
 books ? 
 
 Mr. Healy.— Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The President.— What is it ? 
 
 Mr. Healy. — I understood your Lordship to say that 
 the bank may avail themselves of. the facilities 
 afforded by the Bankers' Act, and that they may, if 
 they choose, only produce copies of particular accounts 
 — one of these accounts being my own ; and I wish to 
 ask your Lordships whether it would not be open to 
 parties like myself, who are incriminated here, to ex- 
 amine the books for ourselves. 
 
 The President. — Of course you are entitled to ex- 
 amine the books for yourself. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — In that view I would ask your Lord- 
 ships to allow the books to remain here in the custody 
 of your Lordships' Court, and that we should not be 
 forced to content ourselves with mere copies of parti- 
 
 Application concerning certain Irish Banks. 
 
136 
 
 The Special Commission, October 30, 1888, 
 
 calar accounts, because it would be a great conveni- 
 ence, as I am advised, with regard to the allegations 
 of conspiracy which are made against certain persons, if 
 the books, as a whole, were allowed to be here. 
 
 The President, addressing Mr. Collins. — You do not 
 object to leave the books here, do you 't 
 
 Mr. Collins. — Well, my Lord, that is a matter in 
 which I should like to be guided by counsel. 
 
 The President. — Quite so ; and I have already indi- 
 cated that it is for the convenience of the bank ; 
 and, of course, if the bank does not assent to that 
 which is suggested — which is that the books shall 
 be left here — then we shall be obliged to proceed 
 in due course to enforce the order — namely, that in- 
 spection should be had and copies taken by the parties. 
 If Mr. Healy desired to have the books here he should 
 be obliged to enforce that by a suhpccna duces tecum, to 
 be served on his behalf. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — I also intended at the close of the pre- 
 sent proceedings to apply for a cross order for inspec- 
 tion of the bankers' books. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — It is merely a question of con- 
 venience. I think that the balance of convenience 
 would be best served by leaving these books here . I 
 think that physically it would be almost impossible 
 to bring them into court. Probably the safest plan 
 would be to hand over the books to the Chancery-lane 
 Deposit Company and to leave the keys in the hands of 
 the secretary to the Commission. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — To my clients it makes no 
 difference whether we inspect the books or have 
 copies, but if the bank avail themselves of the 
 Bankers Act your Lordships no doubt would order that 
 the extracts should be certified by affidavit. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — I should much prefer to see the books. 
 
 The President.— I think that Sir W. Phillimore's 
 suggestion offers the best solution of the difficulty, 
 especially as it meets Mr. Healy's object. Of course, 
 on any application being made by Mr. Healy he 
 would have the opportunity of inspecting the books 
 and of taking copies of them. (A motion of assent 
 was made by the Attorney-General.) Then let it be 
 so. (To Mr. Collins.) — The books are to remain here. 
 
 Mr. Collins. — Very well, my Lord. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore.— Then, my Lord, I think I 
 should mention that the subpoena is not only for books, 
 but, among other things, for paid cheques, account- 
 books, and ledgers. I understand with the paid 
 Icheques that it is the practice of the Irish banks, or 
 at all events of this bank, to return all such cheques 
 to the drawers. I wish it to be understood that this 
 gentleman only produces such books as he believes are 
 referred to in the subpoena. My learned friend, there- 
 fore, must not expect to find everything among these 
 documents that has been mentioned in the subpoena, 
 because we have not got the others. 
 
 The President. — That mast be stated on affidavit. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore.— We are subpoenaed to produce 
 so-and-so, and the proper way perhaps would be to ask 
 (this witness to say exactly what he does produce. 
 
 The President. — I only asked him whether he pro- 
 duced the books, and now you say he does not produce 
 them all. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — He does produce the books, 
 but not all of them. 
 ' The President.— What is the order ? 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — " The book or books con- 
 taining the signatures of the several customers ;" 
 then follows a long list ; then, secondly, " paid 
 cheques ;" thirdly, " the minute book and books 
 of the bank containing any entry relating to or autho- 
 rizing any advances to certain societies ;" fourthly, 
 " all the ledgers, cash and other books at the 
 bank kept at its head office and all its branches in 
 Dublin from 1879 to 1883." I believe all these are 
 produced except the cheques. 
 
 The President. — It stands thus. He does not pro- 
 duce all the books named in the subpoena. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — No ; that is what I wished 
 your Lordships to understand at once. 
 
 The President. — If anything in the subpoena is in- 
 sisted upon and is not produced, we shall require an 
 explanation on affidavit why he does not produce it. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore. — It does not very much matter ; 
 but, with submission, I do not think that that is the 
 practice. He is subpoenaed to produce certain things. 
 If he is asked, " Do you produce A, B, C, and D," he 
 says, " I produce A and B." It would then be for my 
 learned friend to examine him as to whether he pro- 
 duced C and D. I wish your Lordships to understand 
 that he does not produce all the books. 
 
 The President. — What do you say as to the cheques, 
 Mr. Attorney-General ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — When my clients inspect 
 the books and documents they will see whether this 
 gentleman has substantially obeyed the subpoena. I 
 have no doubt he has, but this is the first intimation 
 that I have had that the bank does not possess any of 
 the cheques. Of course, we may be able to see from 
 the inspection of the books whether we require further 
 information upon that point. 
 
 The President.— It will lie upon you, Mr. Attorney- 
 General, to show that the bank has not done what 
 they were ordered to do. 
 
 Sir W. Phillimore.— Then this gentleman may go 
 for the present and will have notice to attend for 
 examination if he is required ? 
 
 The President. — Certainly, when he- has handed 
 over the key of the safe in which the books are 
 lodged. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler.— With reference to the National 
 Bank, I understand your Lordship to direct that the 
 subpoena is to be served upon the bank in London. 
 
 The President.— Yes. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler. — It is only right for me to say that it 
 must not be assumed that all the documents mentioned 
 in the order are in the possession of the bank. We have 
 only possession of a small portion of them. 
 
 The President. — In that case the subpoena duces 
 tecum will go out in the ordinary way, and in the 
 
 Application concerning certain Irish Banks. 
 
The Special Commission, October 30, 1888. 
 
 137 
 
 event of the absence of any necessary document it can 
 be made the subject of an application and you can 
 examine the officers of the bank. 
 
 Mr. Healy.— Has your Lordship any objection to 
 let me see the affidavit upon which The Times obtained 
 the order for the inspection of the bankers' books ? 
 
 The President.— Certainly not. 
 
 A copy of the affidavit was then handed to Mr. 
 Healy. 
 
 Sis W. Phillimore. — I am sorry to say that a 
 further complication has arisen. It has occurred to 
 me from the point of view of the bank that there must 
 be some officer of the bank present to guide these 
 gentlemen to the right accounts, otherwise they would 
 be looking over other private accounts in the natural 
 course of hunting for these particular accounts. 
 
 The President. — I think that that is a reasonable 
 suggestion. It was to guard against the danger you 
 point out that the Act provided that the banks were 
 to have the right to give copies. However, let it be so. 
 We are now ready to proceed. 
 
 The Attorney-General ! then called Bernard 
 O'Malley as the first witness. 
 
 Sir C. Russell, interposing, said, — Before this 
 evidence is gone into, I have to call your Lordships' 
 attention to the disregard of an order which the Court 
 made last Friday. Your Lordships will recollect that 
 on that day I made an application that my learned 
 friend's clients should be directed to give us informa- 
 tion as soon as they reasonably could as to the course 
 of evidence which they were going to produce, in 
 order that we might be prepared to some extent as 
 far as we could with a view to cross-examination, so 
 as to avoid delay. On Saturday my clients, Messrs. 
 Lewis, received a letter from Mr. Soames,the solicitor 
 for The Times, to the effect that, as requested by 
 myself, they gave notice that on Tuesday morning they 
 should proceed to call witnesses to prove the making 
 of the speeches and the occurrences of the outrages in 
 the counties of Galway and Kerry. As a matter of 
 fact the order was not made on my request, and the 
 notice is not a sufficient compliance with the terms of 
 the order. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— There was no order of 
 any kind made. 
 
 The President. — I do not recollect making any such 
 order ; an understanding was arrived at at your 
 request. 
 
 Sir C. Kussbll. — Your Lordships surely gave a 
 direction on my application. 
 
 The President. — We expressed approval of your 
 proposal, but I do not recollect making an order. 
 This was only a matter of agreement such as constantly 
 takes place between counsel. I am exceedingly sorry 
 if the Attorney-General has disappointed your expecta- 
 tions, but I do not see how we can control the matter. 
 Sir C. Kussell.— I do not think that your Lord- 
 ships quite realize the gravity of the point which I 
 make. If The Times is allowed to conduct its case in 
 the — I do not use the expression offensively — higgledy- 
 
 piggledy way in which it was opened in the speech of 
 my learned friend the Attorney-General, with proof of 
 a slice of speeches here and of a slice of outrages 
 there, we shall not know how to meet it. Your Lord- 
 ships could not control the way in which the Attorney- 
 General thought fit to open his case, but you can ! 
 control the way in which the evidence is given ; and I 
 do ask your Lordships to express some opinion on the 
 matter. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The request was for an 
 indication of the course of evidence that I proposed 
 to enter upon. That I supplied. All I can say is this, 
 not caring one bit as to the observations that have 
 been made with respect to what we have done, we 
 shall endeavour to prove our case in the ordinary way : 
 in which persons who are submitting to a tribunal 
 of this character evidence with .regard to a series of 
 charges are entitled to prove it. We shall en- 
 deavour, as far as we possibly can, to keep the heads 
 distinct. I humblyprotest against any such observations 
 being made. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I aBk respectfully to be allowed 
 to say that I do not make this request for my own con- 
 venience. As a matter of justice to my clients we are 
 entitled to have it. They are here charged with an 
 indictment extending over years, in connexion with 
 which it is sought to make them answerable for 
 speeches uttered by persons in various parts of the 
 country and at different times. It is, therefore, only; 
 just that the fullest and amplest notice of the nature of 
 the evidence we shall have to meet on any particular 
 day should be given to us. We have not received such 
 notice on the present occasion, although it was pro- 
 mised to be given to us. 
 
 The President. — I can only repeat what I have at 
 present said — namely, that this was a request, as I 
 understood it, by Sir Charles Russell for an intimation 
 as to the course of evidence that would be given. The 
 Attorney-General undertook to supply that, and I 
 cannot take it upon myself to say that he has not 
 given all the information in his power. Certainly we 
 cannot take upon ourselves to give any direction as to 
 the particular cla6S of witnesses that shall be called. 
 That would involve our forming a scheme of the case 
 for ourselves before we have heard the evidence. It 
 is only those who have the control of the evidence 
 who can do so. Certainly I do in the most hearty 
 terms express my hope that the matter will be brought 
 forward in an orderly sequence, because otherwise it 
 may become impossible for the Court to deal, within any 
 reasonable time, with a mass of evidence which does 
 not hang together coherently upon some thread. But 
 really one cannot disregard the fact that experienced 
 counsel are engaged in the case, and jin their own 
 interest, as well as in that of their clients, they will, 
 no donbt, do their best to put the matter in an orderly 
 form. I can only say I hope that every attempt will 
 be made to do so. The Court is not in a position to 
 give any direction on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Healy.— I wish to ask your Lordships whether, 
 
 Application for Information as to the Course 
 of Evidence. 
 
138 
 
 The Special Commission, October 30, 1888. 
 
 if this case is to be coaducted upon judicial principles, 
 the plea of autrefois acquit applies. 
 
 The President. — There is no opportunity for you to 
 plead any such plea as autrefois acquit in this inquiry. 
 Whatever is the effect of any person now charged 
 having been tried and acquitted must be dealt with 
 when the incident to which the trial refers comes on 
 for consideration. 
 
 Mr. Healy.— I wish to know whether it is intended 
 in this Court to re-examine and reventilate matters 
 that have already formed the subject of judicial in- 
 quiry and decision. I observe in the particulars relat- 
 ing to myself speeches in regard to which I have been 
 tried and acquitted, and I wish to know whether I am 
 to be called upon again to defend myself in respect of 
 them. I think that it would be of the greatest con- 
 venience and for the public interest and would save 
 the time of your Lordships, as well as save expense, 
 if the calling of witnesses could, as far as possible, be 
 obviated. I 6hould be most happy now to admit 
 speeches that I have delivered. I understand that the 
 Attorney-General in his speech connected a body of 
 gentlemen together. I wish to ask your Lordships 
 whether there is any procedure open to me by which 
 I can admit my speeches, and whether any facility is 
 to be offered to the defendants with regard to the time 
 at which witnesses affecting them are to be called. 
 I have business to attend to elsewhere, and I have no 
 desire whatever to be here while the criminality of 
 Mr. O'Donovan Rossa and Mr. Scrab Nally is inquired 
 into. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I will do my best that 
 when any particular evidence relating to any particular 
 matter or individual is to be submitted notice shall be 
 given to those individuals. 
 
 The President. — I cannot give any direction on the 
 subject. I can only express a hope that the Attorney- 
 General and those who are with him will give intima- 
 tion of the particular class of evidence which it 
 is intended to offer on a particular occasion. It 
 would be a great assistance if Mr. Healy, or 
 anybody else in his position, were to say that 
 they did not require formal evidence to be given 
 of what has been said by them at a particular meeting, 
 but I cannot give any direction upon it. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — "With reference to myself, I may say 
 that I have never read " Parnellism and Crime," but I 
 have read what appeared in the Freeman's Journal of 
 my speeches. I admit having made them and am proud 
 of them. 
 
 Mr. Beid.— Sir C. Russell desire? that I should say 
 that if the Attorney-General will give us notice of the 
 speeches which he desires to prove, we will endeavour 
 as far as possible to admit those speeches and merely 
 give him notice of those which we are not prepared to 
 admit. 
 
 The President. — That would be very satisfactory. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Before proceeding to call the first 
 witness, I may mention to your Lordships the sequence 
 in which we propose taking the evidence. First we 
 
 Arrangement as to Particular Class of 
 Evidence. 
 
 shall prove the speeches made in Galway, and we shall 
 commence with 1880, and take the speeches to which 
 each witness deposes as far as possible in order of 
 time. 
 
 Bernard O'Malley, examined by Sir H. James, said, 
 — I am a head constable in the Royal Irish Constabu- 
 lary, and have been in that force for 22 years. I was 
 directed to take reports of speeches, commencing in 
 1880. I write shorthand. I reported the speeches 
 made at a meeting held at Milltown, county Galway, 
 on the 25th of July, 1880. I have my original short- 
 hand notes here. I made a transcript of my notes and 
 sent it to Dublin. I have recently seen the transcript 
 in print, and have compared it with my notes. It is 
 accurate. 
 
 Was that meeting on the 25th of July,1880,at Milltown 
 a Land League meeting ? — It was. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I object to this description. The 
 witness had better explain what he means. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Was a statement made at the meet- 
 ing that it was a Land League meeting ? — I am not 
 sure. 
 
 You were directed to attend Land League meetings ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 And you attended this ?— Yes. 
 
 Was a person named Thomas Brennan there ? — Yes. 
 
 Was heknown to you ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see him at other meetings besides this ? — I 
 did. 
 
 Was he known as an officer of the Land League ? 
 
 Sir C. Rt/ssell. — How can he say that ? 
 
 Sir II. JAMES. — Have you heard Brennan say ha 
 was an officer of the Land League ? — I could not say 
 that. 
 
 Did Brennan take part in this meeting ?— He did. 
 
 Did you see a person there named P. J. Gordon ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Now will you refer to the transcript of what Brennan 
 said ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Before these speeches are read I 
 must make a formal objection, and ask your Lordships 
 whether you consider that this evidence is at this 
 stage admissible before those who represent The Times 
 have proved what the Land League was and what was 
 the connexion of these persons with the Land League. 
 No doubt in an indictment for conspiracy you may 
 prove the conspiracy by the acts of particular persons, 
 but surely for the sake of convenience the proper 
 course is to show your Lordships first of all what the 
 Land Leajue was, what were its alleged objects, before 
 beginning in this way to prove speeches delivered in 
 various parts of the country. It may be that there was 
 no Land League at all at this date. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — In answer to the objec- 
 tion of my learned friend, I may remind your Lordships 
 that this is a Commission to inquire into the acts of 
 individuals. I told your Lordships that it would be 
 my case to show that many persons, some of whose 
 names are included in the particulars, conspired 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Malley. 
 
The Special Commission, October 30/1888. 
 
 139 
 
 together with a certain object. I propose to prove as 
 a substantive part of our case a series of overt acts 
 in which these persons took part, and for the purpose 
 of proving a conspiracy it would not matter what was 
 the name of the conspiracy — whether it was the Land 
 League or not — though, as a matter of fact, that was 
 the name. I intend to prove the case by dealing with 
 the charges against certain individuals. I undertake 
 to prove that Mr. Parnell, Mr. Biggar, and others were 
 intimately associated, among others, with Mr. Thomas 
 Brennan, who, I shall show, was secretary or treasurer 
 of the Land League, and that organization was started 
 on the 21st of October, 1879, so that it is a fact that 
 at the time that this speech was made the Land League 
 did exist. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I did not say that it did not. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It is true it did not then 
 exist at the particular place where this speech was 
 made, because Brennan and Gordon went down to start 
 it when they made these very speeches. 
 
 The President. — All that I can say is this — counsel 
 on one side and the other must take it that the giving 
 of evidence must be proceeded with on the same 
 principle as if this was an indictment for conspiracy. 
 It is not necessary in the first instance to prove a 
 particular combination, and evidence may be given 
 generally, from which the tribunal that has to deter- 
 mine the matter may draw its own inferences. There- 
 fore this evidence appears to be quite admissible. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Should not the connexion of 
 certain individuals with the conspiracy be first proved ? 
 
 The President.— The connexion must of course be 
 proved at some time, but there is no particular time at 
 which that evidence must be given. 
 
 Sir H. James then asked the witness to read his 
 transcript of Mr. Brennan's speech, but he read so 
 inaudibly that the President and counsel expressed 
 their inability to hear what he read. With the assent 
 of the Bench and of Sir C. Russell, Sir H. James was 
 about to proceed to read the speech himself, when 
 
 Mr. Biggar said, — The Attorney-General undertook 
 to give us copies of all the speeches from which he 
 read, but we have had no copy of this. We have only 
 had a copy of extracts read by the Attorney-General . 
 
 Sir H. James. — We have not copies of the entire 
 speech. We have only the one transcript. If we have 
 to read the whole of the speeches the practical diffi- 
 culties will be very great. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Probably the most convenient 
 course would be for my learned friend to read those 
 passages which he thinks most material and then I can 
 read what I think material. 
 
 Mr. HEALY. — I respectfully submit that the proper 
 course is to read the entire speech. From long experi- 
 ence of these police shorthand writers in Ireland I 
 must express the opinion that the whole speech ought 
 not only to be read, but it ought to be read by the 
 witness from his notes. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I have to make the same objection. 
 
 It is only fair that the witness should read from his 
 notes. 
 
 The President. — The witness swears that this is a 
 true transcript, and therefore it can be read. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — It will of course be open to us to 
 cross-examine him on his notes. That will involve* a 
 double process. 
 
 The President. — Unfortunately we are likely to 
 have double and treble processes of many sorts. 
 
 Sir H. James then proceeded to read the transcript 
 of Mr. Brennan's speech, in which he said they were 
 in open insurrection against landlordism, that the 
 highest form of government was a Republic, and that 
 they might establish an Irish Republic on Irish soil ; 
 advising the people to keep a firm grip on the land, 
 to fight for the land of their country ; that he did not 
 want them to give a blow or a stone to the landlords, 
 but that they might do it if they liked : _ that the cursa 
 of God would rest on the man who took an evicted 
 farm ; advising the people to watch every man who 
 dared to take a scythe to cut grass on an evicted farm ; 
 and telling them that if they were good soldiers tha 
 League would help them, but that if they were 
 cowardly dogs the League would not recognize them. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Will you let me have a copy of 
 that speech ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — No, I cannot. We have no other 
 copies than this, and it must be handed in. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I presume, my Lord, it will be 
 printed in the notes. 
 
 The President. — Yea. Anything that is handed ia 
 must find its place in the official record. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We have obtained this 
 from the Irish Office. There can be no objection, 
 I think, to having it printed in the record of the pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Sir H. James (to witness). — Is that (document 
 handed to witness) a correct transcript of your notes of 
 a speech delivered by P. J. Gordon ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — If it is any convenience to your 
 Lordships, as the names are called out we are quite 
 willing to state what, according to our instructions, 
 the position of each person was. Brennan was not at 
 the time of the speech secretary of the Land League, 
 but he Undoubtedly was secretary afterwards. P. J. 
 Gordon, who has been described as an organizer of the 
 Land League, was not an organizer. 
 
 Sir H. James was proceeding to read the transcript 
 of P. J. Gordon's speech when 
 
 The President said, — It is not necessary for you, Sir 
 Henry, to read the whole speech, but only those por- 
 tions on which you rely. Then, on cross-examination, 
 any portions which you emit may be referred to and 
 read by Sir C. Russell if he thinks them material. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Unhappily I have not got a copy 
 of the whole speech. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — Mr. Brennan is an absent man 
 
 The President. — You do not appear for Mr, 
 Brennan. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — I did not say that I did. I am making 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Malley. 
 
140 
 
 The Special Commission, October 30, 1888. 
 
 this observation on my own behalf. We might be 
 satisfied with the extracts from our own speeches that 
 have been read, but we, knowing nothing of Mr. 
 Brennan's speeches, ore entitled to have the entire of 
 his speeches read. 
 
 Mr. Biggar.— There is another point. What will 
 occur is this — the real object of Sir Henry James is 
 to get these quotations into the newspapers. No one 
 outside will read the whole speech, which will only 
 appear on the official notes. The only fair way is to 
 read the whole speech, and let the public draw their 
 own conclusions. 
 
 The President. — The only regular course is this, 
 and whatever it leads to it must be followed. You, 
 Sir Henry, will call attention to what you consider 
 the material parts of the speech,and Sir C. Russell can 
 on cross-examination, refer to other portions which he 
 may consider material, and, if necessary, the cross- 
 examination can be postponed until he has had an oppor- 
 tunity of seeing the full speeches. 
 
 Sir H. James then proceeded to read the speech of 
 Thomas Brennan at Milltown, Galway, on July 25, 
 1880, the witness following him, notes in hand. In 
 this speech, part of which was read by the Attorney- 
 General in his opening, the speaker said he was proud 
 that the spirit of nationality was not dying out, and 
 that they had met to denounce the landlords who had 
 plundered them of their land. They were in open in- 
 surrection against landlordism, and if they were deter- 
 mined to keep a firm grip upon their homes they would 
 not allow Bodkin (the landlord) to drive them away. 
 The speech contained the following passage : — 
 
 "Ifyoufight,fightfor the land of your country ; if you 
 draw a sword you would not be begging yellow meal. 
 You will get measures by determination ; as Mr. Glad- 
 stone said, the only measures given to Ireland were 
 given by the Fenians. I don't want you to give a blow 
 or a stone to the landlords, but you may do it if you 
 like. If your land were taken to-morrow, would you 
 not harbour revenge in your bosom ? Let there be no 
 scoundrel amongst you to take land. Have the curse 
 of God on such a man." 
 
 Sir H. James.— On the same day J. W. Nally pro- 
 posed a resolution and made a speech ? — Yes. 
 
 He is known by the nickname of Scrab Nally? — Yes. 
 
 Me. Justice A. L. Smith. — Is he an organiser ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — I find that he is not treated as an 
 organizer, although he is a prominent member. The 
 learned counsel then read the speech, in which the 
 (speaker said :— 
 
 " Why do you allow land-grabbers to live ? Why do 
 you allow them to exist ? The only way I want you 
 to put them from existence is this — Don't speak to 
 them, leave their corn and meadows uncut, and they 
 will commit suicide without the pills." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — From where does this come ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — It is all from the Milltown meet- 
 ing. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell. — I now have to ask your Lordships 
 what course is to be pursued with reference to the 
 cross-examination of these witnesses. Are they to be 
 cross-examined as to each meeting as soon as they have 
 
 given evidence with respect to it, or are we to wait 
 imtil they have spoken about a dozen or more meet- 
 ings? I am ready to adopt whichever course your 
 Lordships may think the more convenient. 
 
 The President. — We think the better course will be 
 to have but one cross-examination. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell. — Very well, my Lord. 
 
 Sir H. James. — The next meeting was at Kilcouly 
 on September 19, 1880. Was Matthew Harris at that 
 meeting ? — Let me refer to my notes. 
 
 Have you been able to get a transcript of your 
 notes ? — No ; I have tried, but I could not. 
 
 Will you read from your notes, then ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 The only speech that need be read is Gordon's 
 speech, but first tell me if you have a speech there by 
 Matthew Harris ?— No. 
 
 The witness then read from his notes the speech 
 made by Gordon at Kilcouly. In this speech he ex- 
 plained that he would be ready to fight for Ireland at 
 the point of the bayonet, adding, " But we must try 
 to get our rights from the Government of England 
 without bloodshed." After the witness, who had fre- 
 quently to pause in his reading, had gone through a 
 great part of the speech, 
 
 The President, interposing, said,— Is there much 
 more of this ? (Laughter.) 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lord, we have no transcript of 
 this speech. 
 
 The President. — This must not happen again. The 
 witness must not be put into the box to decipher his 
 shorthand notes. He ought to have done that before, 
 so as to be prepared to give his evidence with a little 
 more rapidity. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Can you make a transcript of this 
 so that we may have it to-morrow morning ? Perhaps 
 your Lordships would allow the speech to be read 
 then. 
 
 The President. — Yes ; but I must consider the time 
 of the Court. 
 
 Sir O. RtrssELL. — We wish all to be read. 
 
 The President. — Do you mean that you wish it all 
 read in this way ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — No, not at all ; but we can follow 
 it very well as he has been reading it. 
 
 The President. — It is so slow. 
 
 Sir H. James. — It must be written out. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Let us have a copy. 
 
 Sir H. James.— I pass now to the next meeting on 
 October 3, 1880. 
 
 The witness. — I have not a transcript of my notes of 
 that meeting. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Did you make one at the time, and 
 have you tried to get it ? — Yes ; I tried to get it from 
 the Irish Office, but could not. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Then you ' mnst make a tran- 
 script of this also, please. Have you a transcript 
 of y"our notes of the meeting at Clerhaun on October 
 10 ?— Yea. 
 
 The learned counsel then read the speech in which 
 Gordon called upon the people not to take an evicted 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Mallev. 
 
The Special Commission, October 30, 1888. 
 
 141 
 
 farm, and expressed the hope that people who should 
 do so would go to perdition. After referring to 
 the death of Lord Mountmorres and to the letter 
 written to Lady Mountmorres by Her Majesty the 
 Queen, the speaker said that the object of English 
 Governments, Whig or Tory, was to crush out the 
 Irish people. Were they, he asked, satisfied with the 
 prevailing system of land robbery by the landlords ? They 
 should band themselves together to teach an obnoxious 
 person a lesson, but he did not want them to kill him. 
 Sir H. James then read a transcript of a speech by 
 Mr. J. W. Nally, at Clerhaun, which had been referred 
 to by the Attorney-General on the first day of his 
 opening speech. In the course of that speech Mr. 
 Nally said " that for any man who took an evicted 
 farm they should come for the pills, and pills only. 
 (A voice, ' Holloway's ointment.') That (the oint- 
 ment) is too mild, when the pills will go they will 
 want no ointment. Without organization we cannot 
 get total separation from the hated, detested, and 
 blasted Government that we are under at present. 
 Keep together and be strong. Dynamite and gun- 
 cotton will scatter them to pieces." 
 
 Sib H. James. — You have got the speech of a per- 
 son named Walsh, too, I think, have you not ? 
 
 Witness. — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Sib H. James. — I think you have no transcript of 
 that ? 
 
 Witness. — No. 
 
 Sib H. James. — Then will you be good enough to 
 make a transcript, if you please ? Sir H. James then 
 proceeded to read a speech delivered by Mr. E. D. 
 Walsh at Clerhaun on the 10th of October and also 
 referred to by the Attorney-General on the first day of 
 his opening speech. He said he was present as a re- 
 presentative of the Irish National Land League, and 
 he advocated the boycotting of persons who did not 
 become members ef the League. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. 
 On its reassembling, 
 
 Sir H. James continued his examination of the 
 witness. The witness said that on the 20th of 
 March, 1881, a meeting was held in Galway, at 
 which Mr. Matthew Harris was present and spoke. 
 The learned counsel then read Mr. Harris's speech. 
 Mr. Matthew Harris, among other things, said he had 
 been accused of trying to use personalities in regard 
 to the men of Galway, but he did not desire to do so. 
 When men scattered ejectments in all directions, he 
 said that not only were they bound to denounce them, 
 but they would be morally wrong if they shut their 
 eyes to them. (Hear, hear.) No man should bring 
 forward crime, but when crime did come it was the 
 duty of every gentleman to crush that crime. A great 
 cry was raised about that word of shooting down part- 
 ridges. The landlords of Galway had not used any 
 such language. They were too wise, too hypocritical. 
 They said they wished to be friends with the people, 
 and while saying that, did not they strike down the 
 people more unmercifully than partridges ? Lately he 
 
 had travelled a great deal through Galway, and he 
 found the landlords scattering about their writs of 
 ejectment. What was the use of the Land League if 
 he stood up without denouncing such conduct ? The 
 other day at Mount Bellew a process-server was going 
 round with about 80 of the Royal Irish Constabulary. 
 They were asked not to go into the house of a poor 
 man who was ill. They, however, entered his house 
 with their bayonets, and the poor man expired before 
 they left his house. He found the like action going 
 on on Lord Dunsandle's estate. He had left his child 
 to bear the infamy of the work he had himself done. 
 He was a bad landlord, who taught his own child to 
 commit the very crimes that he in his own youth com- 
 mitted. In Connemara the climate was extremely 
 moist, and there people were reduced to the lowest 
 extreme of destitution, and that was the time when 
 Her Majesty's gunboats were sent down to extirpate 
 the people of Oonnemara. My Lords, I think that is 
 all of Matthew Harris. 
 
 The President. — We have not yet got a statement 
 of Mr. Harris's position. Was he an organizer ? Sir 
 C. Russell was good enough to say he would state 
 what the positions of the various persons were. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I represent Mr. Matthew Harris. I 
 am not able at this moment to inform your Lordships 
 what was the position of Mr. Matthew Harris, as the 
 gentleman who is instructing me is not present. 
 
 The Pbesideht. — Very well. It can be done when it 
 is convenient. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Sib H. James (to the witness). — Mr. Thomas 
 O'Connor was present on that occasion, was he not — 
 it was a meeting of his constituents ? 
 
 Witness. — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Sir H. James.— My Lords, that concludes the Gal- 
 way speeches as opened by the Attorney-General, 
 and now I want to prove one speech that 
 was not opened by my learned friend. (To 
 the witness.) Have you got your note and 
 transcript of speeches made at a meeting held at 
 Shrale, in county Galway, on June 20, 1880 ? 
 
 Witness. — I have, Sir. 
 
 Sib H. James.— Turn to the speech of Mr. Patrick 
 Gordon. 
 
 Sir H. James then read the speech, in the 
 course of which Mr. P. J. Gordon said that the Church 
 taught that " who is not with you is against you," and 
 he was sorry the parish priest was not there. Let it 
 not be understood that he wanted to excite that gentle- 
 man, but he would not let it be understood that his 
 name was in accordance with his acts. His name was 
 Good, but he was damn little good. He left it in 
 their hands to chastise those who were against the 
 people. He understood there was a party present who 
 had got up a system of reporting to the Government 
 that the peaceable people of Shrule and its surround- 
 ings were determined to cut one another's throats ; 
 they had no intention of cutting the throats of their 
 friends, but he didn't care if the throats of half their 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Maller. 
 
14& 
 
 The Special "Commission, October 30/ 1888. 
 
 enemies were cut before morning. He asked the women 
 present to act the part of soldiers, and not to allow 
 any robber to enter their cabins. Good landlords in 
 Ireland were as scarce as white blackbirds. God said 
 the rich tyrant would never enter the Kingdom of 
 Heaven, and with all their poverty he believed that 
 would be a satisfaction to them. The Government was 
 aiding the landlords to wipe them out. The only way 
 to let the Government see they were no longer 
 cowards was to arm themselves, and if they could not 
 do it in any other way they mast sell the old cow and 
 buy a ri8e. Referring to an eviction which had taken 
 place at Calla, he said that a man named David 
 Bourke and his son-in-law had offered the landlord an 
 increase of rent. (Groans.) (J. W. Nally. — " Groans 
 are no use ; refer to me for my pills I have got 
 lately.") P. J. Gordon, continuing, said the landlord 
 was bad enough, but the man who went and offered 
 the landlord money when the tenant was being evicted 
 was an even greater tyrant. They should organize 
 themselves and swear before high Heaven that the 
 land was created for their use and they were deter- 
 mined to work for it. God had given it to them with 
 the words that they were to cultivate it by the sweat 
 ef their brow. He would ask those present to pledge 
 themselves to take no land from which another had 
 been evicted. If any one did, the name would be pub- 
 lished in that county. There were land-grabbers who 
 were encouraged by the priests. He wanted to tell 
 them that the priest who took the part of the landlord 
 had some selfish end in view. O'Connell once said 
 that the land of Ireland would be dearly bought at one 
 drop of blood ; but he differed from him. It was 
 better for them to lose their blood as Allen, Larkin, 
 and O'Brien did. Eeferring to land-grabbers, he asked 
 those present to treat them with contempt, to pass them 
 by, and not to speak to them at the fair. (A voice. 
 — " Give them what Lord Leitrim got.") (J. W. 
 Nally. — "You are too cowardly to do that.") Mr. 
 Gordon, continuing, said the land-grabbers, if treated 
 with contempt, would come on their bended knees 
 and ask forgiveness, but they were not to be 
 forgiven, for they had sold their nationality. 
 
 Sib H. James. — My Lords, I think we are now come 
 to county Kerry. I will now refer to a speech by Mr. 
 T. Harrington at Brosna, county Kerry, on October 24, 
 1880. My learned friend the Attorney-General opened 
 the speech of Mr. Harrington. 
 
 The President. — Can his position be defined ? 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Mr. Harrington was afterwards 
 the secretary of the National League ; but at the time 
 this speech was made he had no official connexion with 
 the Land League. 
 
 The witness said he was present and referred to his note . 
 
 Sir H. James then read Mr. Harrington's speech, 
 which began with a resolution pledging those present 
 never to take an evicted farm or to hold intercourse 
 with those who did. He could not do better than give 
 them an opportunity of setting to work. In one hold- 
 ing in Kerry the landlord evicted a tenant and a man 
 
 named John W. O'Connor rented it and endeavoured 
 for three or four months to carry it on, but after 
 ruining the farm he was obliged to surrender it. A 
 few instances would suffice to recommend to them the 
 practicability of the resolution. If they would not 
 take an evicted farm the landlord would soon realize 
 that eviction was not a paying game, and would give 
 it up. The Government had recognized that emigration 
 was ruining the country, and was it not strange that 
 they should continue giving the landlords power to 
 carry on their work of eviction ? They had done more 
 than that ; they had threatened to prosecute Parnell 
 and the leading members of the Land League. In one 
 case, at Killorglin, a party of tenants put a tenant into 
 his house. The authorities had arrested that tenant 
 and so gave others an opportunity of entering his farm, 
 and for no other reason than that he had taken part in 
 an outrage. As those present were from the three 
 counties of Kerry, Limerick, and Cork, he asked them 
 to hold up their hands and pledge themselves not to 
 take an evicted farm, and not to hold any converse 
 with any one who broke that pledge. 
 
 Sir H. James. — That, my Lords, is all Mr. Harring- 
 ton's speech. Then, my Lords, the next speech is one 
 delivered by Boyton at Dingle, in county Kerry, on 
 February 20, 1881. This was read by my learned 
 friend the Attorney-General. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — What Boyton is this ? I am told 
 there was a Boyton who was an organizer, but not in 
 Kerry. 
 
 Sib H. James. — I have only the initials of the 
 name. It is M. J. Boyton. The learned counsel then 
 read the speech, an extract from which was read by 
 the Attorney-General in his opening statement. The 
 speaker expressed his pleasure at seeing the people of 
 that part of Ireland taking their part in the struggle. 
 He felt sure now that they were in the field side by 
 side with their brothers throughout Ireland, and that 
 they were prepared to take their place like men. 
 They were engaged, he said, " in a war to the death 
 with a vile and infamous system that had been 
 sustained and propped up to the debasement of the 
 Irish people." They adhered, of course, to the prin« 
 ciples of the Irish National Land League — that land- 
 lordism, good, bad, and indifferent, must go for ever. 
 The county of Kerry was not only the most oppressed 
 and rack-rented in Ireland, but its rent tyrants were 
 the veriest devils in the land. The people of Kerry 
 paid double, treble, and quadruple the rents paid by 
 the farmers of Kildare, and he felt sure they were the 
 hardest worked people in Ireland. He had been for 
 some 12 months laying his views before the people, 
 and he had never witnessed such an upheaval as bad 
 taken place in that time among the Irish fanners. He 
 hoped that before long no man would lift his hat 
 except to a minister of God. He wished people to 
 know that he spoke with just as much respect for law 
 and order as any one else. Speaking of the police, he 
 told the people they were their servants, and that 
 every man who paid taxes paid their wages. The 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Malley. 
 
The Special Commission, October 30, 1888. 
 
 143 
 
 police had no power to injure them or theirs or their 
 posterity. There were some officious members in the 
 constabulary. The duty of the people, when the police 
 came to them for information, was to treat them with 
 contempt. Those who disputed the payment of unjust 
 rents were not to take farms from which others were 
 evicted. If the farmers of Ireland proved themselves 
 worthy and bore themselves like men, they would 
 make for themselves a place in the history of their 
 country. He had every confidence that they would do 
 so and that the spirit that was in them would outlive a 
 temporary coercion. If they refused to pay unjust 
 rents and refused to take farms from which others had 
 been evicted, a brilliant victory would soon crown all 
 their efforts. 
 
 The next speech to which the attention of, the 
 witness was called was a speech delivered on June 6, 
 1881, at a meeting at Knocknabull, in Kerry, by the Kev. 
 Michael M'Mahou. He said the object of this coercion 
 was undoubtedly to stop the action of the Land League. 
 There could be no justification for it, and it was based on 
 exaggerated reports in English newspapers. This 
 coercion was unwarrantable and unconstitutional, but 
 while they lay under it it must be their aim to make it 
 as harmless as possible. Their cause was a strong and a 
 just oue. The English power in Ireland had always 
 had resort to coercion, and the present coercion was 
 more extensive in its operation than any previous. 
 After reference to the patriotic conduct of John Dillon 
 and the Irish members of Parliament, he urged them 
 to send Mr. Dillon back to Parliament more deter- 
 mined than ever to work in their cause. He reminded 
 his hearers that the Irish element was a strong and 
 growing power upon the earth. They surrounded the 
 British Empire in thousands, prepared to break upon it 
 at any moment. Foreign complications might involve 
 England any day in war, and it would be for the Irisb 
 peopleto take advantage of the contingency. They wanted 
 to make known that they were not afraid of any one. An 
 English writer had said that if the resources of the 
 island were properly developed it would be rich and 
 prosperous. He urged them to carry out the rules of 
 the Land League. If the labourers separated from the 
 farmers and fell into the hands of the landlords the out- 
 look would be cheerless. In the name of God he called 
 upon them to work together, the labourer helping the 
 farmer, and with the blessing of God the victory would 
 be theirs. 
 
 The next speech proved was one by the Rev. 
 Mr. M'Gillicuddy on the same occasion, who re- 
 ferred to the imprisonment of Father Sheehy. He 
 contended that if Father Sheehy had done wrong 
 they had all done wrong, and if he was to be punished 
 they all deserved punishment. " What," he asked, 
 " has been Father Sheshy's crime ? Let me ask any 
 man here if Father Sheehy walked this road down here 
 to-day and saw the ruin that you saw — if a groan of 
 indignation came from his breast, who would condemn 
 him ? And this is Father Sheehy's crime. He has never 
 done or said anything that would be worse than if he 
 
 stood about the pile of the ruins of Donoghue's housa 
 and said, ' Oh ! Herbert.' " His punishment was an 
 outrage upon the religion of the Irish people. His con- 
 science alone urged him on. Under the guidance of 
 his conscience Father Sheehy acted. They bade him 
 be of good cheer and they hoped the day of deliverance 
 was not far off. 
 
 Sir H. James (to witness). — I believe Mr. Herbert 
 was shot a few days after this speech was delivered ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood objected to the question in that form. 
 
 Sib H. James. — How long afterwards was it that Mr. 
 Herbert was shot ? 
 
 Witness. — I do not know. 
 
 The witness's attention was next called to the speech 
 delivered at the same meeting by Mr. Curtin, of New- 
 market, county Cork, and the learned counsel read 
 this also. The speech contained references to an 
 evicted farm and the following passages :— 
 
 " Let it stop there, and let it be under the ban of 
 the public, the world, and that glorious institution the 
 Land League. Let it stop there as a monument, as a 
 memorial of Herbert's perfidy. Let it stop there to 
 show that we the people are united to a man. Let it 
 stop there till Herbert goes down to the grave, and 
 badly he is able. (A voice. — Let him go down to 
 hell.) I don't want you by any means whatsoever to 
 make use of a word against that man. I don't want 
 yon to make use of that ugly word ' boycott.' But I 
 will tell you that there are many ways of killing a dog 
 besides choking him with butter. I presume that 
 Herbert won't make his appearance often amongst you, 
 and it would not be any great loss if he did not appear 
 in Castleisland . Let it go around from the centre to 
 the sea that Herbert will be one of the most important 
 men in the country, far more so than Boycott or Bence 
 Jones. I will go and bring some man that might make 
 Herbert one of the most remarkable men in the 
 country." 
 
 The speaker also suggested that if, when they met a 
 hare or rabbit, they knocked it down, they should use it 
 for their own dinner, every man being entitled to 
 game. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — As I understand, Cartin had no 
 official connexion with the Land League. I say this 
 because his name has not been mentioned before. 
 
 Silt H. James.— The Rev. Mr. O'Rearden addressed 
 the same meeting ? 
 
 Witness. — Yes. 
 
 In this speech, which the learned counsel read, the 
 rev. gentleman said that the principal object of their 
 presence there that day was to protest against a recent 
 eviction in the district. He described the circum- 
 stances, stating that the unfortunate tenant, his wife, 
 and children had all been thrown out upon the road- 
 side by the agent. He had a great objection to bring 
 any man's name under censure, public or private, but 
 he would not withhold the name of the landlord. His 
 name was Mr. William Hartlet, and the name of the 
 agent was Mr. A. Herbert, and he branded them as dis- 
 turbers of peace and order in the land. The 
 evicted tenant, he explained, had been supplied with 
 funds by the League. 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Malley. 
 
115 
 
 The Special " Commission,- October 30, 1 888. 
 
 While the learned counsel was still engaged in read- 
 ing the speech, 
 
 Mr. Healt rose and said, — I respectfully ask you to 
 notice that the witness is constantly writing in the 
 middle of his notes. 
 
 The witness. — I beg pardon ; I am not. 
 
 The President. — I have seen what the witness has 
 been doing. He has only been following his notes. 
 
 Mr. HeALY. — He is using his pencil and writing in 
 the book. 
 
 Sip. H. James. — Have you been writing ? 
 
 Witness. — No. 
 
 Mr. Heaxy. — What have you been doing then ? 
 
 The President. — This is not the time for asking 
 Questions. What has been done by the witness has 
 been done under my own eyes. 
 
 ! Sib H.James then continued to read the speech, from 
 which it appeared that Mr. O'Rearden said that they 
 were told that the landlord's agent intended to serve 
 other people with writs and ejectment processes. He 
 was there that day to tell Mr. Arthur Herbert that if 
 he came into that remote district to disturb the peace, 
 if he dared to do it, though they would not injure a 
 hair of his head, they would make an example of 
 him. Forster had said the men he was applying his 
 Coercion Act to were village tyrants. He would 
 undertake to prove to those coming there another day 
 and seeing an unfortunate man with his helpless family 
 on the road side, that that Act was pre-eminently 
 calculated to disturb the peace, and provoke law- 
 breaking and create disturbances in that district. If 
 Mr. Forster was just, let him apply his Coercion Act 
 to any one whose acts would be calculated to excite 
 disturbance. But that as far as he knew was never 
 done, and was he to expect that Mr. Arthur 
 Herbert. would be so treated ? Was he therefore to be 
 allowed to come into that district, create disorder, , 
 and break up those poor homes ? He said he would 
 not. Those homes ought to be as sacred as the 
 mansions of the wealthy. They might go into one of 
 those humble cabins, coarse though the fare and 
 humble though the walls might be, and if they could 
 enter when the day's work was over, they would see a 
 spirit of religion and contentment they would miss in 
 many a wealthy home. Was, therefore, Mr. Arthur 
 Herbert to be allowed to come there, break up the 
 homes of those poor people, and cast them adrift on the 
 waves of the world ? He said no man should do that 
 man an injury, though they should treat him as their 
 greatest enemy. If Mr. Forster did not arrest that 
 man, and he came among them to disturb the peace 
 and break up the homes of the people, that man had as 
 good a right to be put in gaol as many who were 
 there now. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I do not know if your Lordships 
 have, as we have in a very convenient form, the full 
 reports of the speeches extracts from which were read 
 by the Attorney-General in his opening statement. Of 
 all these exhortations to avoid violence and so forth, 
 not a word was in the extracts from these speeches 
 
 read by the Attorney-General. I hope your Lordships 
 may be provided with these extracts, so that your Lord- 
 ships may follow, as we are endeavouring to do, the 
 speeches that are being read. 
 
 The President. — As to the passages we have them — 
 of course to-morrow morning we shall have the whole 
 text. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — We have them in a separate form, 
 which is a very convenient form. May I hand your 
 Lordships a copy to show your Lordships what I am 
 referring to ? I had no other intention in making this 
 interruption than to point out to your Lordships that it 
 would be convenient if you had, now that the speeches 
 are being read, the extracts that we have. 
 
 The President. — I am perfectly well aware that the 
 Attorney-General was not reading the whole of the 
 speeches, and I discouraged him from doing so, 
 because I thought all he had to do was to read the im- 
 portant passages. But of course I see the importance 
 of having the text, and it is in order that we may have 
 the text that Sir Henry James is now reading the whole 
 of the speeches. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I am sorry I did not make myself 
 understood to your Lordships. I was only anxious that 
 when these speeches are read in esctcnso, your Lordi 
 ships should have immediately before you the oppor- 
 tunity of seeing the portions of these speeches which 
 have been already read out by the Attorney-General. 
 
 Sir H. James. — If my learned friend's observation 
 means anything, it means that my friend the Attorney 
 General has improperly read out the extracts. 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — No ; it was in order that yom 
 Lordships might have them before you for the purpose 
 of comparison. 
 
 The President. — That is a subject for observation 
 by-and-bye, if you think it of importance. 
 
 Sir H. James then continued reading the speech, in 
 which the speaker said if they worked peaceably and 
 firmly together, and every young man did what was 
 right, they would yet become a happy, prosperous, and 
 a contented people. 
 
 Sir H. James then read a speech of Patrick O'Keefe 
 to which the Attorney-General referred on the second 
 day of the inquiry. The speaker said he was asked to 
 propose a resolution for the labourers. They heartily 
 called on the labourers and the resolution was one 
 which commended itself to every one. Every man who# 
 worked with a spade or shovel should have the thing 
 that the spade and shovel got into — namely, a piece 
 of land. It was a pity and shame that the industrious 
 father and sympathetic mother, who, after years of toil, 
 had reared up their boy and girl with all the tenderness 
 of an Irish mother's bosom, that boy and girl should 
 be sent from the fond embrace of that mother and 
 father. He had been over the broad Atlantic 
 three times, and he told' them that if they thought 
 of getting out of that country they should not 
 build castles in the air. They could never gain a 
 living in America or Australia without working for it. 
 The resolution asked the tenants to divide the land 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Malley. 
 
The Special Commission, October 30 and 31, 1888. 
 
 ill 
 
 with the labourers. The landlords went round with 
 their hands in their pockets, but if the landlord was 
 wrong that was no reason why the farmer should be 
 wrong too. Was not the labourer their brother ? Had 
 he not attended the same school and the same chapel 
 with them ? Whenever the sword of liberty had been 
 taken from the scabbard the labourer had always been 
 behind it. Let the women band themselves together 
 to induce their husbands to give the labourer a piece 
 of land. If they did not do that he should advise 
 those in America to keep their subscriptions. 
 
 Sib H. Jambs. — My Lords, that concludes the Galway 
 and Kerry speeches so far as the evidence of this 
 witness is concerned — of course, my Lords, excluding 
 the fact of there being three speeches of which he has 
 not the transcripts. This witness also proves speeches 
 in several other counties. We will now call another 
 witness who speaks of speeches in Galway and Kerry. 
 My friend Sir C. Russell intimated to me that he 
 would prefer not to cross-examine this witness at 
 present. 
 
 W. Irwin, examined by Mr. Murphy. — I am a head 
 constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary. I have been 
 accustomed to write shorthand. On December 11, 1880, 
 there was a meeting at Tynagh at which Martin 
 O'Halloran and Michael Welsh were present. I know 
 Mr. O'Halloran personally. 
 
 Was he connected with the Land League ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — That is a very leading question. 
 
 The President. — I understood you would inform us 
 of what his position was and was waiting for an 
 opportunity to ask the question. 
 
 Mr. Retd. — I am informed that we are not aware 
 that he had any connexion with the Land League. 
 That was my reason for objecting to the question. I 
 hope my learned friend will not put it in a leading 
 form. 
 
 Mr. Murphy (to Mr. Reid). — Was he a member ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I know he was not an official ; I will 
 inquire whether he was a member. 
 
 Mr. Murphy then proceeded to read the speech, in 
 the course of which Mr. O'Halloran said the first 
 resolution was that they considered any person who, in 
 violation of humanity, deliberately took a farm from 
 which another person had been evicted as an enemy to 
 his country. He was proud to come there to help 
 the poor farmers who had long been degraded under 
 the heels of landlordism. It was a short time since he 
 had started that agitation in Kiltulla on the great 
 Lord Dunsandle's property, and Mr. Daly's and Peter 
 Blake's,and the flower of all was Walter Peter Lambert. 
 He was coming to Athenry with two of the Royal 
 Irish Constabulary to guard him, and if he slept under 
 the faco of heaven no one would touch him. No 
 matter what they did then no one would join the Land 
 League from those properties. He would bet the 
 Chief Secretary £5,000 that before 24 hours he would 
 disarm the police without bloodshed. There had 
 not yet been a shot fired at a landlord, and if 
 
 there was a threat to Peter Blake it was from 
 one of his own pet rearing. He recollected the) 
 time when Lord Dunsandle had more widows on 
 his estate than he now had tenants. He went to 
 the gambling hells of London and spent their money. 
 In conclusion, he urged them, if a man took land, not 
 to injure his animals. " Do not touch him — if you do 
 you are enemies to the cause. I hope you will take 
 that advice from a patriotic man and work upon it pru- 
 dently. Do not summon any man before God. It might 
 not be fair." The next speech to which the witness 
 was referred was one delivered by the same Martin 
 O'Halloran at Croughwell, on December 12, 1880. The 
 Rev. Father Considine was also present. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I do not know whether information 
 is to be given as to the position of these gentlemen 
 or not. He then read from O'Halloran's speech aa 
 follows : — 
 
 " There is a certain property here near you. The 
 tenants on that property have over £14,000 now. Let 
 the Government of England light the wisp, and we 
 are fit to quench it, but I can tell you they are not 
 such damnable fools. You heard of Captain Boycott ; 
 it was not a priest christened him, it must be the 
 Devil. To please the aristocracy and the landlords 
 here in Galway, the Chief Secretary granted them 
 extra police. Well, now, my friends, to show the Go- 
 vernment we don't want to go to war with them, here, 
 now, in 24 hours I will disarm all the police in co. 
 Galway. I will name the hours and the minute I will 
 disarm them, without a drop of bloodshed, or one 
 charge of buckshot. I want no cheering for it. I am 
 doing it for the honour of God." 
 
 The President, interposing. — This is the same man, 
 I think ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — And it is apparently about the 
 same speech ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— Well, it is very nearly, my Lord ; 
 but it was delivered at a different date. 
 . The President. — There are some allusions in this 
 speech which appear to me to be reproductions of 
 allusions made in the former speech which you have 
 read, and which I did not understand, and that drew . 
 my attention to it. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31. 
 
 The Special Commission held their seventh sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 The Commissioners having taken their seats on the 
 bench, 
 
 The Attorney-General said, — With your Lordships' 
 permission, I propose to call a witness who is obliged 
 to leave England — namely, Captain O'Shea. He has 
 only with difficulty, I believe, remained until to-day, 
 and as he has to leave for Spain, I would ask your Lord- 
 ships to allow me to call him now. 
 
 Sip. C. Russell. — My learned friend was good enough 
 yesterday evening to intimate to me that he intended 
 calling Captain O'Shea this morning. But I have to 
 tell your Lordships that it will be impossible for me 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
146 
 
 •The Special Commission, October 31, 18S8. 
 
 at this stage of the case to cross-examine him on the 
 part of those I represent. Therefore, if Captain O'Shea 
 has to go to Spain he must come back again. I shall 
 have to ask your Lordships to allow me to postpone my 
 cross-examination, and under these circumstances I 
 would put it to my learned friend whether he still 
 thinks it necessary to proceed with the examination to- 
 day. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I cannot understand any 
 reason why Captain O'Shea should not be examined, 
 and cross-examined as well, to-day. He has been sub- 
 poenaed by both sides, and I do not see why he should 
 not be examined and cross-examined in the ordinary 
 course. Whatever course my learned friend sees fit to 
 take, I opened the points on which Captain O'Shea 
 would give material evidence, and I must lay that evi- 
 dence before this Commission. 
 
 Sir C. Kussell. — The only thing I intimated was 
 that Captain O'Shea will have to attend again at a 
 later stage. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— That will rest with your 
 Lordships. Your Lordships will form a judgment as to 
 whether he ought to be cross-examined when your 
 Lordships have heard his evidence. 
 Sir C. Russell. — No. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— You are not a Judge, Sir 
 Charles. 
 Sir C. Kussell.— Nor are you. 
 The Attorney-General. — I am submitting this point, 
 that no case has been made out as yet for postponing 
 the cross-examination, and the application will have to 
 be made in ordinary course at the close of the exami- 
 nation in chief. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am making that application 
 now. 
 
 The President. — I think it is, of course, very 
 desirable that we should hear the evidence of this 
 witness. But I should be disposed to say that, when 
 counsel states that he is not prepared to cross- 
 examine, cross-examination should be reserved. There- 
 fore it is for you, Mr. Attorney, to say whether, 
 after the intimation you have received, you should 
 persevere in the examination. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Yes ; I think I should 
 wish to take his examination in chief now. I hope 
 when my learned friend's application for the postpone- 
 ment of the cross-examination is made, your Lordships 
 will require it to be supported by some grounds other 
 than the statement of my learned friend that he is not 
 prepared. As Sir C. Russell has himself stated, I inti- 
 mated to him last night that it was our intention to 
 call Captain O'Shea to-day. But your Lordships will, 
 no doubt, deal with the matter when it arises. 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea was then sworn and examined 
 by the Attorney-General. 
 
 Were you formerly member of Parliament for county 
 Clare ?— Yes. 
 
 During what years were you in Parliament ?— I was 
 member for Clare from 1880 to 1885. 
 
 Have you been in Parliament since ? — Yes. I stood 
 for a division of Liverpool at the dissolution of 1885, 
 and was beaten, and then I became member for 
 Gal way. 
 
 Until the dissolution of 1886 ? — No ; I resigned my 
 seat. 
 
 The President.— When? 
 
 Witness. — I think the 9th of June. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— From the year 1880 up 
 to 1883 and 1884 were you on friendly terms with 
 Mr. Parnell ?— Yes. 
 
 I should have said till 1885 ?— Yes, until June, 1886. 
 May or June, 1886. 
 
 In the earlier part of 1881 had you frequent private 
 communications with Mr. Parnell on political mat- 
 ters ? — Yes. 
 
 And, without going into details for the present, did 
 you communicate, at Mr. Parnell's request, with any 
 official personages ? — I communicated, at Mr. Parnell's 
 request, with Mr. Gladstone in June, 1881. 
 
 Certain matters passed between you and Mr. Glad- 
 stone, at Mr. Parnell's request, in 1881 ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you know from Mr. Parnell whether the 1881 
 negotiations were made with the knowledge of his 
 other colleagues or not ? — No ; they were made with- 
 out the knowledge of his other colleagues, according to 
 the information given to me. 
 
 Whom do you mean by " Mr. Parnell's other 
 colleagues I" — I mean his colleagues in Parliament 
 — those who formed his party. 
 
 Did you have at that time any communications with 
 Mr. Parnell in reference to Mr. Bgan ? — No. 
 
 Did you know at that time from Mr. Parnell whether 
 the communications were known to Mr. Bgan ? — No. 
 I ascertained afterwards they were not known to him. 
 
 From whom did you afterwards ascertain that ?— 
 From Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Did you know Mr. Egan yourself ? — No. 
 
 Did you know in 18S1 what Mr. Bgan was doiDg or 
 where he was ?— I do not remember. 
 
 When did you learn that the 1881 negotiations were 
 not known to Mr. Egan ?— After Mr. Gladstone's 
 speech in the House of Commons on the 16th of May, 
 1882. . 
 
 What was it that Mr. Parnell said to you that led 
 you to the opinion that the 1881 negotiations were not 
 known to Mr. Egan ?— Subsequently to the speech I 
 have referred to Mr. Parnell expressed regret at the 
 awkwardness of Mr. Gladstone in introducing the 
 matter, and he said that that speech annoyed Mr. Egan 
 and, I believe, others. 
 
 Did he Bay who the others were ?— Not to my know- 
 ledge. 
 
 After tho negotiations or communications of 1881, 
 did the matter drop until the beginning of 1882 ?— The 
 matter was brought before the Cabinet in 1881 and 
 rejected. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— How can you say that ? You were 
 not in the Cabinet. (Laughter.) 
 The Attorney-General.— This is not a laughing 
 
 Captain W,H. O'Shea. 
 
The Special Commission, Octofrer 31," 18*88. 
 
 147 
 
 matter. The matter, as far as you were concerned, 
 dropped until the early part of 1882 ? — The matter was 
 dropped, but I recommenced it in 1882. 
 
 In April, 1882, where was Mr. Parnelli 1 — He was on 
 parole, being released from Kilmainham. 
 
 Who were his colleagues in Kilmainham ? — Mr. 
 Dillon and Mr. O'Kelly. 
 
 Did you know where Mr. Egan was then ? — I have no 
 doubt he was in Paris. 
 
 Did you in the early part of 1882 enter into certain 
 communications with members of the Government ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Were those communications in 1882 without the 
 direct authority of Mr. Parnell ? — Without any authority 
 whatever from Mr. Parnell, direct or indirect. 
 
 Please answer this question — Yes or no. Did you 
 receive certain communications from certain members 
 of the Government in the course of these communica- 
 tions ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you any communications from Mr. Parnell until 
 his release on parole ? — No. 
 
 When was he released on parole ? Do you know ? — I 
 cannot remember the date. 
 
 How did you first know of it ? — Mr. Parnell called 
 on me. 
 
 Where ? — I was at No. 1, Albert-mansions. 
 
 Had you any other house ? — Yes ; I had a house at 
 Eltham. I had an attack of gout from which I was 
 recovering. Mr. Parnell went firBt to Eltham to see 
 me, and then came to Albert-mansions. 
 
 SmC F.0SSELL. — The exact date of Mr. Parnell's 
 release on parole is the 10th of April. 
 
 The Attokney-General.— -Will you tell us what 
 passed at that interview with regard to the communi- 
 cations you had been engaged in up to that time with 
 certain representatives of the Government ? — I men- 
 tioned to him what I had done. I mentioned that I 
 had written to Mr. Gladstone, and he expressed him- 
 self pleased at the fact. 
 
 Do you remember anything else being referred to at 
 that meeting with regard to the communication to Mr. 
 Gladstone ? — No, because that was just after my com- 
 munication with Mr. Gladstone, and I promised that as 
 soon as I got an answer I would communicate it to him. 
 
 Do you remember on that occasion anything being 
 said about his release ? — We spoke about his release, 
 but it was arranged that it should not be a condi- 
 tional matter in any way. 
 
 I think you said if you got an answer you would com- 
 municate with him in Paris ? — I did. 
 
 Did he leave before you received any answer ?— Yes. 
 He dined with me and went off by the London, Chat- 
 ham, and Dover Eailway that night. 
 
 Did you subsequently, shortly after, receive a reply 
 from Mr. Gladstone ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you receive any letter from Mr. Parnell while in 
 Paris ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you got that ?— Yes. Here it is 
 It is dated 16th of April ?— Yes. 
 The letter was then read : — 
 
 " Grand Hotel, 12, Boulevard des Capucines, Paris, 
 April 16, 1882. 
 " My dear O'Shea, — Your letter with enclosure, 
 which I now return, has duly reached me, and is very 
 interesting. I trust that something may come out of 
 the correspondence, and certainly the prospect looks 
 favourable. You were right to accentuate the 
 difference between a gift and a loan. If you read 
 Fottrell's evidence before the Lords' Committee you 
 will see what I mean. The latter will only benefit 
 the lawyers, who are making far too much out of the 
 Irish land question as it is. I think Fottrell's estimate 
 of the amount requisite very near the mark. I cannot 
 at all see how the ownership of land in Ireland in the 
 occupation of tenants can ever again fetch the prices 
 of the interval between '70 and '77. A permanent 
 settlement is most desirable for everybody's sake, and 
 this can only be done by extending the term of repay- 
 ment. According to my calculation about eight 
 millions of pounds sterling would enable three-fourths 
 of the tenants (those at or under £30 valuation) to 
 become owners at fairly remunerative prices to the 
 landlords. The larger class of tenants can do well 
 enough with the Law Courts if Mr. Healy's clause be 
 fairly amended. I am very much obliged for your 
 kind inquiries regarding my sister. She was very much 
 cut up, but is somewhat better now. My presence 
 here has been a great help to her in every way. I 
 shall probably be returning through London Sunday 
 next, and will look you up if I have time. 
 " Yours very truly, 
 
 " Chas. S. Parnell." 
 
 Now, on receipt of that letter from Mr. Parnell, did 
 you make certain communications, continue making 
 communications, with certain members of the Govern- 
 ment ? — Yes. 
 
 Did Mr. Parnell return from Paris before yon 
 expected him or not ? — He returned from Paris sooner 
 than I expected him. 
 
 On what date did you see him again ? — I cannot 
 remember perfectly the date ; but I should think it 
 was on the Wednesday. 
 
 That is April 19, I think ; it would probably be 
 April 19. Did he telegraph to you that he was com- 
 ing ?— Yes. 
 
 Where to ?— To Eltham. 
 
 Did you know whether any of Mr. Parnell's 
 immediate followers, other than those who were in 
 Kilmainham, were in London at the same time ? — Yes, 
 a good many of them. 
 
 Did you see Mr. Parnell alone ? — Oh, yes, I saw Mr. 
 Parnell alone ; I never had anything to do with any 
 one but Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Do you remember on the Wednesday a conversation 
 with Mr. Parnell about Mr. Davitt ?— I have no doubt 
 that there was a conversation respecting Mr. Davitt ; 
 but I cannot remember the exact date. 
 
 Never mind about the date. Do you remember on 
 the occasion of Mr. Parnell being out of Kilmainham 
 
 Captain W. E. O'Shea. 
 
148 
 
 The Special -Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 whether he said anything about Mr. Davitt?— Yes. I was 
 particularly anxious that Davitt should be released, 
 and I exerted myself to that purpose. 
 
 Will you tell us what passed between you and Mr. 
 Parnell with reference to Davitt's release ? — At that 
 time nothing more than that. We spoke about it ; he 
 agreed that it would be very advantageous indeed if 
 Mr. Davitt were to be released. I felt strongly myself, 
 and spoke to him strongly on the point also. 
 
 Did he say anything about negotiations with Mr. 
 Davitt, or about any difficulty ? — Not at that time. 
 
 On that occasion, at Eltham, do you remember his 
 referring to the release of others of his colleagues ? — 
 He remained several days before he returned to Kil- 
 mainham 
 
 How many times did you see him ? — Oh, constantly. 
 
 Did he say anything about the release of any other 
 of his colleagues ? — Yes ; he saw an objection to the 
 release of certain of his colleagues. 
 
 Explain what you mean by au objection. — He thought 
 it would be inexpedient to release certain prisoners. 
 
 Why ? — Because he did not think that they could be 
 released at that time with advantage to the policy 
 which was being pursued. 
 
 Do you remember whether on that occasion at 
 Eltham he mentioned any names ? — Yes ; there were 
 some names which I was to mention to Mr. Chamber- 
 lain, and which I did mention to Mr. Chamberlain. 
 
 As persons not to be released ? — Yes ; as persons not 
 to be released ; but neither Mr. Chamberlain nor 
 myself approved of it. 
 
 Can you tell me the names of any you remember ?— 
 Yes ; Brennan. 
 
 Was Mr. Brennan in Kilmainham at that time ? — I 
 •rather think he was in another gaol. 
 
 Did you know what Mr. Brennan was — what his 
 occupation had been ? — I knew he was an agitator. 
 
 Did you know he was connected with the League ? — 
 Oh, yes. I think I must have known that. 
 
 Did you know he was secretary, or treasurer, or 
 what ? — I knew he was an official of the Land League. 
 
 Now, on that occasion, Mr. O'Shea — I am speaking 
 of the visit to Eltham— were the outrages discussed 1 — 
 Oh, yes ; largely discussed. 
 
 Will you tell us what was said, the substance 
 of what was said, between you and Mr. Parnell on that 
 occasion,whenhewas on that visit, before he went back 
 to Kilmainham ? — Communications were being carried 
 on by the Government at that time, and in the course 
 of those communications naturally the question of the 
 release of prisoners came up. It is only fair to Mr. 
 Parnell to say that he never made any conditions him- 
 self in the discussion of these matters as to the con- 
 duct he should adopt 
 
 SikC. RuS3ell. — Oh,no,no;your communications 
 
 The Attorney-General.— No, Mr. Parnell's future 
 conduct. 
 
 The Witness. — He authorized me to say thab he 
 would do his utmost to do what he afterwards said in 
 , the Kilmainham letter. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Well, we are not 
 going into the Kilmainham letter at present. What 
 did he authorize you to say he would do ? — Put down 
 outrages. 
 
 Did he say anything in regard to rent ? — Yes. 
 
 What did he say ?— That the No-rent Manifesto 
 should be withdrawn. 
 
 Did he say anything about advice to tenants as to 
 payment of rent ? — I take it that that was included in 
 the withdrawal of the No-rent Manifesto. 
 
 Do you remember whether he referred at all to in« 
 timidation or boycotting ?— Yes. 
 
 What did he say ? — He had always thought that if 
 the question Of arrears were settled it would be a 
 matter of material benefit ; that outrages would be put 
 down and boycotting also ; and he would endeavour to 
 do that by the aid of his friends. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Would your Lordship allow the 
 shorthand writer to read that answer ? 
 
 The President.— Certainly. 
 
 The shorthand writer having done so, 
 
 The Attorney-General, resuming the examination 
 of the witness, asked, Did you embody the result of 
 your conversation with Mr. Parnell in a written 
 memorandum ? — Hardly, but 
 
 Did you at the time embody it in a memorandum ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Which you handed, I think, to a member of the Go- 
 vernment ? — It was by myself or a member of the 
 Government. 
 
 The President. — " Or "or " for " 'i — With a 
 member of the Government. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Have you got that ? The 
 witness produced a document which was handed to the 
 Attorney-General . 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Whose handwriting is this 
 in ? — Mr. Chamberlain's. 
 
 The document was handed back to the witness. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— What I want to ask you, 
 looking at that, is, "Did it at any rate truthfully repre- 
 sent the substance of what Mr. Parnell had said to 
 you ? Up to that time I mean ? — Yes. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I put that in, my Lords. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Well, I have not seen it, and do 
 not know whether it is evidence ; but I do not 
 object. 
 
 The President.— I understand you do not object, Sir 
 Charles ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. ~No, my Lord : I would rather the 
 document was read. 
 
 The President.— Will you look at it, Sir Charles ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — If your Lordship pleases. 
 
 The document was handed to SirC. Russell and then 
 to the Secretary of the Commission, who proceeded to 
 read it :— " 22d April, 1882."— That is in pencil on 
 tho top left-hand corner — " 72, Prince's-gate, S.W. If 
 the Government announce a satisfactory plan of deal- 
 ing with arrears, Mr. Parnell will advise all tenants to 
 pay rents, and will denounce outrages and resistance 
 to law and all processes of intimidation, whether by 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 149 
 
 boycotting or in any other way. No plan of dealing 
 with arrears will be satisfactory which does not wipe 
 them off compulsorily by composition, one-third payable 
 by tenant, one-third by the State from the Church 
 Fund or some other public source, and one-third re- 
 mitted by the landlord, so that the contribution by 
 the tenant and the State shall not exceed one year's 
 rent ; the balance, if any, to be remitted by the land- 
 lord. Arrears to be denned as arrears accruing up to 
 1881." 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Now, Mr. O'Shea, did 
 you, on April 23 — only answer my question, yes or no — 
 write a letter to Mr. Chamberlain ? — Yes. 
 
 Of which, I think, you have a copy ? You need not 
 trouble to read it, only answer my question. I think 
 it is April 23, 1882 ?— Yes. 
 
 In substance, on the question of outrages, payment of 
 rent, boycotting, and intimidation, do you remember, 
 prior to Mr. Parnell's returning to Kilmainham, any- 
 thing more passing between him and you — I am speak- 
 ing of that period prior to your going to Kilmainham ? 
 — I do not remember anything else. 
 
 Mr. Parnell went back to Kilmainham — just answer 
 my question, yes or no — did you continue the negotia- 
 tions which had been commenced before and continued 
 while Mr. Parnell was in London, after he went back 
 to Kilmainham ? — Yes. 
 
 On April 27, 1882, did you consider it desirable to go 
 to Kilmainham to see Mr. Parnell yourself ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you know, Mr. O'Shea, with reference to what 
 passed before and while you were at Kilmainham, 
 whether the fact of your negotiations was known to 
 the other members of the party ? 
 
 Sir C. Kussell.— My Lords, I object to that ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I think my learned 
 friend does not quite understand my question ; I meant 
 from Mr. Parnell. 
 
 The Attorney-General having repeated his ques- 
 tion, the witness said, — During my interview in 
 Kilmainham I was told they were not. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Had anything passed 
 between you and Mr. Parnell prior to your going to 
 Kilmainham as to yoar going there 'I — Yes, a letter. 
 
 Had anything passed in conversation as to your going 
 to Kilmainham ?— I do not remember. 
 
 Have you the letter — had you received a letter ? — 
 Yes, I received a letter. 
 
 Upon this particular matter with reference to your 
 going to Kilmainham ? — Yes. Do you want the letter ? 
 
 I want it if you have it there. Witness handed a 
 letter to the learned counsel, and it was read by the 
 secretary as follows : — 
 
 " April 27, 1882. 
 
 " My dear O'Shea, — Wednesday's proceedings were 
 very promising so far as they went. I think it would 
 be well now to wait and see what proposals are made, 
 as an appearance of over-anxiety on your part might 
 be injurious. The journey from London was very fair 
 and quiet, and I got as far as Holyhead without being 
 
 recognized. If you come to Ireland I think you had 
 best not see me, for reasons I will explain hereafter. 
 ' ' Yours very truly, 
 
 " C. S. PARNELL." 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Do you know what Wed- 
 nesday's proceedings were ?— Yes, a Wednesday's 
 debate in the House of Commons on a Bill brought in 
 by one of Mr. Parnell's colleagues. 
 
 Which of his colleagues ? Do you remember ? — Mr. 
 Bedmond, I think. I am not quite certain, but I am 
 almost certain. 
 
 Did you receive a tolegram from Mr. Parnell about 
 the same time ? — Yes ; but I do not think I received 
 it until I returned from Kilmainham. 
 
 That period does not come till afterwards. You 
 had left London before the telegram arrived. Did any- 
 thing pass between you and Mr. Parnell while at 
 Kilmainham with reference to what he referred to in 
 that letter as to the desirability of your not seeing him ? 
 — Yes ; but arising out of that he told me he should, on 
 my leaving, immediately inform Mr. Dillon and Mr. 
 O'Kelly that some one had been to see him. 
 
 Anything more ? — Not that I remember. 
 
 I do not want to anticipate or come to the interview, 
 but I want to know whether or not Mr. Parnell referred 
 to the reasons he mentions in his letter for not seeing 
 you. He says, you know, in his letter, " if you come 
 to Ireland I think you had best not see me, for reasons 
 I will explain hereafter." Did he refer to those reasons 
 when you met ? — As far as I remember he did not. Ho 
 thought it was injudicious that I should see him at 
 that time at Kilmainham among all the others there. 
 
 You had an order to see him F— Yes, Mr. Forster 
 gave me an order, 30 that I might make it clear to the 
 Cabinet how everything was going on. 
 
 You went to Kilmainham, I think, in a four-wheeled 
 cab ? — Yes. with the Deputy Chairman of the Irish 
 Prisons Board. 
 
 Was a letter written by you in Kilmainham and 
 signed by Mr. Parnell ?— No, the letter was written by 
 Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Written while you were there ? — Yes, written while 
 I was there. 
 
 The whole of that letter was written by Mr. Parnell ? 
 — Yes, the whole of it was written by him. 
 
 Before that letter was written, will you tell us what 
 conversation passed between you and Mr. Parnell on 
 the subject of outrages, intimidation, and payment of 
 rent ? — Yes ; I explained to him that this was a very 
 important matter to several members of the Cabinet, 
 and must be clearly set out, and we had n long con- 
 versation, the outcome of which was the letter, in 
 which, I think, he stated exactly what he wanted. 
 
 I will read the letter, of course, presently, but was 
 only a hurried reference made to the question of out- 
 rages ?— Oh no, much more than that. There was an 
 earnest conversation respecting the No-rent Manifesto 
 and outrages. Apart from my official character, I 
 asked Mr. Parnell privately if he was sure he would 
 be able to carry out the euarantee he had given with 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
150 
 
 The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 the aid of his colleagues, and to pat down boycotting, 
 outrages, and the no-rent movement ? He gave me that 
 assurance, saying that the outrages were largely com- 
 mitted by the sons of tenants in arrear. The Arrears 
 Bill, he said, would, of course, have a good effect on 
 them, and that he had every confidence that his autho- 
 rity and that of his colleagues was so great that I 
 might assure the Ministry that he would be able to do 
 what they wanted. 
 
 Do you remember whether this particular part of the 
 conversation occurred before or after the letter was 
 written ? — I should think both before and after. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, I think it is 
 best to try and get the whole of the conversation before 
 I read the letter. Inasmuch as I understand that the 
 conversation took place before the letter was written, 
 I will not divide it. (To witness) Did Mr. Parnell 
 refer to any particular men or names ? — Yes. 
 
 To whom ? — He spoke of what ought to be done in 
 the case of my success in getting his release, and 
 carrying the negotiations through, on which his release 
 would, of course, immediately take place. It Is due 
 to Mr. Parnell to say that his condition of release was 
 never put forward as an absolute condition. 
 
 No ; that is not suggested. What I want to know is 
 this — do you remember his referring to anybody else 
 in connexion with the putting down of outrages ? — 
 Yes : we had a long conversation about it. He was 
 anxious that certain men should be released. 
 
 Who were they ? — Boyton and Sheridan. 
 
 Will you tell me what he said about Sheridan ? — 
 He said that he had been an organizer in the west, 
 that he knew everybody, and that Mr. Parnell 
 believed that, if he were released and he could 
 see him, he would be able to use him for the purpose 
 of putting down outrages. I am not quite sure, how- 
 ever, that it was a question of release in Sheridan's 
 case. I think there was merely, a warrant out against 
 him. 
 
 Did Mr. Parnell tell you anything you were to 
 do or to say with regard to Sheridan ? — Yes ; I was to 
 repeat what he had said to Mr. Forster, and I did re- 
 ' peat it to him. 
 
 Just give us a collected statement, if you can, of 
 what you were to repeat to the Government with re- 
 gard to Sheridan. — That he had been an organizer in 
 the west of Ireland ; that he had made many acquaint- 
 ances in the district, and that he would be a most use- 
 ful man to use for the purpose of putting down outrage 
 and boycotting if Mr. Parnell saw him. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— " If Mr. Parnell saw 
 him." I do not know whether your Lordships heard the 
 end of the sentence. 
 
 The President.— Yes, we did. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Now, did he say anything 
 more as to the necessity of his seeing Sheridan ?— Yes, 
 he said that he was very anxious to see him in 
 the case of his own release. 
 
 You mentioned a short time ago something about 
 Boyton. What did Mr. Parnell 6ay about Boyton ?— 
 
 Very much the same thing, only he had been an or- 
 ganizer, not in the west, but in another province. 
 
 Did he name the province P — Yes, I rather think that 
 it was Leinster ; but I am not at all certain. 
 
 In this conversation was Egan's name mentioned at 
 all ?— Yes. 
 
 What did he say about Egan 'I He said he was 
 anxious to see him, and that I ought to get Egan back 
 also. 
 
 Did he say why you should try and get Egan back ?— 
 I have no doubt he knew 
 
 Sir C. Kussell.— No, no. Tell us, please, what he 
 said. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — As far as you recollect 
 tell us what Mr. Parnell said about Egan. — He said he 
 should he anxious to see him, as then he should be able 
 to show him the advantages of the policy he was 
 adopting. 
 
 Now, do you remember asking him anything about 
 these three men collectively as to his power over them 
 — that is to say over Egan, Sheridan, and Boyton ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 What did he say ? — In the course of conversation he 
 told me several times that ho was confident that if he 
 saw them first he should be able to induce them to do 
 what he wanted. 
 
 Do you remember the actual expression he used when 
 he said if he saw them first? — Yes. He said if he got 
 the first run at them. 
 
 Had you yourself any knowledge of the working of 
 the Land League ? — No, no private knowledge ; none 
 except what was in the general knowledge of the public. 
 I had no private knowledge of its affairs, and I was never 
 connected with its affairs. 
 
 Had you ever been connected with it 1 — No. 
 
 Now, in the course of this conversation, was Mr. 
 Davitt's name referred to ? — Yes. 
 
 What passed at Kilmainham with reference to Mr. 
 Davitt ? — Very much the same conversation passed with 
 reference to him as to the others. He was in a diffe- 
 rent position, as he was in penal servitude. Mr. Par- 
 nell said he was very anxious to see Mr. Davitt re- 
 leased, and he was anxious that the release of the other 
 men should include Mr. Davitt. 
 
 Do you remember anything being said at Kilmainham 
 as to when Mr. Davitt should be released? — No, because 
 nothing was arranged at that time about his release. 
 
 Did anything pass on that occasion about Mr. Parnell 
 seeing Mr. Davitt or not ? — All I can s»y is- that Mr. 
 Parnell said that he was anxious that the release should 
 include Mr. Davitt. 
 
 Now you have referred to these three men — do you 
 recollect any conversation taking place about keeping 
 these persons in prison ?— That subject was not referred 
 to then. 
 
 Did you bring away a letter signed by Mr. Parnell ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 What did you do with it ? — I took it the next morning 
 —Sunday — to Mr. Forster, at his house. 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
The Special Commission, October 31, 188s: 
 
 151 
 
 Have you a copy of it ? — No ; but it has been pub- 
 lished. 
 
 You have not got the letter itself ? — No ; it was handed 
 to the Cabinet. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — How can you know that ? 
 
 The President. — You ought to leave out the 
 reference to the Cabinet. Of course you ought not to 
 know what was done there. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Was that letter read by 
 Mr. Parnell on the 15th of May in your hearing in the 
 House of Commons ? — Yes, but it was read by Mr. 
 Parnell with certain omissions. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I will read the whole 
 letter as it was signed by Mr. Parnell. The actual 
 print of it is to be found in " Hansard," vol. 269, p. 
 9,72, as it was read by Mr. Parnell himself in the 
 House of Commons. It is dated from Kilmainham, 
 April 28, 1882, and it is in the following terms : — 
 
 ' ' I was very sorry that you had left Albert-mansions 
 before I reached London from Eltham.as I had wished to 
 tell you that, after our conversation, I had made up 
 my mind that it would be proper for me to put Mr. 
 M'Carthy in possession Of the views which I had pre- 
 viously communicated to you. I desire to impress upon 
 you the absolute necessity of a settlement of the 
 arrears question, which will leave no recurring sore 
 connected with it behind, and which will enable us to 
 show the smaller tenantry that they have been treated 
 with justice and some generosity. The proposal you 
 have described to me, as suggested in some quarters, 
 of making a loan, over however many years the pay- 
 ment might be spread, should be absolutely rejected, 
 for reasons which I have already fully explained to 
 you. If the arrears question be settled upon the lines 
 indicated by us, I have every confidence — a confidence 
 shared by my colleagues — that the exertions which we 
 should be able to make, strenuously and unremittingly, 
 would be effective in stopping outrages and intimida- 
 tion of all kinds. As regards permanent legislation of 
 an ameliorating character, I may say that the views 
 which you always shared with me, as to the admission 
 of leaseholders to the fair-rent clauses of the Act, are 
 more confirmed than ever. So long as the flower of the 
 Irish peasantry are kept outside the Act there cannot 
 be the permanent settlement of the Land Act which we 
 all so much desire. I should also strongly hope that 
 some compromise might be arrived at this Session with 
 regard to the amendment of the tenure clauses of the 
 Land Act. It is unnecessary for me to dwell upon the 
 enormous advantage to be derived from the full exten- 
 sion of the purchase clauses, which now seem practi- 
 cally to have been adopted by all parties. 
 The accomplishment of the programme I have 
 sketched out to you would, in my judgment, be 
 regarded by the country as a practical settlement of 
 the land question, and would, I am sure, enable us 
 to co-operate cordially for the future with the Liberal 
 party in forwarding Liberal principles ; and I believe 
 that the Government at the end of the Session would, 
 from the state of the country, feel themselves 
 thoroughly justified in dispensing with further coercive 
 measures. 
 
 " Yours truly, 
 
 " Chas. S. Parnell." 
 
 The President. — To whom is that letter addressed. 
 The Attorney-General. — It is addressed to ' ' My 
 dear Mr. O'Shea." 
 
 The President.— The witness says that the whole of 
 the letter was not read by Mr. Parnell. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The letter is dated from 
 Kilmainham on the 28th of April, 1882. It was in Mr. 
 Parnell's handwriting, and is signed by him, and is 
 addressed to Mr. O'Shea. When the letter was first 
 read in the House of Commons by Mr. Parnell some 
 words were left out, were they not ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you recollect which words they were that were 
 left out ? — Yes ; they were these : — " And would, I 
 am sure, enable us to co-operate cordially for the 
 future with the Liberal party in forwarding Liberal 
 principles " in measures connected with Ireland. Mr. 
 Parnell read from a copy I gave him. A few minutes 
 afterwards the omission was challenged by Mr. Forster, 
 and I read the omitted passage. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — However, were the 
 omitted words contained in the letter which was signed 
 by Mr. Parnell ?— Yes. 
 
 And within a few minutes after the first part of the 
 letter was read in the House of Commons the omitted 
 portions were read also ? — Yes. 
 
 In faot, they together appear on the same page of 
 " Hansard " ?— Yes. 
 
 I am afraid I must go back to one matter that has 
 escaped my recollection. Do you recollect Mr. Parnell 
 mentioning any names of persons to whom he would, 
 after your departure, make a communication ? — Yes ; 
 he said he would make a communication to Mr. Dillon 
 and Mr. O'Kelly. He said that he would let them 
 know as much as was good for them. 
 
 Do you recollect any other references which he made 
 to his fellow prisoners at that time ? — No. 
 
 When you came back to London did you give a 
 letter to Mr. Forster on the 20th ?— Yes ; on Sunday 
 morning, which I believe was the 30th. 
 
 Did you continue negotiations on the basis of what 
 had passed between you and Mr. Parnell on your return 
 to London ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember it being determined to release Mr. 
 Parnell and some of his fellow-prisoners, such as Mr. 
 Dillon and Mr. O'Kelly ?— Yes. 
 
 They were released on the night of Tuesday, the 2d 
 of May ?— Yes. 
 
 Had you any communication between your interview 
 at Kilmainham and the 6th of April with regard to 
 Mr. Davitt's release ?— With Mr. Parnell when he re- 
 turned to London. 
 
 How soon after his return to London did you com- 
 municate with him ? — Very soon after ; I think on the 
 Thursday morning. 
 
 When he returned to Loudon, did he come and see 
 you ?— Yes. 
 
 What did he say to you ? — I told him that Mr. 
 Davitt was to be released, and he said to me that it 
 would be inexpedient that he should be released until 
 he saw him, and asked me to see the proper authority 
 on the subject. 
 
 As to what ?— As to Mr. Davitt's release being post- 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
rea 
 
 The Special Commission, October 31, 188S. 
 
 poued nntil he should be able to go down and see him 
 personally. 
 
 Did you do so ? — Yes. 
 
 Did Mr. Paniell on the same occasion when he came 
 and saw you say anything further about Sheridan ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 What did he asfc you to do as regards Sheridan ?— He 
 asked me, when I saw the proper authority on the sub- 
 ject of deferring Mr. Davitt's release, at the same 
 time to get the warrant which was out against Sheridan 
 cancelled. 
 
 The two matters which Mr. Parnell spoke to you 
 about when he came to see you were, first, the deferring 
 the release of Mr. Davitt until he had seen him, 
 and, secondly, the cancelling of the warrant which 
 was out against Sheridan ? — Yes. 
 
 Did anything more of importance occur on that occa- 
 sion ?— I cannot remember now. 
 
 Now, answer this question, yes or no. Did you 
 nabe a communication to the authorities as to Mr. 
 Davitt's release being delayed ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember the date fixed until when his re- 
 lease was to be delayed ? — Yes ; it was Saturday, the 
 6th. 
 
 Did you communicate to Mr. Parnell the result of 
 four interview with the authorities 't — Yes, with re- 
 spect to Mr. Davitt and Sheridan. 
 
 Did Mr. Parnell subsequently go down to Portland ? 
 -Yes. 
 
 With whom ?— I think with Mr. Dillon. 
 
 On the morning of Saturday, the 6th ? — Yes. 
 
 Did anything else of importance pass between you 
 and Mr. Parnell after that, prior to the Phosnix Park 
 murders ?— I do not recollect. 
 
 Did Mr. Parnell come to you on the Sunday morn- 
 ing ? — Yes ; at No. 1, Albert-mansions. 
 
 At what time on the Sunday morning did Mr. Parnell 
 come to you ?— It was early in the day ; I do not re- 
 collect the exact hour. 
 
 Do yon recollect that day a manifesto being referred 
 to ?— Yes. 
 
 How many interviews did you have with Mr. Parnell 
 on that day ? — Several. 
 
 Do you recollect going to see Mr. Hamilton at Mr. 
 I'arneirs request ? — Yes. 
 
 Who was Mr. Hamilton ?— He was secretary to Mr. 
 Gladstone . 
 
 Did Mr. Parnell say whom he had seen about the 
 manifesto ? — Yes ; he told me all about the matter. 
 
 Tell us what he said. — He said the manifesto had 
 been drawn up. I do not know that I saw it before he 
 showed it to me at Mr. Chamberlain's house. 
 
 At what time of the day was that ? — In the after- 
 noon. 
 
 Did he say by whom it had been drawn 
 np ?— Yes ; by Mr. Davitt. It was a mistake to 
 suppose that he was not in favour of the mani- 
 festo, as he was in favour of it, as it was necessary to 
 pander to Mr. Davitt's vanity ; but he added that I 
 must draft it. 
 
 Oh, I see ; he objected to the English of it. It was 
 the bombast of the document he objected to ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you recollect on one of these occasions on 
 that day Mr. Parnell saying anything about him- 
 self ? — Yes, he spoke of the danger in which he was. 
 
 When was that ? — That was in a cab on the way back 
 from Mr. Chamberlain's house. 
 
 Do yon remember what he said ? — Yes, he said he 
 was in personal danger, and asked me to get police 
 protection for him. 
 
 Did you do anything for him ? — Yes. 
 
 What '} — When I returned to Albert-mansions I found 
 there a request that I should go to Sir William Harcourt 
 immediately, and I went. 
 
 Did you make any communication to Sir William 
 Harcourt in reference to police protection ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know whether it was granted ? — Yes. 
 
 Was any one else present besides Sir William 
 Harcourt when you made that request ? — I do not 
 recollect, but I rather think his son was. 
 
 Just answer this question, yes or no — Was a commu- 
 nication made to you by Sir William Harcourt the same 
 day with reference to the withdrawal of the warrant 
 against Sheridan ? — Yes ; that was what he had sent for 
 me for. He told me 
 
 You must not tell me what he told you. Just answer 
 the question, yes or no, because I am supposed to know 
 what you can say and what you cannot say. Did you 
 have an interview with Mr. Parnell afterwards ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you say anything to him about the Sheridan diffi- 
 culty ? — Yes. 
 
 What did you say ? — I told him that I had been 
 informed that Sheridan, whose warrant was cancelled 
 on the previous Thursday at my request, was a 
 murderer and a concoctor of murder, that the police 
 had informed the Home Secretary of the fact that he 
 could not be allowed to remain in this country without 
 arrest, but that, having been informed of that, I — having 
 been the cause of his warrant being cancelled — had 
 begged that he should be given at least " short law." I 
 said that he must be communicated with immediately. 
 Mr. Parnell told mo that he had no communication 
 with him directly, but knew a person who could commu- 
 nicate with him, and he went out for the purpose of 
 seeing that person. 
 
 Did he say who it was ? Did he mention the name of 
 the person P — No. 
 
 How long was he gone ?— He was gone for some time. 
 
 What did he say when he came back ? — He said that 
 he thought that it was all right. 
 
 Did you learn from Mr. Parnell who was the person 
 who could communicate with Sheridan ?— I do not 
 remember. I do not think so. 
 
 Now will you look at the signature to that letter 
 dated the 15th of May, 1882 ? 
 
 Sip. C. Russell. — Is that the alleged Parnell letter r 
 
 The Attokney-Generai.— Yes. In whose hand- 
 writing do you say that signature is ? — I know nothing 
 about signatures. 
 
 I know you are not an expert. But as far as you 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Skea. 
 
The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 153 
 
 can say — in whose handwriting do you believe that 
 signature to be ? — It appears to be Mr. Parnell's 
 signature. 
 
 Now just look at the two letters of the 16th of 
 June, 1882. Whose signatures do you believe these 
 to be ? — I believe them to be Mr. Parnell's. 
 
 Can you tell me, did the occurrence of the Phoenix 
 Park murders appear to affect Mr. Parnell's health ? — 
 Yes, I think they did. They certainly affected his 
 spirits. 
 
 What was the condition of his nerves and health 
 about this time and for a month or five weeks after- 
 wards ? — I can only say that he was very much 
 dispirited by what had occurred. 
 
 Now, just look at this document of the 9th of 
 January, 1882. 
 
 The President. — What is this document and the 
 letters of the 16th of June ? I do not carry their 
 nature in my mind. 
 
 The letters were then handed up to the President. 
 Subsequently, the witness's attention was again called 
 to the letter of January 9, 1882, and he said, — I believe 
 the signature to be that of Mr. Parnell. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Just look at these other 
 three documents. Their contents, my Lord, are not 
 material. They are put in merely for the sake 
 of the handwriting. (To witness.) Now take those 
 three letters in your hand and tell us whose hand- 
 writing you believe them to be ? — I believe them to be 
 Mr. Parnell's. 
 
 Where are yon now engaged, Mr. O'Shea— in what 
 business or place ? — I am not engaged in business, but 
 I am engaged on business in Madrid. 
 
 Are you obliged to leave England ? — Yes, it would be 
 very inconvenient if I were detained here, or if I had 
 to come back for the purpose of attending the Com- 
 mission. 
 
 Is your business in Madrid pressing ? — Yes. 
 
 The President. — Now, Sir Charles. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The latter part of the witness's 
 evidence, my Lords, has come upon me by surprise — 
 namely, that part which relates to the opinion of this 
 witness as to the signatures to the letters. I would 
 suggest whether it would not be convenient to go at 
 once into the whole case of the letters. It will be 
 possible for me in a day or two to cross-examine this 
 witness and thus save the necessity of his returning from 
 Madrid. 
 
 The President. — I understand your difficulty is due 
 to the evidence as to the handwriting. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Not wholly, my Lord. I own I 
 could not ask Mr. O'Shea to come back to be cross- 
 examined as to that part only. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— May I make one observa- 
 tion in reference to this application ? I shall not for 
 one moment oppose any suggestion in this matter that 
 your Lordships think reasonable, but I do respect- 
 fully submit that to postpone the cross-examination of 
 this witness without some ground being shown is very 
 inconvenient. My statement as to Mr. O'Shea's evi- 
 
 dence was made on Tuesday or Wednesday last, and I 
 submit that no adequate ground has been shown for 
 postponing this cross-examination. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — I have not made the application 
 •to your Lordships idly or without a full recognition 
 of my responsibility in making it. 
 
 The President. — I think it right to state that, so 
 far as the examination has proceeded, we are unable 
 to see any reason why the cross-examination should be 
 postponed. In a matter of this kind, however, we are 
 obliged, and we are usually justified, to rely on the 
 statement made by counsel. If Sir Charles Russell 
 says that he is not in a position to cross-examine now, 
 we feel bound to grant his application, but it is right 
 that I should point out that if, from any unforeseen 
 causes, we should not have the advantage of this witness's 
 attendance again, his evidence must be taken without 
 the cross-examination. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — There can scarcely be a question 
 as to obtaining this gentleman's presence except under 
 circumstances beyond human control. He lives and is 
 a resident in London. 
 
 The President. — It is not necessary to enter into 
 any discussion. I have stated the view of the Court 
 on this point. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I feel that we should have a clear 
 understanding. Am I to understand that the power of 
 the Court will not be used to compel the attendance of 
 Mr. O'Shea at a later stage ? 
 
 The President.— We, of course, would use the powers 
 of the Court to compel the attendance of a witness if 
 necessary. But I must repeat that if, from any un- 
 foreseen cause, his attendance cannot be procured, his 
 evidence already given must be taken as un-cross- 
 examined. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell. — I hope I am not unduly pressing 
 the Court in asking for an assurance that the ordi- 
 nary powers of the Court will be used to enforce the 
 attendance, if necessary, of Captain O'Shea for cross- 
 examination. 
 
 The President. — I have already said so. The Conrt 
 will exercise its powers to enforce tho attendance of 
 any witness it deems necessary. 
 
 Witness. — Might I make a statement, my Lords ? 
 
 The President.— With regard 'to your attendance ? 
 
 Witness. — Yes. I would ask that no unreasonable 
 delay should take place. It would be very hard on me 
 to be kept here. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have already made a proposition 
 which I thought might be considered by my learned 
 friend. I did not know this witness was to give evi- 
 dence on the genuineness of the letters. 
 
 The President. — You say that this evidence has sur- 
 prised you, Sir Charles Russell ; but your application 
 for. the postponement of the cross-examination was 
 made before that evidence was given. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is so. But 
 
 The President. — I cannot see why, because some un- 
 expected evidence has been given, you cannot cross-ex« 
 I amine. 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea., 
 
154 
 
 The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— If the whole case with regard to 
 the letters was gone into, then in two or three days I 
 would he ready to cross-examine the witness. Perhaps 
 my learned friend could say when he proposes to take 
 that part of the case. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I cannot make any state- 
 ment on that point. We will lay the evidence before 
 your Lordships as far as we can in proper order. I have 
 applied to your Lordships to take this witness out of 
 the proper order because he is obliged to leave England. 
 It is altogether unreasonable of my learned friend to 
 ask me to enter into any arrangement or bargain. 
 
 Sir C. Kussell. — I ask for no bargain. 
 
 The President (to witness). — When do you propose 
 to leave London ? 
 
 Witness. — That depends on your Lordships. I did pro- 
 pose to leave to-morrow. 
 
 The President. — When do you propose to return ? 
 
 Witness. — I would return when your Lordships wish— 
 at your Lordships' convenience. But I should prefer 
 to wait here until after my cross-examination. 
 
 The President. — It appears to mo, Sir Charles, that 
 you should prepare yourself within the next few days to 
 cross-examine this witness. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I should be in no better position 
 then than now unless the Attorney-General is prepared 
 to accede to my suggestion. I am afraid your Lordships 
 do not fully appreciate my difficulty. 
 
 The President. — You have something in reserve that 
 you do not feel at liberty to disclose now ? 
 
 Sir C. EtTSSELL. — I do not say that exactly, my 
 Lord. 
 
 The President. — I can do no more than repeat what 
 I have said. We shaIl,of course, insist upon Mr.O'Shea's 
 return if i(j appears necessary to do so. But if from any 
 accident whatever he is not here when we desire his 
 presence, we shall deal with the evidence he has 
 already given. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Does your Lordship say that it 
 will be a matter within your Lordships' discretion 
 whether Captain O'Shea shall be required to return ? 
 
 The President.— Certainly, certainly. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Then, my Lords, under those cir- 
 cumstances I must go on. 
 
 The President. r— Very well. 
 
 Sir C. Russell then proceeded to cross-examine the 
 witness : — 
 
 When, Mr. O'Shea, were you first applied to by The 
 Times to be a witness in this case ? — On the 3d of 
 August. 
 
 What are you reading ?— Merely certain extracts 
 from my diary. 
 
 Let me see them. Was it by letter that you were 
 applied to ? — Indirectly. I was asked whether I had 
 any objection to give information to The Times. 
 
 By whom were you asked ? — A letter was written by 
 Mr. Buckle. 
 
 Have you got it ? — No. It was not to me ; it was 
 to Mr. Chamberlain. 
 
 Did Mr. Chamberlain see you 1 — Yes ; but I do not 
 
 think he was asked to see me. I went to see him on 
 another matter. 
 
 Where? — To his house. 
 
 On what business ? — To talk over the attack made 
 by Mr. Parnell on Mr. Chamberlain and myself in the 
 House of Commons. 
 
 What was the date of that attack ?— The 31st of 
 July, I think. 
 
 In the present year ? — Yes. 
 
 And you went to consult with Mr. Chamberlain as 
 to what course he ought to take ? — Yes. 
 
 To talk over matters and consider whether you 
 ought to make some answer in the public Press, n» be 
 in the House of Commons ? — No ; I had already 
 written to The Times, and my letter appeared on the 
 2d of August. 
 
 And in the course of talking over this matter of Mr. 
 Parnell's attack on you and Mr. Chamberlain he intro- 
 duced Mr. Buckle's letter ? — Yes ; he told me he 
 had received a letter from Mr. Buckle. 
 
 Did he show you the letter ? — I am not quite sure. 
 
 Will you swear he did not ? — I do not think he did. 
 I am not sure whether he showed it to me to read or 
 not. 
 
 What was in the letter ? — Whether I should mind 
 giving evidence in the case. 
 
 What date do you give for that ? — The first days of 
 August. I should think the 3d. 
 
 Was it in reference to this Commission or to 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter " ?— Oh, in reference to this 
 Commission. " O'Donnell v. Walter " had been over 
 for a long time. 
 
 Did you agree to give that evidence ? — No. 
 
 When did you agree to give evidence ? — After I had 
 been subpoenaed by Mr. Parnell. 
 
 When were you subpoenaed by Mr. Parnell P— On 
 Thursday, the 23d of August. 
 
 Then did you see Mr. Chamberlain after that ?— No ; 
 Mr. Chamberlain had left town. 
 
 Did you communicate with him ? — Certainly. 
 
 You professed your readiness to give evidence for 
 The Times ?— Yes, on the 24th of August. I said I 
 would do so in order to have an opportunity of ref utiDg 
 the slanders circulated about me by Mr. Parnell and 
 his friends in regard to these letters. 
 
 Then you volunteered to give evidence in order to 
 have an opportunity of refuting these slanders, you 
 say ? — Certainly. 
 
 It was a matter of personal concern to yourself ? — 
 Yes, of great personal concern. 
 
 To whom did you make that communication ?— To 
 Mr. Buckle. 
 
 Direct ?— No. 
 
 Through whom ? — Through Mr. Houston. 
 
 Who is Mr. Houston ? — He is a journalist. 
 
 Connected with any paper ? — I do not know. 
 
 Where does he live ? — In Cork-street, London,. 
 
 Are his initials E. C. ? — I think so. 
 
 Is he secretary to the Loyal and Patriotic Union ?— I 
 do not really know. 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 155 
 
 Have you not heard that he is ? — I do not know that 
 I have. I have an idea that he is. 
 
 Is not this the union that is supported by a combina- 
 tion of Irish landlords — I will not call it a landlords' 
 land league — but is it not something of that nature ? — 
 I know nothing about it. I have seen its pamphlets, 
 but I do not know how it is supported. 
 
 How did you come to be in communication with 
 Mr. Houston ? — Mr. Houston called on me on Sun- 
 day, the 12th of August. 
 
 In the present year ? — Yes. 
 
 Was that your first acquaintance with him P — I had 
 known him before. 
 
 Did he tell you his connexion with this matter ? — 
 Yes ; he told me that he was very anxious that I 
 should give information on the political part of the 
 question to himself or Mr. Buckle. 
 
 Did he tell you how he came to speak to you in the 
 matter ? — No. 
 
 Did you ask him ? — He said he called on the part of 
 Mr. Buckle. 
 
 Did you ask him in what character or capacity ? — 
 No. I knew he was interested in the case of The 
 Times. 
 
 Did you ask him whether he had had anything to do 
 with the publication or with the letters ? — I did not. 
 
 Have you seen him since that interview ? — Yes, I 
 have seen bim several times since. 
 
 In reference to this matter ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you make a statement to him of your evidence ? 
 — Yes. It was he who took down the statement of my 
 evidence for Mr. Buckle. 
 
 Was that taken down at one interview or several ? — I 
 think it was taken down at one interview. 
 
 Can you give me the date of that ? — I think it was 
 the day on which I asked The Times to subpoena me — 
 the 24th of August last. 
 
 You gave that statement to Mr. Houston and he 
 took it down ? — Yes, in shorthand. 
 
 Did you speak to Mr. Houston about the case ? — 
 Yes, in a cursory way. 
 
 Did he produce the letters to you ?— No. 
 
 Or speak to you about the letters ? — I should say he 
 must have spoken about the letters. 
 
 Did he speak about the letters more than once ? — I 
 have no doubt he did. 
 
 Did he tell you what part he had had to do with the 
 letters ?— No. 
 
 Did you ask him how the letters had been ob- 
 tained ? — Yes. He told me it was a State secret 
 in The Times Office. I would ask you to allow me 
 to turn back and give a fuller answer to a question 
 you put to me- a few moments ago. You asked me 
 what he told me about the letters. He told me that 
 he had heard that Mr. Parnell and his friends had 
 stated that I was engaged in a conspiracy to get these 
 letters, and that it was through me that they were got. 
 As I have never stabbed a man in the back, I was 
 naturally very anxious to come here and state on my 
 oath that this statement was not true. 
 
 Then Mr. Houston told you there were rumours 
 about you ?— Yes. 
 
 Not only about you, but others ? — Yes. 
 
 When did he tell you that ? — He spoke about the 
 matter several times. 
 
 But he told you this at the first interview ? — I told 
 him that I knew that these slanders were being circu- 
 lated. 
 
 Did he refer to this at the first interview ? — Most 
 probably. 
 
 Did you learn from him whether The Times had got 
 the letters all in one batch or separately ? — No. 
 
 Did you ask him ? — No. 
 
 When did you first hear of these slanders ? — I 
 returned home in July, and heard the matter spoken 
 about then. I think I heard first of the matter as an 
 absolute certainty on August 1, when Mr. Chamberlain 
 told me that Mr. John Morley had informed him of 
 it. 
 
 What did Mr. Chamberlain say 1— That Mr. Parnell 
 believed that I had had something to do with procuring 
 what is generally called the facsimile letter. I am not 
 perfectly certain whether this occurred on the 1st, 
 2d, or 3d of August, but it was on one of those days. 
 
 Whom else have you seen from The Times in addition 
 to Mr. Houston since this question arose ? — I have 
 met Mr. Buckle at dinner. It was on August 22 at 
 the Hotel Previtali. 
 
 Who were there besides yourself and Mr. Buckle ?— 
 Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. 
 
 Who else ?— No one else. 
 
 Were you the host or the guest ? — I was the guest ; 
 Sir K. Blennerhassett was the host. 
 
 He was, I believe, formerly member of Parliament 
 for Kerry, and one of Mr. Butt's Home Rule party ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 He has not been in Parliament since 1885 I 
 believe ? — I think that is so. 
 
 Did you discuss at all on that occasion the 
 question where these letters had come from ? — No, I 
 do not remember that they were mentioned ; but if 
 so there was no discussion. 
 
 Do you know the name of Pigott ? — Yes, I know the 
 name. 
 
 What is the Christian name ? — I do not know. 
 
 You know the person to whom I allude ? — I suppose 
 you allude to a former editor of a newspaper in 
 Dublin. 
 
 Quite so. I am told his Christian name is Richard. 
 Is that so ? — Yes, I believe it is. 
 
 Did you hear his name mentioned in connexion with 
 these letters ? — YeB. 
 
 Did you learn from Mr. Houston that he had ob- 
 tained them from Pigott ? — No. What I heard was 
 that it was said that I had entered into some combina- 
 tion or conspiracy to get these letters with Pigott. 
 No ; I am not quite certain of that. I think he was 
 one of those who were named, but I am not certain. 
 
 What did he say about Pigott ?— I do not remember 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
156 
 
 The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 anything particular that he said besides what I have 
 just told you. 
 
 What did he say abont Pigott in relation to the 
 letters ? — He said, if he mentioned Pigott's name — of 
 which I am not certain — that the report spread about 
 was that I was connected with some men, of whom 
 Pigott was one, to obtain these letters. 
 
 Was any other name mentioned ? — Yes ; Mr. Philip 
 Callan, whom I have not spoken to for four years. 
 
 Did he say anything pro or eon as to Pigott's con- 
 nexion with the matter ? — Not that I remember. 
 
 Then the suggestion was that there were rumours 
 that you and Pigott and Mr. Callan and another person 
 had to do with the letters ? — Wait a moment ; you are 
 going too far with the name of Pigott. I do not re- 
 member for certain that Pigott's name was mentioned, 
 that he was mentioned as being one of the con- 
 federates who obtained the letters. 
 
 You personally do not know Pigott ?— To the best of 
 my belief I have never seen him. I certainly do not 
 know him. 
 
 The other gentleman — Mr. Callan — you have not 
 spoken to for several years ? — Not for five or six 
 years. 
 
 Did Mr. Houston tell you that he had taken Pigott 
 to the solicitor for The Times 1— No. 
 
 Do you know that he did ? — No. 
 
 Do you say that Mr. Houston's communication to 
 you with respect to the letters amounted to nothing 
 beyond what you have told us ? — Nothing more. 
 
 He made no statement about the origin of the letters 
 or as to who was the medium in their passage to 
 The Times ?— No. 
 
 He made no statement as to who took the letters to 
 The Times ? — I am sure he did not. 
 
 At no time ? — To the best of my belief he did not. 
 
 Do you know who took them P — No. 
 
 Have you been told who brought them ? — No. 
 
 Now, having had this letter, was that before or after 
 the date when you made your statement ? — It was 
 before I made the statement. On the loth, the 
 Wednesday bsfore, I had seen Houston again, and I 
 told him that I might tell Mr. Buckle the political 
 matter. But even then I withdrew the offer on the 
 17th. 
 
 When finally did you come to an agreement ?— On 
 Friday, August 24. 
 
 Where ? — I went to Houston's room at 3 , Cork-street, 
 and he took down from me in shorthand the accounts of 
 the Kilmainham Treaty. 
 
 When, if at all, did you go to Mr. Soames P — On 
 Wednesday last for the first time, to ask when I should 
 be called. 
 
 Did you hand the documents to which you have 
 referred to-day to Houston ?— Yes ; but they never left 
 my possession. 
 
 You mean that you showed them to him, keeping 
 possession of them ? — I do not think I showed all of 
 them. I showed those to which the Attorney-General 
 has referred to-day. 
 
 You told my learned friend in your examination in 
 chief that you were in Parliament in 1884 and 1885 as 
 member for Clare. At the last election for Clare you 
 were not supported by Mr. Parnell ? — No. 
 
 Did you complain that he had treated you unfairly ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Broken faith with you ? — Yes. 
 In not supporting you P — Yes. 
 
 Can you tell me when the members of the Irish party 
 agreed to the arrangement which, I believe, is 
 generally called the pledge — the arrangement as to 
 sitting and acting together ? — No, I do not remember 
 
 Was it not in October, 1885, just before the elec- 
 tion ? — I should say that was very probable. 
 
 You declined, I think, to take that pledge P— 
 Certainly. 
 
 I am told it was not in October, but it was before 
 the election. You declined to accede to the arrange- 
 ments, and in November, 1885, you stood for the Ex- 
 change Division of Liverpool ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you supported at your election by Mr. Parnell ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 As we know, that was a short Parliament ? — Yes ; it 
 was dissolved after the rejection of Mr. Gladstone's 
 Home Eule scheme. 
 
 In the spring of 1886 you stood for Gal way ? — Yes. 
 
 And you were supported by Mr. Parnell p— Yes. 
 
 Against the wishes of some of his colleagues ?— Yes. 
 
 You gave an assurance that you would act with the 
 Irish members P — I agreed with Mr. Parnell without 
 giving any pledge. It was arranged that I should 
 contest Galway as a Liberal, that I should go there 
 and receive his support, and that I should not sit 
 directly opposite his party for a short time. During 
 the heat of the contest he telegraphed to Colonel 
 Nolan, asking — — 
 
 Oh, we cannot have that. — But you asked me. He 
 telegraphed to ask whether, if he came to Galway, I 
 would allow him to say that I would sit on the 
 same side of the House as his party. 
 
 And you were returned for Galway by means of his 
 assistance ? — Yes, and immediately wished to resign 
 on account of that pledge. 
 
 When did you resign P— I resigned on the day after 
 the division on the Home Eule Bill. 
 
 Had you made an application for the Chiltern 
 Hundreds ? — Yes ; at that time. 
 
 Do you recollect when the Home Rule Bill went to 
 a division on the second reading ? — No ; but I should 
 think on June 8. 
 
 You did not vote on that occasion ? — No. 
 
 You walked out ?— Of course I did, as I did not vote. 
 
 I mean you had not paired ? — No, I had not. 
 
 As you have told us, you committed suicide to save 
 yourself from slaughter ; you resigned ?— That is your 
 comment upon my action. 
 
 But it is a fact, is it not ? — I do not know. I 
 resigned because I thought it my duty to resign. 
 Nobody knew for certain that there would be a 
 dissolution. 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 157, 
 
 Give me tho date of your resignation. — The day of 
 the division on the second reading of Mr. Gladstone's 
 Home Rule Bill, or the day before. The date of the 
 notice as to the Chiltern Hundreds was the day after 
 the division. 
 
 Did you, in the beginning of 1886, state that 
 certain persons knew that Mr. Parnell had paid for 
 the escape of the Phoenix Park murderers ? — No, I do 
 not think I said that. I said that it had been stated 
 not of the Phosnix Park murderers, but of one Byrne. 
 
 You stated that people had said so. On what date ? 
 —I do not remember the date. 
 
 Who stated it ? — It was told me, I believe, in the 
 first instance by a man called Mulqueeny, and I in- 
 quired into the statement. The statement had reference 
 to a letter acknowledging a cheque which has since 
 come out. I caused inquiries to be made as to whether 
 the statement was correct, and I understood that it 
 was not. I understood that the authorities had had no 
 such letter. 
 
 Who is Mulqueeny ? — He is an Irishman resident in 
 London who assisted me greatly when I was canvassing 
 an Bast-end constituency for a friend of mine. I met 
 him at a meeting in White chapel. 
 
 What is he ? — I think he is employed as a clerk by 
 one of the dock companies. 
 
 He told you this then ? — I think he told me first. I 
 am not sure as to the date. 
 
 Who else told you ? — I do not remember. 
 
 Am I to understand that any one else told you, or 
 that you do not remember whether any one did ? — I 
 think you must take it that I do not remember. 
 
 It is a very serious statement. — Yes ; but I investi- 
 gated it and found that the authorities knew nothing 
 about it. 
 
 Who were the other persons besides Mulqueeny ? — I do 
 not remember anybody else. 
 
 Was there anybody else ? — I may have made inquiries 
 of others, but I cannot remember. 
 
 I want to get to the bottom of this matter. I want 
 to know from whom you heard this statement besides 
 Mulqueeny, if from anybody. — I cannot say that I heard 
 it from anybody else, although I have the idea that 
 I did. 
 
 Can you say when you first heard it ? — I have just 
 told you that I cannot fix the date. 
 
 Was it before yon heard the story from Mulqueeny ? 
 — I have said that I have no recollection of hearing it 
 from anybody else. I cannot go further than that. 
 
 Was the first statement from Mulqueeny ? — I should 
 say so. 
 
 You say you investigated the matter — to whom did 
 you apply ? — I asked Mr. Chamberlain. 
 
 Anyone else ? — Through him the Minister of the 
 department which had to do with the matter. 
 
 Did you yourself apply ? — I do not remember. I 
 heard that nothing was known of the letter. 
 
 When Mulqueeny made this statement, what did he 
 Ba y p — He said that a letter had been taken from the 
 Land League rooms in Palace-chambers — a letter from 
 
 Byrne acknowledging the receipt of money from 
 Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Taken by whom ?— He believed that it had been 
 taken by the police. It was on that account that I 
 asked for information. 
 
 Mulqueeny told you nothing more ? — I do not re« 
 member. 
 
 Then he told you that the police had taken a letter 
 from the Land League chambers in London, which pur- 
 ported to be a letter from Byrne acknowledging the 
 receipt of money ? — Not quite that. He said that a 
 letter had been taken by the police acknowledging the 
 receipt of money. 
 
 I do not desire to press you unduly upon this point, 
 but I may have to press you upon it later on. Try and 
 fix as nearly as you can the date when that com- 
 munication was made to you.— I do not think I shall 
 be able to fix the date. 
 
 Try and fix the time of year. — I do not think I can 
 go any further. 
 
 Surely you can tell us what the year was ? — No, 1 
 really cannot. 
 
 How long ago ? — I cannot say. You see the matter 
 did not impress itself much upon my mind when I 
 heard that the authorities had not got the letter. 
 
 Do you know Mulqueeny's address ?— No. He called 
 upon me recently and told me that he had left his 
 house. 
 
 When did he call P — Within the last few days. I 
 think on Saturday last. 
 
 Did you believe the information to be correct as to 
 the payment to Byrne ? — As I have intimated, when 
 we inquired into the matter and found that the letter 
 was not supposed to be in the hands of the authorities, 
 I did not, I presume, pay much more attention to it. 
 
 Did you ever see that letter from Byrne ? — No, ex- 
 cept in the newspapers. 
 
 Yes, but not the original letter ? — No. 
 
 It was after that statement by Mulqueeny that you 
 became a candidate for Galway ? — I should say that 
 was so, certainly. 
 
 Well, of course, you could not have believed this 
 statement about Mr. Parnell at that time ? — Oh, no, 
 certainly not. 
 
 You had come to the conclusion that it was not 
 true ? — I have no doubt of it. 
 
 1 believe Mr. Parnell did go to Galway to speak for 
 you ? — He did. 
 
 After your inquiry whether such a letter had been 
 obtained, did you tell Mulqueeny the result of your 
 investigation ?— I certainly did. 
 
 How did you make appointments with Mulqueeny ? 
 — He used sometimes to call upon me. 
 
 Casually or by appointment ? — Generally, I should 
 think, casually, if I had not some electioneering for 
 him to do. 
 
 Electioneering, where ?— In the East-end of London. 
 Mr. S. Montagu, member for Whitechapel, is a per-j 
 sonal friend of mine, and I was anxious to secure hia. 
 
 Captain W. E. O'Shea. 
 
158 
 
 The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 return. It was at one of bis meetings that I first 
 heard of Mulqueeny. 
 
 Yon are not able to charge your recollection with 
 having heard about the Byrne letter from anybody be- 
 sides Mulqueeny ? — No, I am not able. 
 
 Did you ever hear from Mulqueeny how the Byrne 
 letter was supposed to have been got from the office ? 
 — Yes, how he supposed it had been got. 
 
 You found that the statement was not correct ?— I 
 inquired whether the letter was in the hands of the 
 authorities, and the person applied to replied that he 
 had no knowledge of the document. 
 
 If it had been taken by the police the fact of its 
 existence would have been known in the department 
 where you applied ? — I suppose so ; I do not know. 
 
 You told Mulqueeny that it was not known in that 
 department ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you discuss at all how it could have been ob- 
 tained ? — I have heard. 
 
 ■ Is Mulqueeny a member of any secret society ? — I do 
 not know. He is a Nationalist. Whether he is a mem- 
 ber of a secret society of course I cannot tell. Be has 
 told me that he was an advanced Nationalist. 
 
 Did he ever tell you that he was a member of a 
 secret society ? — He never told me that he was. 
 
 He conveyed it to you, then ? — He told me that he 
 was an advanced Nationalist and at one time a mem- 
 ber of the Land League. 
 
 Did you see him anywhere else than in your 
 own place ? — Yes, at meetings when canvassing 
 the constituency in the East-end. 
 
 Only there ? — Only there. 
 
 Do you know the house of a Mrs. Lynch,in Wardour- 
 $treet ? — It is very likely that I have been there once. 
 
 I ask you, do you know the house ? — I am not 
 certain that the woman's name is Lynch ; but I was 
 once in a house in Wardour-street. 
 
 What is the house remarkable for ? — In what way ? 
 
 In any way. — I do not know what it is remarkable for. 
 
 How did you come to go there ?— I went there 
 because a number of advanced Nationalists had signed a 
 declaration protesting against my exclusion from Irish 
 politics, and I was told that I should meet some of 
 them there. 
 
 The President. — I understand that this house is a 
 publichouse P 
 
 Witness. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — When you use the phrase " ad- 
 vanced Nationalists," do you mean to convey to the Court 
 that these persons were Fenians ? — I mean to convey 
 that they were members of the old Nationalist party. 
 ( Do you mean to convey that they were Fenians ? — 
 They never told me that they were. 
 
 Is that the impression in your own mind ? — I was 
 never told that they were Fenians. 
 
 You believed they were ? — I do not know whether 
 they were or not. 
 
 , You say they signed a testimonial to you ? — No, a de- 
 claration protesting against my exclusion from politics. 
 
 Mulqueeny brought the declaration to me, and it was 
 with him that I went to this house. 
 
 Were you there only once ? — Only once. 
 
 Whom did you meet there ? — I cannot remember. 
 
 These persons who made the presentation complained 
 of your exclusion from politics ? — Yes. - 
 
 Were they all residents in this country ? — I do not 
 know. The men of their party in the county of Clare 
 were always great supporters of mine and very much 
 devoted to me. They were the old Nationalists. I always 
 told them how foolish I thought their adventures were, 
 but they hated outrages as much as I do myself. 
 
 Surely these men were ex-Fenians. Was that society 
 pretty strong in Clare ? — I do not know. 
 
 Can you form any opinion ? — No ; I have no means 
 of forming an opinion. 
 
 Were there any signatures of persons residing in Paris 
 to that document ?— I do not know. I am sorry I did 
 not bring the parchment to Court with me. 
 
 Were there any signatures from foreign parts ? — I 
 cannot say ; I have not seen the parchment for some 
 time. 
 
 Was the signature of a man called Patrick Casey 
 among them ? — I do not remember ; but you will have 
 the document. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Bring it with you to- 
 morrow, please. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Do you recognize the name ? — I 
 do not remember whether or not the name is on the 
 document. 
 
 Do you know who Patrick Casey is ? — No, I do not. 
 
 Do you mean to say that you have never heard of 
 him ? — No, I do not mean to say that ; but I have no 
 knowledge of him. I have never seen him. 
 
 Do you know that he is a professed dynamitard ?-— 
 No, I do not. 
 
 Do you not know that Mulqueeny went to Paris to 
 get the signature of that man — aye or no ? — Well, now 
 that you mention it, I think it is possible. I do not 
 remember it, but it is possible. 
 
 Did you send him for that purpose ? — No, I did not. 
 
 Have you given Mulqueeny money ? — I have often 
 given him money. 
 
 Did you pay the expenses of his journey to Paris ?— 
 I should think not. 
 
 Do you say " No "? — It is very likely if he asked me 
 for the money afterwards that I paid it. 
 
 Do you recollect that he asked you ? — No. 
 
 What did you give Mulqueeny money for ?— I took a 
 liking to the man. He was extremely useful to me at 
 the time of the election and I liked him and his father, 
 and when they wanted money I gave it to them. I 
 have very often given money to Irishmen. 
 
 Did you meet at the house of Mrs. Lynch any persons 
 besides those who signed this paper ? — I cannot re- 
 collect any names, but I remember what occurred. I 
 explained my views upon politics and dwelt on the advan« 
 tages to be derived from supporting the Liberal party. 
 
 Is this address framed and glazed ? — No : it is on 
 parchment. 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
The Special Commission, Oct'obe* 31/1888. 
 
 159 
 
 Did Mulqueeny tell you whether he had seen Casey 
 or not when he came back from Paris ? — I do not 
 remember the name of Casey. 
 
 Did he .tell you he had been over ? — I have no doubt 
 he did ; but I do not remember. 
 
 What did he tell you he had been over for ? — It was 
 not the only time he went to Paris. 
 
 He went to Paris for a definite purpose, after which 
 you paid his expenses ? — That I paid his expenses is 
 not so likely as that I gave him a lump sum of money. 
 
 Now I have asked you about one statement, the 
 statement made to you by Mulqueeny with reference 
 to the Byrne letter. Did you in the winter of 
 1885-86 make any other statement, or was any other 
 statement made to you ? — Of what nature ? 
 
 Was any statement made to you by any one in the 
 winter of 1885 suggesting that there were letters 
 compromising Mr. Parnell ? — I do not remember. 
 
 Did you hear any one state at any time in 
 the winter of 1885-86 that there were some 
 American Fenians in London who were hostile 
 to Mr. Parnell, and who held documents sup- 
 posed to compromise him ? Do not answer without 
 thinking. — I have not the slightest intention of doing 
 so. I remember perfectly telling Mr. Parnell that I 
 had heard there were Irish- Americans in London at 
 one time, but I have no recollection whatever of say- 
 ing that they were hostile to him, or that they held 
 compromising documents. I may have said that they 
 were hostile to him, because I believe they were 
 hostile to him ; but I do not remember the other 
 matter. 
 
 You believed that the Fenian body were opposed to 
 his policy? — Well, I mean the men who might come here 
 for the purpose of promoting outrages. I believed Mr. 
 Parnell to be absolutely free from any connivance at 
 outrage. 
 
 You believed these men to be opposed to his policy ? 
 — Of course if his policy was not dynamite, and they 
 came over with dynamite, they were opposed to his 
 policy. 
 
 You believe he was opposed to dynamite ? — Most 
 certainly, I believe Mr. Parnell was opposed to the 
 policy of dynamite and of outrage. Up to June, 1886, 
 I was perfectly confident that Mr. Parnell was a man 
 of the highest honour. 
 
 And were perfectly confident that he had a sincere 
 desire to follow out his agitation on constitutional 
 lines ? — Certainly. I can go even further if it is any 
 advantage to you. Itis only within the last two or three 
 months that I saw a correspondence between Mr. Herbert 
 Gladstone and Mr. Arnold-Forster, in which Mr. Forster 
 stated that Mr. Parnell had been in constant communi- 
 cation with Sheridan at the time that Sheridan was or- 
 ganizing crime. I was so astounded at the statement 
 hat I wrote to Mr. Arnold-Forster to ask him about it. 
 I did not believe that he had had anything to do with 
 Sheridan. He told me so often, and I believed it, even 
 after I believed nothing else. I am now speaking, of 
 course, with regard to Sheridan only. 
 
 Now, I wish to know what altered your opinion in 
 July, 1886 ? — Negotiations took place at that time, 
 previous to the division on the second reading of the 
 Home Rule Bill, and certain things came to my know- 
 ledge at that time which absolutely destroyed the 
 good opinion I had hitherto held of Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Toll us anything whatever with regard to Sheridan 
 which came to your knowledge. Mr. Parnell wish el 
 you to state fully anything ; you said you changed 
 the opinion which you had held of Mr. Parnell up to 
 June and July, 1886, in reference to Sheridan. — No, 
 no ; I changed it owing to something which came out 
 during these negotiations ; but I did not say it was 
 on account of anything connected with Sheridan. 
 
 I beg your pardon. You said you had told him that 
 there were American Fenians in London who were 
 hostile to him. 
 
 The Pkesident. — He has never used the word 
 Fenians. I noticed that what he spoke of was 
 American-Irish. 
 
 SlE C. Russeix. — When you talk of advanced Nation- 
 alists do you not mean to convey the Fenians ? — Not 
 necessarily, because there are other organizations — the 
 Clan-na-Gael and others. 
 
 When you talk of the old Nationalists do you mean 
 the old Fenians ? — Yes ; a very different class of men 
 from the dynamitards and Invincibles. 
 
 Who gave you the information that there were 
 American-Irish who were in London and were hostile 
 to Mr. Parnell ? — I did not say there were American- 
 Irish here who were hostile to him. I did not qualify 
 it in that way ; I am sure I should not have done so. 
 I do not know who told me. 
 
 Do not know who told you ? Try and remember. — It 
 is a very long time ago, and I do not suppose that I 
 attached much importance to it. 
 
 But we do. Who told you ? — Very likely Mulqueeny 
 told me something about it. It might have been in 
 conversation. I believed they were hostile. 
 
 Did he tell you where they were, or where they 
 were staying ? — No ; but he told me he had been 
 threatened by one. 
 
 Did you make any further inquiries ? — No. 
 
 I must press you ; did you not tell Mr. Parnell at 
 the time I refer to— namely, in the winter of 1885-86, 
 that American-Irish were in London and had letters 
 compromising Mr. Parnell ? — I will swear that I did 
 not say anything about letters relating to Mr. Parnell — • 
 that is, with as great certainty as a man can swear to 
 anything so long ago. To the very best of my belief I 
 did not say anything about letters. 
 
 You say that Mulqueeny told you that one of these 
 men threatened him ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he give you the man's name ? — Yes. 
 
 Go on. — I am not quite sure whether he told me it 
 was one of those men, or another man who had 
 threatened him. 
 
 What was the name ? — 1 think he mentioned the 
 name of a General Carroll Thalis, or some such name. 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
160 
 
 TBe Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 As being one of the men in London ? — No, as being 
 one of the men who threatened him. 
 
 Who was the other ?— Not an American. 
 
 What was his name ? — I do not know, but I think he 
 was a civil engineer. 
 
 Was his name Hayes ? — I think it was. 
 
 And did you not know it, Sir ? — Yes. 
 
 Why did yon not tell us at once ? — Because it had 
 gone out of my head ; 1 was not certain. 
 
 What is Hayes ? — I am told he was a civil engineer. 
 
 Is he an American ? — I do not know anything about 
 him. 
 
 What did Mulqueeny report to you about him ? — He 
 reported to me that he had seen him, had gone to see 
 him at an hotel, and had been threatened .by him, 
 chiefly about the testimonial made to me. Mulqueeny 
 got a letter telling him to go and see him. 
 
 Where ? — I think in Covent-garden. 
 
 The Bedford Hotel perhaps ? — I do not know. 
 
 And he went ? — Yes ; and saw this man or men, and 
 they threatened him, if I remember rightly, on account 
 of this testimonial or declaration of mine. 
 
 Is Hayes an Irish-American or not ? — I know nothing 
 about him except that I have been told he is a civil 
 engineer. 
 
 Did Mulqueeny tell you what he was ?— He told me 
 that he was a civil engineer. 
 
 Well, when he came to tell you this story you asked 
 him who Hayes was ? — He told me that Hayes was a 
 civil engineer, and, I believe, established in London. 
 
 Well, what had a civil engineer established in 
 London to do with any testimonial presented to you ? — 
 I do not know. I presume it was owing to some action, 
 taken by some of my enemies which prevailed on these 
 people to act in this way. 
 
 I am asking you, did you not inquire from Mul- 
 queeny what he was ? — He told me he was a civil 
 engineer. 
 
 Did you not ask him what party in politics he 
 belonged to ? — He told me he was a very violent man. 
 
 Did he tell you that Hayes was an emissary from 
 New York ? — No ; I think he told me that Hayes lived 
 in London. 
 
 Did you see Hayes ?— No. 
 
 Are you certain ? — Yes, I am certain I did not. 
 
 Did you know he was supposed to bo implicated in the 
 attack on London-bridge ? — Yes, I had heard that. 
 
 You had no doubt, I suppose, what his character was ? 
 —He was evidently very much opposed to me, for one 
 thing. 
 
 Did he mention any other name to you ? — Yes, this 
 General Carroll Thalis, or whatever his name was. 
 
 Any other name ? — I do not recollect. 
 
 Do you recollect the name of Cassidy ? — No. 
 
 Do you know anybody of that name ? — No. 
 
 Did you visit the hotel in Covent-garden ? — No, I did 
 not. 
 
 Are you certain ? — Yes, I am certain I did not. 
 
 You say you are certain that you did not visit any 
 hotel in Covent-garden at that time ? — I am certain — 
 
 that is, with regard to these people. I may have gone 
 to an hotel in Covent-garden in the whole of that year. 
 
 In reference to seeing any persons whom Mulqueeny 
 had mentioned to you 1 — Never. 
 
 What hotel do you suggest that you- went to ?— I did 
 not suggest that I went to any hotel. I say that in the 
 whole year I may possibly have called at an hotel in 
 Covent-garden. The reason I stopped to guard myself 
 in this matter was that I remember going to call on 
 Mr. Edward Dwyer Gray and Mr. Daniel Gabbett also 
 at an hotel in Covent-garden. 
 
 And with that exceptionyou did not call at an hotel 
 in Covent-garden ? — I swear it. 
 
 After you had heard from Mulqueeny of the presence 
 of this General Carroll Thalis, or some such name, and 
 of Hayes, civil engineer, did you send Mulqueeny to 
 Paris 'I — I have not the slightest recollection of doing bo. 
 
 Did you send him there to give a warning to Casey ? 
 — No ; I never had any intention of warning CaEey. 
 
 Did you send Mulqueeny to give a warning to Casey ? 
 — No, certainly not. 
 
 Did you send him to Paris after you became aware 
 of the presence of the American-Irish in Covent- 
 garden ? — I cannot remember that I did anything of the 
 kind. To the best of my belief I did not. 
 
 That is a thing you wouldrecollect. You are positive 
 you did not, are you ? — Yes, I am positive ; I have no 
 recollection of doing so whatever. 
 
 Are you able to say positively you did not ? — Yes, I 
 say positively I did not. 
 
 It is not an event-that occurs every day, to send Mr. 
 Mulqueeny to Paris ; you are able to say positively 
 you did not ? — Oh, yes, I am sure I did not. 
 
 Have you kept up your intimacy with Mulqueeny? — Not 
 exactly an intimacy ; I had not seen him for a long 
 time, until some months ago, and had just come back 
 from abroad and met him in Cannon-street, and he told 
 me of his father's death, and I think I have seen him 
 since then — once in July and twice since. 
 
 Since the political events of 1885-1886, Captain 
 O'Shea, when you tell us that you were badly treated 
 by Mr. Parnell, have you threatened him ? — How do 
 you mean, threatened him — threatened Mr. Parnell ? 
 
 I am not talking about personal violence. — Do you 
 mean have I threatened him with retribution ? 
 
 Threatened. Answer my question. — No. I do not 
 know that I have. I may have been angry ; certainly 
 I was angry with him when I turned him out of my 
 room in the Shelbourno Hotel in Dublin ; but I did 
 nothing that could be called a threat. That incident 
 occurred either at the end of October or the beginning 
 of November, 1885. 
 
 Will you just explain how you turned Mr. Parnell 
 out of your room ?— I told him the sooner he went the 
 better I should be pleased, and that I did not want to 
 see him again. I did not use any force. 
 
 Have you said you would be revenged on Mr. Par- 
 nell ?— I do not remember the expression. 
 
 Will you swear you did not ? — No ; because one 
 6ays so many things when one is angry ; but I do not 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 161 
 
 remember saying anything about revenge ; I never have 
 been revenged, at all events. 
 
 Have you said that you had a shell, charged with 
 dynamite, to blow him up ? — I should say not. What 
 kind of shell ? 
 
 I do not know. I am not suggesting it was really 
 dynamite. — Oh, no. 
 
 When did you first hear of the letter which is called 
 the fac-simile letter ? — When I saw it in The Times on 
 the day it was published. I saw the letter itself for 
 the first time last Wednesday. 
 
 I presume it was at Mr. Soames's office ? — Yes. ' 
 And you had not heard from any one until that letter 
 appeared a suggestion made (excluding the Frank Byrne 
 letter) that there were any letters in existence com- 
 promising Mr. Parnell ? — No, I was astounded when I 
 saw it. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. On 
 its reassembling, Sir Charles Russell continued his cross- 
 examination of Captain O'Shea. 
 
 You were understood to say that except the statement 
 made to you by Mulqueeny, which related to the Byrne 
 letter, you had heard no statement from any one and 
 made no statement yourself as to any other compromis- 
 ing letters and documents ?— Then I was not distinctly 
 understood. I never said that I had not spoken about 
 them. 
 
 Am I to understand you that, though you cannot re- 
 collect the persons or person, you did hear that there 
 were in existence compromising documents or a com- 
 promising document ? — Are you talking about the Byrne 
 letter ? 
 
 No ; you have told us you did hear of that letter. I 
 am not troubling any more about that. My question 
 was, first of all, did you hear from any one and at any 
 time before the publication of the fac-simile letter that 
 there were in existence any letters or documents of a 
 compromising character ? — That is what I answered 
 you before I left the Court, that J do not think I did 
 so. 
 
 Is it that you do not recollect, or do not think, or 
 are you in a position to say positively that you did 
 not ? — I am as positive as possible that I never spoke 
 about compromising documents. Nor do I remember 
 any one speaking to me of there being in existence 
 compromising documents. In fact, in other words, I 
 know nothing about these letters. 
 
 I am not talking about these letters particularly. 
 There are many more. — Oh, yes. 
 
 Any letters ?— I have had nothing to do with any 
 letters. 
 
 You do not appreciate my point. Did you until the 
 publication of the fac-simile letter have it suggested to 
 you by any one that there were in existence compro- 
 mising letters ? — To the best of my belief, no. 
 
 Very well, you are pretty positive about that? — Yes. 
 
 You have spoken about your acquaintance with the 
 advanced Nationalists. You say they are the old 
 Nationalist party, who are opposed to outrage? — 
 Certainly. 
 
 The Physical Force party ? — The men who considered 
 that they could fight their country's battle on the hill- 
 side against the British forces. 
 
 They were not persons who went in, or professed to 
 go in, for assassination ? — On the contrary, they 
 always spoke of it to me with the greatest abhorrence. 
 Some names have been mentioned here, among others 
 John O'Leary. Was he an advocate of assassination 
 — On the contrary, as far as I am aware. 
 
 Was not, in point of fact, the policy, if it can be so 
 called, of that Physical Force, or Hillside party, 
 opposed to the constitutional party altogether ? I 
 mean up to a certain point ? — Most decidedly. 
 
 And you are aware, are you not, that for years after, 
 in fact, up to the present time, the Fenians have been 
 among the most strenuous opponents of Mr. Parnell's 
 party ? — Certainly ; I kept them apart as long as I 
 could in county Clare. 
 
 How do you mean, " Kept them apart in county 
 Clare " ? — I pointed out the folly of their ideas and 
 always considered it well that they should not join 
 the Land League. 
 
 Among your reasons was one that the Land League 
 was hostile to yourself ? — Certainly. 
 
 You have not made any concealment of your influence 
 with that party ? — I do not in the least say here, or 
 ascribe to myself, any influence with that party. What 
 I do say is that there are a number of men in county 
 Clare who have not only given me cordial support, but 
 have shown me the greatest personal devotion. I am 
 always proud of the support of those honest, honourable 
 men. 
 
 You have expressed those opinions to Mr. Chamber- 
 lain ? — I expressed those opinions everywhere. 
 
 Then probably to him ? — Probably. I may have 
 expressed them to you. It is a matter of such com- 
 mon conversation. 
 
 Up to May-June, 1886, you told us you believed in 
 Mr. Parnell's honour and that you knew he was 
 opposed to outrage ? — Certainly. 
 
 And you stated that you knew he was opposed and 
 always had been supposed to be opposed to outrages. 
 You continued of that opinion until a much later 
 date ? — Yes. 
 
 And I think you fixed the date of the change of 
 opinion upon the question of outrage at the appear- 
 ance of Mr. Arnold-Forster's letter 1 — No ; I await 
 the judgment of the Commission. I have quite an 
 open mind upon the subject. 
 
 Then, so far as concerns yourself, you have not, so 
 far as Mr. Parnell's attitude towards outrage is con- 
 cerned, altered your opinion ? — I have altered my 
 opinion regarding Mr. Parnell, and of course that 
 must affect a man's mind. 
 
 Was it the fact also that in the Home Rule discussion 
 
 you were very anxious to get Mr. Parnell's support for 
 
 the modified or local government scheme of Mr. 
 
 Chamberlain ? — The what ? 
 
 The Home Rule scheme of Mr. Chamberlain ?— No v. 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
162 
 
 The Special Commission,' October 31, 1888. 
 
 that was not at all tho scope of any negotiations at the 
 time. 
 
 ' Sir C. Russell.— I am not talking of any negotia- 
 tion. Witness.— The Home Kale Bill had nothing to 
 do with local government. 
 
 Sin C. Russell. — Were you or were you not in 
 favour of Mr.Chamberlain's local government scheme ? 
 —The local government scheme had nothing to do with 
 the question. 
 
 The President. — Are the witness's opinions on such 
 a subject material to our inquiry ? 
 
 Sir C. RtrsSELL. — As a matter of opinion, certainly; 
 as a matter of conduct, no. 
 
 Me. Justice A. L. Smith.— Why, as a matter of 
 opinion, certainly ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Because it explains the position he 
 took up ; but I do not think I should be asked to give 
 my reasons for a question asked in cross-examination 
 at this stage. 
 
 The President. — The object cf my interposition was 
 to see the relevancy of the question. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not think it irrelevant ; but 
 it is not a first-class matter, and I must ask pardon if 
 I was a little brusque in an observation I made just 
 now. All I want to do is to explain that the question 
 put to the witness was one 1 was justified in putting. 
 To witness. — You took Mr. Chamberlain's side in the 
 discussion. You declined to vote for the Home Rule 
 Bill. That is a fact, is it not ? — That is a fact ; but 
 not for the reason you have just stated. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have not given any reason. 
 
 Witness. — You suggested the matter of local govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Well, were not Mr. Chamberlain's 
 opinions in the direction of a Local Government Bill ? 
 ■—Certainly not. 
 
 Very well, we differ about that. It was after the 
 incident of May-June, 1886, that you altered your 
 opinion of Mr. Parnell ? — Yes. 
 
 You have told us quite candidly you are awaiting 
 the judgment of the Commission. Am I wrong in 
 saying that you made a reference to Mr. Arnold-For- 
 ster's letter '{ — I spoke to you about it in the course 
 of my cross-examination. 
 
 In which you stated you were astonished at it ? — 
 Yes. So much so that I had an interview with him 
 about it. 
 
 In relation to your negotiations with the Govern- 
 ment — when did those begin ?— In the year 1881. 
 
 I would like to remind you, my Lords, who may not 
 recollect it, the state of things was that there was 
 tho Coercion Act of 1881 in operation. 
 
 The A'ITOKNEY-GeneRAL,— You mean Mr. Forster's 
 Act? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Certainly. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The suspension of the 
 Habeas Corpus Act. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— It was not generally called that. 
 It was called the Protection of Life and Property Act. 
 Was that so ? — Witness. — Yes. 
 
 The Land Bill that afterwards passed was under dis- 
 cussion P — Yes. 
 
 . You are aware that there were some three or four 
 very important points for which the Irish members 
 were contending in relation to the Land Bill. First 
 of all, a comprehensive scheme for arrears ; next, that 
 the improvement, or Healy clauses, as they were sub- 
 sequently to be called, should be framed so as to pre- 
 vent the possibility of the tenants' improvements being 
 taxed ; and, next, the inclusion of leaseholders. Those 
 were three important points, were they not f — Yes, the 
 last" I considered very important indeed, and I sup- 
 ported it to the utmost in my power. 
 
 However, the Bill was passed without any of those 
 points being dealt with ? — The Healy clause was there. 
 
 Without being dealt with in the way the Irish mem- 
 bers wished ? — Yes. 
 
 There was another point they were anxious about — 
 the strengthening of the Bright clauses of the Act of 
 1870, so as to enable the tenants to more easily acquire 
 their own holdings ? — Yes. 
 
 When you entered into communication, as you call 
 it, with the Government, was that with Mr. Parnell's 
 knowledge in the first instance ? — At his request. 
 
 In the first instance ? Or was it after you had 
 written 'I 
 
 Witness.— In 1881 ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Yes. 
 
 Witness. — What I offered on behalf of Mr. Parnell 
 was that if the Land League were broken up 
 
 Those words were put forward ? — I am not quite sure. 
 
 What were the words then ? — The chief condition 
 was that the Larid League should be broken up on con- 
 dition that Irish landlords, reducing their rents within 
 a certain time, should get compensation from the 
 Exchequer. 
 
 Well ?— That was the principal proposal. 
 
 The whole proposal at that time ? — Certainly. 
 
 By letter, was it not ? — Certainly. 
 
 At all events, you communicated Mr. Parnell's 
 principal point by letter ? — Yes, by letter, the principal 
 part of which was that- point. I do not say other 
 points may not have been mentioned. 
 
 That was a letter to Mr. Gladstone ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you suggest the phrase was used of " breaking 
 up the Land League " ? — I certainly used it to Mr. 
 Gladstone — dissolve the Land League. 
 
 In your letter ? — The letter was written after my 
 conversation with Mr. Gladstone. He said "It is a very 
 serious matter, and must be put before my colleagues." 
 He said, " Put it down," and I put it down. 
 
 In that letter ?— I cannot say. 
 
 That was the only communication you had with Mr. 
 Gladstone ? — At what time ? 
 
 At that time. — Yes. 
 
 All the rest was the communications which resulted 
 in the release of certain persons from Kilmainham 
 and which passed through yourself, and your principal 
 medium of communication was Mr. Chamberlain ? — 
 Oh, yes, but Mr. Chamberlain did not come in until 
 
 Captain W. K, O'Shea. 
 
The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 163 
 
 the communications were put on foot by Mr. Glad- 
 stone, when I re-opened the communications with Mr. 
 Gladstone in 1882 ; and it was subsequent to this, 
 when the communications were entertained, that 
 Mr. Gladstone delegated to Mr. Chamberlain, 
 who knew nothing about the matter before, the busi- 
 ness with me. I use the words " communications," 
 and " business " because I believe Mr. Gladstone objects 
 to the word " negotiations." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is rather what I put to you 
 — that after the reintroduction of the matter, the 
 renewed negotiation was with Mr. Chamberlain ? — 
 Yes, that is after the matter was taken up again. 
 
 What date do you fix as the beginning of the renewal 
 of these negotiations ?— An early date in April. 
 
 Was that renewal without any communication with 
 Mr. Parnell ?— Yes. 
 
 Or without any communication with any of his 
 colleagues ? — Yes. 
 
 Entirely upon your own motion ? — Yes. 
 
 And the first intimation, as I understand, was made 
 to Mr. Parnell on the occasion of his being allowed 
 out on parole to attend the funeral of his relation '( — 
 Yes. 
 
 Now, as regards the conversation I think you say 
 you had, I wish to make this clear. Is it not true 
 that, wheD you mentioned the question of release, Mr . 
 Parnell said that that must not even be discussed, or 
 in any shape or way made a condition ? — Certainly that 
 was the case ; and on the other side there was no 
 bargain. Of course, one takes those things with a 
 grain of salt, but that was the declaration on both 
 sides. 
 
 Did not you understand that Mr. Parnell was most 
 anxious as to the peace of the country, and that, 
 among other things, the Arrears Bill should be settled ? 
 — Certainly. 
 
 Is it not the fact that in every reference that he 
 made to the attempts to put down outrages he referred 
 to the proposed measure of the Government as one 
 which would help to tranquillize the country ? — 
 Certainly. 
 
 And you agreed with him ?— Yes, having no know- 
 ledge as to what the Land League was myself. 
 
 Do you see any reason to differ from him now ? — 
 No, and I have had considerable experience of Irish 
 tenants myself. 
 
 What was the date at which the memorandum in Mr. 
 Chamberlain's handwriting was written out — is the date 
 on it in pencil correct ? — I cannot say. 
 
 When was that date put upon it ?— I have no doubt 
 at the time. 
 
 The Attorn ey-General.— What is the date ? . 
 
 Witness.— April 22, 1882. It must have been either 
 the 22d or 23d. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Was that document left with 
 you ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you interchange any copy of it with Mr. 
 Chamberlain ? — No : I wrote a note in reply to it. 
 
 Repeating it ? — Yes. There may have been a little 
 alteration in the words, but substantially the same. 
 
 Now, with reference to the discussion at Bltham, 
 was anything discussed between you except the Arrears 
 Bill ? — Oh, yes ; there must have been a great deal 
 more. 
 
 Are you able to say there was ? — Certainly. 
 
 Was that the principal subject of discussion ?— The 
 Arrears Bill, the general arrangement, and what would 
 come out of it. 
 
 You were aware that Mr. Pamell had drafted in 
 Kilmainham a Bill dealing with that question? — Yes. 
 
 That was the Bill which was introduced on a Wednes- 
 day ? — Yes. 
 
 When he, in his letter of April, refers to Wednes- 
 day's proceedings being satisfactory so far as they 
 went, he refers to that Bill ? — It certainly meant 
 that. 
 
 Did it mean anything else than that ? I mean you 
 shook your head as if there was something more. — 
 Yes. The Arrears Bill was not the only matter of dis- 
 cussion, and although the Bill was brought in on the 
 Wednesday everything was going on very satisfactorily. 
 
 No, no. He says " Wednesday's proceedings were 
 very satisfactory so far as they went. " That referred 
 to the Bill introduced on the Wednesday ? — Well, not 
 only. That referred to the way in which it had, by 
 arrangement, been received. 
 
 Now, whatever the discussions between you and Mr. 
 Parnell were, they were ultimately embodied in that 
 letter which was afterwards read in the House of 
 Commons ? — Yes. 
 
 That is the document, is it not, which you yourself 
 gave to Mr. Parnell ? (The document was handed to the 
 witness.) — I do not know that it is. It is in my hand- 
 writing. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Your Lordships will recollect a 
 portion of the letter was not read. It is headed 
 " private and confidential," Kilmainham. It stops at 
 the words " outrages and intimidation of all kinds." 
 
 The President. — Without the reference to the. 
 Liberal party ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.-- -Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell then read the letter as it is set out 
 above down to tho words " outrages and intimida- 
 tion of all kinds." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — At that discussion do you recollect 
 Mr. Parnell suggesting that it would be far better to 
 allow him and his colleagues to remain where they 
 were for a few months more till the Arrears Bill was 
 passed ? — No. 
 
 Did he say it ? — I should think certainly not. 
 
 Do you say that he did not ?— No. I do not re« 
 collect it. 
 
 Did not Mr. Parnell tell you, and did not you know 
 apart from his telling you, that the No-rent Mani- 
 festo had been in point of fact a dead letter for some 
 time ? — No. It was not satisfactory to myself or to 
 others that no statement had been made on that point. 
 
 Did Mr. Parnell state to you that in point of fact the 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
 6-2 
 
164 
 
 The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 No-rent Manifesto had been for a month at least a 
 dead letter ? — I do not remember his saying so to me 
 then. 
 
 Did he say so to you in Kilmainham ? — Yes, cer- 
 tainly. 
 
 You have said that Mr. Parnell especially stipulated, 
 or desired to stipulate, that Mr. Davitt's release 
 should be delayed until he saw him ? — Certainly. 
 
 Did he tell you why ? — Yes, because he wanted to 
 see him before anybody else did. 
 
 Yes, but did he tell you why ? — He wanted to see 
 Mr. Davitt before anybody else did in order to explain 
 to him the situation and policy. 
 
 Did he express any fear that Mr. Davitt might refuse 
 to accept his release on a ticket-of-leave ? — I should 
 think that that must have been afterwards. 
 
 I ask you whether that was not so at the time ? 
 —Certainly nothing of the kind. The statement he 
 made was what I have just said — that he wanted to see 
 Mr. Davitt before anybody else did in order to talk 
 politics over with him. 
 
 1 am asking you was it not mentioned by him 
 whether Mr. Davitt would accept release on ticket-of- 
 leave ? — No. 
 
 You are clear about that ? — Certainly. 
 
 In discussing the release of other persons who were 
 prisoners, do you recollect him saying anything about 
 the desirabilityof his being able to communicate with all 
 on the executive of the Land League together ? — I 
 cannot remember any such broad statement as that. 
 
 I mean those men of whom he was speaking ? — I do 
 not remember him saying he wanted to see the whole 
 of the executive of the Land League. 
 
 I mean persons more or less in authority in the 
 League ? — I presume they were not all in gaol. 
 
 I am speaking of those who were in gaol. — He 
 wanted Bgan to return to England and the release of 
 Boyton and Sheridan. 
 
 And Brennan ? — No. 
 
 What did he say about Brennan ? — He said there were 
 some men it would be advisable not to let out. 
 
 And Brennan was one of them ? — Yes. 
 
 Who else ? — I do not know. 
 
 Did you ask him who they were ? — Certainly I did. 
 . What did he say ? — He said there were some men it 
 would be injurious to let out. 
 
 Did you ask him who they were ? — One was Brennan, 
 but I do not remember the others. 
 
 Were there more than one ? — I cannot remember the 
 name of anybody except Brennan . I cannot remember 
 how many there were, but there were more than one. 
 
 Very well. I think you stated that you discussed 
 this matter with Mr. Chamberlain. Have you any memo- 
 randa ? — The bulk of the memoranda relating to the 
 matter were destroyed in 1883, at a time when there 
 was a danger of a Select Committee of the House of 
 Commons having to be appointed to inquire into the 
 Kilmainham Treaty. 
 
 Was that done at Mr. Parnell's suggestion ? — No. 
 
 Or Mr. Chamberlain's ?— No. 
 
 Or yours '{ — No. It was suggested to me that it 
 was politically expedient that the utmost reticence 
 should be kept upon the subject. 
 
 By whom ? — By Sir William Harcourt. (Loud laughter/ 
 He stated that it was the opinion of another person- 
 Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 The President. — This is the first occasion on which 
 there has been any manifestation of feeling, and I take 
 the opportunity of stating that I must request that 
 everybody will refrain from any exhibition of the sort 
 in the future. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Was it then that you destroyed 
 the memoranda ? — Yes. 
 
 How is it that you have th6 memoranda which 
 passed between you and Mr. Chamberlain '/ — A certain 
 number of the memoranda were in a box, and I did not 
 find them until afterwards. 
 
 Perhaps the most important lot ? — Certainly not the 
 most important to me. 
 
 Sin C. Kt/ssell, to the Secretary. — Will you give me 
 the letters put to the witness on the question of hand- 
 writing ? (To witness.) Would you repeat the state 
 meDt about Sir William Harcourt ? My learned friend 
 behind me desires it. 
 
 Witness. — There was a danger impending that 
 the Government would have to agree, to appoint a 
 Select Committee of the House of Commons to inquire 
 into the circumstances of the Kilmainham Treaty, and 
 I was informed by Sir William Harcourt that it was Mr. 
 Gladstone's wish that I should be as reticent as 
 possible on the matter, as it was expedient politically 
 to be so. 
 
 Is that the whole of the matter ? — Yes, that is the 
 whole of the matter. 
 
 And upon that you destroyed the documents in your 
 possession ? — Yes, and other documents were destroyed 
 also. 
 
 Had you the name of being a gabbler or a babbler, 
 that you had to be warned to be reticent ? Why did 
 Sir William Harcourt come to warn you to be reti- 
 cent ? — That you had better ask of Sir William 
 Harcourt himself. (To the Commissioners.) My Lords, 
 I have a correction I should like to make. On think- 
 ing over some of the questions of Sir Charles Rus- 
 sell, I think I spoke rather too positively, because 
 it has come back to my mind that Mr. Parnell did speak 
 of the possible refusal of Mr. Davitt to accept a ticket- 
 of-leave. On the Thursday I went to Sir William Har- 
 court in reference to Mr. Davitt's release standing 
 over till the Saturday. 
 
 What was the reason given for postponing Mr. 
 Davitt's release ? — The reason given for that was that 
 Mr. Parnell should have an opportunity of going down 
 to Dartmoor. 
 
 Was that with a view to meet the possible objection 
 on the part of Mr. Davitt that you have mentioned ? — 
 It is possible that that was one of the reasons. I 
 believe the real reason was that Mr. Parnell wanted to 
 see Mr. Davitt before he was released. 
 .';' Was that the reason given by Mr. Parnell for his 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 165 
 
 journey to Dartmoor ? — I am not certain that he did 
 not mention that as a. reason. It was not the only 
 one. 
 
 Did he give any other ? — Yes, that he wanted to see 
 him first. 
 
 Have you ever stated with reference to these nego- 
 tiations that you were led to expect that you would be 
 made Chief Secretary for Ireland ? — No. 
 
 Did Mr. Chamberlain ever promise you that you 
 would be made Chief Secretary? — No. 
 
 Nor intimate it to you ? — If the Local Government 
 jchetne had been adopted, the thing was talked of. 
 
 I believe a baronetcy was spoken of ? — Never. I 
 have never heard of such a notion before, except 
 from some scurrilous speakers in Galway during the 
 Galway election. I never made any reference to such 
 a thing myself. 
 
 You have corrected one serious misstatement— 
 namely, the statement made by the Attorney- 
 General that Mr. Parnell was opposed to signing 
 the manifesto with reference to the Phoenix Park 
 murders. That is not true ? — It is an absolute mistake, 
 as I have stated just now. 
 
 On the contrary, did you not know that Mr. Parnell 
 was so stunned and shocked by that crime that he was 
 actually contemplating retiring from public life ? — Yes, 
 I took bis letter to Mr. Gladstone that morning oifer- 
 ing to retire from public life. 
 
 You knew enough of the political situation of the 
 moment to know that a more cruel blow at Mr. 
 Parnell's policy and the interests of the people you 
 were both representing in Parliament, could not have 
 been struck ? — So I considered it. 
 
 And consider it so still ? — Certainly. 
 
 How many letters have you received from Mr. Par- 
 nell altogether. About a dozen ? — Oh, a great many. 
 
 How many would you say ?— I really cannot say. A 
 great many. 
 
 Have you received a dozen ? — Yes, certainly, and a 
 great many more. 
 
 Have you got them ?— No. I very seldom keep 
 letters. 
 
 Have you half a dozen of them ? — No. > 
 
 Have you any ?— Yes, I have. 
 
 How many ? — I do not know. I oannot tell you. 
 
 Two or three P — Yes, more. 
 
 You say you have received a dozen letters from Mr. 
 Parnell ? — Certainly, and an immense deal more, but I 
 really cannot tell how many. I was on intimate terms 
 with Mr. Parnell for several years, and to talk of 
 only a dozen letters passing between us is absolute 
 folly. The number must have been largely in excess 
 of that. 
 
 When were you first asked your opinion about the 
 handwriting of these letters ? — On Wednesday. 
 
 By whom ? — I went to Mr. Soames's office, and they 
 were there shown to me. 
 
 With whom did, you go ?— By myself. The letters 
 were shown to me by a gentleman |in the office — pro- 
 bably.Mr. Soames's managing clerk. 
 
 You had not 6een the originals before ? — Never. Of 
 none of them. 
 
 Did you perceive any sign of any attempt at dissimu- 
 lation in the character of the handwriting P — No. 
 
 Did all the letters occur to your mind as being 
 natural and genuine ?— Yes. I have a very strong 
 opinion on that. 
 
 That they are ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you feel equally 6trongly as to all of them ? — I 
 observed differences. 
 
 Will you take them in your hand and select those of 
 the batch which you think are different ? — I may say 
 that I had no intention of giving evidence with regard 
 to these letters at all. 
 
 My question was this — Does the signature in any one 
 of these letters strike you as being more clearly in 
 Mr. Parnell's handwriting than the others ? Or is your 
 evidence equally strong as to all ? — I believe they 
 have all been written by Mr. Parnell. If these letters 
 had come to me I should have said they were written 
 by Mr. Parnell ; but I am really no judge in the. 
 matter. 
 
 I am not asking you as an expert. Does it strike you 
 that there are any of these letters as to which you 
 would have a stronger opinion than as to the others I 
 — I think they are written by Mr. Parnell, and I can- 
 not say any more than that. 
 
 My question is — Are there any of these letters, of 
 signatures, which appear to you more strongly like 
 Mr. Parnell's handwriting than others ? If you oannot 
 answer the question say so, and I will proceed — — 
 
 The President. — May I be allowed, Sir Charles, to 
 suggest another form of putting the question ? Are 
 there any of the signatures as to which be has any 
 doubt ? 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Yes, my Lord, but I should prefer 
 to have an answer to the question as I put it. 
 
 The President. — You are referring him to an imagi- 
 nary standard. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Quite so, my Lord ; but it is a 
 standard which each man forms in his mind. (To the 
 witness.) What do you say ?— I do not know. As^I 
 have said, I din not an expert. 
 
 No, and I am not going to trouble you to enter into 
 a minute criticism of the writing. I want to know 
 whether your opinion is equally strong upon every one 
 of the letters ? — Yes, I understand the question, but 
 my difficulty is in answering it. I think the hand- 
 writing is Mr. Parnell's, and I cannot say more than 
 that. 
 
 I will repeat the question once more. Do all the 
 letters seem to you to be equally unmistakably in 
 the handwriting of Mr. Parnell, or are there any that 
 strike you as less likely to be'so thanothers ?— I cannot 
 answer the question. They all seem to me to be in his 
 handwriting. 
 
 Very well. Now, you recollect the appearance of the 
 facsimile letter in The Times ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you ever discussed with any one the question of; 
 ho w The Times got it ?— ■! have often spoken -about it, 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
166 
 
 The Special Commission, October 31, 185 
 
 but I have never discussed with any one how The Times 
 got it, because I do not know. 
 
 Not even how they might have got it ? — I have heard 
 various statements made about it in conversation. 
 
 Just tell us what they were ? — I cannot, really. It 
 is impossible. 
 
 Tell us, in substance, what were the suggestions you 
 discussed and made as to how The Times got the letter. 
 — I have seen various theories started about it in the 
 newspapers. 
 
 What were they ? — I do not know now. 
 
 Have you ever made any suggestion on the subject 
 yourself ? — No. 
 
 Did you hear any suggestion made as to whom it 
 was addressed to ? — There is one which commences 
 «' Dear B." 
 
 Do you take that to mean Mr. Egan ? — Yes. 
 
 I am now talking about the facsimile letter ? — I have 
 never heard any suggestion as to whom that might be 
 addressed to. 
 
 Nor formed an opinion yourself ? — No. At first when 
 I saw the letter I did not think it was genuine. My 
 idea was that if you told a correspondent to show a 
 letter to a man, aud at the same time told him not to 
 let him know your address, it would be rather insult- 
 ing to him. 
 
 Did you suppose that the signature had been first 
 obtained and the letter written above it ? — No, I did 
 not think anything about it. 
 
 Why did you believe the letter not to be genuine ? — 
 I could not understand why a man should say, " You 
 can show him this letter, but do not tell him my 
 address." 
 
 Is that the only reason why you thought it was not 
 genuine ? — That was the only reason . 
 
 Although you had no doubt about the handwriting ? — 
 I had no doubt about the signature. 
 
 Can you suggest anybody as the writer of the body of 
 the letter or letters ?— No. 
 
 Do you know the handwriting of Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
 ParneH's secretary ?— I have often received letters 
 from him about the meetings of a company of which 
 you and I were directors. 
 
 A land company was it not ?— Yes, but I have not 
 got any of the letters. 
 
 An emigration land company was it not ?— Well, 
 you ought to know, as you were a director. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Take these letters in your hand and tell me whether 
 the body of any of them is in Mr. Campbell's hand- 
 writing ? — I do not know, I cannot tell. 
 
 Just turn them over and look at them ?— 1 have 
 looked at them. 
 
 Are you speaking of all the letters ? — Any of them. 
 
 Is there any one in Mr. Campbell's handwriting ?— As 
 well as I know Mr. Campbell's handwriting, I cannot 
 say anything of the kind. 
 
 As to that you will express no opinion 1—1 know 
 nothing about them. 
 
 There are only two other points I want to ask you 
 
 anything about. You say that Mr. Parnell asked you 
 to have police protection for himself ? — Yes. 
 
 Are you certain of that ? — Absolutely certain. 
 
 Did you not get police protection for your own 
 house ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you not get police protection for your own 
 rooms at Albert-mansions ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you suggest that beyond watching your house 
 where Mr. Parnell was staying, that Mr. Parnell was 
 watched or followed by police ? — Certainly, that is 
 to say, Sir William Harcourt told me he should have 
 them'. 
 
 Police in uniform or detectives ? — I do not know. I 
 asked for police protection. 
 
 Did you at the same time ask for police protection 
 for Albert-mansions ? — Yes. 
 
 Where you lived ? Mr. Parnell did not stay there c 
 —No. 
 
 Then I understand you asked for three things — yot 
 asked for police protection for your house, for 
 personal protection for Mr. Parnell, and police pro- 
 tection for your rooms in Albert-mansions ? — I do not 
 know whether it was for Albert-mansions. I was 
 promised that I should be looked after. 
 
 Do you recollect a discussion in the House of 
 Commons as to ^certain interviews you had with Mr. 
 Forster? — Yes. 
 
 It is suggested to me that you had police protection 
 in 1886 at Albert-mansion3. Is that so ? — Not that I 
 know of, but one does not always know what the 
 police do. 
 
 I believe you wrote a letter to The Times newspaper 
 on May 18, 1882?— Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I will read the letter from the 
 Freeman's Journal, where it also appeared : — 
 
 " Sir, — Lest there should linger in the public mind 
 the slightest misconception as to my repudiation of Mr. 
 Forster's public version of my private conversation, I 
 beg that you will insert the following statement. 
 
 " My assertion that I had been in frequent com- 
 munication with him. Mr. Forster has had the coolness 
 to describe as incorrect. I retort that, besides previous 
 communications, I talked the whole situation over 
 while walking with him from the House of Commons 
 to the Irish Office, and while standing outside the 
 latter building on Wednesday, the 26th of April. On 
 Friday, the 28th, I walked with him from the Irish 
 Office through the Park to Downing-street, stopping 
 several times on the way, as men often do when in 
 earnest conversation. Among the matters of our dis- 
 cussion was a foolish answer which he had drafted to 
 Mr. Cowen's question respecting the imprisoned 
 members, and which he was fortunately not allowed to 
 give in the House of Commons. I had another con- 
 versation — a short one— with him later in the day, at 
 the Irish Office, and a third interview of some length 
 in his room in the House of Commons, to which I was 
 invited by him through the Irish Solicitor-General. 
 During this last one he suggested the best plan for 
 visiting Kilmainham unostentatiously. But I confess 
 he appeared nervous and demoralized, and I was 
 obliged to point out and make him correct an extra- 
 ordinary error in the letter which he handed me, 
 addressed to Captain Barlow, deputy chairman of the 
 
 Captain W. E. O'Shea. 
 
The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 167 
 
 Irish Prisons Board. That error was nothing less than 
 the substitution of another name for mine in the order 
 for special facilities which he had just written. The 
 order must be in Captain Barlow's possession. Let it 
 be produced, for Mr. Forster's worst enemy cannot 
 suggest its being concocted. 
 
 " Now, as to the memorandum alleged by Mr. 
 Forster to represent my conversation with him on 
 April SO. In it he informed the Cabinet that I had 
 used the following words : — ' The conspiracy which 
 has been used to get up boycotting and outrages will 
 now be used to put them down.' The following are 
 the facts : — I myself know nothing about the organiza- 
 tion of the Land League. But I told Mr. Forster that 
 I had been informed by Mr. Parnell the day before 
 that if the arrears question were settled that organiza- 
 tion would explain the boon to the people and tell them 
 that they ought to assist the operation of the remedial 
 measure in the tranqui Ihzation of the country. I added 
 that Mr. Parnell had expressed his belief that Messrs. 
 Davitt, Egan, Sheridan, and Boyton would use all their 
 exertions, if placed in a position to do so, to advance 
 the pacification, and that Mr. Sheridan's influence was 
 of special importance in the west, owing to the fact 
 that he had been the chief organizer of the Land 
 League in Connaught before his arrest, while Mr. 
 Boyton had held a similar appointment in the province 
 of Leinster. On these points I had heard no more, I 
 knew no more, and I said no more. 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 " William Heney O'Shea. 
 
 " House of Commons." 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — That is correct ? — Perfectly 
 correct. 
 
 You will bring the testimonial to which we have 
 eferred into court to-morrow morning ? — Yes. 
 
 The Attorney-Geneeal then asked whether any of 
 the other parties desired to cross-examine the witness, 
 and negative replies being given, he left the box. 
 
 Mr. Healy then rose and said, — I wish to put a 
 question to Mr. O'Shea. 
 
 The witness having been recalled, 
 
 Mr. Healy said, — You were opposed at Galway by 
 some members of the Irish party, and you went there 
 on a Saturday ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember a paragraph in the Freeman's 
 Journal announcing your candidature ? — Yes. 
 
 iSy the next train you were followed by certain Iiish 
 members ? — Yes. 
 
 Who were they ?— Yourself and Mr. Biggar. 
 
 We immediately addressed meetings against you, and 
 ittacked and denounced you by every means in our 
 power ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — Quite so ; that is all I want. 
 
 There was no re-examination of the witness. 
 
 Head Constable Irwin, who gave some evidence yes- 
 terday with respect to speeches delivered at League 
 meetings, was then recalled and examined by Mr. 
 MUEPHY. 
 
 The learned counsel read a transcript of a speech 
 delivered at a meeting in Galway by the Eev. Mr. 
 Considine, which the witness had taken down in short- 
 hand. In this speech the rev. gentleman said that he 
 was glad to notice a growing enthusiasm in the place, 
 
 which would sweep back landlordism and all other 
 " isms." Ireland was not to be kept down by force. 
 They had bowed too long beneath the yoke of landlordism. 
 Those who should refuse to join the League would be 
 craven wretches, and would deserve condemnation. 
 Every Irishman ought to be a Land Leaguer. It was a 
 noble, God's work. In conclusion he said, work for the 
 Land League. The harvest was ripe ; let them put iu 
 their sickles and reap the harvest. 
 
 Mr. Mukfhy was then proceeding to read a speech 
 delivered at Ahascragh.in county Galway, by Mr. Thomas 
 Griffin, and referred to by the Attorney-General in hia 
 opening speech on the first day of the inquiry, when 
 
 The President said : — That speeeh.Mr. Murphy, does 
 not seem to contain much that is important. Will you 
 in future attempt some classification or elimination? 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— The difficulty we have felt, my 
 Lords, is that it has been suggested that the extracts 
 we have furnished are not fair extracts, and we are 
 therefore reading the whole. 
 
 The President. — This is a copy of a speech, and 
 taere are some phrases that might be copied from it. 
 
 Mr. Mukphy. — Until to-day we have had no opportu- 
 nity of seeing these speeches in exlcnso. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I may point out to your Lordships 
 that it is important that the whole of the speech should be 
 read, or we do not get what is the general character of 
 the meetiLg, if what are called the objectionable por- 
 tions merely are read out. 
 
 The President. — That is very true. I was endeavour- 
 ing to save time. 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — I will say again what I hav« said 
 before, though I am afraid I am guilty of reiteration, 
 but I wish to repeat for once and for all, that if we 
 can bo furnished with copies of the speeches of these 
 meetings, I shall not ask my learned friend to read 
 anything more than he wishes — it being left to me to 
 read anything further I may think material. 
 
 The President. — I should be very glad if any such 
 arrangement as that could be come to. It would leave 
 it open to you by-and-by to call our attention to the 
 qualifying speeches and the qualifying expressions it 
 the speeches. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I hope that in the future— not to- 
 morrow — but in the future, we shall bo able to fall in 
 with some such arrangement. It would have been done 
 before to-day, but it is only to-day that we have been 
 able to see the speeches. Your Lordship3, I am sure, 
 •vriU understand that as far as we are able to do it we 
 will see that it is carried out. 
 
 ? The President. — We shall not waste much time 
 (pointing to the clock). 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— No, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. Murphy then proceeded to read the speech of 
 Thomas Griffin, who said they pledged themselves to 
 pay no higher rent than Griffith's valuation. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — As this is going to bo handed in, per- 
 haps my friend will excuse my reading it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— No, no. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — It is poing to be handed in. 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
168 
 
 The Special Commission, October 31, 1888. 
 
 Sik C. Russell.— No, no. 
 Mr. Murphy.— Very well then, I will read it. 
 Mr. Murphy then continued reading— Landlordism 
 was the curse of that country. It was no wonder they 
 should wish to abolish that system for ever. If they 
 went on as people had been going on no doubt they 
 would get peasant proprietary. They should not only 
 pay Griffith's valuation ; they should calculate the value 
 of their houses, and deduct that. He asked them to 
 join the Land League and to follow that noble man, 
 Charles Stewart Parnell, and to subscribe liberally for 
 those 14 men who were going to be placed before a 
 jury the next week. t 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Do you know, witness, what the 14 
 men were charged with ? 
 
 Witness. — I believe ■ 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Noy no. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Excuse me. Do you know 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Do you know of your own know- 
 * ledge ? — Yes, Sir Charles, I was present at the trial. 
 Mr. Murphy.— What were they charged with ? Con- 
 spiracy ? — It was the State trial. 
 Mr. Justice A.L. Smith. -What date was that speech ? 
 Mr. Murphy.— The 19th of December,1880. 
 Sir C. Russell.— I think he cannot be right in that 
 date, Mr. Murphy, because the State trial did not take 
 place till January, 1881. 
 
 Mr. Murphy then proceeded to read a speech by Mr. 
 Matthew Harris at the same meeting. The speaker 
 said that though it might be in his power to get into 
 the English House of Commons, he would consider he 
 was degrading himself as an Irishman if he entered 
 that House. He was glad to see Protestants and 
 Catholics together on that platform. It had been said 
 there were good landlords in that locality. He did 
 not want to contradict that saying, or to bring public 
 odium to bear upon good men. He wanted to crush 
 down bad men. It wa3 a mistake to think they were 
 going to denounce any good men, they did not come 
 there to hound down good men ; they had enough to de- 
 nounce. A search warrant had been granted against him, 
 and the officer who executed the search had induced 
 him to write something down merely for the purpose 
 of getting his writing. That officer was now a county 
 inspector, and the sergeant of police who assisted him 
 was now a head constable. A groat deal had been 
 6aid about boycotting, but it was merely retaliation on 
 the part of the people for similar conduct by the land- 
 lords towards them. - 
 
 The witness was then examined as to a speech 
 delivered at Ballygar on January 31, 1881, by Mr. 
 J. R. M'Donnell. 
 
 Sm, C. Russell.— Have you a note of the Rev. Mr. 
 youjig's speech ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— I have had in this sense, that it was 
 in the bundle of speeches which the witness handed to 
 me just now. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— The witness says the transcript is 
 here. I do not want my learned friend to read it, but 
 I want to see it. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— There will be no objection, Sir 
 Charles, as far as we are concerned. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I want all the speeches of which 
 you have transcripts. 
 
 The President. — That is, that they be handed to you. 
 You do not wish them read ? 
 Sir 0. Russell. — Just so, my Lord. 
 Mr. Murphy. — If your Lordships would look at the 
 bundle. 
 The President. — I cannot undertake to read it. 
 Mr. Murphy. — I have not read it myself ; but it is 
 obviously, on the face of it, a report by somebody about 
 something. 
 
 The President.— That is a report, Sir Charles, 
 which they are not bound to show to you. If you 
 cannot come to an arrangement you must wait until 
 you cross-examine this witness, and then we shall see 
 what your rights are. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My position is that wherever The 
 Times have been furnished with documents by the 
 Irish Office — by the Government — we should see the 
 whole of them. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— Sir C. Russell has asserted that The 
 Times has been furnished with documents by the 
 Government. The witnesses have produced them. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— O'Malley told us he got his tran- 
 scripts from the Irish Office. 
 
 The President.— Vou have the evidence from the 
 source from which that evidence was naturally to be 
 obtained. But I must say I think it is only right that 
 you should supply to Sir Charles the speeches of 
 which you have transcripts. If, for instance, there 
 was a speech by the chairman which ran counter 
 to the speech you have read, that would naturally 
 have to be taken into account. That bundle, 
 however, contains more than speeches ; it contains 
 reports of some sort or other. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— I was about to detach the report and 
 hand the speeches to you, Sir Charles. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Why should my learned friend see 
 what I have not seen ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— I have not seen them, Sir Charles 
 Russell. . 
 
 Witness.— I cannot well detach them, as they 
 are written on both sides and follow on consecu- 
 tively. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Your Lordships see the Govern- 
 ment do not consider this in any way confidential 
 matter. 
 
 The President.— I have not said so. If you desire 
 to deal with .me strictly, you must wait until you 
 cross-examine the witness. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— It was claimed as a right and the 
 question has never been discussed. It seems, my 
 Lords, to be an attempt to make a grievance out 
 of something which has really no substance in it. 
 
 Sin C. Russell. — I have a grievance. It was said 
 yesterday that inquiry would be made whether dupli- 
 cate copies could be procured and handed to us. 
 Mr. Murphy.— That is the difficulty of making any 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
The Special Commission, October 31 and November 1, 1888. 169* 
 
 concession to my learned friend. I should not like to 
 make any concession to him after that. 
 
 The President. — Do not say that. Let this discus- 
 sion cease. 
 
 Mr. Murphy (proceeding with the examination of 
 the witness). — The chairman introduced Mr. M'Donnell, 
 who said he had much pleasure in proposing a resolu- 
 tion that all the tenant farmers of the district who 
 had not already joined the Land League should do so 
 forthwith. He had seen so much misery among tenants, 
 caused by the oppression of the landlords, that before 
 the Land League had been started he was a deter- 
 mined foe of British rule in that country. If they did 
 not stand shoulder to shoulder, the time was not far 
 distant when they would be swept away for ever. If 
 there was any man in that county who had not joined 
 the Land League he called on those present 
 to name him, and risk the consequences. He 
 hoped soon to see landlordism swept away for ever. 
 
 The witness was next examined as to a speech de- 
 livered on September 25, 1881, by the Eev. Mr. Murphy, 
 at Fenit, in county Kerry. The speech was read by Mr. 
 Murphy, from the transcript of the witness's 
 shorthand notes. In the course of his remarks the 
 speaker said that 200 years ago the land was taken 
 from the people by robbery, and, please God, they 
 would now try to get it back. They had a great power 
 behind them. There was not an Irishman in America 
 but was prepared to have his own way, and when Eng- 
 land saw that they were strong she would yield to 
 them. He reproved the people in that part of Ireland 
 for not being sufficiently active in their work for the 
 Land League, and made a proposal that the farmers 
 should all give their labourers a small portion of land 
 in order to secure their co-operation. He concluded by 
 announcing that they were struggling for the abolition 
 of landlordism altogether. A resolution in favour of 
 the abolition of landlordism was carried. 
 
 At this point the Commissioners adjourned until to- 
 morrow. 
 
 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1. 
 
 The Special Commission held their eighth sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 The Commissioners having taken their seats on the 
 bench, 
 
 Sir H. James said, — I should like, my Lords, to 
 make a suggestion with regard to the proof of the 
 speeches that we desire to lay before the Court. We 
 quite feel that my learned friends are entitled to have 
 the context of the extracts which we desire to put in. 
 I therefore make this proposition that all the speeches 
 shall be brought into court in print, and we will underline 
 the parts on which we rely. We will also give the 
 names of all the speakers at each meeting and the 
 speeches made by them. We will give copies of these 
 to my learned friends and to those who appear per« 
 sonally, and will produce transcripts of the speeches, 
 
 which can be placed in a room in this building so that) 
 all may see them. We will then ask your Lordships to 
 fix a day, and we will then produoe any witnesses as 
 to those speeches whom my learned friends may wish' 
 to cross-examine. This will enable us in a few hours; 
 to lay before your Lordships the speeches on which we? 
 rely. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I think the suggestion just made a 
 very valuable one, but I should like to consult my 
 learned friends, Mr. Reid and Mr. Lockwood, before 
 committing myself to an acceptance of it. The sug- 
 gestion, however, I may say is very much in the direct 
 tion I have desired. 
 
 The President. — We should be glad if counsel could 
 come to some such arrangement. 
 
 Sir H. James. — If this course be approved, we need 
 not then continue the reading of the speeches. I may 
 add, however, that as we have brought witnesses here 
 to prove these speeches with the expectation that they 
 would occupy five or six days, we are not in a position 
 to proceed in regular order with the next part of the 
 case — namely, the outrages in the different counties— 
 at this particular moment. 
 
 SIR C. Russell. — There might be some difficulty irr 
 cross-examining those witnesses at present. 
 
 The President. — Our wish is to save time. Perhaps 
 the examination-in-chief might be taken now and the 
 cross-examination reserved. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I should like, my Lords, to cross*. 
 examine the witnesses Irwin and O'Malley. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I entirely concur in the 
 way Sir Henry James has put the matter, but per> 
 haps it would be as well to proceed with Irwin 
 and O'Malley on the old lines. As we did not expect 
 that the next part of the evidence — namely, that with 
 regard to the outrages — would be gone into for five or 
 six days, we are at present not in a position to 
 proceed with it in the same localized way. 
 
 Sir H. James. — It was in consequence of what fell 
 from the Bench yesterday that we felt we ought to 
 consider what course it would be best to pursue, so 
 as to save time. 
 
 The President. — I feel assured that all parties are 
 as anxious as we are to save time, and we appear to 
 be approaching to an arrangement that will secure that 
 result. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — I suppose, my Lords, we shall be 
 allowed to present our view of what was said in the 
 course of these speeches. 
 
 SIR H. James. — If we wish to prove a speech made 
 at a meeting we shall give it in cxicnso, and we shall 
 give the names of all tho other speakers and the 
 transcripts of their speeches will be accessible. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — Some of the speeches made would 
 cover two or three columns if taken verbatim, but they 
 have been condensed into three or four sentences. 
 What is the intention with regard to them ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — We can only present the short re« 
 ports in those cases, because that is all we have got. 
 
 Suggestion as to Proof of Speeches. 
 
170 
 
 The Special Commission, November 1, 1888, 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — Will the same rule apply to speeches 
 made in America ? 
 
 Sir H. Jambs. — I have not referred to that part of 
 the case — but only to the Irish speeches. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— There is a matter my 
 friend Sir Charles Eussell wished to refer to in 
 connexion with Mr. O'Shea's evidence as to the testi- 
 monial or declaration signed by a numbar of persons 
 protesting against Captain O'Shea's exclusion from 
 Irish politics. 
 
 Captain O'Shea having gone into the witness-box, 
 
 Sir C. Russell (to witness). — You mentioned a 
 rome yesterday — General something, Davis or Faylis — I 
 did not catch exactly what. Can you tell me the name ? 
 —No, I cannot tell you the name. General Carroll 
 Davis, or something like that, I think. 
 
 Did you know who he was ? — No. 
 
 Did you meet him in Paris ? — No ; and as to Hayes, 
 whose name has been mentioned, I never knew him 
 directly or indirectly. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — You were asked whether 
 you did not send a man named Mulqueeny to Paris to 
 get Casey's signature to this testimonial, and did not 
 pay his expenses for so doing. Will you look at the 
 names to the testimonial and see whether Casey signed 
 it ? — No ; Casey's name is not appended. 
 
 Did you send Mulqueeny to get any signatures ? — 
 No. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My question was not whether 
 Casey's signature was got, but whether he sent Mul- 
 queeny to Paris to try and get it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Did you ? — No. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I should ask, my Lords, 
 that this testimonial be not printed. I do not think it 
 would be fair to these men that their names should be 
 made public. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I quite agree. 
 
 The President. — Very well. Let only the references 
 made to it by the witness appear in the official report. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I reserve to myself the right, my 
 Lords, to recall Captain O'Shea if it should appear 
 necessary hereafter. 
 
 Head Constable Irwin again entered the witness-box. 
 •Mr. Murphy said,— The next speeches I propose to 
 prove are those delivered at Cork on the 2d of October, 
 1881. I will not read them, but I will hand the tran- 
 script to Sir C. Russell. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Why not read them ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Because they are very long. 
 
 The President. — Do you rely on any special parts 
 of them ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— Yes, on the parts read by the 
 Attorney-General, but I cannot put my finger on them 
 at a moment's notice. 
 
 The President. — Then I think we must continue 
 with the process of yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Murphy then proceeded to read a speech made 
 by Mr. Parnell at Cork on the 2d of October, 1881, in 
 
 which he said if any tenant farmer should be tempted 
 to make his own bargain behind the backs of his 
 neighbours and to regard his selfish interests only, let 
 him recollect that the Irish people behind him 
 would see that he did full justice to those who were 
 placed under him, and advising the people to re- 
 fuse to allow the lines of their organization to be 
 broken, but to convince their rulers that if they 
 wished to retain the link of the Crown that that link 
 should be the only link between the two- countries. 
 The Rev. Mr. Sheehy, CO, said they stood there 
 that day in their many thousands to repeat the vow 
 transmitted to them. They would not stop until they 
 had planted those glorious banners of Ireland, not only 
 on the ruins of the landlord power in that country, bat 
 on the ruins of that Government and the alien race it 
 represented. It was no mere section of the Irish 
 people against a class. New combinations, new ele- 
 ments of power were rushing fast into the combina- 
 tion. He would declare them cowards and caitiffs if 
 he did not declare them enemies of Buckshot Forster. 
 They were easily deluded by coaxing. England 
 might coax them, perhaps, if she had only wisdom 
 to coax them, but she had not. They would not com- 
 promise with landlordism or the English people. They 
 had suffered more as a nation from the English demo- 
 cracy than from the English aristocracy. Their demon- 
 stration was a purely national one. Ireland for the 
 Irish, whether it was separation altogether, or 
 whether it were a Parliament on College Green — they 
 would not quarrel so long as the national standard was 
 floating. The English people before the civilized 
 world stood condemned, because they could not rule 
 them as civilized men. The forces of the Irish people 
 were great and their weapons were very powerful. So 
 far, with those weapons they had won a victory ; pro- 
 ceeding on the lines of wisdom, caution, and calcula- 
 tion, they would multiply their victories. Coercion 
 had not crushed his (the speaker's) countrymen. They 
 had risen in proportion to the amount of pressure 
 brought to bear against them. Mr. T. P. O'Connor 
 also spoke, and said that magnificent and overpower- 
 ing as was the demonstration of last year, the demon- 
 stration of the City of Cork that day was greater and 
 more overpowering. The vast increase in the magni- 
 tude of their numbers and the depth of their 
 enthusiasm pointed to magnificent results. English 
 Ministers had come to the Irish people with the gift 
 of coercion in one hand and the gift of the Land Act 
 in the other. Yet the Irish people met in great 
 numbers that day ; they were not frightened by the 
 Coercion Act nor seduced by the Land Act. If they 
 could have that day the advantage or disadvantage 
 of the presence of one of the Ministers who pro- 
 fessed themselves so friendly to Ireland, he would 
 ask him which was better, for the Government of 
 Ireland to be founded upon force and fraud or 
 upon the affection and will of the people. 
 That demonstration, following as it did close upon 
 another at the capital of the Irish nation, showed that 
 
 Captain W. H. O'Shea. 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
The Special Commission, November 1, 1888.' 
 
 171 
 
 their leader was marching on to the victory of their 
 cause. Mr. Redpath, of America, also spoke. In the 
 course of his speech he said that in America they did 
 not believe that one class of men were sent into the 
 world with boots and spurs to ride and another claBS 
 ready saddled for them. Mr. T. Healy also made a 
 speech, in which he said he had seen a banner the 
 other day with the inscription " Pay no rents but 
 Griffiths valuation." He thought that injunction 
 somewhat out of date ; for he remembered that a year 
 before, when the tenants of Ireland offered their land- 
 lords Griffith's valuation, the landlords rejected it with 
 scorn. He would suggest to them a new motto, and 
 that was, " Pay no rent at all." That is the end of 
 that meeting. 
 
 The ATTOKNBr-GENBEAL. — The witness O'Malley has 
 not yet been able to make all the transcripts required, 
 because the number was so large, but he has made the 
 two or three which were particularly asked for. He 
 will produce the others as soon as they are ready. 
 
 Sin C. Russell. — I will put a few questions to this 
 witness. 
 
 The witness Irwin, cross-examined by SIR C. RnssELL. 
 — My grade is that of head constable. I was made head 
 constable in October, 1883. I have been in the force 
 13 years and four months. I am a native of Roscom- 
 mon. During my service I have been stationed in 
 Thurles, county Tipperary ; Killarney, county Kerry ; 
 Ballinasloe, county Galway ; Wexford, county Wex- 
 ford ; Castleisland, county Kerry, and at the depflt 
 in Dublin. I was first employed to take reports of 
 meetings in November or December, 1880. I had 
 previously acquired a fair knowledge of shorthand. 
 I have been employed in taking reports of meetings 
 since then at intervals up to 1887, the last at 
 Carrickmacross, Monaghan, when Mr. Davitt was 
 there. Since then I have been employed in reporting 
 official inquiries in county Kerry. From my experience 
 in the constabulary I know a good deal about Ireland. 
 I have understood from the tenour of meetings and 
 speeches which I have attended that they were held 
 with regard to evictions which had taken place 
 or were threatened. I never made any complaint of 
 my treatment at meetings or had occasion to do so. 
 Sometimes I was allowed on the platform, at other 
 times those on the platform objected, and I was not 
 permitted to stay on it. Beyond that I had no reason to 
 complain of my treatment at meetings. It was not always 
 true of those meetings that they were held in places 
 where evictions had taken place or were threatened. 
 I took a shorthand note of all the speeches. In addi- 
 tion to the transcript of my notes I usually made a 
 summary of the general character of the meetings, of 
 the speeches, and of the inscriptions on banners, and so 
 forth. The transcript and summary were forwarded to 
 the authorities at the Castle. When I was in a locality 
 where there was an officer superior to myself they 
 were sent to the Castle through him. Where there was 
 not a superior officer, I forwarded them direct. 
 
 You were not here when the Attorney-General mado 
 his speech, I think ? — I was not. 
 
 The Attorney-General read certain extracts from 
 speeches. Do you know who made those extracts ?— No, 
 Sir Charles, I do not know. 
 
 Had you anything to do with extracting particular 
 portions of speeches ? — No, Sir Charles, I had nothing 
 to do with it. 
 
 Oh, never mind my name, please (laughter) ; where 
 did you get these extracts from ? — I got them here in 
 London, at the Irish Office in Great Queen-street, from 
 the clerk in charge. 
 
 Did you have any difficulty in getting them ? — No, I 
 went there and got the transcripts. 
 
 Who instructed you to do so ? — I was directed by Mr. 
 Soames to do so. I was subpoenaed by The Times to 
 give evidence with regard to certain meetings, and 
 I went to the Irish Office and asked for the tran- 
 scripts and they were produced. 
 
 When were you subpoenaed ? — The subpoena was 
 handed to me on last Monday week. I had heard of 
 it before, when I was on leave. 
 
 I may be misinformed, but that was not the first time 
 you were subpoenaed for The Times 1 — No, I was sub- 
 poenaed in the case of " O'Donnell v. Walter." 
 
 Did you for the purposes of The Times take down in 
 shorthand the evidence of certain witnesses brought 
 over ? — I did. 
 
 Had you instructions from The Times to do so ? — I 
 had no instructions whatever from The Times, but I 
 took some of the evidence of certain Irish witnesses. 
 I took down their statements, without instructions, 
 some in shorthand and some in ordinary writing. 
 
 Where did you take them down ? — I took them down 
 at the Inns of Court Hotel. 
 
 Who were there besides yourself ? — There were a 
 number of persons with me. A number of police 
 officers and wituesses generally. 
 
 Were any magistrates there ? — There were some divi- 
 sional magistrates there. I think they were staying at 
 the hotel. 
 
 I mean in the room where the evidence was being 
 taken ?— Do you mean the whole time ? 
 
 From time to time ? — I saw Captain Slacke, Mr. 
 Home, and Mr. Dunsterville there. They were walk- 
 ing in and out of the room. 
 
 Are those all ? — There may have been more. 
 
 How many magistrates were there in and out of the 
 room when you were taking evidence ? — I don't remem- 
 ber exactly. 
 
 Well, about how many ?— Six or seven, I should think. 
 Perhaps more, perhaps less. 
 
 Were they resident or divisional magistrates ? — Some 
 were resident and some divisional. 
 
 Having taken the evidence, what did you do with it ? 
 — In some cases I gave it back to the witnesses, and in 
 other cases I gave it to Mr. Home. 
 
 He is a resident magistrate ? — Yes. 
 
 Why did you give it to him ? — Well, he was there in 
 the room. I have been attached to him over here. 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
172 
 
 The Special Commission, November 1, 1888. 
 
 I have been working off and on in an official capacity 
 for Mr. Home for eight years. 
 
 Therefore you gave it to him ?— Yes. 
 
 Where is he a resident magistrate ? — He is a resident 
 magistrate for a number of counties in Ireland, includ- 
 ing Mayo, Kerry, and Clare. He is not a divisional 
 magistrate, but a resident magistrate. 
 
 You mean that he visits places administering the 
 Crimes Act or the Coercion Act, making inquiries 
 under that Act ? — Yes ; to make inquiries under the 
 Act. 
 
 Have you any special contract with him any more 
 than you have with other magistrates ? — I have worked 
 under him since the passing of the Crimes Act in the 
 investigation of crime in Ireland. I have made 
 official reports of inquiries under that Act. 
 
 Iu how many instances ? — I do not quite know — in 
 some four or five instances I think. 
 
 When was the first ? — In December of last year. 
 
 When was the last ? — On the occasion of a trial at 
 the summer assizes at Maryport. 
 
 What did Mr. Home do with those statements you 
 gave him ? — I do not know. 
 
 Was he or was he not engaged in assisting in getting 
 up the evidence for The Times newspaper ? — ay or 
 no ? — He was present in the room. 
 
 Did he put questions to the witnesses ? — He wrote 
 out statements the same as I did. 
 
 Did other magistrates in addition to Mr. Home take 
 statements f— I saw them writing at the tables. 
 
 Were some of the witnesses near them ? — They were 
 sitting alone. 
 
 Did you hear them put questions to anybody ? — I will 
 not say that I did. 
 
 What were they doing — were • they Bitting in dumb 
 show ? — Some of them were writing. 
 
 And writing down the answers of the witnesses ? — I 
 ■did not see them doing that. 
 
 What were they writing P — Some were writing 
 private letters. 
 
 Now, in the first place was this a large room in 
 which you were ? — Yes, it was. 
 
 Was there in it one large table, or several small 
 ones ?— There was, I believe, one large table. 
 
 Were there a large number of people there ? — Per- 
 haps 5U or 60. 
 
 Is your suggestion this— that the magistrates were 
 availing themselves of this particular time and place 
 to write their private letters ?— They were writing— 
 what, I do not know. 
 
 Did they write down the statements of witnesses ? 
 — I do not know— some wrote their own statements. 
 
 Did they write the statements of other witnesses ? — 
 I do not know. 
 
 Tell us candidly all you know about this. Did 
 you not hear them put questions to the witnesses and 
 see them take down the answers the witnesses gave ? 
 •—I did not. 
 
 Did not you see the magistrates writing with the 
 witnesses sitting or standing beside them ?— The . 
 
 witnesses might have been sitting three or four feet 
 from them, not speaking,and still the magistrates were 
 writing away. 
 
 Did you see them writing down what you believed 
 were statements of the witnesses ?— I think not. I 
 believe that they were writing down their own state* 
 ments. 
 Altogether ? — Altogether. 
 
 Now is this what you wish the Court to understand 
 — that there is a large room, containing one large 
 table, about 50 people, six or seven magistrates — how 
 many policemen ? — There was a number present, how 
 many I do not know exactly. 
 
 How many witnesses ? — Fifty or 60 sometimes. 
 When you took down the statements of the 
 witnesses, who put the questions ? — As to the 
 witnesses, some of them that I know who came from 
 county Kerry came to me and asked me to write down 
 their statements. 
 
 Did anybody put questions to them ? — Yes, certainly. 
 
 Who asked the questions ? — I did. 
 
 Did anybody help you to put the questions P — Mr, 
 Home might have asked a question. 
 
 Do you mean to Say that he wa9 the only magistrate 
 who did ?— I do not recollect any other magistrate 
 doing so. I do not think they did. 
 
 Were there any police-constables who wrote shorthand 
 present besides yourself P — Oh, yes, a number of them. 
 
 Were they writing also ? — Yes, I saw one, a sergeant, 
 writing. 
 
 Was he, like yourself, taking down the statements of 
 witnesses ? — I do not believe so. 
 
 Then, as far as your observation went, you wero the 
 only constable taking the evidence of witnesses ? — I 
 only saw the sergeant I have spoken of writing. 
 
 Did you think he was taking evidence ? — I believe 
 he was. He was sitting at a table. 
 
 And taking the statement of a witness ? — I suppose 
 so. 
 
 Was anybody assisting him ? — I believe not. 
 
 How long did this go on — how many days or hours ? 
 — For some few days. 
 
 How many ?— Perhaps for a week. 
 
 And was the same thing going on each of those 
 days P — They would not all be there at the same time, 
 but the same kind of thing would be going on, off and 
 on, during the day from day to day during the week. 
 
 Then there were present during that time a number 
 of policemen, witnesses, and magistrates P — Yes. 
 
 And were the magistrates still writing their private 
 letters ? — They came in and out. 
 
 Do you recollect any witnesses whose evidence you 
 took ?— I took that of Mr. Newell. 
 
 Who was he ? — He was a district inspector. 
 
 But he would be your superior. How came you to 
 take down his evidence ? — His statement was rather a 
 long one, and he asked me to take it down in short- 
 hand. 
 
 Did you take the statement of anybody else ?— Yes* 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
The Special Commission, November 1, 1888> 
 
 173 
 
 that of John Cullity, from the district of Castleisland, 
 and that of M'Auliffe, from the same district. 
 
 Was there anybody else whose statement you took ? 
 •—Yes ; I took those of several policemen. I also took 
 that of District Inspector Huggins. 
 
 You say that you do not recollect taking the state- 
 ment of anybody else ? You know that you are speak- 
 inglupon youroath ? — I took the statements of a number 
 of men whose names I did not know, or which I do 
 not recollect. 
 
 Where did they come from ? — From different parts of 
 Ireland. 
 
 What parts ? — Some from Athlone on the borders of 
 Galway, others from Galway, and others from Kerry. 
 
 Whose evidence did the sergeant take ? — That of Mr. 
 Boyd, of New Eoss, I believe. 
 
 Who is Mr. Boyd ? — He is the Crown Solicitor, I 
 believe. I saw him sitting close by. 
 
 Is he what is known in Ireland as a Crown Prose- 
 cutor ?— He is a Sessional Crown Prosecutor. 
 
 You say you returned to the witnesses the statements 
 you wrote out ? — Yes, in some cases in order that they 
 might read them over, those who were able to read ; 
 in cases where they were not able to read, I read their 
 Statements over to them myself. >! 
 
 What did you do with the statements you did not 
 hand to the witnesses ? — I left some on the table for 
 Mr. Home, and the others I took away with me. Some 
 I put into an envelope and sent to Mr. Edwards. 
 
 He is clerk to Mr. Soames, the solicitor for The 
 Times ? — Yes. 
 
 Who instructed you to do this ? — No one, except that 
 Curran came to me and asked me, and Mr. Newell 
 asked me, to take his statement. 
 
 Who told you to take the evidence of a consider- 
 able number of these witnesses ? — No one. 
 
 Then you volunteered ? — Yes. 
 
 Who told you to give some of the statements to Mr. 
 Edwards ?— *I saw no one else to give them to, and as I 
 was going out I took the statements with me and put 
 them into an envelope and sent them to Mr. Edwards. 
 
 Then were you helping to get up the evidence ? — 
 Yes, for the case of " O'Donnell v. Walter." 
 
 For The Times 1 — I merely took the statements of 
 some witnesses. 
 
 You know the purpose of the statements being taken 
 was that they should be handed to The Times 1 — Yes, 
 for the purposes of that case. I merely took the state- 
 ments of some witnesses. 
 
 Are you sure that you have mentioned all the most 
 considerable persons who were there ? — All I re- 
 member. 
 
 Do you know Mr. George Bolton ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he there f — Yes, I believe he was. 
 
 How did it happen that you did not mention his 
 name then ? — I did not think of it. 
 
 What is he ?— He is a Crown Solicitor. There were also 
 several district inspectors there. 
 
 How is it that the names of all these persons escaped 
 
 yon ?— Several came into the room for a few minutea 
 only. 
 
 What were they doing ? — They came in and out. I 
 had served some of them a good while ago. 
 
 Was there any occasion when the statement of any 
 witness was taken by you when the district inspectors 
 and the magistrates were not present ? — Yes, Cullity 
 spoke in a very low tone, and to hear him better 
 while I was taking his statement I shut the door. 
 M'Auliffe was also present. 
 
 Do you say that you were not asked by any one to 
 do this ? — I did not get directions. 
 
 Were you not asked to get up the evidence for The 
 Times ? — Never. 
 
 When did you see Mr. Edwards ? — I saw him in tho 
 room. 
 
 When did he introduce himself to you ?— When I was 
 subpoenaed. 
 
 You knew that he was Mr. Soames's clerk ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he present when any of the statements were 
 taken ? — That I cannot say. 
 
 There was a State trial, as it was called, in Dublin, 
 beginning in December, 1880 ?— Yes. 
 
 Were you present ? — I merely went in. 
 
 Do you know that the persons charged there were 
 Mr. Parnell, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Biggar, Mr. T. D. 
 Sullivan, Mr. Sexton, and Brennan, Boyton, Walsh, 
 and Nally 1— Yes. 
 
 Do you know that all the speeches up to the date of 
 the prosecution were referred to in the course of that 
 trial ? — Perfectly well. 
 
 There was no verdict ?— The jury could not agree. 
 
 And the prosecution dropped ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, according to your experience and recollec 
 tion, except when the police are employed in assists 
 ing at evictions, are they not treated kindly by and 
 do they not live on good terms generally with the 
 people 1 — Speaking generally there may be instances 
 where it is not so. The people are of respectable 
 classes generally — they include the farming class. 
 
 Has it not been the employment of the police in evic- 
 tions that has caused any sore feeling to exist 
 between the people generally and the police ? — It has 
 caused a very sore feeling. 
 
 Was that the principal cause of that feeling ? — Yes. 
 There may have been other kinds of excitement — for 
 instance, the riots at Belfast and at Cork. 
 
 Where were you born ? — I am a native of the county 
 of Roscommon. I know that the holdings there are 
 generally very small. Of course there are some large 
 holdings. 
 
 And do you not know that the class of persona 
 who have these holdings in that part of the country 
 mainly supported themselves by earning wages in 
 Scotland and England during harvest ? — Yes ; and in 
 Mayo generally so. 
 
 And you Know that, after 1878-9, that class of em- 
 ployment fell off very greatly ? — Since those years the 
 people seem to have been poorer. 
 
 You know, do you not, that for their support and for 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
174 
 
 The Special Commission, November 1, 1888. 
 
 the payment of their rent they depended upon their 
 earnings in the harvest time ? — Yes ; a great many of 
 them. 
 
 What age are you ? — Between 31 and 32 years of age. 
 
 Probably you have heard from your parents of the 
 famine of the years 1846-7-8 P— Yes. 
 
 What were your parents ? — My parents and ancestors 
 held a large amount of land in the county of Sligo until 
 the time of the famine. In helping the poor people their 
 funds were exhausted and their lands were sold up. 
 That was in my grandfather's time. 
 
 Where were you stationed in 1878-9 ?— In Kil- 
 larney and Ballinasloe. 
 
 In 1878-9 were there not grave rumours of a general 
 recurrence of the famine of 1846-8 ? — I know meet- 
 ings were held. 
 
 I am not talking about meetings. I asked you as a 
 constable living in the neighbourhood whether that was 
 not so ?— May I explain, Sir Charles ? Meetings were 
 held, or, at least, one meeting at which I was present, 
 when I heard a speaker say that they ought to call 
 upon the Government to open relief works. 
 
 In view of a threatened famine ? — In view of the 
 grjat distress. 
 
 And the distress was great ? — Yes, to many people. 
 
 And general ?— Among the smaller farmers. 
 
 Do you know that, just as that distress deepened, 
 evictions increased ? — I have not personal knowledge 
 of that. I was not present at those evictions. 
 
 I do not ask whether you can give statistics — those 
 will bo laid before your Lordships by-and-by — but I 
 ask you, as a man who has lived among the people, 
 was it, or was it not, a fact that, as distress deepened, 
 evictions increased ? — The people fell into arrears 
 and, as a natural consequence, there were evictions. 
 
 And as those evictions increased, did general dis- 
 content increase ? — It did, since 1879. 
 
 Let me ask you further. I have asked you about the 
 connexion between distress and evictions, I now ask 
 you as a constable of experience whether, in your 
 judgment, outrages increased in proportion to the dis- 
 tress ? — Well, I may speak about Kerry. I went from 
 there in 1876 or 1877. When I went back to Castle- 
 island in 1887 I found that the general tone of the 
 people there had changed entirely, except the old 
 people, whom I never found uncivil to me. 
 
 Is it not your experience as a constable that outrages 
 increased with the number of evictions ? — Well, the 
 people did not care what became of them. 
 
 They got into a state of desperation ? — Some of them. 
 
 Now, we will have the speeches put in in extenso, 
 but I will ask your Lordships to let me put this general 
 question. At many of the meetings you attended — I 
 will not say all — but at many of the meetings were 
 there not speeches made enjoining patience upon the 
 people ? — That is so. I have heard speeches enjoining 
 the people to keep patient. 
 
 Did you notice in the later speeches taken during 
 1881, 1882, and 1883 that speakers urged the people to 
 rely on the efforts of their leaders to secure benefits 
 
 from Parliament ?— That was the general tone of the 
 speeches of members of Parliament — I do not say at 
 all the meetings. 
 
 I suppose there were very few meetings at which 
 there were not some harum-scarum speeches made ?— 
 Very few. 
 
 Have you ever come across a man known as Scrab 
 Nally ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you know that he is the joke of the county ? — 
 He is looked upon as a wild man. 
 
 That no one pays much heed to ?— Who is up to 
 saying anything. 
 
 Does any one that knows Scrab Nally attach any 
 importance to what he says ? — I have not had much 
 experience of Mayo. I cannot quite say. 
 
 I will take your general opinion. Was he a man to 
 whose speeches any one would attach any importance ? 
 — I do not think any calm and reflecting person would. 
 
 You have referred to Kerry, and you spoke of the 
 changed tone of the people in 1887 ? — I should have 
 said 1886. 
 
 Do you know the number of evictions that had 
 taken place in Kerry during the years between 1877 
 and 1886 ? — I do not know the number, but I am sure 
 a great number, judging from the number of farms 
 lying idle. 
 
 I want to ask you a question on another entirely 
 different subject. You have told us the counties in 
 which you reported ? — I reported in almost all 
 counties. 
 
 Is it true that there was most disturbance in Gal- 
 way, part of Mayo, part of Cork and Kerry ? — Yes, and 
 county Clare. 
 
 According to your experience are the places in which 
 there was most disturbance the places where secret 
 societies were supposed to have the strongest hold ?— 
 Well, I believe that secret societies 
 
 Are not the places that you have mentioned as being 
 the most disturbed the very places in which secret 
 societies were believed to have the strongest hold ? — 
 Certainly ; some of the people were beyond control 
 entirely. 
 
 Do you know enough of the matter to tell me from 
 your own observation whether it was not in these very 
 districts that the Land League met with the most 
 strenuous opposition from the secret societies ? — I am 
 not able to answer that. 
 
 Do you not know that the secret societies were 
 opposed to the Land League ? — I know some of the 
 leading members were. 
 
 Does that apply to more than one part of the county ? 
 — In Kerry. 
 
 Is it not equally true of Clare and Gal way ? — I 
 believe there are secret societies there too. 
 
 And is not what you have said of Kerry true of them ? 
 — Well, yes. 
 
 Have you heard of Land League meetings being 
 broken up, or attempts being made to break them up, 
 at the instance of members of secret societies ? — I 
 heard of one instance at Enniscorthy. 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
The Special Commission, ' November 1, 1888. 
 
 175 
 
 Have you beard of the platform at another place being 
 cut away ? — Well, I have not heard of that. 
 
 You heard the speeches which have been read this 
 morning ? — Yes. 
 
 I should like to ask you, as a guide to your frame of 
 mind — except the speech of the Eev.Mr. Sheehy, which 
 was a highly flavoured or coloured one — did you think 
 anything in the other speeches objectionable ? — I 
 formed no opinion about them. I merely wrote the 
 ipeeches out and sent them off. 
 
 Do you know that Mr. Sheehy, when he delivered this 
 "speech — and this may explain the perfervid character of 
 his oratory — had only five or six days before been re- 
 leased from prison as a suspect under the Crimes 
 Act ? — I knew he had been in gaol, for this was a 
 reception on his release. 
 
 Now, ir. your report of the speech made by the Rev. 
 Mr. Murphy at Fenit on the 25th of September, 1881, 
 there is a reference to " the Fenians "? — Yes. 
 
 May not this be a mistake, and may not the speaker 
 have spoken of " the Phinians "?■ — No, I think not. 
 
 Do you know that the followers of Phin M'Cool, a 
 legendary Irish giant — I should say a Scotch-Irish 
 giant (laughter) — were called " Phinians ?" — No, I 
 did not. 
 
 Do you know that so far as the Land League was con- 
 cerned it met with more opposition in Kerry than 
 anywhere else ? — Do you ask me what I heard ? 
 
 I ask you from your general knowledge. — Some men 
 in Kerry, who were leaders of the Land League move- 
 ment, endeavoured to stop men in the commission of 
 outrages, and some of these leaders told me they 
 dreaded the coming winter, and that they would not 
 be able to keep " the Revolver Boys " in order. 
 
 These " Revolver Boys " were opposed to the Land 
 League ? — Yes. 
 
 As regards the National League, can you say the 
 same in county Kerry ?— Yes, in parts of Kerry. In 
 Castleisland there was a branch of the National 
 League, but the younger men would not join it gener- 
 ally. They had parties of their own, and went about 
 the country. 
 
 Moonlighting, in fact ?— Yes, and doing nothing but 
 watching the police. 
 
 Cross-examiued by Mr. Lockwood. Q.C.— Mr. T. P. 
 O'Connor's speech on October 2, 1881, was delivered 
 at a very large meeting. There were probably 30,000 
 or 40,000 people present. It was a perfectly orderly 
 meeting. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Healy.— I have only given 
 evidence of one speech of yours. I reported several 
 others. I have reported more than a hundred meetings. 
 I have only given evidence of six or seven of these. 
 I am an instructor of shorthand, and there are about 
 30 men uuder me. I cannot say how many of these 
 have been subpoenaed by The Times. There were .pro- 
 bably hundreds of meetings in 1879 and in each subse- 
 quent year. Since 1879 there, would be thousands of 
 meetings. I do not know as to how many of these 
 thousands of meetings other witnesses are to be called 
 
 to give evidence. The fortnight I spent at the Inns 
 of Court Hotel was during the trial of " O'Donnell 
 v. Walter." There was no concealment as to what was 
 done in the room. I have not been to London sinoo 
 until now. There are probably about a dozen police 
 reporters at the depot in Dublin. I am acquainted 
 with the Constabulary Code, but the contents of the 
 code are private . Magistrates in Ireland consider it is 
 privileged,and that we arenotbonnd to 6tate its contents. 
 I am not able to tell you the rule in the code with 
 respect to the duty of officers at meetings in Ireland. 
 I have not read the code recently. I can only give 
 evidence as to one speech delivered by you, Mr. 
 Healy. 
 
 It is said that I told the people " to pay no rent, 
 
 but " Is $hat the substance of your report ? — Yes. 
 
 I know what Griffith's valuation is. It is the Go- 
 vernment valuation of the land. Speaking generally, 
 the demand of the people in 1879 and 1880 was to 
 have their rents reduced to the Government valua- 
 tion of the land. 
 
 Was not that demand made on a thousand platforms ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 In 1881 a Land Act was passed and the rents were 
 then fixed by the Land Commissioners ? — Yes. 
 
 So that the rents would no longer be left to tho 
 landlords to fix arbitrarily ? — No longer. I have been 
 examined at road sessions in connexion with demands 
 for compensation and I have opposed some of them. 
 The grand jury is composed of the gentry and higher 
 class of ratepayers in a county. I cannot say pre- 
 cisely who elects the grand jury. In Kerry the grand 
 jury consists of 23 men. 
 
 How many Roman Catholics are there on that jury ? 
 — I really cannot tell. 
 
 Do the grand jury pay any of the rates that they 
 levy upon the people ? Who pays the grand jury cess 
 in Ireland ? — It is paid by the farmers ; but if they 
 take up any farms the landlords then pay. 
 
 If a haystack is burnt and a claim is made, who ig 
 the judge of the malice ? Have the people any voice 
 in deciding who shall be the grand jurors and the 
 road sessions men ?— I believe they have not. 
 
 Did you ever know of an election for grand jurors 
 or road sessions men ? — Never. 
 
 In how many cases have you opposed claims for 
 compensation in respect of outrage ? — In only one. 
 
 What was the man's name ? — M'Carthy. 
 
 Was he a Nationalist ? — No, he was not. 
 
 What was he ? — A farmer. I will tell you 
 
 No ; you need not tell me anything. 1 know you 
 will say nothing favourable unless you cannot he^p 
 it. 
 
 The President.— You must not make observations 
 of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — I wish the witness merely to answer 
 my questions. If you (the witness) have any explana- 
 tions to make, make them to the gentlemen who re- 
 present The Times.— I will answer you as fairly as I 
 can. 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
176 
 
 The Special Commission, November 1, 1888. 
 
 Did you ever hear the allegation that outrages 
 were committed for the purpose of getting compen- 
 sation ? — I never knew a case. 
 
 Did you ever hear it said ? — It has been alleged. 
 
 Has it been generally alleged ?— Not generally. 
 
 In what other counties have you attended sessions 
 with reference to claims for compensation ? — I think 
 in Wexford. 
 
 In Gal way ? — No. 
 
 How many claims for outrages have you known to 
 be made before a grand jury in Kerry ? — A great 
 number. 
 
 What would be in a year the total of the amount of 
 compensation levied on the people ? — I do not know 
 the amount exactly. 
 
 Do you remember the case of a Mrs. Lucas ? — I 
 remember reading about it. 
 
 You swear that it has not been generally alleged 
 that hay and other property have been wilfully burnt 
 in order to get compensation ? — I have heard allega- 
 tions in some cases. 
 
 Is there any chance that a person of popular 
 political views will have his case dealt with fairly 
 by a grand jury ? — I think so. 
 
 You swear that the grand jury is a perfectly im- 
 partial tribunal ? — I swear that I believe so. 
 
 Do not persons who are in favour of the landlords 
 receive undue compensation ? — I have never heard of 
 it. 
 
 Take the case of Mrs. Lucas in county Cork. Who 
 was she ? — She was the wife of a magistrate. 
 
 The President. — Do you know anything of your own 
 knowledge about this case ? — No, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. Healy.— Did you hear it alleged that her hus- 
 band was a grand juror ? 
 
 The President. — He says that he knows nothing 
 about the case. 
 
 Mr. Healy.— Very well, my Lord. (To the witness). 
 Have you assisted as head constable in preparing 
 the statistics of outrages ? — No, I have not. This 
 statistics are prepared by the district inspectors. 
 
 Who is the judge, when statistics are prepared, as 
 to whether the outrages are agrarian or not ? — The 
 outrage is reported, and the report is sent, I believe, 
 to the Inspector-General, who inquires and determines 
 whether the outrage is agrarian or not. 
 
 At the time of the distress in Ireland — in 1879 and 
 1880 — was it possible for the people to obtain relief 
 from the guardians without surrendering the land and 
 going into the workhouse ? — I cannot say. I am not 
 aware of it. 
 
 Have you read " Parnellism and Crime " ? — I have 
 read through some of it ; yes, through the whole 
 of it. 
 
 When did you read it ? — 12 months ago. 
 
 How many thousands of copies were sent to the 
 police barracks in Ireland ? — I never saw a copy in 
 police barracks. 
 
 Did you ever hear the allegation that bundles of 
 
 copies were sent to every police barracks in Ireland ? 
 —No. 
 
 Have you ever been employed by the Government to 
 attend trials in Ireland, except as a witness ? — No. 
 
 Did you ever attend the Cork Assizes ? — Yes, as a 
 witness. 
 
 What is the average number of police in a district • 
 for example, in Castleisland in Kerry ? — I should say 
 about 64. 
 
 And what is the number of people ? — Between 1,200 
 and 1,500. 
 
 How many schoolmasters are there in the district ? 
 — I cannot say. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — Have you reported 
 speeches of mine at meetings ? — A few ; not very 
 many. 
 
 Do you recollect meeting with any discourtesy at 
 my hands ? — Personally, no. 
 
 Do you recollect whether at any of the meetings which 
 I addressed in 1879 I warned the Government that if 
 relief were not given famine and disturbances would 
 ensue ? — I was not at any of those meetings. 
 
 Do you recollect my warning my audiences against 
 crime and outrage ? — I have heard you warn the people 
 against crime at Castleisland, in Kerry. 
 
 Have you any recollection of what I said ? — I have 
 no notes of the speech. I was listening to yon. You 
 stated generally that you had gone there to advise the 
 people to abandon the commission of outrages upon 
 cattle, &c. 
 
 Did I denounce moonlighting very vigorously ? — I 
 believe so. 
 
 I have always denounced landlordism pretty strongly 
 at meetings ? — I believe you have. 
 
 But do you recollect my ever denouncing any 
 particular landlord or bailiff 1 — I think I once heard 
 you mention the name of Shirley. With that excep- 
 tion I have not heard you name landlords or bailiffs. 
 I think you warned Shirley with reference to his 
 serving writs, and you advised the people how to act 
 generally. 
 
 Ee-examined by Mr. Murphy. — Have you reported 
 speeches made for the purpose of inaugurating 
 branches of the League ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Might I ask the witness to speak 
 louder. Some of the gentlemen who are reporting 
 cannot hear him at all. 
 
 The President.— It is, I am afraid, rather late to 
 interfere . (To the witness) I have myself great diffi- 
 culty in hearing, you. Will you imagine yourself 
 speaking to the person in Court furthest off from you ? 
 That may have a beneficial effect. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— I wish to ask a question or two, 
 about this room at the hotel where you took down the 
 statements of witnesses. Was there any other room 
 where they could assemble ? — I do not think so. The 
 doors were open and waiters were coming in and out. 
 Anybody could see what was going on. 
 
 Who is Mr. Boyd ?— He is Sessional Crown solicitor 
 for the county of Clare. 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
The Special Commission, November 1, 1888. 
 
 17? 
 
 Was he there as a witness ? — I believe he was there 
 as a witness in connexion with a murder. 
 
 Now, as to your knowledge of the west of Ireland. 
 Before 1879-1880 were Kerry and Galway fairly 
 quiet ? — Kerry was very quiet. The police could go 
 singly for miles upon their business. 
 
 Were such outrages as the maiming of individuals or 
 cattle known in that county ? — I knew of none. 
 
 Was boycotting known in the district before 1879- 
 1880 ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Was the term land-grabber known ? — Not to my know- 
 ledge. 
 
 Were individuals ever interfered with in buying and 
 selling land ? — No, except in connexion with mere 
 family disputes. 
 
 When were Land League branches established in 
 Kerry and Galway ?— In 1879 and 1880. . 
 
 Did you notice any increase in outrages soon after 
 the League branches were established ? — Outrages in- 
 creased in 1880 and 1881 in Galway. 
 
 Was the number of police increased to any extent ? 
 — In Galway considerably in 1881. 
 
 Was there any difficulty in discovering criminals at 
 that time ? — Very few people were brought to justice. 
 You have been asked whether the moonlighters and 
 Land Leaguers were on good terms. Were many of the 
 moonlighters Land Leaguers to your knowledge ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — What does my learned friend 
 mean ? What is the value of the witness's general 
 knowledge upon such a point ? 
 
 The President. — He has been asked to state a great 
 deal upon his own knowledge. 
 
 Slit C. Russell. — I agree that general questions can 
 be put in this way ; but my learned friend now asks 
 whether particular persons called moonlighters were 
 members of the Land League. 
 
 The President. — If he did know it, it would be 
 most material. Are you asking as to particular in- 
 dividuals ? 
 
 Mr. MuEPHY. — No, generally. My learned friend 
 suggests that the moonlighters and Land Leaguers 
 were opposed to one another. I want to test the sug- 
 gestion. According to your knowledge were moon- 
 lighters Land Leaguers in many cases or not ? — I could 
 not say of my own knowledge, but I believe they were. 
 In many counties most of the people had joined the 
 Land League. 
 
 You said something about " keeping the Revolver 
 Boys in order." What did you mean ? — There was a 
 man in Kerry, a very prominent person in politics, 
 and he said that it took him all his time to keep the 
 Revolver Boys in order. 
 Was he a Land Leaguer '1 — He told me he was. 
 In what year was this ? — In the autumn of 1S86. 
 What was the occasion of his saying this to you ? 
 
 There was a race meeting being got up, and some one 
 
 wanted it to be purely a race meeting. Some were 
 opposed to it and some were not. The rumour weut 
 out that General Buller was to visit the races. .This 
 man I have referred to told me he heard of that, and 
 
 he said, " We will give General Buller a reception, 
 as he is not a bad sort of man, when he comes to the' 
 races, but I am afraid the Revolver Boys won't stand 
 ij." After the races he was speaking to me, and he 
 told me, " We could not give him a reception. It 
 would not do, but we will treat him with the utmost 
 respect during the day. If the people of Castleisland, 
 or the Castleisland band, was to play on the occasion 
 it would never do for. that to appear in print io 
 America. The Revolver Boys would not stand it." 
 
 What was the name of the man ? 
 
 The President. — We must have his name. 
 
 Witness.— Morris Murphy, of Castleisland. I under* 
 stood from him that he was anxious to keep the Re« 
 volver Boys quiet that winter. 
 
 You have been asked about secret societies in 
 Kerry. Have there been branches of the Land League 
 in the same districts where there have been secret 
 societies ? — I believe there have, but I was not in 
 Kerry during the Land League times. 
 
 Before these Land League branches were established 
 were men punished for paying their rents by moon- 
 lighters, or in other ways ?— Kerry was very quiet before. 
 
 What do you say as to claims for compensation 
 made to the grand jury ? — I have known a fair number 
 of these claims made, and I only founcl it necessary to 
 oppose one. 
 
 The witness Head Constable Bernard O'Malley was 
 then recalled, and Sir Henry James proceeded to read 
 transcripts of speeches reported by the witness. Tha 
 first speech was one by Patrick Gordon, and was de-> 
 livered at a meeting held on September 19, 1880, at 
 Kilconley, county Galway. This speech was referred to 
 and partially read on Tuesday last. 
 
 Sir Henry James. — I understand, my Lords, that 
 my friend prefers having this speech read instead of 
 proceeding under the new arrangement. In that speech 
 Patrick Gordon said he was proud to have the honour 
 of addressing them there that day, as men of his native 
 county, but he regretted to see that a dozen or two had 
 come into that parish to cause disturbance among the 
 gallant sons of Kilconley. He had received an invitation 
 to attend that meeting a fortnight ago, and he received 
 another on the previous day from the secretary, stating 
 that a dodge had been got up to prevent that meeting. 
 There had been placards got up, printed, that they 
 came from the secretary of that meeting. He sent 
 telegrams to the Land League in Dublin, and the reply 
 he received from them was, "Come here," so that for 
 his life he would be in Kilconley that day. He did 
 not wish to say anything to the men who wished to 
 disturb that meeting. He believed that they wanted to 
 have the things done by the point of the bayonet, and 
 not by speaking. IE they preferred to fight for Ireland 
 at the point of the bayonet, he was ready to do so 
 along with them. But they must try to get theu< 
 rights from the Government of Kngland. 
 
 The President,—" Without bloodshed." 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
 Head, Constable Bernard O'Malley. 
 
178 
 
 The Special Commission, November 1, 1888. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Yes, my Lord, I believe it ib 
 " without bloodshed." 
 
 Tho President.— Yes, I corrected you from the 
 shorthand writer's notes. 
 
 Sir H. James then continued reading. — It they 
 armed in their numbers and demanded justice they 
 would get it. They had armed in their thousands, and 
 if all fro.it failed, haws were welcome, and if they 
 failed to get justice, let them all strike a blow for the 
 destruction of landlordism, but that day they must be 
 united as one man nnder the National Land League, 
 and swear before high Heaven that the land which God 
 had created for them, they were determined to hold it. 
 They had heard of the nobleman who styled himself 
 Lord Oranmore and Browne, who had bartered his 
 name in order to make money and take the name of 
 Guthrie. There was a man in Scotland who made a 
 will and said no man should marry his daughter who 
 would not take the name of Guthrie. He was not like 
 the herring who never sold his body for his belly. Mr. 
 Redpath came into Mayo, and they said he (the speaker) 
 was a busybody to make himself so busy as to take 
 him to Lord Oranmore's property. He brought Mr. 
 Redpath into the cabins of the unfortunate people, and 
 he pledged himself there, as an Irishman, that the 
 American gentleman wept outside one of the cabins. 
 He brought him into the cabin and said, " Mr. Redpath, 
 take note of Lord Oranmore's tenants. Here is the 
 bed for the people, here for the ass, and here for the 
 pig ;" three apartments were in one room, and he told 
 them there was not a bit of covering in the house that 
 they would give a fourpenny-bit for. It was true Lord 
 Oranmore had not evicted the tenants. He had put them 
 into bad places and took them from the land of their 
 fathers and left only a man named Henaghan. He had 
 transferred them into the bog and gave them the name 
 of five acres. Ho asked them what was tho cause of 
 tho poverty of Ireland ; it was because the money 
 had been taken away. They had swept it to France 
 and the Continent. They had sent orders to the agent 
 for rents. The unfortunate tenant could not pay. They 
 6aid to the agent, " You must collect my rent." Not a 
 single landlord in Ireland subscribed £5 for the relief, 
 because the Americans had handed their dollars which 
 kept the people on the land. What the people wanted 
 was justice, but they did not get it. He told the 
 Government the hour was approaching when they 
 would be sorry for not taking up the laud question 
 themselves. He said there were people that day in 
 Ireland in whom the national spirit was up. He asked 
 them not to quarrel with one another. Let every man 
 work in his own way for the comfort of his country. 
 Let him swear by Heaven that he would never rest and 
 never sit down as a slave until that accursed system 
 was swept away. He told them to resist tyranny at 
 the cost of their lives, and he told them that it was 
 better to die fighting than to die in the workhouse. 
 The Land League would protect them in the hour of 
 need, even after the landlords enforced an eviction. He 
 would ask them again not to give up theu; land 
 
 without a struggle. Let no land-grabber be found 
 among them to watch the downfall of his neighbours. 
 If they united they would bring the landlords to their 
 knees. If they thought the same God created them- 
 selves and the landlords, they would have some respect 
 for themselves. He asked them, if they thought that, 
 to respect themselves and not to have any bowing and 
 scraping before those land-robbers. He would ask 
 them to give three cheers for every honest Fenian in 
 Ireland. Mr. Gladstone had said that the only good 
 measures that were granted to Ireland were granted 
 through the bold determination of Irish Fenians. 
 It was said that when they had no enemies to fight 
 they fought with one another. Well, it was only for 
 amusement they fought with one another. There were 
 good men in the Irish Constabulary ; they could not 
 blame the police, they blamed the Government. Let 
 them not fight against the police. The Government of 
 England had detectives among them ; they were there 
 on the platform, and he asked them also to have their 
 detectives. 
 
 Sir H. James then read a second speech by Patrick 
 Gordon, delivered at a meeting held on the 3d of 
 October, 1880, at Abbeyknockmoy, and also referred 
 to on Tuesday last. The speaker . said that in Ireland 
 a good landlord was as scarce as a white blackbird. 
 He was under no obligation to the Land League or to 
 them. Let them commit no crime, for the bloody 
 Government was watching every act of theirs, that 
 they might steep their hands in that blood of the 
 people. He asked them all to hold up their hands and 
 pledge that they would take no land from which 
 another was evicted. If a tenant was evicted, let no 
 other man come and swallow up that man's industry. 
 He asked them not to allow the Government to starve 
 them on the roadside. The Government of England 
 were murmuring because Mountmorres was shot. He 
 did not approve of murdering any one, but he said the 
 Government of England did not go into mourning 
 when the people were starving. They were told in 
 Scripture that the blood of the innocent cried to 
 Heaven ; then, he asked, would not the Government of 
 England be responsible for the blood of those 
 innocents ? The man who went quietly into the work- 
 house was nothing but a white slave. God, when He 
 created the land for the people, said, '• You will culti- 
 vate the earth and earn your living with the sweat of 
 your brow." Had the land thieves surrounding them 
 there ever earned a shilling in their lives ? They 
 wrote to their agent and the agent sent out the land 
 sharks. In the town of Tuam he had seen unfortunate 
 victims dying on the roadside ; the Government got 
 shut of the people, and the landlord had no Poor rates 
 to pay for the coffin. Well, the hour was approaching 
 when every Irishman would be called upon to stand 
 up boldly to insist upon his rights. A man who had 
 not the spirit of nationality in his bosom was lost to 
 his country. He advised them not to go to law. 
 There was no class of men in Ireland at the present 
 day who had plundered the people more than the 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Malley. 
 
The Special Commission, November 1," 1888. 
 
 179 
 
 solicitors. Whether they had a good case or not, they 
 would say that they would make a good job of it. 
 Whether they had a good case or not, let no man go 
 to law in future except the landlord. The Judges of 
 Ireland were well paid, because the more crimes 
 there were committed in Ireland the more pay they 
 got. He was there not as a representative of the 
 League in person, nor as representing the League in 
 any form. Let every man and woman join the Land 
 League. They must remember that the glory of 
 France was due to the noble women of that country. 
 It was a woman that led on the sons of France to 
 liberty. If there was a bad priest in the parish they 
 should treat him as such. If he thought a priest was 
 not faithful to the interests of the people he would 
 denounce him. They should enrol themselves in the 
 Land League, and he hoped to see before long at 
 Abbeyknockmoy one of the strongest branches of the 
 Land League in Ireland. Until Ireland was a nation 
 he should work by day and plot by night. He would 
 ask them to repeat a solemn pledge. He wonld ask 
 every man and every lady to put up their hands before 
 God that none of them would take a cabin or a farm 
 from which a tenant had been evicted. He would ask 
 them that in the future they should pay no rack-rent. 
 He knew there were land-sharks in the village. He 
 told them to treat a land-shark as they would a mad 
 dog, and not have any intercourse with him. The 
 land-grabber was the worst they had to deal with. If 
 the land was left to the landlord he would see it was 
 better for him to settle with the tenant. The time was 
 approaching when all Ireland would be established as 
 being members of the Land League in one solid 
 strike against paying any rent at all till the question was 
 se ttled. Let them walk up independently to their land- 
 lords and say, " I am under no obligation. I will pay 
 you what is fair, and I swear before Heaven I will 
 pay you nothing else." He would ask them to keep 
 what they had heard there that day in their memory. 
 He was there to give a helping hand to proclaim 
 before God on high that the land was theirs, and if 
 they could not get it peaceably they would fight before 
 God for it. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. On 
 the return of the Commissioners, 
 
 Sir H. James resumed the examination of the 
 witness. He read a speech, which Mr. John 
 Hanley addressed to the meeting at Abbeyknock- 
 moy, county Gal way, on October 3, 1880. The resolu- 
 tion declared that all present thoroughly approved 
 the agitation carried on by the Land League, and cordi- 
 ally gave it their support. He admitted there were a 
 few good landlords in the parish, and the best were 
 those who had acquired their property very lately. He 
 was sorry he could not say so much for all the land- 
 lords in the parish. Some people had been sent, home- 
 less and penniless, into the world ; others had been sent 
 to the hillside or the bogs and morasses to cultivate 
 land which was not fit for cultivation. On the other 
 side of the parish a man (Walter Blake) owned property 
 
 worth £7,000 or £8,000 a year, and had £200,000 or 
 £300,000 at his back, yet he would not give a farthing 
 reduction to his tenants. (A voice. — Why don't they 
 shoot him?) He was a man who would not give a pound 
 of wool to a widow or an orphan to make a blanket or 
 stockings for their families. His tenants had to go 
 10 or 16 miles to lodge their rents in the bank. If 
 they did not do so he would take away their land. 
 Referring to Crcesus having asked for a bit of gold to 
 be put into his mouth when he was dying in order that 
 he might take it into the earth with him, he said it 
 was the same with Mr. Walter Blake. (A voice. — He 
 wants steel.) It was no wonder that the earth refused 
 to give its produce and that the potatoes were rotten. 
 They were called upon to give up their houses and 
 homes, and go forth into the world. There was a man 
 who had written that Ireland was no use for farming 
 at all except on large farms. He wanted Ireland to 
 be of no use except for feeding bullocks for England. 
 It was said they should not leave their land except at 
 the point of the bayonet. He would tell them not to 
 go at all, but rather to die by the point of the 
 bayonet. If the population of Ireland was decreasiug, 
 as had been stated, it was because the system of land- 
 lordism was strong. If they supported the Land League 
 landlordism would be put down. 
 
 Sib H. James. — That, my Lords, is all that I propose 
 to prove by the witness in extenso. There are other 
 speeches which will come under the new arrangement. 
 
 Witness, cross-examined by Sik C. Russell. — I come 
 from county Limerick. My grade is that of head con- 
 stable. I have been a head constable six months. I 
 have served 22 years in the force. I have been mostly 
 in Dublin the last seven years. Previous to that I was 
 in Gal way for 13 years discharging my duties. That 
 would be from 1867 to about 1879. I was in the town 
 of Galway, and at Clifden, and elsewhere in the 
 county. Clifden is in Connemara. The able-bodied 
 men used to go out to work in Scotland and the North 
 of England in harvest time. I have a good idea of the 
 condition of the working population. I have never 
 witnessed an able-bodied man breakfasting on turnips 
 sprinkled with Indian meal. I have often visited them. 
 There is a good deal of periodical distress. In 
 1878-9 there was a fund for the relief of distress. 
 There were the Duchess of Marlborough's Fund ; 
 the Mansion-house Fund, got up by the late Mr, 
 Dwyer Gray, who was Lord Mayor of Dublin ; and 
 there was a subscription got up by Mr. Farnell in 
 America. That was for the relief of the distress. I 
 understand from what I have heard that P. J . Gordon, 
 many of whose speeches have been read, is a shoe- 
 maker, but I do not myself know. He is living at 
 Claremorris, in county Mayo. I never heard him 
 speaking there. The meetings I have heard him speak- 
 ing at were meetings in the neighbouring county to 
 where he lives. I do not remember any attempt being 
 made by the Fenian party to disturb the meeting at 
 Kilconley, county Galway, on September 19, 1S80. I 
 am quite satisfied there was no attempt to break down 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Malley. 
 
180 
 
 the 'Speftlal OomBftissidh; Sovetiifrer 1,~ 1888. 
 
 the platform. That is the ordinary mode of breaking 
 up a meeting. I did gather from the speeches that the 
 speakers apprehended difficulty in the position towards 
 them of the Fenians. Mr. Gordon made another speech 
 at Abbeyknockmoy, county Galway, on October 3, 
 1880. There was a Father Eglinton who spoke at 
 that meeting. I have not a transcript of that speech, 
 because I was not told to get one. I was only told to 
 get transcripts of a few speeches which were men- 
 tioned to me. I think I saw plenty of transcripts of 
 the whole meeting. A short time — about a week— 
 before that Lord Mountmdrres was shot. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Do you know or not whether the 
 opinion was held by the people of the country that 
 there were other than agrarian causes for Lord Mount- 
 morres's death — I mean as in the case of Lord Leitrim. 
 I do not want to allude to it more particularly than 
 that ? — I do not, remember. I did not hear it ; or if 
 I did I have no recollection of it. 
 
 Did not Father Eglinton at that meeting denounoe 
 the murder of Lord Mountmorres ? — He did. I have a 
 distinct recollection of that, 
 i Who told you what to transcribe ? — No one did so. 
 
 Mr. P. J. Gordon refers to Mr. Blake ?— It is Mr. 
 Hanley perhaps ; I do not remember Mr. Gordon 
 doing so. 
 
 You were not here when the Attorney-General made 
 his speech ? — I was not. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. —Will your Lordships turn to page 
 40 of the first day. My learned friend read John 
 Hanley's speech at the bottom of page 39 — " Groans 
 and cries of Walter Blake," and so on. Then over the 
 leaf my learned friend says : — " Your Lordships will 
 observe there a reference to Mr. Walter Blake as the 
 agent," and then my learned friend goes on, " I shall 
 have to describe to yonr Lordships presently in con- 
 nexion with these particular speeches the circum- 
 stances under which Mr. Blake was shot and murdered 
 on December 11 in the same year." 
 
 To witness.— Is not Mr. Blake alive and well ? — I do 
 not know anything at all about him. 
 
 Is there 1 any reason to doubt that he is alive and 
 well and kicking at this moment ?— For anything I 
 know he is, Sir. 
 
 If your Lordships will kindly turn to page 50 of the 
 same speech — " On June 29 is the murder of Mr. 
 Blake." Your Lordships will see my learned friend 
 alters the date there. 
 
 To witness. — Was there anybody you are aware of 
 murdered on December 11 of the same year— 1880 ? — I 
 do not know anything about it. 
 
 The President. — The Attorney-General goes on to 
 give us an incident relating to a woman, the wife of 
 Mr. Blake. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — An entirely different person alto- 
 gether. 
 
 To witness. — Do you know whether he is the same 
 Walter Blake of Abbeyknockmoy ? — I do not know 
 anything at all about him. 
 
 On this occasion, when Gordon was speaking and 
 
 Blake's name was mentioned, some of the crowd 
 shouted out " He wants steel." Did you hear John 
 Nolan, who was taking a prominent part in the meet- 
 ing, eay " Shut up " f— I cannot say whether that 
 occurred or not. It might have occurred ; but it is' 
 not on my notes. 
 
 Witness (continuing).— I suppose altogether I have 
 reported about a couple of hundred meetings. There 
 was an average of about four or five speakers at every 
 meeting, so that I have reported altogether about 
 1,000 speeches. I always sent transcripts of them. 
 If there was a divisional magistrate in the district 
 I handed them to him ; before the divisional magi« 
 strates were appointed I always sent them to the 
 Castle in Dublin. When I was in Dublin I handed 
 them in at the Castle itself. The transcripts are 
 submitted to divisional but not to local magistrates.] 
 They are then forwarded to the Castle by them. I was 
 a witness in what was called the State trial in Dublin.; 
 I think that with the exception of some speeches at 
 Headford's all the speeches I have been asked to refer 
 to here were referred to and read at that State trial. 
 I am not sure of that, however. 
 
 The President. — Do you refer to the trial of 1880 ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes, my Lord ; the trial which 
 began in December, 1880. (To witness.) — Have you 
 had anything to do with the selection of the! extracts 
 from these speeches ? — Nothing whatever. 
 
 I will give you an illustration of what I mean with 
 regard to these extracts. You were asked to speak to a 
 report of a meeting at Milltown on July 25, 1880 ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That speech, my Lords, was read 
 on Tuesday, the 30th. The extract from the speech was 
 read by the Attorney-General on October 22, and the 
 concluding sentence of that extract was this: — " Tha 
 highest form of Government is a republic. You may 
 establish an Irish republic on Irish soil." The real 
 speech, as read by Sir Henry James on Tuesday, is this ; — 
 '■' If we had a Government in Ireland to-morrow that 
 would protect the idler against the worker, I would be 
 against them. All I see here, I think, will agree with 
 me that the highest form of Government is a republic. 
 Well, you may establish an Irish republic on the Irish 
 soil, but as long as the tillers of the soil are forced to 
 support an idle class, a republic would be only a 
 mockery." The extract is not only inaccurate in thei 
 respect I have mentioned, but there is an omission. 
 (To witness.) — Will you turn to your notes, please, and 
 read beginning at the word " onslaught " after the? 
 sentence " when we review the history'of the past 
 year we may, I think , be satisfied with the progress; 
 which our cause has made." Will your Lordships 1 
 kindly keep before you the paragraph as read by the 
 Attorney-General. You will find it runs as follows :— 
 " An onslaught has been made on the system which 
 degrades labour in Ireland. That system is not dead, 
 but we shall continue to strike until we bring about 
 a state of affairs when labour shall be the recognized 
 system." 
 
 Witness (reading). — " An onslaught has been made 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Malley. 
 
The Special Commission, November 1, 1888. 
 
 181 
 
 on the system which degrades labour in Ireland. A 
 heavy blow has been struck at caste in Ireland, but 
 that system is not dead, and we shall continue to strike 
 until we shall bring about a state of affairs that man 
 shall be judged not according to his birth, but when 
 labour, not idleness, shall be the recognized system." 
 
 Sin C. KrrssELL (to witness). — Now, first take this 
 print of what the Attorney-General read in your hand. 
 There are hyphens where omissions occur. Can you 
 explain where that extract was made or who made it ? 
 
 Witness.— It is not a correct print of any part of the 
 speech. I do not know a bit in the world where that 
 extract was made or who made it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The hyphens were in the 
 print, Sir Charles. 
 
 Sib C. Kussell. — No ; the hyphens are mine. 
 
 The Attokney-Genekal.— Will you get the original 
 print, Sir Charles ? 
 
 Sib C. Russell (resuming the cross-examination). — 
 Did you report a speech of Father Murphy's at Currow, 
 in county Kerry ? — I have only reported meetings at 
 three places in Kerry — Knocknabull, Dingle, and 
 Brosna. 
 
 Did Father Murphy speak at one of those meetings ? 
 I am not quite sure whether you reported the meet- 
 ing I refer to. Did you report the meeting at 
 Currow ? — I do not remember, I have not a note of it 
 here. As far as I remember I did not report a meeting 
 at that place. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid, witness said : — 
 I attended about 200 meetings. They were not all of 
 them Land League meetings. They were all public 
 meetings of one kind or another. 
 
 How do you distinguish between a Land League 
 meeting and other meetings ? — If the Land League was 
 established in a district the difference could be told. 
 
 Were all of them connected with either the Land 
 League or the National League ? — As far as I remem- 
 ber they were. Some of them were connected with 
 the labour leagues in Cork, but they were all public 
 meetings. On most occasions the parish priest or some 
 of the clergy were on the platform, and on most occa- 
 sions a large number of speeches were made. 
 
 Is it not the case that at most of these meetings 
 there were denunciations of crime and outrage ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 That was the rule ? — Yes ; denunciations by the 
 priests and other speakers. Exhortations to the people 
 to be patient and quiet and so forth, to commit no 
 crime, and that they would injure their cause by doing 
 so. I attended a great many meetings held in 1882, 
 1883, and 1884. The number of public meetings in the 
 country rather tended to increase of late years. 
 Between 1882 and 1885 I should think they continued 
 to increase in number. 
 
 You have, I think, reported and given us some 
 speeches of Nally ? — I think I have one speech of his, 
 and some interjections. I have seen him often at 
 meetings. I do not remember having seen him turned 
 off the platform on any occasion, though I once saw 
 
 him prevented from proposing a resolution at some 
 place down in Galway. 
 
 Is it not the case chat this Mr. " Scrab " Nally was 
 a person almost irresponsible for his actions ? — He was 
 a reckless kind of a person. 
 
 Was he not looked upon as a sort of lunatic ? — I have 
 never heard that. I should say he was looked upon as 
 a kind of drunkard. (Laughter.) 
 
 Were not his speeches generally made after the 
 meetings had broken up ? — Oh no, Sir. 
 
 I may have been mistaking you for another con- 
 stable I was thinking of. I see you only reported one 
 of Nally's speeches. But as regards him, was he 
 allowed to take a prominent part at any meeting you 
 saw him at ? — He always had a place on the platform. 
 He was what I call a free lance. He used to get up 
 on his own account. He always said something violent 
 when he said anything at all. (Laughter.) 
 
 Were such gentlemen as Mr. Nally reproved by the 
 other gentlemen present ? Was anything said about 
 them one way or the other ? — The people cheered, but 
 the gentlemen on the platform never said a word either 
 approving or disapproving what he said. 
 
 Were his sayings treated as a wildness of his own, 
 which would be thoroughly understood by the meet- 
 ing ? — I could not say anything about that at all, 
 except what I thought myself. 
 
 Mr. Healy (in further cross-examination). — Did you 
 ever drink with Nally yourself ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you ever stand him liquor ? — Yes, 1 did, on two 
 or three occasions. 
 
 Before a meeting or after ? — It might be before 
 or it might be after. I never gave him a 
 drop on the day of the meeting, except I met him at 
 night when he happened to come into the hotel where 
 I had been stopping. He sometimes came into the 
 hotel at night, but not to see me. I paid for drink 
 for him. I paid for drink all round, and he happened 
 to come in. He did not drink with me often. I only 
 drank with him on three occasions. I could not say at 
 what o'clock at night. It might have been 9 or 10 
 o'clock, or any time. I drank with him at Castle- 
 rea on one or two occasions and at Ballintober: I 
 myself drank nothing at all. I was a teetotaler, but 
 I paid for his drink. 
 
 Were there other persons, organizers of the meet- 
 ings, to whom you stood drink ? You say there were 
 other persons ?— Witness did not reply. 
 
 You were admitted on intimate terms at these hotels 
 into the select circle in which Nally was ?— I would 
 not call it a select circle. 
 
 You were not excluded, then, during these exciting 
 times ? — No, everybody knew I was a police reporter, 
 and if they did not I took good care to tell them. 
 
 There was no attempt to boycott you in any way ? — 
 None whatever. 
 
 How many other agitators have you met in hotels hi 
 this way ? — I do not remember exactly. I met Mr. 
 Walsh and Mr,, Harris, and nearly all the beginners o£ 
 
 Head Constable Bernard O'Malley. 
 
182 
 
 The Special Commission, November 1, 1888. 
 
 the land agitation at the time, sometimes in the hotels 
 after a meeting. 
 
 You have heard the charge which is made that out 
 of these meetings outrages sprang up ? Were these 
 men concocting outrages '1 — If they were they never 
 let me know about it. I am now a head constable. 
 The average pay of a constable is about £60 a year, 
 or rather, I should say, between £50 and £53 a year. 
 It is in the power of the grand jury to increase the 
 number of constables wherever there were outrages. 
 It is constantly done. The people of the district have 
 to pay for them. 
 
 I believe the educational system is also entirely in 
 the hands of the Government f— They give grants, I 
 believe. I do not know what is the average pay of 
 a schoolmaster. 
 
 In the neighbourhood of Clifden, where you lived so 
 long, what was the average size of the farms ? — I have 
 not been in Clifden for a long time, but I should say 
 the average size of the farms was about 9 acres. A 
 large part of the land belonged to a company, and 
 was afterwards bought by Mr. Berridge. He owned 
 the land for miles and miles. He owned some- 
 thing like 40 miles of territory. I was there in 
 1877. I never knew Mr. Berridge to go and see the 
 people in their distress. The distress was in full swing 
 during part of the time I was in Clifden. Soup 
 kitchens and relief committees were established. I 
 suppose the people who got relief tickets were Mr. 
 Berridge's tenants or somebody's tenants. The farmers 
 were kept alive, most of them, by public subscription. 
 I never heard of Mr. Berridge giving a shilling in aid 
 of the distress. 
 
 Daring the time of the distress at Clifden was the 
 population calm ? Were there any outrages ? — I do not 
 remember any. Some time before there had been a dis- 
 pute about a matter of religion, but there was no 
 political disturbance. I do not think that there were 
 many evictions upon this property, not more than 
 about one in a year. I do not know whether or not 
 the people were excused from paying rent during the 
 year of distress. It would not have been my duty to 
 report the fact to the Government if the rents had 
 been reduced. 
 
 When you report the speeches at a meeting, do you 
 supply the Government with a description of the pro- 
 ceedings in addition to the transcript of your notes ? — 
 Yes, I supply a short report. I presume that the 
 person who received the transcript would also have the 
 report. 
 
 Then in those cases in which reports have been handed 
 over to The Times the manuscript will include your 
 transcript of the speeches and your descriptive notes 
 also ?— I do not know that. In my reports I do not 
 refer to crime at all. 
 
 You were unable to connect with crime any one of 
 all the meetings which you attended ? — It was not my 
 duty to attempt to do that. I was concerned only with 
 the meetings. In the reports which I furnished I said 
 nothing about crime. It is usual to report as to the 
 
 number of people present at a meeting, the bands, the 
 banners, and other matters of that kind. 
 
 It is said that the farmers were driven into these 
 meetings by intimidation. Is that your explanation ?— 
 I do not think it i3. Meetings are generally held on a 
 Sunday and people would attend them. I cannot say 
 whether they would do so of their own accord or under 
 coercion. 
 
 Did the meetings which you attended seem to you to 
 be spontaneous, or were they coerced meetings ? — Most 
 of the meetings to which I went were called by 
 placards, and the people marched to them in a body. 
 
 In Connemara what is the average amount that a 
 farmer would make and have for the support of himself 
 and his family ? — The part of Connemara which I know 
 is along the seashore, where every man has a boat and 
 fishes, and collects seaweed. I do not know what 
 rent they pay ; £4 or £5 would be the average, I 
 should say. 
 
 Would a man be able to make £4 or £5 out of the 
 land ? — I could not tell you. Most of the people come 
 to England, and those who do not have boats and fish, 
 and they make kelp daring the saramer. That is their 
 way of living chiefly. 
 
 When the distress began in Galway, did the 
 landlords meet together ? — I do not know ; I have no 
 recollection. 
 
 Did you hear of any effort on their part to save the 
 people ? — I do not know distinctly. 
 
 Did you ever know any landlord during the distress 
 do anything to mitigate it ? — I do not remember any 
 instance, but it might have occurred. 
 
 Do you understand the grand jury system ? — I do not. 
 I have an idea of it ; that is all. 
 
 Give us your idea. — I have an idea that the grand 
 jury sit to determine cases that come before Judges of 
 Assize and to manage the fiscal business of the county. 
 
 Were there many claims in respect of outrages in 
 your time in Galway ? — I had nothing to do with 
 them, and did not concern myself about them. 
 
 You were in Queen's County. Do you know whether 
 there were any outrages in that county ? — There were 
 no outrages there worth speaking about. It's the 
 quietest county in Ireland. 
 
 Is there any difference in the character of the League 
 in Queen's County — this quiet county — as compared 
 with the character of the League in the disturbed 
 counties ? — Not that I am aware. In Queen's County, 
 in the district of Maryborough there is, speaking 
 generally, only one large meeting a year, but League 
 meetings were held once a fortnight. 
 
 Do you connect outrages with distress or with 
 speeches ? — I could not say. 
 
 Have you read " Parnellism and Crime ?" — No. 
 
 Were you in the Queen's County Court-house during 
 the last Assizes ? — No. 
 
 Did you read what Mr. Justice Johnson said as to 
 the connexion between the grand jury system and out- 
 rages ? — I never read a word of it. 
 
 There was no re-examination of the witness. 
 
 Head Constable Bernard Q'M&lley. 
 
The Special Commission, November 1, 1888. 
 
 183 
 
 Sir H. James. — I hare now to make a proposal to 
 your Lordships in consequence of the arrangement 
 which has been come to with regard to the. course to 
 be pursued with reference to the speeches. We should 
 now proceed with the second portion of the case — 
 namely, the proof of the outrages — but we are not pre- 
 pared at this moment with consecutive evidence. If 
 we were now to consider one batch of outrages, paying 
 no regard to consecubiveness, it might be very difficult 
 hereafter to bear in mind the connecting links. I 
 think we may secure a clue sequence of witnesses by 
 Tuesday next. I have mentioned this matter to Sir 
 Charles Russell, and I think thero wonld in the end 
 be a saving of time if your Lordships would now rise 
 until Tuesday, when we shall be ready with our 
 evidence. 
 
 The President.— Do you mean that we should not do 
 anything to-morrow ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — If we were to continuo to-morrow 
 our evidence would bo very broken. Our next step 
 must be to prove the outrages, but we have not the 
 witnesses whom we want in order to prove them con- 
 secutively. It would ultimately result in a saving of 
 time if we were allowed to collect our witnesses so 
 as to place their evidence in order before you. 
 
 The President. — What do you say, Sir Charles 
 Russell ? 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I think the proposal is just. If 
 we are not able to proceed consecutively time will be 
 wasted. 
 
 The President.— I can rely upon you, gentlemen, 
 who know what the facts are, and I yield therefore to 
 your joint request. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — In order to save time we ought to 
 have the earliest possible notice of the order in 
 which the witnesses are to be called. 
 
 The President. — That, I understand, will be done. 
 
 Sir H. James. — We will, to the best of our ability, 
 6how what outrages are to be referred to. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— May I say, my Lords, that I am 
 personally very anxious to know what is going to be 
 done with reference to the box of documents in the 
 custody of the Court ? 
 
 The President. — Yes ; we devoted two days to the 
 matter, and we found that the documents which Mr. 
 Lewis promised to bring in had not been brought in, 
 and I believe they have not yet been brought in. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I hear that for the first time. 
 Unfortunately Mr. Lewis is ill and confined to his 
 house. 
 
 The President. — That may account for it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I will communicate with him at 
 once. 
 
 The President. — When we have got them we will go 
 into the whole matter. 
 
 Mr. R. T. Reid. — I desire to say one word in regard 
 to the bank accountsof private individuals. Your Lord- 
 ships will recollect that there was to be an inspection 
 of a variety of accounts. On behalf of those I repre- 
 sent I have not the smallest objection to any of 
 
 their bank books being submitted to your Lordships or 
 to Mr. Soames, or to any person who may be con- 
 sidered necessary for the purpose ; but we have the 
 strongest objection to these things being made public. 
 
 The President. — I have guarded against that. I 
 have given a direction this afternoon on the subject. 
 No inspection is to take place except by the persons 
 interested, and some one representing the Court. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — It is not that we have the least suspicion 
 of the gentlemen on the other side. We merely think 
 it should be mentioned that there should be an honour- 
 able understanding that the circulation of these ac- 
 counts should be of the most limited character. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Certainly. 
 
 The President.— Certainly, and there will always 
 be some responsible person present. I am informed 
 that the inspection is taking place at this minute. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My Lords, I was requested to mention 
 the matter to your Lordships. 
 
 The President. — Perfectly right ; what you have 
 stated was the understanding of the Court. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — My Lords, if the Court is to adjourn 
 until Tuesday, I hope, as so many of the persons con- 
 cerned, like myself, live at a distance, that some 
 notice may be given as to the persons who are to be 
 connected with the outrages. 
 
 The President. — I understand that such information 
 as can be given will be given. 
 
 Sir H. James. — All I can say is that, so far as we 
 possibly can, the earliest opportunity will be taken of 
 communicating when any special particulars are to be 
 given with reference to any individual. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Of course, my learned friends will 
 be prepared for objections coming from us as to proof 
 of outrages merely as such, unless some foundation has 
 been made in the speech of the Attorney-General, 
 good or bad, of the alleged connexion between the 
 acts or proceedings of some particular persons and the 
 alleged outrages. 
 
 The President.— We will deal with the details 
 when they arise. 
 
 Sir II. James. — My Lords, we must go by steps. 
 We have to prove the facts first. 
 
 The President. — Mr. Healy, I address myself to you 
 because you conduct your case yourself. You may rely 
 upon it that the Court will take care that you shall 
 have ample time to meet any case which appears to be 
 pointed directly at you. 
 
 Mr. Healy. — I am obliged to you, my Lord, but with 
 great respect to your Lordship, I fear I did not make 
 myself perfectly clear. I understood that this inquiry 
 was to be conducted as an action at law — as if it were 
 an action for libel, or an indictment f or conspiracy. The 
 facts are alleged in certain particulars of a loose kind that 
 have been drawn up. But if The Times, having libelled 
 us as we say, are able to justify the libel, surely they 
 are here in possession of the facts which are to justify 
 that libel. Consequently I ask that we should be told 
 with some particularity what the facts are. There is 
 no necessity for delay. 
 
184 
 
 The Special Commission, November 1 and 6, 1888. 
 
 The President. — I can say no more than that 
 which I hare already stated. 
 
 The Commission then adjourned until Tuesday 
 morning. 
 
 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6. 
 
 The Special Commission held their ninth sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 The Commissioners having taken their seats, 
 
 The Attorney-General said, — Before calling evi- 
 dence to-day I desire to call your Lordships' attention 
 to a paragraph in a paper which I will hand up to you. 
 I do not wish at the present time unnecessarily to 
 call your Lordships' attention to such matters, or to 
 take steps with reference to such paragraphs, unless it 
 be absolutely necessary that I should do so. But, having 
 regard to the naturo of this paragraph, I hope your 
 Lordships may think it desirable to express some 
 opinion upon it, because we have abundant statements 
 from a considerable number of witnesses — and in all 
 probability it may be necessary that we should briDg 
 before your Lordships evidence — as to the intimidation 
 that is now being practised in order to prevent witnesses 
 from coming to give evidence before this Commission. 
 I ask yonr Lordships to look at the paragraph, not with 
 the view of taking any steps with regard to it, but for 
 the purpose of asking your Lordships, if you should 
 think fit, to make some public statement of opinion in 
 reference to such paragraphs. I may mention that 
 your Lordships will find that one name mentioned is 
 that of one of the persons named and incriminated in 
 the charges made. I will now ask your Lordships to 
 look at the paper. 
 
 A newspaper, containing, it was understood, the 
 report of a meeting of the Limerick Board of Guardians 
 at which Captain O'Shea was denounced for his evi- 
 dence before the Commission, was handed up by the 
 Attorney-General to the President, who perused it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I only desire to say 
 further, after consultation with Sir H. James, Mr. 
 Murphy, and others, that I bring this matter to your 
 Lordships' attention, not because I have the least wish 
 to interfere with any publication, but because it may 
 be necessary to stop any proceedings which may have 
 the effect, if carried still further, of preventing wit- 
 nesses from coming before the Commission. It may be 
 necessary at some time or other, if it is carried further, 
 that I should bring before your Lordships the intimida- 
 tion of witnesses coming before the Commission. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I do not think, my Lords, that 
 statements of that kind ought to be made without some 
 notice or particulars. 
 
 The President. — Certainly they will have to be sub- 
 stantiated. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I should think that, at all events, 
 names should be mentioned, and that notice should be 
 given, so that what is complained of may bo justified. 
 As the matter has been mentioned. I have to call your 
 
 Lordships' attention also to the fact that, notwithstandi 
 ing that one of the questions — and as I think one of 
 the most important — in this inquiry is as to the 
 authenticity of certain letters, The Times publishes 
 every day an advertisement in its columns in which 
 the letter which it charges as the letter of Mr. Parnell 
 is stated to be a facsimile of a letter of Mr. Parnell. 
 I am also informed that since the trial began The Times 
 has publicly circulated as a separate publication the 
 ex parte statements contained in the Attorney-General's 
 opening speech, which appears to me to require 
 material corrections. Speaking from information, for 
 I have not read them, lam told that in the reports 
 published by The Times are some very serious misrepre* 
 sentations of the evidence given in this Court- 
 especially as to the evidence of Captain O'Shea on a 
 most important point. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Sir C. Russell can bring 
 anything against those I represent before the Court. 
 I call attention to a specific matter without men- 
 tioning any names. If your Lordships see fit, I would 
 ask you to express your opinion with regard to such 
 paragraphs. 
 
 After consultation with his colleagues, 
 
 The President, speaking with great earnestness, 
 said, — I think it is very desirable, not only in the 
 interest of the undisturbed course of justice, but in 
 the interests of the persons themselves, that I should 
 say this much — that if it can be established that the 
 language reported here has been used, it amounts to 
 intimidation of the clearest possible kind, and would 
 subject the persons guilty of using it to the action of 
 the Court. However, I am willing to let it pass if 
 the Attorney-General says he only invites an expres« 
 si on of opinion on the part of the Court. Let me ex-> 
 press now, on our part, as the matter has been brought 
 to our attention, our most earnest hope that those who 
 seek to guide public opinion will abstain during the 
 period of this inquiry, which imposes upon me a> 
 burden which I feel very doubtful whether I can sus« 
 tain — I do most earnestly entreat all to abstain from any 
 comments on the case at all, and to leave ns undis« 
 turbed in the performance of the very painful duty wa 
 have undertaken. 
 
 Sir ' C. Russell. — Does your Lordship make any 
 allusion to my statement with regard to the conduct 
 of The Times ? 
 
 The President. — If you make any application on 
 the subject we shall be obliged to deal with it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Then, my Lord, I do make an 
 application. I object to the advertisement in the 
 form in which I am told it appears, and also, my 
 Lords, I object to the separate publication of the 
 ex parte statement contained in the Attorney-General'a 
 speech. 
 
 The President. — If you are only asking for a sug« 
 gestion on my part of a mode of meeting the difficulty 
 I think the difficulty would be met if, in future, the 
 word " alleged " were inserted. Of course, we are 
 inquiring into the assertion on the part of The Times 
 
The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 185 
 
 and I suppose it would not be difficult to find positive 
 assertions the other way. 
 
 Sip. C. Russell. — I quite agree, my Lord. 
 
 The President.— And equally prejudging the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Certainly, and both should be 
 equally dealt with. 
 
 The President.— We will see that that is done. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I wish to say also that I should 
 regard it as a great misfortune and a great peril to 
 those concerned in this case if it should be thought 
 that there is on their part even the most indirect sugges- 
 tion of the intimidation of any one. My attention was 
 called for the first time by my learned friend to what 
 took place at the Limerick Board of Guardians. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It is scarcely necessary to 
 say that I referred to a particular publication in the 
 public Press of London. 
 
 The President. — My observations apply equally to 
 the thing said and the publication of it. 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ives was then called, and examined 
 by the Attorney-General. 
 
 In the year 1879 were you special correspondent to 
 the New York Herald 1 — I was. 
 
 Did you sail in the steamer Scythia for New York 
 leaving on December 21, 1879, and arriving in New 
 York on January 1, 1880 ? — I do not exactly remember 
 the date of sailing, but we arrived in New York on 
 January 1. 
 
 On board that steamer were Mr. Parnell and Mr. 
 Dillon passengers ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you have several interviews with Mr. Parnell 
 and Mr. Dillon ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you write out a memorandum of these inter- 
 views, and in the coarse of the voyage did you at Mr. 
 Parnell's request submit it to him for revision P — Yes. 
 
 Was it submitted to Mr. Parnell in the presence of 
 Mr. Dillon ?— It was. 
 
 And were corrections made in the draft memorandum 
 •which you wrote out by Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon ? 
 —By Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Was Mr. Dillon present when any corrections were 
 made in your presence ? — Yes. 
 
 Will you look at the New York Herald of January 2, 
 1880 ? 1 think I have made it clear that Mr. Parnell 
 and Mr. Dillon were passengers to America in the 
 same steamer ? — Yes. 
 
 Will you look at that publication of the New York 
 Herald of January 2, 1880 ? Is that a correct tran- 
 script of your memorandum ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you verified it by your notes ? — I did not take 
 any notes. 
 
 You wrote out a memorandum of the conversations ? 
 —Yes. The interview, as it appeared, was the result 
 of perhaps 20 conversations or more. After each con- 
 versation I wrote out from memory, and having 
 collated the whole thing, I submitted it to Mr. Par- 
 nell. It was published on January 2, 1880. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, I propose to 
 put that in. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I do not object. 
 
 The Attorney-General (to witness).— Will you 
 hand it down to me r 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Let the officer of the Court read 
 it, please. 
 
 The copy of the newspaper was handed to Mr. 
 Cunynghame, but before he had begun to read, 
 
 The President, interposing, said,— I think it 
 would be more convenient if the Attorney-General 
 were to read this, the secretary not being conversant 
 with the contents of the document. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have, I think, a right 
 to read it. 
 
 The President. — The Attorney-General knows the 
 contents of the document, and will read it more rapidly 
 than the secretary could. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have a reason for wishing that 
 the secretary should road it, but I will waive my 
 objection to the other course in deference to your 
 Lordship's wishes. 
 
 The President. — You know, Mr. Attorney, what 
 should be read. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Then I will read it :— 
 
 " Desirous of an explanation of his plans in America, 
 of some account of the distress in Ireland, and of his 
 views on the land question, stripped of the glittering 
 generalities of platform oratory, I began by asking Mr. 
 Parnell what he considered would be the actual 
 amount of distress in the west of Ireland this winter. 
 He said : — There will be doubtless a partial famine, 
 and my own estimate, based upon information I have 
 received from trustworthy sources, is that at least 
 50,000 persons will be utterly destitute before Feb- 
 ruary 1. Their potatoes will be gone by that time, 
 and they have not the money with which to buy meal, 
 which will not be furnished to them on credit as it 
 was last year. The worst of it all is the people will 
 eat their seed potatoes when the others have gone, 
 and this will deprive thousands of seed for next year, 
 rendering the situation much more serious. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Do you not think the appeal 
 of the Duchess of Marlborough, the wife of the Lord 
 Lieutenant, for assistance for the distress will be ' 
 effectual in raising the necessary amount of relief ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — It will not, for it is evident that that 
 appeal is made through political motives dictated by 
 the Government. All relief given through those 
 channels will only be given to those who pay their 
 rent or hold aloof from our movement. It will be 
 made a condition that they will get so much if they 
 pay their rent, just as in the famine of 1847 and sub- 
 sequent years relief from England was used for prose- 
 lytizing purposes, help being given only to Catholics 
 starving who would abandon their religion for 
 Protestantism. So indirectly this English relief fund 
 is a movement to help the landlords by furnishing the 
 tenants money to assist in paying their rents. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Generally speaking, however, you 
 would, I suppose, encourage any number of relief 
 funds ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — We have no objection to any relief 
 funds not started or likely to be used for political 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ives. 
 
186 
 
 The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 purposes, but we have no faith in movements started 
 under the auspices of the landlords of Ireland. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Shall you ask for money in Ame- 
 rica for the relief of Irish distress 'I 
 
 " Mr. Parnell.— I consider the British Government 
 ought to relieve the distress, and we have been watch- 
 ing and waiting to see whether the Government would 
 fulfil its duty in this respect. Finding that it did not, 
 the Land League decided just before I left Ireland to 
 receive subscriptions for the distress, and we feel 
 ourselves compelled to say — although our primary 
 object is to raise money in aid of the Land League — 
 that if any charitable Americans desire to intrust us 
 with funds for the relief of the poor in Ireland we 
 shall be happy to receive them and apply the money, 
 through our local organizations, according to the wishes 
 of the donors. But it would not be necessary for me to 
 go to America simply to ask for assistance for the dis- 
 tressed Irish. America would send relief as soon as 
 she knew of the distress. In the famine of 1847 she 
 sent assistance to Ireland before England, and she has 
 done the same this time. 
 
 " Correspondent. — You do not, then, endorse the 
 statement of the London Times that, while re- 
 lief from America is very acceptable, all real and 
 substantial assistance must naturally come from 
 England. 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — No ; that is not so. Funds' for the 
 suffering Irish have never been popular in England. 
 Why, in 1847 the Queen of England was the only 
 Sovereign in Europe who gave nothing out of her 
 private purse to the starving Irish. The Czar of Russia 
 gave and so did the Sultan of Turkey, but Queen 
 Victoria sent nothing. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Are not many landlords start- 
 ing improvements on their estates for the purpose 
 of giving tenants relief ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Some of them are doing a little and 
 doubtless more will ; but all their improvements put 
 together are but a few drops in the bucket." 
 
 " Correspondent. — What was the origin of the 
 present land movement ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — The land agitation was started by Mr. 
 Davitt in April last, taking advantage of the threaten- 
 ing state of affairs, for the purpose of obtaining the 
 land for the tillers of it. The first meeting was held 
 in Irishtown, in Mayo. John Ferguson, of Glasgow, 
 and O'Connor Power were the speakers on that occa- 
 sion. The second meeting was held at Claremorris, 
 and the third at Westport, which was the first I 
 attended, and it happened to be the first that attracted 
 attention or was reported in the English newspapers. 
 Meetings were held constantly during the summer, 
 although it was exceedingly wet — Sundays, the days on 
 which our meetings are held, being particularly incle- 
 ment. Sixty-eight meetings have been held in all 
 during the past eight months, and 260,000 persons on 
 foot and 13,000 horsemen have attended them. This 
 estimate is put considerably below that of the Free- 
 man's Journal reports of the various meetings. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Will not the interest suffer during 
 your absence ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Mr. Davitt tells mo that there are 
 some 13 meetings organized for January, so there seems 
 to be no decrease in interest. 
 
 " Correspondent. — What is the Land League for 
 which you intend to ask for money ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — The Land League was started about 
 two months ago, when we issued our appeal to America. 
 
 The central organization is in Dublin, and there are now 
 about 30 local branches in different parts of the west 
 and north-west of Ireland, though they are not all yet 
 in a state of perfect organization. These will bo 
 extended and perfected, and will be directed from the 
 central organization, though each branch is self-sup- 
 porting. 
 
 " Correspondent. — How much money do you waut 
 for the organization ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell.— We only want about $25,000, 
 which I calculate will be sufficient for the purposes of 
 our movement for three or four years, by which time I 
 have every reason to hope the land question will be 
 settled. 
 
 *' Correspondent. — What is the nature of the ques- 
 tion which this sum is intended to meet ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — There are a great number of objects 
 to which it could be applied with advantage. First, 
 to recompense unjustly evicted tenants in such cases 
 as we may select as test cases, like that of Dempsey, 
 who was still by the roadside when we left, holding 
 out pluckily by the help of private subscriptions. A 
 permanent fund for this purpose would encourage the 
 tenants to maintain a determined attitude and to hold 
 out longer than they otherwise could, for they would 
 know that if the worst came there would be an orga- 
 nization with money at its back to help them, and I 
 need not tell you that many of these people living on 
 wretched lands would gladly go out if another and 
 better holding were provided for them, and there are 
 plenty of farms the tenants' goodwill of which might 
 be bought for them. 
 
 " Correspondent. — I suppose there will also be 
 costs for resisting evictions in the Courts ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — No, we do not propose to defend 
 cases in the Courts, because the processes before the 
 Land Courts are farces and no substantial justice can 
 be obtained in them, and the money only goes into the 
 pockets ot the lawyers. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Are those all the modes of ex- 
 penditures ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Oh no. With a little money we 
 can extend the agitation very materially in many 
 ways. There are, for instance, numbers of talented 
 young men in Ireland who are able and who would 
 gladly undertake the task of educating the people 
 regarding the political economy of the land question 
 if they had but their expenses paid. It is not in- 
 tended to pay any salaries, only to cover expenses 
 out of pocket. Up to the present all the speakers 
 have paid their own travelling expenses, and this 
 proves agreat drain on the resources of some of them. 
 It is only right the bare travelling expenses of the 
 speakers should be paid by the League when they are 
 giving their time and energies to the movement. 
 We shall soon need a paid secretary for the League. 
 At present correspondence is done by honorary secre- 
 taries, but as they have private business to attend to, 
 it will be an impossibility for them to continue this, 
 and a paid secretary must be had. There is another 
 work we have in hand which will cost money. We 
 are issuing forms asking for certain details in reference 
 to the rent, value, &c, of all the holdings in Ireland. 
 This, when obtained, will be of the most valuable 
 assistance to the movement. The Landlords' Associa- 
 tion have imitated our action, and have also issued 
 forms calling for information of a one-sided character, 
 and this renders more necessary the success of our 
 attempt to get correct information. There are various 
 other ways in which money would be of great service 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ives. 
 
The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 187 
 
 in promoting our organization, as any politician can 
 tell you. 
 
 " Correspondent. — How do you propose to collect the 
 money, Mr. Parnell ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — We hope it may be possible to form 
 committees in all the cities we visit for the collection 
 a! subscriptions, and they may also take money for the 
 distress. 
 
 " Correspondent. — How much has been collected in 
 Ireland for the Land League ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — We have not made any organized 
 attempt to collect subscriptions in Ireland, bat had 
 received when I left $1,200 from various sources. 
 Of course our constituents are the tenant-farmers, 
 and they are unable to bear the local expenses of 
 the meetings held in their districts. The cost of 
 each of the agitation meetings is reckoned to be about 
 £30, so that they have in reality contributed something 
 like £1,800 this summer and autumn. That is all that 
 can be asked of them. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Is it not a misfortune that your agi- 
 tation has so few men of standing connected with it, 
 and that it does not receive recognition from the more 
 respectable classes ? 
 
 •' Mr. Parnell. — If the men of whom you speak were 
 connected with it, and the higher classes approved, 
 then there would be no necessity for the agitation. 
 But a movement of this kind is necessarily unpopular. 
 It is not respectable, it is unfashionable. The ' men 
 of standing ' are landlords and aristocrats, and of 
 course will not work against their own interests. The 
 Protestant middle classes hold aloof, too, because 
 their interests are in the direction of those who have 
 social or political recognition or advancement to dis- 
 pense. Our constituents are the poorest and most 
 helpless classes of the people, without friends or the 
 hope of assistance from the classes above them. 
 
 " Correspondent. — How do you account for the appa- 
 rent want of sympathy for your agitation in the 
 United States and France ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Foreign sympathy is almost invariably 
 with the aristocracy and against tfie oppressed. History 
 proves that. Moreover, France receives her knowledge 
 of affairs in Ireland through English correspondents. 
 American journals also get th*ir Irish news filtered 
 through London, and the correspondents have no faci- 
 lities for seeing for themselves the real state of the 
 people by coming in actual contact with them. I 
 hope in my lecture to state our case clearly and 
 fairly, and correct erroneous opinions which exist 
 abroad regarding it. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Do you not think the actual good 
 done by the reduction of rents in Ireland is very small 
 to the individual tenant ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Perhaps to many tenants a 20 per 
 cent, reduction is of little avail ; to others it is 
 important. On the other hand, it haR greatly em- 
 barrassed landlords who are dependent on high 
 rents, and for whom in many cases the margin between 
 a high rent and a fair rent is all they have to pay 
 the charges and encumbrances on their estates. 
 In other words, many landlords are obliged to make a 
 tenant pay a very high rent in order to meet the en- 
 cumbrances on the estate and leave something for 
 themselves. The land agitation will force the estates 
 •f such men into the market, and as there will be in 
 the future few purchasers except tenants, the tenants 
 will get a chance to become purchasers at reasonable 
 prices, which they never had before. The landlords 
 
 will be forced to insist on the Government reforming 
 the land system and enabling the tenants to purchase. 
 They will not do it while they are getting high rents, 
 and the Government will do nothing for us. 
 
 " Correspondent. — How far has the situation you desire 
 to create been achieved ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Previous to this movement the price 
 of land in the Landed Estates Court was at 22A years' 
 purchase, with fair sales ; now it only fetches 15 
 years' purchase, and the sales are very low. That you 
 may understand the difference more clearly I will 
 explain that when you buy at 22j years' purchase it 
 returns an annual interest of 4 J per cent., while at 15 
 years' purchase it returns an interest of 7 J per cent., 
 which means that before the movement land was a 
 good investment at 4J per cent. ; while now it is not 
 considered a good investment at 7j per cent. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Why should not tenants have been 
 assisted to buy their holdings after the famine, when 
 land was cheap ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — It should have been done, and had 
 steps been taken to enable occupying tenants to 
 purchase their holdings there would now be in Ireland 
 100,000 tenants owners of their own land. Instead 
 of that, estates coming into the market after the 
 famine were sold at very low rates to land-jobbers or 
 speculators, who make the worst of all landlords, 
 almost invariably raising the rents and treating the 
 tenants very badly. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Are not the worst landlords gener- 
 ally the small ones, and not the great landed proprietors ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell.— It is perfectly true that the hardest, 
 most exacting landlords are the small owners and land- 
 jobbers who have bought their estates in the Landed 
 Estates Court ; but what I say to this is, that if the 
 Bright Clauses of the Land Act (which enable tenants 
 to buy their own holdings whenever they come up for 
 sale in the Landed Estates Court) were facilitated by 
 the landlords instead of obstructed, these speculators 
 Could not buy these estates. But as a fact the landlords 
 opposed the passing of the Bright Clauses, and since 
 they have been passed every obstacle has been thrown 
 in the way to make them — as they are — practically 
 inoperative. 
 
 "Correspondent. — I am told on the best authority that 
 there are in Ireland 100,000 holdings which only pay 
 a yearly rental of £3 and under, and that most of the 
 tenants on these holdings are in debt from £3 to £10 
 to shopkeepers or money-lenders. Now, what pro- 
 portion does a reduction of 25 per cent, in the rent 
 bear to the debt to tho shopman, and why should not the 
 latter make a redaction as well as the landlord ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — That raises the question regarding the 
 difference between debt and rent for land. In a 
 country like Ireland, where land is limited and the 
 conditions of title are peculiar, a man should pay his 
 just debts ; but political economists establish the 
 maxim that rent is merely a fair share of the profits 
 of the land, and that when there are no profits there is 
 no rent. The shopkeeper has furnished the tenant 
 with the necessaries of life, and should be paid ; but 
 the landlord has only furnished land, which this year 
 has not earned half a living, and he should therefore 
 bear his share of the loss. 
 
 " Correspondent. — But many of the poorest tenants 
 are paying their rents. 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Yes ; but rents paid this year are not 
 paid out of the profits of this year's farming ; they 
 are being paid from the savings of past years or out 
 of sums borrowed. We cannot, of course, prevent all 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ives. 
 
188 
 
 The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 tenants from paying their rents, and there are cowards 
 aruong them who have not shaken off their belief in 
 the divine rights of landlords. It is this doctrine 
 which we are trying to eradicate from the tenants' 
 minds, and with great success generally. We do not 
 attach so much importance as you may think to the 
 mere reduction of rent. We do not consider the land 
 question settled by reduction of rents by any means. 
 It is only a temporary assistance, but it establishes a 
 principle. The greatest object we have gained after all 
 is to have instilled into the minds of the tenants their 
 true relation to the land and the true relation of the 
 landlord to it. The farmers thought before the agitation 
 that the landlord had an absolute, a divine right to the 
 land, and that the rent was the first debt to be paid at 
 all costs. We have shown them the difference between 
 the property in land and the property in an article of 
 merchandise. We have taught them the difference 
 between rent and an ordinary debt. But it is necessary 
 to continue this teaching and to so deeply root this 
 doctrine in their minds that a returning temporary pro- 
 sperity — if that ever returns without reform — will not 
 tempt them to forget their rights and wrongs. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Do you not believe it wrong for 
 the tenant who is able to pay his rent not to pay it ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — No : I think that where the majority 
 of the tenants are maintaining a principle in refusing 
 to pay an unfair rent, that it is cowardly and wrong 
 for a few to violate the wishes of the majority, and 
 thus to make the movement, which is for the general 
 good, inoperative. 
 
 "Correspondent. — But you do not believe in the con- 
 sequences which are visited upon tenants who do 
 pay their rents ? 
 
 "Mr. Parnell. — Well, it may be accepted as an axiom 
 that you cannot effect a social revolution by dealing 
 with it with kid gloves. Of course, if any farmers 
 have burnt the crops of their neighbours or destroyed 
 their cattle because they have paid their rents, those 
 farmers are not only wrong, but they are fools, for 
 they have to pay the cost. The person who has thus 
 had his crops or stock destroyed is remunerated by the 
 law, and his fellow-tenants have to bear the loss. But 
 a certain amount of pressure from public opinion, 
 which in such cases is apt occasionally to manifest 
 itself in unpleasant ways, must be brought to bear 
 upon those who are weak and cowardly. Look at the 
 strikes in England and America and the penalties 
 threatened towards traitors to the common cause. 
 
 " Correspondent. — As a consequence of the agitation, 
 do not many tenants who are only paying a fair rent 
 demand a reduction ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Undoubtedly ; but I admit there 
 should be discrimination made between landlords. 
 Those who have not raised their rents since 1850 and 
 those whose rents are at or about the Government 
 valuation should not ' be asked to reduce ; but those 
 who have repeatedly raised them should be obliged to 
 reduce materially. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Were the landlords reducing their 
 rents before your agitation began ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Not at all. The landlords of Ireland 
 were most stupid not to reduce their rents in the first 
 place, as the English landlords did, and as they were 
 obliged to do in most cases after the agitation began. 
 
 " Correspondent. — What would you think of a plan for 
 redistributing the land — taking half the people off the 
 districts where the small holdings prevail and putting 
 them upon new and larger holdings, and consolidating 
 
 the land which they have left with the holdings of the 
 tenants who remain ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell.— That would be a good plan probably, 
 but the time has not yet come for such a solution. 
 Redistribution, or any other plan for temporarily reliev- 
 ing the difficulties of the landlords, unaccompanied by 
 proper legislation — fixity of tenure, or peasant proprie- 
 torship, or something — would only increase the dis- 
 content. It is such legislation that we are fighting 
 for, and it is our duty not to make the position less 
 difficult for the Government or the landlords than it is 
 at present. 
 
 " Correspondent. — If the farmers were made peasant 
 proprietors to-morrow, would they not soon be in the 
 hands of the moneylenders ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Some of them, undoubtedly, but that 
 would only teach others the necessity of frugality and 
 thrift. We do not expect to bolster up those who are 
 lazy and unwilling to work. The unthrifty and indolent 
 and wasteful must go to the wall, while the hard- 
 working, saving farmer will grow prosperous and 
 swallow up his inferior neighbour. 
 
 " Correspondent. — But will not the effect of that be 
 to create a new race of landlords in a short time ? 
 
 "Mr. Parnell. — No, because if such a danger as you 
 suggest were threatened we would be perfectly pre- 
 pared to pass a law forbidding renting on agricultural 
 holdings when the tenant had been assisted by the 
 State to become the owner. But I do not think such 
 a law would be necessary, for with local registration, 
 such as you have in the United States, with simple 
 methods of transferring property, in place of the 
 present complicated system, farmers would prefer to 
 sell rather than rent when they had more land than 
 they needed. I do not believe that any farmei 
 should own more land than he can profitably farm„ 
 When he finds himself overloaded let him sell. 
 
 •' Correspondent. — How would you regulate the size 
 of farms ? Would it not be a very difficult matter ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — What I wish to do is to create a 
 natural state of affairs. A general enforced plan for 
 redistributing the land might not be wise ; certainly 
 not if conducted by the landlords. Give the people the 
 land and let it gradually distribute itself. Farmers 
 would buy and sell, consolidate or subdivide, according 
 to their inclination ; and the size of farms would 
 soon be regulated. The most profitable size would 
 depend much on the locality and on the markets. 
 Some lands are only fit for small farms, others are 
 suitable for large. An increased demand for certain 
 articles of produce or the decreased demand for others 
 would have a great effect in determining the size of 
 farms. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Would the tendency be towards 
 large or small farms, do you think ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — The American competition in cattle 
 and the probable future state of the markets indicate 
 that there would not be much temptation among farmers 
 to create abnormally large farms. On the contrary, 
 the large farms must be made smaller if they are to be 
 farmed profitably, while it will be the ambition of the 
 smaller farmers to increase their holdings to the limit 
 of their ability to farm profitably. 
 
 " Correspondent. — I have heard of cases where land- 
 lords have tried to improve the condition of their 
 tenants by putting them on better land and in better 
 houses — redistributing on a small scale ; but the tenants 
 have grumbled and said they preferred their meaner* 
 hovel and half-barren land. Can you explain this ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Yes, easily. It is, first, because the 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ives. 
 
The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 189 
 
 tenant has an inherent suspicion of the landlord's 
 motives ; and, second, because such redistribution 
 generally means that the landlord is merely engineering 
 to increase his rentals, and is not so much interested 
 in the welfare of his tenants as he seems. For instance, 
 a landlord transfers a tenant from a poorer holding to 
 a better one, on which the tenant pays more than his 
 predecessor. This tenant he replaces by another taken 
 from some poorer mountain land, and the latter in 
 turn is charged more rent than the landlord has got 
 from the other tenant. Then he puts a new tenant on 
 the mountain side, making him in turn pay more than 
 his predecessor. Thus, you see, while the tenants 
 may or may not be benefited by the change, the real 
 object is to increase the rental of the landlord, and 
 without that object the tenant would probably be 
 left alone. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Have not the poorer tenants of 
 Ireland been living extravagantly ? 
 
 "Mr. Parnell. — Some of the peoplehave been, doubt- 
 less ; yet the landlords cry out against the farmer 
 because he spends 12s. for his daughter's hat, or in- 
 dulges his wife with tea. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Do you not think it possible that 
 the encouragement to get into debt offered by shop- 
 men and gombeenmen (usurers) is responsible for 
 much of the present distress, and for the state of total 
 bankruptcy in which the farmers are now in ? 
 
 "Mr. Parnell. —I think you lay too much stress on 
 the credit system. It is doubtless an evil, but it is 
 only a branch. We are strihafcg at the root. If we 
 thought the gombeenman and the shopkeeper were 
 the source of the present state of affairs we would 
 strike at it with all our might ; but it is not the 
 source. It is only one of the evil consequences of the 
 land system. If the people only were given a start on 
 their own land they would, with some exceptions, 
 take good care to keep out of the clutches of money- 
 lenders, and, if need be, a usury law could be passed 
 to prevent exorbitant rates of interest being charged ; 
 but I have no anticipation that anything of the kind 
 would be at all necessary. 
 
 *' Correspondent. — Are there no other means than 
 agitation for winning land reform ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — No, nothing else can do it ; Ireland 
 never won any great reform except by agitation, and 
 this agitation, like obstruction, has been necessary in 
 order to gain the attention of the Government. When 
 a Government of a country totally disregard you, you 
 must use strong and even disagreeable measures to get 
 their attention ; the methods may be distasteful, but 
 they are imperative. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Do you intend to resume your ob- 
 structive tactics in Parliament next SessioD, Mr. 
 Parnell ? 
 
 "Mr. Parnell. — I hope there will be no occasion for 
 obstruction next Parliament. If the Liberals get in, 
 as I believe they will, there will be no further cause 
 for obstruction, for the first Liberal Government which 
 is established will see the dangerous position of Irish 
 affairs and will apply itself to proposing some remedy. 
 But it is our duty, as I have said, to make the position 
 as difficult as possible. Experience has shown that Eng- 
 land will not pay any attention to Irish affairs until 
 the position has become unbearable for herself. Glad- 
 stone himself stated that disestablishment did not 
 come within the domain of practical politics until a 
 prison in the heart of the metropolis (Clerkenwell) 
 had been blown up and a policeman in Manchester 
 tad been murdered by the Fenians. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Do you think the arrest of Davitt 
 and the other agitators was judicious ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — It was a great mistake for the Go- 
 vernment to have taken half -measures. If they had 
 wanted to stop the" agitation they should have arrested 
 all, not part of the leaders, and kept them locked up 
 instead of allowing them out on bail. As it was, they 
 only assisted the agitation. 
 
 "Correspondent. — The Herald,\a commenting recently 
 upon the Irish land question, said it was ' a question 
 to be considered whether peasant proprietorship is of 
 greater advantage to a country than freehold pro- 
 prietorship simply.' 
 
 "Mr. Parnell. — The term * peasant proprietorship ' in 
 connexion with our movement is a misnomer, and I 
 have always said so. Peasant proprietary means that 
 the land shall belong to the peasant only, while I 
 believe in free land and in allowing the size of farms 
 to regulate itself. 
 
 "Correspondent. — The Herald asks, ' If a bought-out 
 landlord — an Irishman, for instance— wishes to go into 
 farming on a large scale in Ireland, will he be per- 
 mitted under the new scheme to purchase the necessary 
 land ?' 
 
 " Mr. Pamell.— Certainly ; allow anybody to buy in 
 any quantities who has the money to pay for it. 
 
 ' ' Correspondent. — The Herald also asks, ' If the land 
 is made free for the peasant, should it not be made 
 free for the wealthy ?' 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Certainly. The simple answer to that 
 is that the seller will always sell to the man who will 
 give the most for the land. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Also, ' Does it need, in order to 
 bring about the Parnell era, that wealthy Irishmen 
 should be banished in order that the peasant proprie- 
 tors may flourish ?' 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Certainly not, as youmay judge from 
 the preceding reply. 
 
 " Correspondent. — The Government's remedy for the 
 poverty of Ireland is emigration. What objection have 
 you to sending to America or Australia those who will 
 go? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell.— I have no objection to a natural 
 emigration, but I object to an unnatural one or one 
 unwarranted by circumstances. It is undoubtedly true 
 that where there is a thick population it is too thick 
 for the capability of the land, but this is because the 
 people have been driven from rich to poor lands. I 
 should like to see the capacity of the rich lands fully 
 availed of before we take advantage of emigration. I 
 feel perfectly sure that there is plenty of room for the 
 present population of Ireland. 
 
 "Correspondent. — I have heard much in the West,Mr. 
 Parnell, regarding Fenianism and its present active 
 organization. Do you think the Fenians are in sym- 
 pathy with the present land movement ? 
 
 " Mr.Parnell. — As far as I have been able to gather, 
 the Fenian organization and its leaders are opposed, 
 though not hostile, to our movement, the reason being 
 that it is constitutional. A true revolutionary 
 movement in Ireland should, in my opinion, partake 
 of both a constitutional and an illegal character. It 
 should be both an open and a secret organization, 
 using the constitution for its own purposes, but also 
 taking advantage of its secret combination. But the 
 leaders of the Fenian movement do not believe in con- 
 stitutional action because it has always been used in 
 the past for the selfish purposes of its leaders. There 
 was a strong objection by the Fenians to our Parlia- 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ives. 
 
190 
 
 The Special Commission," November 6, 1888. 
 
 mentary action for the same reasons, and, indeed, if 
 we look at the action of the Irish Parliamentary 
 leaders since the Union, there is ample justification 
 for the views of the physical force party. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Is there anything secret in con- 
 nexion with the Land League ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — Nothing whatever. I would not be- 
 long to any illegal body. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Do you think Mr.Davitt has any- 
 thing to do with the Fenian organization ? 
 
 "Mr. Parnell. — I do not believe Mr. Davittis one of 
 the leaders of the organization, nor has any control 
 over its movements, though, of course, he openly and 
 avowedly holds to his principles of Irish nationalism 
 the same as ever. 
 
 " Correspondent. — I believe you are a considerable 
 landlord, Mr. Parnell ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — I own some property, but not much 
 in agricultural holdings. I own some country seats 
 and some house property in Dublin. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Did you give a reduction to your 
 tenants ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — To the farmers I gave 20 per cent, re- 
 duction, but, of course, not in the other cases. I re- 
 ceived recently, however, a letter from the occupier 
 of some house properties of mine in St. Stephen's- 
 green, one of the fashionable squares in the capital, 
 asking me if I was going to give a redaction in rent. 
 I replied that when St. Stephen's- green was cut into 
 agricultural holdings he should have a reduction with 
 great pleasure. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Will your statement to the 
 American public regarding the object of your visit take 
 any particular form, or will your speeches be informal ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — I think at present my statement will 
 take the form of a lecture. I intend to give a brief 
 history of the land question up to the present time, 
 and a description of the rise and progress of the 
 present land movement. I shall relate the various 
 remedies which have been proposed from time to time 
 and their effects, and I will state what we have to 
 suggest. I may 6ay a little regarding the principles on 
 which we proceeded on our Parliamentary action. 
 
 " Correspondent. — What are the remedies you sug- 
 gest ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — We are not in haste to propose any 
 detailed plan at present. Many plans have been pro- 
 posed, but we simply deem it our duty to get the best 
 possible solution for the tenants. How much we can 
 get depends on circumstances, on our energy, on the 
 strength of our movement, on the courage and inde- 
 pendence of the farmers themselves, on prices of pro- 
 duce, and on the attitude of the landlords. If they 
 are obstinate it will be easier to obtain a better solu- 
 tion than if they are conciliatory. We do not intend 
 to throw over the claim to fixity of tenure at fair rents, 
 but we feel it right to make peasant proprietary our 
 first plank. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Are you at liberty to tell your 
 movements while in America ? 
 
 " Mr. Parnell. — I expect to remain in New York a 
 few days to attend a meeting which I understand has 
 been arranged for. After tbat much will depend upon 
 the plans made for us by the American Committee, but 
 I expect to go next to Boston, then to Philadelphia, 
 after which I shall go south a short distance and work 
 around to St. Louis ; then I shall yrobably g f 
 Chicago. From that point my plans are uncertain, 
 as I wish to go to Canada and to San Francisco, 
 
 and I do not know whether I can do both or not. I 
 shall do my best to go to San Francisco, and may 
 perhaps visit Canada before going West. Mr. Dillon 
 will accompany me throughout, and I hope to be able 
 to induce him to remain behind when I leave America 
 to continue the work ; but my return will depend on 
 events at home. 
 
 " Correspondent. — I suppose an early dissolution of 
 Parliament would take you back to England. 
 
 " Mr. Parnell.— Yes ; or if Mr. Davitt should be con- 
 victed, or if the Government should attempt to suspend 
 the Habeas Corpus Act it would be necessary for me to 
 go immediately." 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — My Lords, I do not propose to 
 cross-examine this witness at any length on the present 
 occasion as we did not receive sufficient notice. The 
 following letter from The Times solicitor was handed 
 to us yesterday afternoon between 5 and 6 o'clock : — 
 
 " We beg to inform you that it is proposed to- 
 morrow to call a witness as to an interview with Mr. 
 Parnell and Mr. Dillon on their way to America in the 
 year 1879, evidence as to the proprietorship of United 
 Ireland, general evidence as to outrages, and evidence 
 as to outrages in county Galway." 
 
 I understand that this gentleman can give us some 
 useful information ; but I am not in a position to 
 effectively cross-examine him at this moment. I will, 
 however, with your Lordships' permission, put a few 
 questions to him. ♦ 
 
 The President. — Very well, Sir Charles. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. RCSSELL. — Did you come 
 from America in order to go out with Mr. Parnell and 
 Mr. Dillon ? — No ; I was the London correspondent of 
 the New York Herald, and I was sent over to Ireland, 
 not for that purpose, but to attend meetings of the 
 Land League. 
 
 How long had you been in Ireland attending the 
 meetings of the Land League before you sailed in the 
 Scythia ? -I do not remember the exact date ; but I 
 recollect that I was at Mr. Davitt's trial in Sligo, in 
 November, 1879. At that time I had only been in Ire- 
 land for about a month. 
 
 Were you alone, or had you a colleague ? — I was 
 alone ; I had no colleague. 
 
 Did you write the result of your observations in Ire- 
 and at that time, and at these Land League meetings, 
 and send what you wrote to the New York Herald i— 
 Yes. I sent everything by cablegram. What I sent 
 was simply the reports of the proceedings. I think I 
 can furnish you with the dates of those cablegrams 
 by to-morrow by referring to the files of the New York 
 Herald. 
 
 I understand that you received instructions from the 
 proprietors of the New York Herald to accompany Mr. 
 Parnell and Mr. Dillon on board the Scythia for the 
 purpose of having these interviews with them ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you remain in America during Mr. Parnell's tour, 
 or were you sent back to Ireland ? — I only remained in 
 America for 12 clays, and then I returned to Ireland. I 
 received a telegram from Mr. Bennett, who was then 
 in Paris, telling me to return to Ireland immediately. 
 I do not know anything about Mr. Parucll's proceed- 1 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ires. 
 
The Special Commission,' November 6, 1888. 
 
 191 
 
 ings in America. I had no colleague with me on my 
 return to Ireland. 
 
 It is suggested that the Eev. Mr. Hepworth was 
 with you ? — About a month or six weeks after my return 
 to Ireland a relief fund was started by the New York 
 Herald, and Dr. Hepworth was sent over to Ireland as 
 one of the distributors of the money. I had nothing 
 to do with his correspondence. He merely represented 
 the relief fund. 
 
 The fund amounted altogether to somewhere about 
 £30,000, did it not ?— I think that it amounted to 
 £G9,000, of which Mr. Bennett contributed £20,000. 
 
 I believe a committee was appointed to superintend 
 the distribution of the fund ?— Yes. 
 
 Can you tell us who formed the committee ? — Mr. 
 William Shaw, formerly member for Cork, was the chair- 
 man, and I was secretary, and among the other members 
 were Colonel King-Harman, Archbishop MacCabe.and Pro- 
 fessor Baldwin. I remained in Ireland after that for 
 about two years altogether, but my visits covered a 
 period of three years. I was there not for very long 
 consecutive periods. After arriving in Ireland from 
 America in January, 1880, I left again in August, and 
 did not go back until the winter, I think until Novem- 
 ber. I cannot say exactly how long I remained then. 
 I was backwards and forwards ten or 15 times. 
 
 What was the longest period that you remained in 
 Ireland at any one time ? — I think about three or four 
 months ; the longest stretch was from January to 
 August, in 1880. The second longest stretch was from 
 midsummer, 1881, until January, 1882. 
 
 And you have not been in Ireland since then ? — Only 
 for a day or so. 
 
 Did you, for the purposes of these visits, go about the 
 country much ? — Yes. 
 
 And became acquainted, I . presume, with the Irish 
 jaunting-car 3 — I made acquaintance with everything I 
 could in Ireland. 
 
 You were aware of the distress that existed in the 
 counties of Galway and Mayo ? — Yes. 
 
 It was the most acute along the western seaboard of 
 the country, was it not ? — Yes. 
 
 And there was the most disturbance there ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the course of your communication with 
 your paper ; was it weekly ?— It was daily, by cable- 
 gram. 
 
 Forgive my asking you this question — Were those 
 cablegrams printed as you sent them, or did they undergo 
 any expansive process ? — They were printed exactly 
 as I sent them — there was not the slightest alteration 
 made. 
 
 And you sent cablegrams every day when within reach 
 of a telegraph office, giving the result of your observa- 
 tions ? — Not so much the result of my observations. I 
 did not express any opinions. What I did was simply 
 to report facts. 
 
 Reporting what you witnessed ?■— Yes. 
 
 How many cablegrams do you suppose you sent from 
 Ireland to your paper altogether ? — Hundreds. 
 
 As far as your paper was concerned it was not a 
 
 supporter of Mr. Farnell, but was rather opposed to 
 him ?— Yes. 
 
 And has remained so ? — Yes, editorially. 
 
 I am not speaking of you personally — but the 
 policy of your paper was opposed to him ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell, addressing the Commissioners, said, 
 —My Lords, that is all I can do in the way of cross- 
 examining this witness to-day. I think, however, that 
 it is very important to get the results of this gentle- 
 man's observations. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — As I un- 
 derstand it, you sent cablegrams of what you both saw 
 and heard in Ireland ? — Yes. 
 
 In fact you were acting in the ordinary way as a 
 newspaper correspondent ? — Yes. 
 
 And were collecting anything that you thought 
 would be interesting to the readers of your paper 1 — 
 Yes ; I was on the spot for that purpose. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Now, my Lords, I wish 
 to put in the certificate of registration of the news- 
 paper called United Ireland. It is dated the 29th of 
 July, 1881, and it sets forth that the name of the pro- 
 prietors is the Irish National Newspaper and Publish- 
 ing Company (Limited). The signatories are Patrick 
 Egan, 237 shares, Charles Stewart Parnell, M.P., 237 
 shares, Joseph E. Kenny, 10 shares, J. G. Biggar, 
 M.P., 10 shared, William O'Brien, two shares, Justin 
 M'Carthy, two shares, and E. Lalor, two shares, tho 
 total holding of shares by the signatories being 500. 
 There was an alteration in the certificate on May 29, 
 1885, when the return was made up to date by Mr. 
 William O'Brien, there being the addition of 
 Timothy Harrington. I shall put in the files of United 
 Ireland, the directors of which are the subscribers to 
 the memorandum of association whose names I have 
 read. Of course, I do not propose at the present 
 time to call your Lordships' attention to the various 
 articles or to the outrages which followed upon them, 
 but I shall have to do so in the course of the inquiry. 
 
 John Rafferty was then called and examined by Mr. 
 Murphy, Q.C. He said, — I live at Cloonmaglar, 
 Castlegrove, county Galway. At the latter end of 1879 
 I took some nine or ten acres of land. It was formerly 
 in the occupation of a man named Brown. 
 
 Had somebody been evicted from the land before you 
 took it ? — No ; the man who left it made a settlement 
 with the landlord and went out, and then I took it. I 
 remember the night of May 27, 1880. 
 
 What happened to you on that night ? — A party of 15 
 or 20 men surrounded the house, and five or six of them 
 came in with blackened faces. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I ask you, my Lords, what is the 
 connexion of this evidence with those who are here 
 charged ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Your Lordships will find 
 that this outrage is directly connected with a speech 
 which has been put in. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Whose speech ? 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ives. 
 
 John Rafferty. 
 
192 
 
 The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I do not at the present 
 moment remember, but I remember perfectly well the 
 incident. But in addition your Lordships will find that, 
 in the course of the evidence that will be given with 
 regard to these outrages, they will be found to be con- 
 nected with the local branch of the Land League — with 
 the persons who were the officers and the leading 
 members of the Land League in the district in many 
 cases. In many cases notice was actually given by 
 the local Land League. g 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — But that is not the case in this 
 instance. 
 
 The Attoeney-Genebal. — I said in many instances. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — I wish to guard myself against 
 being placed in this position. We shall object'to any 
 evidence of outrages unless some plausible suggestion is 
 made tnat there is a connexion between them and pre- 
 vious meetings at which the incriminated parties 
 spoke. 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal.— Upon the general ques- 
 tion, my Lords, I wish to say this 
 
 The President. — I suppose that at some time or 
 another there must be a general discussion on this 
 question. You may take it either now or at some future 
 stage. 
 
 The Attoeney-General. — Whenever it will be most 
 convenient to your Lordships, but it is manifestly in- 
 convenient that we ■ should have a discussion before 
 each witness upon each particular point. I will indi- 
 cate to your Lordships what I intend to prove in con- 
 nexion with the outrages. I will again remind your 
 Lordships that this is a Commission of inquiry, 
 
 Sie C. Russell.— The witness had better go out for 
 a moment. 
 
 The Pbesident.— Certainly. 
 
 The witness then left the Court. 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal. — I shall propose to give 
 your Lordships evidence that the speakers, who were 
 the direct representatives of the League from Dublin, 
 laid down a law over and over again at these meetings 
 that persons who took land either from which a tenant 
 had been evicted, or from a landlord whose land the local 
 Land League did not wish him to take, should be first 
 boycotted, and then, if necessary, be made to obey the 
 orders of the Land League. I shall give evidence to 
 show that in several instances persons so offending were 
 summoned before the local Land League, when they 
 either submitted or if they did not were subsequently 
 punished. With regard to the first branch' of the 
 evidence showing connexion, I shall give evidence to 
 wove that this enunciation of the law of the League 
 was repeated hundreds and hundreds of times by the 
 speakers, and I would remind your Lordships that it 
 was on .that class of evidence which we were pro- 
 ceeding to give when an arrangement was come to 
 between my learned friend Sir Henry James and Sir 
 Charles Russell that as far as possible the speeches 
 should be printed with the passages upon which we 
 ach relied marked. I shall also show that the 
 reports of what was done at the local League meetings 
 
 were sent week by week to United Ireland, and were — 
 not in all but in many instances — printed in the paper 
 of whichMr.W. O'Brien was the editor and Mr. Parnell 
 was one of the leading proprietors. I think there will 
 be no doub't that I shall be able to show your Lord- 
 ships that Mr. Parnell would be liable both civilly and 
 criminally for statements in United Ireland. In addi- 
 tion we shall be able to show that at the meeting at 
 which the speeches were delivered persons who had 
 paid their rent were threatened by the local League, 
 as also were persons who should pay their rent. 
 In addition to their being so threatened when they refused 
 to obey and paid their rents, they were first boycotted 
 and then subjected to outrage. In addition, we shall 
 bring evidence to show that persons who paid behind 
 the backs and contrary to the wishes of the general 
 body of tenants were similarly treated. It will be 
 utterly impossible in every case for us to be able to 
 show the connexion between the meetings of the local 
 branches of the Land League and the outrage, but we 
 shall ask your Lordships to receive the evidence on 
 the ground that it was repeated and over and over again 
 enunciated and adopted by the League, that what 
 was done was done in obedience to the wishes of the 
 League speakers and the wishes of the League leaders ; 
 and, further, as the evidence will show, these occur- 
 rences were, many of them, day by day reported and 
 referred to as facts in the columns of United Ireland. 
 So far as we are concerned, we fully recognize the 
 responsibility that rests upon us of giving all the evi- 
 dence we can in support of the charges we have made. 
 But it is impossible for us to show in the case of every 
 witness the connexion between the outrage and the 
 Land League meeting, because the connexion will be 
 proved not by one witness, but frequently by several. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— Just one word, my Lords, upon the 
 general question of the admissibility of this evi- 
 dence. It may be possible for your Lordships to 
 come to a conclusion as to whether a particular 
 outrage was connected with Land League meetings 
 by what was said by the people who committed the 
 outrage at the time. I submit that, quite irrespective 
 of that, we may give evidence as to outrages and as to 
 meetings and speeches, for it will be impossible for 
 your Lordships to come to a conclusion that any parti- 
 cular outrage was the result of any particular speech 
 unless your Lordships know what the outrage was. It 
 will be for your Lordships to say whether the evidence 
 of connexionis particularly strong. Your Lordships will 
 recollect that the Attorney-General has undertaken to 
 show by one class of evidence that outrages of this 
 class were unknown until the Land League branches 
 were established. After they were established came 
 denunciations, then boycotting, then outrages. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— This is not aCommission of inquiry 
 into the whole of the agrarian question in Ireland, 
 nor is it an inquiry into the organization relating to 
 the agrarian agitation in Ireland except go far as 
 regards the matters going to substantiate the charges 
 aud allegations made against certain persons. In other _ 
 
The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 193 
 
 words, this is an inquiry not into the conduct or 
 actions of the organization of a great agrarian move- 
 ment, but into charges and allegations against persons 
 — against individuals. If that be true of the case that 
 your Lordships are investigating, then I say it is in- 
 cumbent upon' those who seek to justify the evidence 
 they call to show that there is some ground, primd 
 facie or probable, for suggesting that there was 
 any responsibility, by advice, by participation, or by 
 being accessory either before or after the fact in a 
 particular outrage it is sought to prove. I would point 
 out that if the line that my learned friend suggests is 
 to be taken I think I am right in saying it would lead 
 to this, that there is no outrage which has occurred in 
 Ireland in the days of great distress — I admit there 
 was great agitation — but there is no outrage from 1879 
 down to the present time about which my learned 
 friend on the broad grounds suggested might not give 
 evidence. I would ask your Lordships whether that is 
 the scheme and scope of this inquiry. It is a Commis- 
 sion of inquiry into certain charges and allegations 
 against certain members of Parliament and other 
 persons. I may state at once that if my learned friend 
 can establish a primd facie case or suggested connexion 
 between these particular outrages and some antecedent 
 meeting I do not object ; but I understand this is a 
 discussion in which your Lordships are asked to lay 
 down some general rule with reference to these wit- 
 nesses. I quite admit that your Lordships are bound 
 to receive evidence as to any outrages which throw 
 light upon the charges and allegations made against 
 certain members of Parliament and others, but I re- 
 spectfully urge upon your Lordships that it will be 
 necessary to lay down some rule for your guidance, or 
 otherwise your Lordships may have to inquire into 
 every crime which may be said to have an agrarian 
 complexion or character which has occurred in Ireland 
 since 1879. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — I desire to add this to the proposition of 
 Sir C. Russell, that this is an inquiry against indi- 
 viduals. It is sought by the Attorney-General to say 
 that those individuals are chargeable with all the acts 
 that can be traced to the Land League upon the 
 assumption, upon the statement, that the Land League 
 itself was an association of an illegal and a murderous 
 character. If there is an association of a murderous 
 character, no doubt every one who is a member of it 
 will be responsible for what was done by each member 
 of that murderous association when he joined it with 
 that common object. But supposing it should turn 
 out — and your Lordships have not decided to the 
 contrary — that the Land League was not an associa- 
 tion of that description at all, then the case of the 
 Attorney-General in putting forward evidence of this 
 character is good for nothing. The nature of the Land 
 League organization, its common criminal object is 
 essential to be proved in order to make each indivi- 
 dual member of it liable for every crime that may 
 have been perpetrated by individual members of it. 
 I submit that at least as a preliminary before 
 
 parading in this Court all the terrible crimes which no 
 doubt have taken place in Ireland, as they have taken 
 place in other countries also, before anything of the 
 kind is permitted, the Attorney-General should prove 
 that those individuals who are charged are responsible 
 by complicity with a murderous organization, and he 
 should begin by proving that the organization was in 
 fact a murdero us organization. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — My learned friend Mr. Keid and I 
 represent the members of Parliament who are included 
 in the list before us. We represent them not collec- 
 tively but as individuals. The Attorney-General, in 
 his observations, stated — and we recognize the truth of 
 what he says — that he has taken upon himself the 
 burden of bringing homej to Mr. Parnell criminal re- 
 sponsibility. Then, my Lords, he has undertaken that 
 responsibility with regard to every one of the indivi- 
 duals mentioned in the particulars of The Times. To 
 put it shortly, we object to my learned friend first 
 proving a succession of outrages and then taking his 
 chance of connecting them with these individuals. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I ought to have added, with 
 reference to the question of liability for concerted 
 action, that the first step ought to be to show what 
 were the constitution and objects of the society in re- 
 lation to which this suggestion of concerted action is 
 made. I shall ask your Lordships to say that the 
 Attorney-General should give evidence at this stage to 
 show what were the constitution and objects of the 
 Land League. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, I should like 
 to make a brief observation on what has been said. I 
 would first point out that if my learned friends' con- 
 tentions were right, your Lordships, though a Commis- 
 sion of inquiry, would be prevented from fulfilling the 
 first duty which has to be performed by all judicial 
 tribunals that have to deal with questions of f act— ■ 
 that of drawing inferences from facts. Supposing I 
 establish in the course of my case that outrages upon 
 men who had paid their rents or taken evicted farms 
 occurred in places where Land League meetings took 
 place, where there were active organizations of the 
 Land League, and that they did not occur in places 
 where there was no Land League organization, no Land 
 League meetings, and no inflammatory speeches, I 
 should ask your Lordships at the end of the case, if I 
 prove that in a large number of instances, to draw 
 yonr own conclusion as to the cause of the outrages, 
 and to infer the connexion of the outrages with the 
 speeches and the Land League meetings. Supposing I 
 show that in parts of counties where the Land League 
 organization was perfect these outrages took place in 
 large numbers, and that in parts of counties where 
 the Land League organization did not exist these out- 
 rages did not take place, again I should ask your 
 Lordships to draw your own inference with regard to 
 the cause of the outrage itself, and, in fact, the nature 
 of the crime itself will be one of the indications of 
 its cause. For instance, to take one case. I have 
 said half a dozen times that I should bring evidence 
 
194 
 
 The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 to show that prior to these meetings, prior to the 
 Land League, the crime of punishing a man for pay- 
 ment of his rent was unknown. If that is proved to 
 have followed Land League meetings and these in- 
 flammatory speeches, why, I ask, is this Commission 
 not to draw its own inferences ? Let us take the next 
 step. It is said, " You are first to prove what were 
 the stated objects of the Land League." Again I 
 ask, are your Lordships to draw your inference of the 
 object of the Land League from what the Land League 
 itself said it was going to do, or from what it did ? 
 My learned friend Mr. Eeid, in order to give colour 
 to his observations, has stated that the remark was 
 made that the Land League was an association of a 
 murderous character. As far as I know, I have never 
 used any words to which such a paraphrase even could 
 be fairly attributed. What I have said was this, that 
 the Land League was an association of an illegal 
 character ; that it intended to enforce its own decrees 
 by illegal means, and that it did in fact enforce its de- 
 crees by illegal means ; that the knowledge that it was so 
 doing was brought home to many of the gentlemen who 
 are collectively represented by my learned friends ; 
 that after that knowledge was brought home to them 
 they continued to be members of and to support an 
 organization whose members had been guilty of such 
 conduct ; and that such conduct was repeated and 
 atlowed to be repeated. Let us take one other matter. 
 My learned friend has said, " The first thing to to 
 proved is what are the objects of the society." Sup- 
 posing Mr. Parnell and the other members of the Land 
 League never published any object, suppose they say 
 that its only object was constitutional agitation, and 
 supposing we find the paid agents of the League ad- 
 vocating the denunciation of land-grabbers, making 
 them feel as if they were lepers, would it be seriously 
 said that your Lordships, as a Court .of justice, are not 
 to draw an inference from the speeches made by these 
 paid agents with a knowledge of the acts following 
 those speeches ? We are fully alive to the fact, so far 
 as any obligation rests upon us, that the obligation 
 rests upon us of showing that crime followed those 
 speeches and were a consequence of the speeches ; 
 that crime followed the Land League meetings and 
 were a consequence of the Land League meetings ; 
 that the existence of those crimes was known to many 
 of those whose names are included in these particulars, 
 and that they were parties to the conspiracy. We are 
 fully alive to the charge, and to the necessity of 
 proving it, so far as any onus of proof rests upon us. 
 But I humbly submit that your Lordships cannot 
 possibly put upon us the olligation of proving first that 
 they connived when our whole case is that it was a 
 long course of events with which they were directly 
 connected, which not only proves their connivance but 
 the connexion they had with these transactions. I 
 would ask your Lordships not to exclude evidence of out- 
 rage from which to a great extent infeience must be 
 drawn. 
 Mr. Eeid. — We do not say for a moment that only 
 
 the ostensible objects of the League should be investi- 
 gated, but we contend that before this evidence of out- 
 rage is admitted the real nature and objects of the 
 League should be proved. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — That ought to be proved 
 by your own clients. 
 
 The FKEStDENT, after consultation with the other 
 Commissioners, said, — We are of opinion that this 
 evidence is admissible. I am glad that we have had a 
 general discussion, because it is desirable that some 
 principle should be laid down which will guide us 
 throughout the rest of the inquiry. No doubt this is an 
 inquiry into charges against certain persons, as I have 
 myself pointed out at an earlier stage. Bat when we 
 come to examine, it turns out that the charge against 
 persons is that they were engaged in an organization 
 which it is alleged was illegal in its objects and was 
 to be carried out by illegal means. That is the charge 
 which is to be proved. But from the character of 
 that charge it is impossible to lay down any exact 
 order in which the evidence is to be laid before us. 
 It is admitted that the avowed objects of the organiza- 
 tion are not to be taken as conclusive of what its 
 objects are. Its real objects may be wholly different 
 from its avowed objects, and what its real objects are 
 is to be ascertained from a general examination of the 
 facts, including the things said by the different persons 
 alleged to be engaged in the organization, and in- 
 cluding the acts which followed the speeches made 
 by members of the organization. It is necessary, 
 therefore, that the particular outrages as to which 
 evidence is to be given should ultimately be esta- 
 blished to our satisfaction to be connected with the 
 language or the acts of the particular persons incrimi- 
 nated. It has long been the practice in criminal cases 
 where conspiracy is charged to give the facts from 
 which combination is sought to be inferred as evi- 
 dence, and it has not been required that there should 
 be any definite proof of the object of the combination 
 before the evidence from which itis sought to be inferred 
 is put forward. The Court is asked to draw the in- 
 ference of the combination. It is to be observed, 
 further, that though the fact of outrages following the 
 speeches made would in the ordinary course of things 
 be a most obvious mode of suggesting a connexion 
 between the two events, it is cot to be forgotten that 
 in cases of conspiracy it has over and over again been 
 laid down that the state of the district in which 
 speeches are made is evidence for the purpose of 
 judging what the intent of those speeches was and 
 what their probable consequences might be. There- 
 fore it cannot be laid down as an inflexible rule that 
 speeches should be shown to have been made of an 
 exciting character before the outrages, because it 
 attaches the character to the speeches that they were 
 made in a district where outrages prevailed. At the 
 same time, it is expected by the Court that only evi- 
 dence of those outrages will be given which it is pro- 
 posed to show by reasonable evidence are connected 
 with the speeches and the acts of members of this and 
 
The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 195 
 
 the succeeding organization. But though it is expected 
 by the Court that only evidence of such outrages 
 should be gone into, upon that, as upon so many other 
 points in this long inquiry, it is absolutely necessary 
 that we should rely upon the discretion of counsel. If we 
 are assured by the Attorney-General and by those en- 
 gaged with him that they propose to show what from their 
 point of view should be laid before the Court for the 
 Court to draw inferences as to the connexion between 
 the outrages and the conduct or acts of persons now 
 charged, we must rely upon their statements. It will 
 always remain with Sir C. Russell and those who are 
 engaged with him to show by argument that the infer- 
 ence which is sought to be drawn is not legitimate, 
 and that there is no leal connexion between the acts 
 of such persons and the offences which were com- 
 mitted. 
 
 John Rafferty was then recalled, and, in reply to 
 Mr. MuRr-HY, said,— On the 27th of May, 1SS0, about 
 15 or 20 men gathered about my house, and five or six 
 of them came in and pulled me out of bed. They had 
 a sort of wooden " card " with some nails driven in 
 it, and with this they scraped me on the back. They 
 also gave me a few kicks. They then went and 
 pulled my wife out of bed and pitched her about. 
 They swore me to give up the land at Cloonmaglan, 
 which I had taken from Mr. Lynch. I had taken some 
 land which had been occupied by a grazier, and that 
 was the cause of the ill-feeling against me. I was 
 afterwards under police protection for something like 
 18 months. After that the police protection was re- 
 moved, but I was not again molested. I had firearms 
 in the house. 
 
 Do you know whether there was any Land League 
 branch in the neighbourhood ? — I do not think that at 
 the time this happened there was. There was a Land 
 League meeting at Kilconly about that time. I did 
 not attend it. 
 
 Were any of your neighbours Land Leaguers ? — I 
 cannot tell, for I did not interfere with any of the 
 Land League meetings. I have heard my neighbours 
 talk about the Land League. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sik C. Russell. — I held about 
 eight acres of land under Mr. Tannin. The grazing land 
 from which Moroney, the grazier, had been evicted 
 was about a mile from my house. The grazier was in 
 possession of it for about a year only. There were 
 about ten acres of land, and I agreed to give £13 a year 
 rent for it. 
 
 I suppose yod struggled to pay it ? — I did not pay 
 much of it till I got a reduction. (Laughter.) 
 
 What reduction did you get in the Land Court ? — 
 Something about 30s. That reduced my rent to 
 £11 10s. Moroney was very angry at my taking the 
 land. 
 
 There were some wild boys about there, were there 
 Dot ? — Not so bad as in other places, I hear. 
 
 Had you any reason to suppose that any one con- 
 nected with the Land League had anything to do with . 
 
 the outrage on you ? — I could not say they had any- 
 thing to do with it, because there was not much talk 
 of the Land League at the time. 
 
 What was the nearest point where there was any 
 branch of the Land League ? Was there any local 
 branch within miles of you in May, 1880 ? — I do not 
 believe there was any Land League within a length 
 of miles of my place. 
 
 Then you had to go a length of miles before you got 
 to a Land League branch ? — I never went to a Land 
 League branch. (Laughter.) 
 
 Was there nothing nearer than Tuam ? How far is 
 that ? — Tuam is about three miles. I do not know if 
 there was a branch there. 
 
 I must ask you plainly, do you think the Land 
 League had anything to do with the outrage upon 
 you ? — Well, I du not think it had. 
 
 Now, as to this carding, I should like to know what 
 was a card ? — It was a wooden board with a few nails 
 upon it. 
 
 I hope they did not do you very much harm ? — They 
 could have done worse if they had liked. (Laughter.) 
 
 Were you able to go about your work ? — I was able 
 to get to bed. 
 
 Were you able to, go about your work the next day ?— 
 Not for a fortnight or a month. 
 
 I am sorry to hear of rudeness" to your wife, but she 
 was not injured ? — No, only pushed about. I have 
 lived nearly all my life in Cloonmaglan, and my father 
 before me. Mr. Tannin, my landlord, owns a great 
 deal of land. Farms, generally speaking, about there 
 are either six, eight, or ten acres in extent. I am old 
 enough to recollect the great famine in 1847. I 
 suffered myself. In 1879 some people in my neigh- 
 bourhood lived on relief money. 
 
 Mr. MuRrnY. — Now as to this carding, which is 
 treated almost as a joke. 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — I must protest against that state- 
 ment. I did not treat it as a joko. 
 
 Mr. Mukpiiy. — You assumed it did not hurt him 
 very much, and asked him if he could not go about his 
 work the next day. (To witness.) What was done 
 with this machine ; were there nails in it ? — Yes. 
 
 What was done with it ? — They scraped me on the 
 back with it. I could walk about, but for a month I 
 was unable to work. I have heard there was a branch 
 of the League at Tuam, which is about four miles from 
 my place. 
 
 Sub-Inspector Dominick Barry, Royal Irish Con- 
 stabulary, axamined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — I was 
 stationed at Loughrea in the year 1881. I knew a 
 farm which was held by a man named Birmingham. It 
 was on Lord Dunsandle's estate. I was present when 
 Birmingham was evicted by the sheriff. A man named 
 Murty Hynes took it, and after he had done 
 so a meeting was held on the farm. Between 
 4,000 and 5,000 people were present, and Mr. 
 Matthew Harris was the principal speaker. The 
 crowd threw down about 125 yards of the 
 boundary wall of the farm. 
 
 John Rafferty. 
 
 Sub-Inspector Dominick Barry. 
 
 7-2 
 
196 
 
 The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 Did the tenant Murty Hynes come forward and make 
 any statement ? — After some speeches had been de- 
 livered he came forward and said he surrendered the 
 farm. 
 
 WhaS was the demeanour of the crowd when he made 
 that statement ? — They cheered him. It was a Land 
 League meeting, but I have no distinct recollection of 
 what was said. I could not quote a single word. The 
 meeting dispersed after some hours. After the meet- 
 ing Murty Hynes left the place, He never lived on 
 the farm. He had a separate holding. He gave up the 
 farm. A man named Peter Dempsey went into pos- 
 session of the farm. The farm was vacant about three 
 or four months. After Dempsey was put in possession 
 of the farm, he was put under police protection. Not 
 under personal protection, but his movements were 
 closely watched by the police. I endeavoured to im- 
 press upon him the necessity of his having personal 
 protection, but he observed that he was among friends 
 and did not apprehend injury. I could not speak with 
 any accuracy as .to having seen him endeavour to 
 obtain goods and provisions in the village. I after- 
 wards saw him dead on Sunday,May 29, at about 11 30 
 in the morning. I saw him lying in the passage 
 through the fields, off the high ro.ad. Some arrests 
 were made, but for want of evidence the men were 
 discharged. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Dempsey was 
 evicted on August 23, 1880. Lord Dunsandle was the 
 landlord. The land was situate about six miles from 
 Loughrea. Possession was taken on August 23, the 
 date of the eviction. Murty Hynes went into it a 
 week or so afterwards, at the close of August or the 
 beginning of September of the same year. The meet- 
 ing referred to was held on September 18, on the 
 evictedf arm. ThatistheRiversvillemeeting. On that occa- 
 sion Murty Hynes came forward and gave the farm up. He 
 had a farm of his own. He lived within a mile or two of the 
 place. Hewas not a married man. I have no recollection of 
 what Murty Hynes paid for the farm. I have a memo- 
 randum of what the evicted man paid for it. That 
 shows that the farm consisted of 18 acres, and that 
 at the time of the eviction a year and a-half 's rent 
 was due, with costs, amounting in all to about 
 £40 19s. 9d. 
 
 When did Dempsey, the poor man who was afterwards 
 shot, get possession ? — Some two or three months pre- 
 viously to his murder. That took place on May 29, 
 1881. He therefore got possession in February or 
 March, 1881. 
 
 Was there any meeting held between September 19, 
 1880, and the date of this sad occurrence at Rivers- 
 ville ? — Yes ; several meetings. Not in that particular 
 place, but in the locality. The nearest place at which 
 a meeting was held was Kiltulla, about a mile and a- 
 half distant, more or less. That meeting was held on 
 December 4, 1880. Another meeting in the neighbour- 
 hood was one held on September 26, 1880, at Killeena- 
 deema, within about eight miles. Matthew Harris was 
 the principal speaker at Riversville on September 19, 
 
 1880, but I have not the remotest recollection of what 
 he said. I could not quote a word. 
 
 What countryman are you ? — I am a Galway man. I 
 come from Tuam. 
 
 Is there not a very strong feeling in the country 
 against what are called land-grabbers ? — Such a feeling 
 did exist in the locality in which I was stationed at 
 the time the Land League was established. I am now 
 about 45 years of age. I have been in the police force 
 for 30 years. 
 
 I suppose you are sprung from the people ? Do you 
 not know that in all parts of the country, especially 
 in the poorer parts, there exists a strong feeling 
 against land-grabbing ? As long as you can recollect ? 
 — There was nothing known about land-grabbing before 
 1879. 
 
 Will you swear that ? — That is my impression. 
 
 Has there not been condemnation of land-grabbing as 
 long as you can recollect ? — No ; I should say not. I 
 never heard of it before 1879. 
 
 Do you mean to say that yon have not heard years 
 ago of crimes being committed against men who have 
 taken possession of land from which others have been 
 evicted ? — Yes, I have ; but never cases of men being 
 publicly denounced. 
 
 I did not ask that ; I wanted only to know whether 
 the people did not express a strong feeling against 
 land-grabbing ? — Yes, in individual cases. 
 
 Has that not existed as long as you can recollect ? — 
 There have been cases of that description from time to 
 time. 
 
 Do you not know from your own knowledge of the 
 people to whom you belonged that the strongest feeling 
 existed against the man who took land from which 
 another had been evicted ? — I would not say that there 
 was a general feeling. 
 
 Did it exist to your knowledge ? — Not to any great 
 extent. 
 
 Where did it exist to your knowledge ? — There were 
 individual cases from time to time, but there was no 
 general denunciation. 
 
 Were the cases very frequent ? — I cannot say so from 
 my own knowledge. 
 
 Where were you stationed in 1879 ? — At a place 
 called Edenderry, in King's County, and at Tullamore. 
 I went to the neighbourhood of Galway in April,1880. 
 
 Were there relief committees in the county at that 
 time ? — I am not aware. I am aware that seed was 
 distributed among the people. I do not know that in 
 their distress the people had eaten their seed, and could 
 not, in consequence, crop their land without charity. I 
 was four years in Galway, but I have no knowledge of 
 the kind. I do not doubt, however, that something 
 of the kind may have occurred. I should say there 
 was distress over a large part of the county, princi- 
 pally among the smaller farmers. The constabulary 
 themselves contributed to the relief of these people. 
 They usually do. I have no recollection of having 
 subscribed myself, but I dare say I did. The ordinary 
 
 Sub-Inspector Dominick Barry. 
 
The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 197 
 
 policemen probably contributed. They are usually 
 very good in that way. 
 
 When did you come to London ? — A few days ago. I 
 was here on a previous occasion. 
 
 Who was it that saw you in reference to giving your 
 evidence ? — I received a subpoena on a former occasion. 
 Nobody saw me about giving my evidence. I arrived 
 here about the end of June. I got my subpoena from 
 the Irish solicitor to The Times. 
 
 Who is the Irish solicitor to The Times ? — Mr. 
 George Bolton. 
 
 He is Crown Prosecutor, is he not P — Yes. I made 
 a general statement of what I had to say in London to 
 . Mr. Soames at the Caledonian Hotel. I wrote it out 
 myself. 
 
 Was that the only statement you made ? — No ; I 
 made a statement to Mr. Beauchamp. Those are the 
 only two statements I made. I did not ask leave to 
 attend. It was unnecessary to do so, as I was subpoenaed. 
 - Do you know Mr. Home, the divisional magistrate ? 
 »^Yes. 
 
 Had you any communication with him ? — Nothing 
 particular. 
 
 I mean with reference to your evidence ? — No. 
 
 Where is he divisional magistrate ? — I could not 
 tell you his station from memory. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — I knew the man 
 Birmingham who was evicted from the farm. He 
 had lived there a good many years, I dare say from a 
 child. His family had lived there before him. I 
 think he was about 65 or 70 years of age. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — I attended one meeting in Galway 
 at which you were present. It took place at 
 Loughrea. That was the only one. I have no distinct 
 recollection of your warning the people against crime 
 and outrage at that meeting. 
 
 He-examined by Sir H. JAMES. — There were 
 branches of the Land League in existence in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Biversville at the time of Dempsey's 
 murder. The nearest to the farm was at Kiltulla, 
 one mile and a-half distant. The feeling against 
 land-grabbing was intensified in 1879, when the Land 
 League was established. Persons who had taken farms 
 after eviction were denounced at all the meetings. 
 I never heard of the term " land-grabber " until 1879. 
 During 1879, 1880, and 1881 I attended many of these 
 meetings and heard the term mentioned very often. I 
 knew this district before the denunciation of land- 
 grabbers commenced. The people were in a very 
 satisfactory condition, not only in that particular 
 locality, but in the entire district. Dempsey left a 
 widow. 
 
 How was she treated ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — This in no wise arises out of my 
 cross-examination. 
 
 Slr H. Jambs. — After Dempsey's murder, what state 
 was the district in ? — It was in a very disturbed 
 state. 
 
 The President. — Sir Charles Eussell may, if he 
 Jikes, cross-examine further as to this, but I should* 
 
 like to know from the witness how the widow was 
 treated. 
 
 Witness. — She had to be protected by the police, as 
 she still retained possession of the farm for some 
 12 months afterwards. 
 
 Mary Dempsey was then called and examined by 
 Mr. Ronan. She said,— I am the widow pf the late 
 Peter Dempsey. I remember myself and my husband 
 and children going in March, 1^81, to the farm 
 at Kiversville. That was thfe farm that Murty Hynes 
 had given up. When we went there my husband 
 stocked the farm and laid out some money upon it. 
 He had friends in the neighbourhood and we set up a 
 little shop there. No one dealt at the shop except my 
 husband's immediate friends. Our neighbours were not 
 at all civil to us. I had four children then ; the oldest 
 was seven years old and the youngest one and a-half. 
 Our house was about a mile from the chapel. I re- 
 member the day my husband was killed. I saw him 
 start for Mass with two of the children. That was 
 about 11 o'clock in the day. There were plenty of 
 people on the road. My husband was going through the 
 fields. I never saw my husband alive after he left 
 the house. I never saw him again. I did not see him 
 dead. I did not hear any noise outside our house on 
 the night of the murder nor on the night of the inquest. 
 On the night he was buried I heard singing outside, 
 passing along the road. I remained in the place for 
 some time after. 1 had police protection. 
 
 Were you boycotted ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I must object to that question. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Well, let us have your objection be- 
 fore us. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Certainly, I object to the question 
 in that form. She said " The people were not very 
 civil to her." 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — That was before the ' murder. I am 
 now dealing with what occurred after the murder. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I object to the question in that 
 form. 
 
 Mr. RONAN. — Did you find any difficulty in dealing 
 with the neighbours ? 
 
 The witness was understood to answer,— I do not 
 know. 
 
 Had you any difficulty in getting people to work for 
 you ? — I did not ask many. 
 
 Did any of them refuse ? — I asked strangers living 
 five miles away. 
 
 The President.— Why did you ask strangers instead 
 of people about your own neighbourhood ? — I did not 
 like to ask the people near. 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — Used you to go to Athenry, five miles 
 off, to procure food ? — Yes. I could not get it in the 
 neighbourhood. I applied for compensation for my 
 husband's murder to the grand jury. 
 
 Do you know a Mr. M'Inemey ? — I have heard of 
 him. 
 
 Did he appear to resist your application ? — Yes. 
 
 Slits-Inspector Dominick Barry. 
 
 Mary Dempsey, 
 
198 
 
 The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 Sib C. Bussell. — What has he to do with the 
 matter ? 
 
 Mr. BONAN. — You will hear that presently. 
 
 The examination in chief of the witness being 
 finished, 
 
 Sik C. Bussell said, — I do not ask her any 
 questions. 
 
 Head Constable Patrick Hughes, examined by 
 Mr. Atkinson, said,— I attended the funeral of 
 Dempsey. Some of his friends made the necessary 
 preparations. Only the immediate friends attended. 
 The men who worked on the farm had to be 
 protected by the police. Police protection was 
 also at once given to Mrs. Dempsey after the 
 murder of her husband, and was continued until she 
 left the farm about two years afterwards. I remember 
 the night of the funeral. There were bonfires and 
 lights on every neighbouring hilltop. I saw them on 
 my way home. I remember being present when a 
 labourer on the farm cut some turf under the protec- 
 tion of the police. The turf was burnt some time 
 afterwards. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — What was the date of the funeral ? 
 —May 30. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — From where do you say 
 that the coffin was got ? — The friends got the coffin. I 
 do not exactly know from whom. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I will now take Connors's case. 
 
 Mrs. Connors, examined by Mr. Murphy, deposed : — 
 I am the widow of James Connors, who was in 1881 a 
 tenant on Lord Dunsandle's property in Galway. I re- 
 member a man named Keogh being bog-ranger. Keogh 
 gave up the bog-land because he would not take care of 
 the wildfowl. My husband took it, and the people 
 then treated us badly. They used to shout after us in 
 the town and oh our way to chapel. I know a man 
 named Martin O'Halloran in Kiltulla. When we passed 
 his house we were groaned at, and a nickname was 
 shouted out at us. We were also called land-grabbers. 
 There were Land League meetings held in the house. 
 I remember my husband going one day to pay his rent. 
 The people would not walk with him. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — Were you with him ? — No. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — He told you the circumstances 1 — 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— That is all we can have of that. Had 
 you any difficulty in getting food ? — There was. They 
 boycotted me, and the police got food for me, bringing 
 it by night. The people would not sell me food in the 
 daytime. The period to which I refer was not very 
 long before my husband was murdered. There was no 
 difficulty about getting food, or misunderstandings with 
 my neighbours before that time. On May 11, 1881, my 
 husband and I went to my father's funeral, 15 miles 
 away. My husband was driving the horse and cart. 
 When we were about a mile from home two shots were 
 fired, one after the other. The first knocked my 
 
 Head Constable Patrick Hughes. 
 Mrs. Connors. 
 
 husband off the car. I saw three men running away, 
 one of them having a gun in his hand. A fourth man 
 was under the wall. My husband died next morning 
 from the wounds which he received. Only two or three of 
 the neighbours came to the wake. After the funeral I 
 had as much difficulty as before about getting food. 
 The police had to supply it to me by night. When the 
 crops came up the neighbours would not help mo to 
 save them, and I had to procure the assistance of people 
 living 30 miles away. The men who fired at my 
 husband were not disguised. I knew who they were. 
 I knew them before the outrage was committed. Two 
 were tried, and I gave evidence against them. They 
 were acquitted. The names of the men were John 
 Eyan, Patrick Keogh, and Edward Faby. Eyan and 
 Keogh were the two who were tried. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Eeid. — Did your husband 
 have the bog-land for a year before he was murdered ? 
 — He had not. He did not live long after he took the 
 land. 
 
 Was it a month after he took possession that his 
 murder occurred ? — No ; about a fortnight. 
 
 Were you boycotted before ? — No ; not until we took 
 the land. 
 
 Ee-examined by Mr. Murphy. — I was boycotted 
 after the murder as well as before. 
 
 The Court here adjourned for luncheon. On its 
 reassembling, 
 
 Head Constable Patrick Hughes, recalled, said, in 
 answer to Mr. Atkinson, — I know O'Halloran's house 
 in Kiltulla. Meetings were held there and in the 
 neighbourhood, and speeches were delivered which I 
 heard. I know the three men mentioned by Julia 
 Connors — Eyan, Keogh, and Fahy. They invariably 
 attended the Land League meetings, and would 
 wear Land League cards in their hats. I never saw 
 them on the platform. They stood in the crowd. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Eeid. — I daresay there wero 
 6,000 people at the last meeting I attended, in fact 
 a large portion of the population was present at it. 
 The meetings were not always large meetings, some- 
 times they were small ; they ranged from 500 to 6,000 
 persons. I left the district in 1882, and cannot say 
 anything with reference to National League meetings 
 there since that time. At all the meetings I was 
 present at, at Kiltulla, 1 invariably saw Eyan, Keogh, 
 and Fahy, that is, when they were not in gaol. I 
 think there was a meeting there in December, 1880, 
 but I was only preserving peace there, and I did not 
 take the dn-tea of the meetings. 
 
 Mr. John Lewis was then called and examined by 
 Mr. Murphy. He said. — I am a magistrate and grand 
 juror of the county of Galway. I live at Ballinagar, 
 near Woodford. My father succeeded to his estate in 
 1867. Up to the time when some Land League 
 branches were established in the district I was on the 
 most friendly terms with my tenants. The date of 
 the establishment of these branches of the Land- 
 
 Mr. John Lewis. 
 
The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 199 
 
 League was about the month of November, 1880. 
 At that time I was acting as agent for my mother, 
 aud the result of the action of the Land League was 
 that proceedings had to be taken against some default- 
 ing tenants. My cattle were then boycotted in 
 Loughrea on December 5, 1880. During this time 
 some of the tenants paid privately, and I took pro- 
 ceedings against some of the other tenants. At the 
 fair at Woodford I sold some of the cattle, and the 
 man who had purchased them refused to take them, 
 because he was intimidated. * In 1882 a quantity of 
 my hay w^s burnt, and when I came to use my mowing 
 machine I found it broken ; spikes had been put in 
 the metal. Then came the Land Court, and my rents 
 were settled with my tenants in that Court. After 
 that they began to pay again regularly. Between 
 that time and November, 1885, the Land League was 
 not so active in my neighbourhood as before. I suppose 
 the branches of the League were closed up, but there 
 were agitations. There was a day appointed in 
 November, 1885, for receiving rents, and the tenants 
 came to my house in a body. They were accompanied 
 or led by four priests. They sent up word to say they 
 wished to see me in a body, and I declined to see them 
 except as I had been in the habit of doing — in- 
 dividually. They refused to come up individually and 
 marched away together. On that occasion I had no 
 conversation with the priests. When I went into 
 the town I saw a notice to boycott my cattle, 
 but they were not boycotted as a matter of fact, 
 and I sold them afterwards at the fair. The 
 next day a Land League meeting was held at my 
 gate, and I should say there were from 4,000 
 to 5,000 persons present. I heard the names of the 
 speakers, but I did not hear the speakers myself. I could 
 see the fingers of the speakers pointing over towards my 
 house. That was on the 6th of December. On the 13th 
 there was an attempt to blow up my house. At about 
 2 30 in the morning I heard a loud report and I got up 
 and went into my brother's room and told him I 
 thought there was au attempt being made on the 
 house. I waited some time in the darkness and then 
 .went down to the constabulary barracks and reported 
 the occurrence. When wc opened the hall door we 
 found that the shutters, the plate glass, and the stained 
 glass windows each side were shattered. The: whole 
 front of the house had been damaged and the windows 
 were blown oat. Some of my workmen left after that 
 and have not returned. I knew Fiulay, the process 
 server ; he lived in my neighbourhood. I saw his 
 windows broken. I went to his house as a magistrate. 
 That was about the 27th of December. Finlay had 
 difficulty in getting food and I had to supply him 
 myself, because he was boycotted. I have been in the 
 habit of having turf cut for some years by a man, who 
 eventually refused to cut it any longer. The butcher 
 at Portumna refused to supply me with meat. He sent 
 mo a message saying he could not supply me. There 
 were other notices of boycotting ; Edward Farrell, of 
 Woodford, was to be boycotted for supplying Finlay with 
 
 goods. I remember in 1886 wanting some flannel for a 
 sick tenant, and a shopkeeper at Woodford told me he 
 had none, when I saw some in his window. On March 3 
 Patrick Finlay was murdered. I saw the widow coming 
 out of the house into the street and the people jeered 
 and laughed at her. The body at that time was in the 
 wood. I remember Father Fahy calling on me on 
 August 23. He said he called upon me about a tenant 
 who had been evicted, and I explained the circumstances 
 compelling me to have it settled. Father Fahy seemed 
 not pleased with the arrangement I intended to make 
 with the tenant. He jumped up and said I could not 
 go on with evictions against the power of the people, 
 but if I made arrangements with the tenants as Sir 
 Henry Burke had done I should not require police pro- 
 tection, but if I did not, before six months my house 
 would be blown up and my life would be taken. He 
 then stamped his foot on the ground and said, " Also, 
 Sir, I think it my duty to denounce you from the 
 altar." On the 7th of September Father Fahy came to 
 my house at 9 o'clock at night. There was a crowd of 
 people with him. He made a speech, of which I did not 
 hear the whole, but I heard him call out " Blind 
 Lewis, Glass-eye ! Here in the presence of the men 
 of Gal way I challenge you to come out and fight." The 
 Crown prosecuted him for that spoech, and he was 
 ordered to keep the peace or go to gaol for six months. 
 On June 7, 1887, Richard Donoghue came to me. He 
 had been herding for nearly 30 years, but he said he 
 could keep it no longer for his life was in danger. He 
 would have to give it up and go into the workhouse. 
 
 Mr. Mukfhy then handed a notice to the witness, 
 who said that he recognized it. 
 
 Mr. Murphy then read tho notice, which was as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Boycotting Notice.— Hannah Lewis, of Ballinagar, 
 and her son, Aylward Lewis, are now boycotted. Let 
 no person work for, buy from, or sell to those cruel 
 tyrants. They refuse any abatement in their reuts. 
 They defied the power of the people. Let them taste a 
 little of its effects. Servants of Ballinagar, leave your 
 
 situations at once, or else . Shopkeepers of 
 
 Portumna, Woodford, and Loughrea, deal not with 
 
 those vile despots, or if . Herdsmen, cease to 
 
 act for those Orange bigots unless you wish to be 
 
 . Graziers and cattle dealers of Ireland, if you 
 
 buy their stock you may expect . Down with 
 
 landlordism ! Hurrah for the people ! " 
 
 The examination of the witness was then continued. 
 In April, 1887, my woods and mountains were burnt 
 and my timber cut down. On June 14, 1887, stones 
 were thrown at me as I returned from Gort. I was 
 under police protection at the time the attempt was 
 made on the house. In August men came at night and 
 took crops off the evicted farms. There were 
 a number of other men who left in consequence, as 
 they said, of fear of the Land League. When they 
 resigned their places they said they could not go 
 against the people. I know a man named Farrell ; he 
 was a ratepayer who voted for compensation for my 
 house. His head was out by a stone, and I believe he 
 was boycotted. A man named Shaughnessy was one ot 
 
 Mr. John Lewis. 
 
20U 
 
 The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 my tenants, and his turf was thrown into a bog ; Isaw 
 it myself. There was a hole in the form of a grave dug 
 near the place. I did not know anything he had done in 
 provocation to anybody. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. T. Harrington. — I have told 
 the story which I have told here before. I have col- 
 lected rents for my mother, and when I first did so the 
 rental was about £1,500. That was when I became 
 agont in 1880. At the present day there is a couple 
 of hundred knocked off by deductions in the Land 
 Court. There are very few tenants who have not yet 
 gone through the Land Court. I am a grand juror of 
 the county of Galway, and have actually sat on the 
 grand jury. My hall door was injured on the 13th of 
 December, 1885, and I took steps to recover com- 
 pensation. 1 put the value of that injury at over £200, 
 and the grand jury awarded me £30, but I did not get 
 so much ; I got £26 from the Judge. I have no 
 suspicion as to who set fire to my plantation. I had no 
 suspicion that it was done by any person in my employ- 
 ment, I claimed £40 for the injury to my fence and 
 plantation. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington. — And your brother grand jurors 
 awarded you, I think, the sum of 16s. ? — It did not go 
 before a grand jury ; that was because 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington". — At the Presentment Sessions 
 I think you were awarded 16s. ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington. — You had sworn the value at 
 £40 ?— Yes. 
 
 The President.— You began a sentence " That was 
 because " — because what ? — Because there was some- 
 thing in the Act of Parliament that I was not aware 
 of at the time, which excluded woods. 
 
 Cross-examination continued by Mr. Harrington. — 
 I never appealed from that decision of the Present- 
 ment Sessions. I was perfectly satisfied with the 
 amount. I do not know whether other unpopular per- 
 sons in the county of Galway had difficulty in dispos- 
 ing of their cattle ; I had a difficulty in doing so my- 
 self. 
 
 Mr. Harrington.— To a man who had difficulty in 
 disposing of his cattle did the grand jury award a 
 higher value than he would have got in the open 
 market ? — I cannot understand that question. 
 
 Cross-examination continued.— The flannel which I 
 have spoken of I required for a man named Francis 
 Conroy. I said I wanted a yard or two of that kind 
 of scarlet flannel. I may have said before that I 
 asked the shopkeeper if he had any scarlet flannel, 
 but I saw it in the window. I saw the flannel and 
 asked him for a yard or two. He said he had none. 
 There were two policemen with me at the time. I 
 think one of them, Constable Collins, heard the con- 
 versation. Since February, 1886, I have not been 
 refused goods in Portumna, as I have never asked for 
 any. The last date is the date of my last refusal in 
 Woodford. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — I had about 120 
 tenants altogether in 1879. I think some were large 
 holdings, some small, and there was a large amount of 
 
 common. Some would be 15, some 20 acres ; the 
 largest, I should say, would be about 30 or 40 acres, and 
 the smallest would be three or four acres. The estate 
 has been in my family for many years. These tenants 
 are the descendants of men who have lived upon the 
 land for many generations. There were no evictions 
 till August, 1886 ; at least there might have been one 
 or two. There were none in 1878 or 1880. I think 
 we had one in 1883. In 1886 I think there were 
 about eight or nine evictions, but some of the persons 
 evicted were let back as caretakers. One was from 
 land alone, that is to say there was not a residence. 
 I refused to see the tenants when they came to 
 demand an abatement. I knew that they had come 
 to demand a reduction of 50 per cent. That was 
 before the evictions of 1885. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L.Smith. — The tenants came ere bloc ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — You heard in the neighbourhood 
 that a demand had been made for 50 per cent. , and you 
 assumed that they were coming en bloc with a demand 
 for this reduction, and therefore you refused to see 
 them ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — My estate is within 
 three or four miles of the town of Woodford. My nearest 
 neighbour is Sir Henry Burke. I think Sir II. Burke 
 ga ve a reduction of 15 per cent. ; I do not think he 
 gave a reduction of about 40 per cent., but I cannot tell ; I 
 have no accurate knowledge on the subject. The 
 amount of reduction I offered to the tenants was 15 
 per cent. That was in November, 1886. The evic- 
 tions took place in August, 1886. I made no offer of 
 reduction before 1886 ; the evictions were , all 
 previous to any offer of reduction. In some parts my 
 estate marches with that of Lord Clanricarde. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — I have seen in the 
 newspaper that Father Fahy has repeatedly denied 
 using violent expressions threatening me with death, 
 but I only know what I have read. 
 
 You know that Father Fahy has repeatedly denied 
 the truth of it ? — I have seen a contradiction of it in 
 the newspapers. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Murphy. — The tenants came in ' 
 a body. I offered to see them individually, as had 
 been the custom. Conway was really sick, for whom 
 I wanted flannel. I went to Dublin for goods aftei 
 this becauso I was boycotted. Father Coen, Father Fahy, 
 and Mr. Eoche, who headed the tenants, were 
 members of the Land League. 
 
 A photograph of the Land League meeting was then 
 shown to witness, and in reply to Mr. Murphy ho said 
 that he recognized John Roche and Frank Tully, known 
 as " the Doctor." 
 
 Mr. J. W. H. Lambert, of Aggard, Galway, 
 examined by Mr. Atkinson, said,— I have lived in 
 Galway since 1829, and I am well acquainted with the 
 locality and the adjoining counties. Up to the time 
 when the Land League was established I was on good 
 terms with the tenantry. Up to 1879 I never knew 
 
 Mr. John Lewis. 
 
 Mr. J. W. H. Lambert. 
 
The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 201 
 
 of any punishment being inflicted on any tenant for 
 paying his rent or for taking an evicted farm. I was 
 fired at. on June 21, 1881, on the road, going to 
 Ardrahan Sessions. The dispute with my tenants began 
 in 1880, about getting rent which they would not pay. 
 It was about 11 or 12 o'clock in the day when I was 
 fired at. The business upon which I was going to the 
 Sessions was that forcible possession had been taken 
 of land after eviction. I have found difficulty in 
 getting food for the people who were doing my work, 
 not for myself. I know what boycotting is. I was 
 boycotted after the time when I was fired at ; not 
 now. I think the boycotting continued three years. 
 I have been under police protection, but that ceased 
 about two years ago. After I was fired at about 500 
 or 600 acres of land were thrown up, the fences were 
 thrown down, and people put in their stock. The 
 Land Corporation have had it for the last five years. 
 Two houses were burnt. My labourers left me. 
 
 Were you able to get people to work for you ? — They 
 sent over a lot of fellows from Liverpool to work for 
 me, but they knew nothing about tool work, and were 
 a nuisance. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did any of the people of the neighbourhood work for 
 you ? — They dared not ; they said they were sorry, but 
 they were urged by the Land League. That was the 
 only cause they assigned for leaving me. Some of 
 them had been 20 years in my employment. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — The dispute with my 
 tenants originated in 1880. 
 
 That was a year of very considerable distress, was it 
 not ? — I do not know. 
 
 Well, there was considerable distress in 1879, was 
 there not ? Was there not the Duchess of Marl- 
 borough's and other funds for the relief of distress ? — 
 There must have been considerable distress, but not in 
 my locality. 
 
 Did your tenants claim a reduction ? — They went 
 into Court. 
 
 Yes, in 1881, but did they get any in the first year ? 
 —Some of them. 
 
 Others later ?— Yes. 
 
 Did the Court reduce the rents ? — About 10 or 12 per 
 cent., I think. I had given a reduction before that, but 
 I preferred them to go into Court. 
 
 Then what was the origin of the dispute in 1880 ? — 
 They would not pay rent. 
 
 Did not they want you to give a reduction in 1880 ? 
 —I cannot tell you, but 1 suppose they did. 
 
 Did you give them any reduction ? — No. 
 
 Well, that is all I want ; it is no crime not to give 
 a reduction. Now is it not an old and known crime in 
 Ireland to offer violence to a landlord if evictions have 
 taken place ; is not that a very fruitful cause of 
 agrarian crime in Ireland ? — No, I do not know of any 
 particular violence offered to landlords before that. 
 
 You never heard of violence being offered to land- 
 lords before 1880 f^Oh, yes, of course I have. 
 
 But I am speaking now of the cause of agrarian 
 crime, and I want to ask yon whether . it has not for a 
 
 long time been a cause of agrarian crime that evictions 
 have taken place ? — Yes, certainly. 
 
 And when excessive rents — as the people think them— 
 have been exacted ? — I should think so, but I never 
 had any trouble with my tenants. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — You say you were fired at on 
 June 21, 1881. Was that the first time you have been 
 fired at in your life ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember in 1876 another member of your 
 family being fired at ? — A relation of mine was fired 
 at. 
 
 Was it a brother ? — No. It was a distant cousin. 1 
 cannot tell the date of the occurrence. I should say 
 it was four or five years before I was fired at. It was 
 not near Tuam. It was near Athenry. This cousin of 
 mine was of the same name as myself. He was fired 
 at on his lawn. 
 
 Ke-examined by Mr. Atkinson. — Up to this time 
 had you ever known any case of workmen leaving 
 landlords who had evicted ? — No, never. 
 
 Did the workmen of your cousin who was fired at 
 leave him ?— No, he left the country himself. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Your Lordships will perhaps note 
 that after being fired at in 1876 the cousin left his 
 property and came to reside in this country. 
 
 The President. — He said he left the country. 
 
 Thomas White was next called. His evidence was 
 at times quite unintelligible, and it was with the 
 greatest trouble that a connected story of any sort 
 could be extracted from him. Examined by Mr. 
 Murphy, he said : — I live with my father at Bally- 
 nakill, county Galway. Inconsequence of something my 
 father said I went to the Land League. That was in 
 August, 1886. Mr. Lawrence Egan was the treasurer 
 of the League. He was a brother of the Kev. Mr. 
 Egan. 
 
 When you went in what was going on? — The witness's 
 answer was quite unintelligible. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — The witness has a paper in his 
 hand, my Lords. Perhaps if he hands that to your 
 Lordships, you will find it more intelligible than what 
 he has in his head. (Laughter.) His evidence seems 
 to have been written out by somebody. 
 
 The President, after looking at the paper, — Yes, 
 that seems to be so. He has it written out. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Who wrote that paper for you ? Can 
 you write yourself ? — No, Sir. 
 
 The President.— Can you read ? 
 
 Witness. — I can read, but cannot write. 
 
 The President. — Upon my word, we seem to want 
 an interpreter. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I would suggest that my friend 
 should call the gentleman who wrote this out for the 
 witness. (Laughter). There is really an intellieible 
 story here. 
 
 The President.— You can deal with that presently, 
 Mr. Lockwood. I want to know what he means. 
 
 The witness proceeded to tell his story. He was 
 understood to say that his sister was married to the 
 
 Mr. J. W. H. Lambert. 
 
 Thomas White. 
 
202 
 
 The Special Commission, November 6, 1888. 
 
 steward of Mr. Lewis, who was boycotted. He was 
 told that on account of that he would not be allowed 
 to join the League. They also told him that his sister 
 should not be allowed to enter his father's house. One 
 of the, Egans told him to come before the committee 
 again on that day week. He went home and told his 
 father. Asked what had happened to his father, he 
 said he had kept a publichouse for 15 years, and was 
 boycotted up to the present time, because he did not 
 join the League. He was boycotted himself. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Beid. — You say you were 
 boycotted. Will you tell us what you mean by that ? — 
 The witness was again unintelligible. 
 
 The President. — Now, Mr. Reid, perhaps you can 
 tell us what he said. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I do not think I caught it quite 
 accurately. (To the witness). — You said your father 
 kept a publichouse for 15 years. What was done to 
 him ? — He was boycotted. 
 
 Do you mean that people no longer came to your 
 father's house ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Is it still open ? Does anybody come at all ? — Yes, 
 Sir. 
 
 Some people do not come to the house that used to 
 come before ; is that what you mean ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Ob, they do. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— He said no to that. 
 
 Mr. Reid — ti« cays no, my Lord, but he means to 
 agree. (.To witness). — Is it the case thai some people 
 still come to your father's house ? — Yes, Sir. Boy- 
 cotted people come to the house. People who are not 
 boycotted do not come there. My father was boycotted 
 for refusing to join the Land League. He is not 
 here. He is a very feeble old man. Ho was told that 
 he was boycotted by a man named Nicholas Donoghue. 
 I am boycotted together with my father. 
 
 The President. — Does your 6ister also live with 
 you ? — No ; she lives away. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — Would you be able 
 to buy anything you liked ? — In certain shops. 
 
 Have you ever been refused the sale of any article in 
 any house in your life ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Whatever other experience you have had of boycot- 
 ting, has anybody refused to have dealings with you ?— 
 No, Sir. 
 
 Then what have you lost ? — The fairs. There were 
 four fairs held near our house, and they are now held 
 elsewhere. 
 
 I understand. What profit did you derive from 
 those fairs ? — In the publichouse from £25 to £30. 
 
 Do you say that the League has interfered to stop 
 tho fairs ? — Yes, and removed them to a distance. 
 
 Do you say the reason of that is to damage your 
 father's house ? — Certainly. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Locewood. — Who wrote this ? 
 (The notes taken from the witness.) — A certain man. 
 
 Do you object to tell me his name ?— Mr. Lewis. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 The Mr. Lewis whose steward has a wife who is your 
 sister i 1 — Yes. 
 
 Have you any land of your own ? — I farm some of 
 my father's land. Sir Henry Burke is the landlord. 
 
 Did Mr. Lewis write these notes out for you ? Did 
 you see him write them ? — No, I did not. 
 
 Did he send them to you ? — Yes. 
 
 Telling you that that was your evidence ? — Yes. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Could you read what was written, or did you get 
 somebody to read it to you ? — I read it. 
 
 Then you knew what your evidence was to be ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you ask Mr. Lewis to write out your evidence 
 for you, or did he do it for you without being asked ! 
 —Yes, Sir. (Laughter.) 
 
 I do not know which you mean. Do you mean both ! 
 — He wrote it for me, and told me that was my 
 evidence. 
 . Then you never asked him to do it ? — No. 
 
 He did it without your anking ? — Yes. 
 
 How comes it that Mr. Lewis knew what youi 
 evidence was to be better than yourself ? — That is the 
 evidence I gave him. 
 
 The President.— To whom did you give it ?— To 
 Mr. Lewis. 
 
 What is the name of the rival publichouse at Bally- 
 nakill ? — There is only one, and that is ours. 
 
 What happens to the people when there is only one 
 publichouse and that is boycotted ? Do they become 
 temperance people ? — They can change to some other 
 house. There is a publichouse about two miles off. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Murphy. — Is the Mr. Lewis 
 whom we have seen here to-day the gentleman to 
 whom you gave your evidence ? — No. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I hope I did not convey the sug- 
 gestion that the Mr. Lewis who wrote these notes was 
 the same gentleman who has given evidence to-day. 
 
 The President. — No ; I did not understand you to 
 mean that, Mr. Lockwood. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — You say there were only two shops 
 to which you went. Why did not you go to other shops ? 
 — I did not like to go for fear of being refused, being 
 boycotted. 
 
 Were those two shops boycotted shops ? — I suppose 
 they were. 
 
 You say you gave your evidence to Mr. Lewis, and 
 that he wrote it down for you. Is what is written 
 down true ? — Yes. 
 
 The President. — The only point of importance is 
 whether he told all this to Mr. Lewis before the 
 latter wrote it down. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — The only observation that I wish 
 to make is that I should have the right to comment 
 upon the fact that it should have been thought neces- 
 sary to reduce his evidence to writing. 
 
 The President. — We all know that it is customary 
 to take down the evidence of witnesses before they 
 come into Court. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I did not mean to suggest that any- 
 body had written what this paper contains oat of his 
 own imagination. 
 
 Thomas White. 
 
The Special Commission," November 6, 1888. 
 
 203 
 
 Mr. Mr/KPHY. — Of course it is open to my learned 
 friend to comment upon this circumstance. 
 
 Sergeant Coursey, examined by Mr. B.ONAN, de- 
 posed : — I was in Woodford in December, 1884. I re- 
 member the meeting of Sir Henry Burke's tenants. I 
 heard Father Coen say that he had to announce the 
 result of the meeting, that a reduction of 15 per cent, 
 was offered to all except the Woodford Town-land 
 tenants, and that the agent bad said that processes 
 would be served. Looking in the direction of a man 
 named Finlay, a process-server, he said that no one 
 would be likely to serve the processes. Father Egan 
 observed that then was the time when the people 
 should say whether Sir H. Burke and his agent or 
 the people should havo their way. At the end of 
 December I went with Finlay to serve processes. 
 There was a meeting on the evening of the first day 
 that the processes were served. That was held at the 
 door of the band-room, which was also a National 
 League Hall. That was at the end of December, 1885. 
 Father Coen was not there, but Father Egan said they 
 need not be anxious about the processes served that 
 day, and that the police would soon be done away 
 with. Mr. John Roche said they need not be anxious 
 about the processes served, and that the police would 
 soon be done away with, and they would have the 
 appointing of their own police. Finlay was known by 
 the nickname " Balaclava," being an old soldier. Mr. 
 Eoche said, " They have had their Balaclava to-day ; 
 but we shall have our Fontenoy another day ;" and 
 when he said that there were groans for Balaclava. 
 
 Mr. Ronan here handed a photograph to the witness 
 and continued his examination. 
 
 Witness said : — The man in the middle of the group 
 is Mr. John Roche, on his right hand is Father Egan, 
 and on his left Father Coeu. Roche was reputed pre- 
 sident of the Tenants' Defence Association. As far as 
 I know, Mr. Carey was the treasurer. He is in that 
 photograph. There is also a man named Tully in the 
 photograph, holding a small bottle in his hand. He is 
 a boat builder by trade, but is called Dr. Tully. I 
 remember on the 5th of February, 1886, seeing John 
 Roche going from his own house towards Father 
 Egan's. After that I heard the chapel bell ring. 
 It was between 8 and 9 in the morning. I 
 saw a man named . Rafferty ringing it. I saw mem- 
 bers of the band assembling, and I saw the deputy 
 sheriff come. I accompanied the sheriff for 
 the purpose of carrying out evictions. There was 
 resistance. The first house we went to all the doors 
 were barred and closed up and the bailiffs were forced 
 to break a small portion of the door, and after that 
 Father Egan came forward and knocked at the door and 
 said something and the door was opened. I saw the 
 sheriff enter the house, take out some goods, and I 
 understand there was a settlement. There were about 
 100 police present on that day. Finlay was not there that 
 day. We next went to the house of a man named 
 Francis Farrell. There was some resistance, and hot 
 
 water was thrown on the police and a crowbar was 
 thrown out of the door. There was a bailiff going in 
 the direction of the door. Father Coen met him, and 
 said he was ashamed of him. The bailiff's name was 
 Carroll. He went on with his work. The next house 
 was that of John M'Cabe. We found the doors secured, 
 and after a short time Carroll, the bailiff, refused to 
 act any longer for the landlord. The people then took 
 him on their shoulders and carried him away. Tully 
 spoke while the eviction was going on ; but I did not 
 hear what he said. There was a meeting at Woodford 
 on the following Sunday. It was held behind the 
 barracks in a garden, the property of Mr. Carey. I 
 was in the barrack and heard something of what 
 passed. I was not admitted to the garden. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I should like to ask whether this was a 
 Land League meeting ? — It was a committee meet- 
 ing, and there was also a branch of the Woodford 
 Tenants' Defence Association. 
 
 Was it a meeting of the Tenants' Association 
 or the National League ?— They are both combined. 
 
 Do you 'mean to say there is no difference between 
 the two ? — There were members of both present. I 
 cannot say which this was. 
 
 The President. — The same persons belonged to 
 both ?— Yes. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Your Lordships ruled that evidence at 
 the present stage is properly admissible against these 
 gentlemen, but it is rather hard to say that, because 
 some members of the Land League are members of 
 another association, this should be called a meeting 
 of the Land League. 
 
 The President. — He states there were prominent 
 members of the Land League who were speaking at 
 this meeting. (To witness.) Did you state that Tully 
 was at this meeting ? — Yes. 
 
 Who else 1— Father Egan, Father Coen, Dr. Tully, 
 and John Roche. 
 
 They were members of the National League ? — They 
 were. 
 
 The President. — I rule that the evidence is admis- 
 sible as against those who were members of the 
 League. 
 
 Mr. Ronan then resumed his examination. Witness 
 said : — Tully referred to Farrell, the man who had 
 been evicted a few days previously, as a hero, and said 
 that if they wished to gain their object they should 
 all do as he had done, and all require to be in front. 
 
 Did he say anything about " Mary Anns " ? — He 
 said that if there were any old Mary Anna coming to 
 tho barracks with news, that if any person told him to 
 give them a dose of his medicine that he only adminis- 
 tered it in doses that persons could bear ; and he also 
 said that if there were any men at work for landlords 
 they were worse than boteen boys. 
 
 What are boteen boys ? — Men that accompany pros- 
 titutes. On the 3d of March I saw the dead body of 
 Finlay in Derryeraig wood. There were a great many 
 marks on the chest ; blood was issuing through the 
 clothes, and there was a bullet wound in the right 
 
 Sergeant Coursey. 
 
204 
 
 The Special Commission, Novemtiei? 6, 1888; 
 
 jaw. I cannot say how many shots there were in his 
 body. His own revolver was lying by his side with 
 one chamber discharged. The body was brought into 
 Woodford the next day. As it was being brought over 
 the bridge there were groans. His widow lived in 
 Woodford. She was boycotted after this, as she had 
 partly been before. The night of the murder I was with 
 Mrs. Finlay. She was not able to get food, fire, or 
 light in the town. I got her fire and light. I brought 
 food from a person in the town, who got it for her late 
 at night. Some policemen coming from other towns 
 brought her food, also very late at night. I did not 
 make any effort that night to get a coffin for Finlay, 
 but the next day I went to Mr. Carey, a timber 
 merchant, to get one. He was treasurer of the 
 League. 
 
 The President.— Is he an undertaker ? A timber 
 merchant does not generally supply coffins. He suppli es 
 the materials for making them. 
 
 Examination continued. — There is no undertaker 
 in the place, and Carey directed me to a man 
 named Pierce, who, he said, made coffins. Pierce 
 refused me, saying that the timber he had was 
 too fresh. I went to Father Coen and Father 
 Egan to ask them to assist me in getting a coffin. 
 I said that I had been told to call upon them for 
 assistance. Father Coen said that the authorities 
 deserved little consideration from him, as he had 
 requested my removal. Eventually the police got a 
 coffin from Lougbrea, 13 English miles away. Mr. 
 Lewis led the horse himself. The funeral of Finlay 
 was attended by his own brother, and no one else but 
 police. After this only three or four people associated 
 with Mrs. Finlay, one of them being her sister-in-law. 
 A short time after Finlay's murder I saw a procession 
 passing the barracks, in the direction of the place 
 where he had been murdered ; it seemed to be a mock 
 funeral. There were about 200 men ; a coffin was 
 carried along, and they had spades on their shoulders. 
 I do not know exactly how long that was after the 
 murder. I know a man of the name of John Dwyer, 
 who drove Finlay to Loughrea. He was boycotted. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — I did not take notes 
 at the meeting in December, 1885, at which Father 
 Egan and Mr. J. Roche spoke, but Sergeant Kegan 
 took a longhand note. I could hear all that was 
 said. When Father Egan said that the persons 
 who had driven Finlay would be soon done away with, 
 I understood him to refer to the police ; I did not 
 understand him to mean that they were going to be 
 murdered, but that there would be a change in the 
 Government of the country. 
 
 Mr. Mufiriiy.— Oh yes, I quite understand that. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — The meeting called 
 the Balaclava meeting, when Mr. Roche said that they 
 would have a Fontenoy another day, was not a meeting 
 of the Tenants' Defence Association ; the majority of 
 the people were from the town. There had been pro- 
 cess-serving that day, and the meeting was got up by 
 the people after the police left ; they gathered spon- 
 
 taneously, and not for any particular purpose. There 
 was a Tenants' Defence Association ; it was a per- 
 fectly different thing from the National League. It 
 was formed for the purpose of dealing with Lord Clan- 
 ricarde and other landlords in the neighbourhood. It is 
 not the case that there was great distress in 1885 ; 
 there was a large fall in the price of cattle, but not of 
 other produce. I have not witnessed any distress in 
 that part since 1880. I was not present at the meet- 
 ing in December, but I heard some of the things that 
 were said. It was not a meeting of the committee of 
 the Tenants' Association, but the usual weekly meet- 
 ing of both Leagues combined. I was at an open win- 
 dow in the barracks, about 40 yards away from the 
 meeting, which was not held in a room, but in a small 
 garden. I could see the faces of the people. I took 
 no notes at that time and made no special report, only 
 my general report. I made no entry of the sentences 
 I heard until I went to Dublin, except the reports I 
 made. The entry which I made in Dublin was made 
 from memory ; I was told to write out what I knew by 
 Mr. Joyce. He is a resident magistrate. He is here 
 to-day. He did not interfere with me in any way ; I 
 wrote out my evidence myself, and I think Sergeant 
 Doyle took it from me when I had written it. 
 
 Now about the murder of Finlay ; you say you asked 
 Carey to get a coffin ; did you ever hear of his making 
 a coffin ? — No, but I saw the materials. 
 
 Who told you to go to Carey ? — I was directed by 
 my authorities to look about. 
 
 Did you not go to the relieving officer ? — Yes ; but 
 he said he could not provide a coffin. 
 
 It was not Carey's business to get a coffin, was it ?— 
 Certainly not. 
 
 Why did you go to Father Egan ? — I went to aBk him 
 for assistance. 
 
 To get a coffin ?— For everything included ; there 
 was a difficulty because the people objected to Fin- 
 lay's being buried in the family burying ground. 
 
 Who told you to go to Father Egan about a coffin 'I— 
 Some of my authorities. 
 
 Is it customary to go to the parish priest for a 
 coffin ? — The occurrence was an unusual one. Neither 
 of the Woodford priests read the service. I do not 
 know whether the priest who read the service was the 
 parish priest. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James.— Neither of the two 
 priests whose names I have mentioned read the service 
 at the funeral. The land at Woodford is poor moun- 
 tain land. Where the distress existed in the worst form 
 was pasture land. I was examined as a witness in the 
 case of " Blunt v. Byrne." I made my statement for the 
 purposes of that case to Mr. Joyce, who is a resident 
 magistrate. On the occasion of that trial I made the 
 same statement with regard to these speeches that I 
 have done to-day. At that trial no person was called 
 to contradict me although Mr. Roche was sitting under- 
 neath me in Court at the time. There was no under- 
 taker at Woodford. When I went to Carey I asked him 
 for a coffin or for the materials to make a coffin. I hava 
 
 Sergeant Conrsey, 
 
The Special Commission, November 6 and 7, 1888. 
 
 205 
 
 known Mm sell timber for the purposes of making 
 coffins. 
 
 The Court adjourned at five minutes past i o'clock 
 until half-past 10 to-morrow morning. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7. 
 
 The Special Commission held their tenth sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Boyal Courts of Justice. 
 When the Commissioners had taken their seats, 
 Sir H. Jambs said, — Will your Lordships allow me 
 to mention a practical matter before the examination 
 of witnesses is further proceeded with ? Although 
 every effort has been made by those who have the 
 conduct of the case to procure the attendance of all 
 the witnesses in each case at the same time, yet in 
 some instances we are not able to carry out that 
 arrangement on account of various difficulties. We are 
 desirous, for many reasons, that witnesses should not 
 be taken from their homes and kept here any un- 
 necessary length of time, and we may not be in a 
 position to call them consecutively in point of time. 
 Our difficulties have been much aggravated by the cir- 
 cumstances of the weather in the Irish Channel during 
 the last two nights. The consequence is that when 
 wg come to some cases we may not be able to com- 
 plete each one in its entirety, but will be obliged to 
 call witnesses to complete them subsequently. That is 
 a practical inconvenience which we very much re- 
 gret, but which cannot be avoided. Will your Lord- 
 ships allow us to suggest that, when we are taking a 
 particular case and find we cannot complete it without 
 an interval in point of time, we may state that fact, 
 and also give the intimation that we intend to call 
 the remainder of the witnesses at a later stage ? 
 The President.— Certainly. 
 The examination of the witnesses was then resumed. 
 
 Constable Beattie, examined by Mr. Eonak, said : — 
 I was on duty at Woodford on March 3, 1886. I saw 
 Mrs. Finlay standing at the door of her house. She 
 was wringing her hands and looking anxiously in the 
 direction in which her husband had gone. Her husband 
 had then been murdered, and people were going about 
 in the village cheering and laughing. Mrs. Finlay 
 went in the direction of the bridge, and on arriving in 
 front of Father Bgan's house she knelt down in the 
 street and exclaimed : — " The curse of God rest upon 
 Father Egan for being the cause of my husband's 
 murder ! " While she was on her knees a man passed 
 and attempted to kick her. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. ■ 
 
 Constable Hugh M'Nally, examined by Mr. Eonan, 
 said : — On the 5th of March, 1886, I proceeded from 
 Longhrea to Woodford — a distance of about 13 miles. I 
 was escorting a coffin for the deceased man Finlay. I 
 met the funeral about half-way between Loughrea and 
 Woodford. When people saw it they shouted and 
 
 Constable Beattie. 
 Constable Hugh M'Nally. 
 
 groaned, and someone called out, " Well may he wear 
 it." 
 
 Sergeant Patrick Gibbons, examined by Mr. Bonan. 
 —Do you remember the 20th of May, 1886 ?— I do. 
 
 Did you see a crowd of people ? — Yes, about half -past 
 11 o'clock I saw a procession of about 500 people, 
 armed with spades, and headed by the Woodford brass 
 band. There were some people who appeared to be in 
 charge of the procession. They carried a coffin, sup- 
 ported on pitchforks, and raised over the people's 
 heads. 
 
 Can you tell me the names of any one who was there ? 
 — I saw P. M'Dermott and Francis Tully. 
 
 That is " the Doctor " ?— Yes. They appeared to-be 
 in command of the procession. 
 
 Was there anything on the coffin ? — Yes, there was a 
 goat's head, the horns of which were pointing towards 
 the head of the coffin. There was black crape and an 
 inscription on the coffin, " Down with Orange Free- 
 masons." 
 
 Did you see where they went ? — Yes ; after they had 
 passed through the town they went in the direction of 
 the scene of Finlay's murder, near Derryeraig wood. I 
 went after th9 procession within about 500 or 600 yards 
 of the scene of the murder, and saw the people there. 
 
 Did you see anything on the ground after they had 
 left the place ? — No ; I did not go there. 
 
 Did you see some of the same people in the evening 
 in the town of Woodford ?— Yes ; I saw F. Tully and 
 others in the evening in a field belonging to Keary. 
 
 That is the treasurer of the Woodford League ? 
 
 Sir C. EusSELL. — We had better not assume any- 
 thing. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Oh, that was proved yesterday. 
 
 Examination continued. — I saw them having refresh- 
 ment in Keary's field. 
 
 There was no cross-examination. 
 
 Mrs. De Blaquiere, examined by Mr. Mukphy, 
 said : — I am the widow of the late Henry De Blaquiere, 
 farmer and landowner in county Galway. He was also 
 a Poor-law guardian, and occasionally acted as chair- 
 man of the board of guardians. 
 
 I suppose you do not know what occurred at the 
 board of guardians, but on the 15th of November, 
 1881, did anything happen at your house ? — Yes ; about 
 7 o'clock in the evening two shots were fired into it. 
 I was coming down stairs and one shot came under my 
 feet. My husband was in the dining room ; he went 
 upstairs to get some firearms, and he fired a shot out. 
 
 Did he subsequently go out to see whether anyone 
 could be found there ? — Yes, but nobody was found, 
 and nobody was brought to justice for it. 
 
 Did the shots leave any marks on the door 1 — Yes, 
 one came right through the door and down into the 
 hall. Another went through some hats and long coats, 
 making 15 holes. 
 
 Now, on the 15th of November, 1881, in the 
 early part of the day, had your husband gone out 
 in his capacity of magistrate in charge of military 
 
 Sergeant Patrick Gibbons. 
 Mrs. De Blaquiere. 
 
206 
 
 The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 and police ? — Yes, to prevent a Land League hunt. 
 Shortly after that a boycotting notice was posted up : — 
 " Take notice that Henry Blackquire is boycotted 
 from this day forward for his treacherous conduct at 
 the Gort Union in opposing a resolution condemna- 
 tory of the Government in arresting our leader Parnell. 
 Seccndly, in appearing at the head of the British 
 Soldiers and Peelers at Loughcoutre to prevent a 
 Land League hunt, when he defiantly expressed him- 
 self, ' If the people did not disperse before five 
 minutes that he would have them shot down like 
 dogs.' Boycott him ! Boycott him. 
 
 " (Signed) Captain Moonlight. 
 
 " P.S. — If anyone is so base, after reading or hear- 
 ing of this notice, to work for him or keep his com- 
 pany he shall die the death of a traitor. — CM." 
 
 Now after that notice did your workpeople stay 
 with you or not ? — They left us. The nurse, with 
 whom I had no quarrel, left without notice. When 
 we went out driving we were hissed and groaned at. 
 When we wanted to get our horses shod the smith 
 who usually shod them refused to do so, and we had 
 to send five miles. 
 
 You had a man named Patrick Connors working for 
 you ? — Yes. 
 
 Was anything done at his house, to your know- 
 ledge ? — Yes ; it was fired into. I did not see the 
 house after it was fired into, because it was about a 
 mile away. After this my husband gave Connors 
 leave to stop away for a week. There were 
 to my knowledge Land League branches in 
 that neighbourhood at the time of these 
 outrages. I have continued to farm there. 
 The annoyance was not so great between 1882 and 
 1885 as it was in 1881. My husband died in 1885, 
 but I continued to farm the lan:l. I also took some 
 winterage. " Winterage " is land hired to place 
 cattle on in the winter months. I hired the land of Mr. 
 White, a solicitor, of Limerick. The land was let 
 from year to year to different persons. The same 
 person did not hold it two years running. Shortly after 
 I took the land the tails of three of my cows were cut 
 off. They had only been on the land about ten days 
 before their tails were cut off. I do not know whether 
 the Land League branches were kept up between 1882 
 and 1885. I am not sure whether there was one near 
 me in 1885. The walls round the winterage I took 
 were knocked down. If I built them up one day they 
 were knocked down the next. 
 
 Had you any dispute with the people which you can 
 connect in any way with these outrages ? — No. I had 
 a herd in my employment. I received a notice 
 relating to him warning me to get rid of him. In addi- 
 tion to this notice some other notices were put up 
 outside my gate. I found two there. The name of 
 this herd was John Heaphy. He had to get police pro- 
 tection. Within a month after the incident of the cows 
 and the walls I was on one occasion coming home from 
 Gort late in the evening when a man sprang at me. 
 On another occasion a stone was thrown across the 
 
 road. It came close to my head. I did not see any- 
 body about. There were some empty houses by the 
 roadside, and someone might have been concealed in 
 one of them. 
 
 In 1885 and 1886 how did the people treat you as 
 you came along the road ? — On one occasion a man 
 called out that he wished I might have no luck, and 
 groaned at me. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Fiddane is 
 about five miles from Gort. Tubber is the railway 
 station. It is situated on the borders of Galway and 
 Clare, 17 miles from Loughrea. Gort is the nearest 
 town. 
 
 What is a Land League hunt ? — A large number of 
 people in the neighbourhood assembled together and 
 went to one of the properties for the purpose of hunt- 
 ing the game. 
 
 And, as I understand it, the military and police were 
 called out to stop that ? — Yes. 
 
 How does that differ from an ordinary hunt, where 
 gentlemen in a better condition of life gallop over the 
 land ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you know of any Land League meeting being 
 held in the neighbourhood of Fiddane 1 — Yes, the near- 
 est Land League meeting I can recollect was held at 
 Shanaglish, about three miles away. That meeting 
 was hold some time in the year 1881. 
 
 Was there any meeting you are aware of held in the 
 neighbourhood of Fiddane after July, 1881 ? — I am not 
 positive that there was. I am not able to say that 
 there was any meeting held. My husband was a large 
 farmer as well as a landowner. I have lived at 
 Fiddane about 19 years. 
 
 Then you were living there at the time of the 
 Galway election of 1872 ? — What month was it ? 
 
 You need not trouble about the month. It was the 
 election at which Colonel Nolan was elected against 
 Mr. Trench. — We were living there then. 
 
 Up to 1872 had there not been, on the whole, 
 friendly relations between th'e people and the gentry 
 of Galway 'i — I did not come to live in Galway until 
 1872. I am not able to say that up to that time the 
 relations between the gentry and the people were on 
 the whole friendly, as I was not living in the county. 
 
 Do you know that after the defeat of the landlord 
 candidate there was general and concerted action 
 among the landlords to raise rents and call in arrears 
 — that is, after 1872 ? — I am not aware of that. 
 
 Ke-examraed by Sir H. James.— Mr. Trench did 
 become member for Galway. I do not know any- 
 thing about these Land League hunts. I have not seen 
 one. I do not know if the people took away all the 
 game they killed. Up to 1879 we were on good terms 
 with our neighbours. There was no dispute of any 
 kind. There was a Land League branch at Gort. 
 
 William Walsh, examined by Mr. Murphy. — I was 
 formerly a sergeant in the Boyal Irish Constabulary. 
 I was stationed at Tubber, five miles from Gort. I 
 went there in 1873. In 1879 the country was very 
 
 Mrs. De Elactuiere. 
 
 William Walsh. 
 
The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 207 
 
 peaceable. Up to 1879 and 1880 only five constables 
 were stationed at that place, and the landlords and 
 tenant's were on good terms. In 1880 or 1881 a 
 branch of the Land League was established at a place 
 called Shanaglish, about three miles from Tabber. Two 
 brothers named Geoghegan, farmers, were the leading 
 members of that branch. That was the only branch in 
 that parish in which Mr. De Blaquiere's farm was. 
 Mr. De Blaquiere was occasionally chairman of the 
 board of guardians. The house of Patrick Connors, a 
 herd of his, was fired into. I went to the house after 
 the outrage. There wore marks of bullets on the 
 walls. Boycotting was carried on in that parish to 
 some extent. After 1879 there were a great many 
 more outrages in the district. The police force was 
 increased, and ten men were stationed there. 
 
 Have you seen a Land League hunt ? — Yes. 
 
 What was this Land League hunt ? — Over a hundred 
 persons assembled. They camewith dogs and sticks. The 
 police were obliged to turn them back and prevent 
 them from entering Lord Gort's property. They then 
 went off to the mountains. They were on foot. I 
 could not say who was in command of the hunt. The 
 branches of the League continued until the League 
 was suppressed. They were afterwards opened again. 
 I did not see any members of the Land League at 
 the hunt. They all appeared to be stranjers who 
 came from a distance. 
 
 Cross-examined by Slit C. Rossell. — Whj -wa.3 Hi's 
 called a Land League hunt ? — I could not say. They 
 were, generally speaking, yonng men, strong of limb 
 and wind. They used to meet to hunt the hare and 
 other game. They had dogs. 
 
 Who ordered the police out ? — The county inspector 
 and the magistrates. 
 
 I understand the military were ordered out ; who 
 ordered them out ?— The magistrates. As far as I can say 
 the people who joined in the hunt came from a distance. 
 There were a good many more outrages after 1879. I think 
 the Laud League was first established in Shanaglish in 
 1880 ; I cannot exactly say at what time of the year. 
 I only know one outrage before that. That was the 
 breaking of a gate belonging to a Mr. Cahill, a small 
 landlord. I come from Athloue ; that is about 30 miles 
 from Gort or Tubber. I was io the force at the Gal- 
 way election of 187a, and was stationed at Kilkarrin, 
 Galway. I know the popular candidate was Colonel 
 Nolan, and the landlord candidate Mr. Trench. Mr. 
 Trench was beaten by a large majority, but afterwards 
 got the seat by petition. I do not know of my own 
 knowledge that as a result of that election there was 
 a general action among landlords in raising rents and 
 calling in arrears. I may have heard it spoken of. 
 I cannot say of my own knowledge, but I daresay I 
 may have heard that that was regarded by the people 
 as a panishment for having voted for Colonel Nolan. 
 From 1872 downwards the district I was in, the Kil- 
 karrin district, was very peaceable ; but I heard there 
 was ill-will between the landlords and tenants generally 
 after that date. I do not know who are the large 
 
 landowners in the district of Loughrea. In the neigh- 
 bourhood of Tubber there are the Lahie estates, and a 
 Mr. Latty has an estate there. Lord Westmeatb. is 
 not a large landowner there. Mr. De Blaquiere was 
 in my neighbourhood, and was considered a good land- 
 lord. I did not know in my experience as a police 
 officer that there were a considerable number of secret 
 societies in Galway and the neighbouring districts. I 
 might have had a suspicion that secret societies had a 
 considerable hold in those neighbourhoods. 
 
 Re-examined by Sib H. James. — I came into the 
 county of Galway in the year 1852, and I left in 1883. 
 From 1872 to 1880 there were no outrages in my dis- 
 trict except the injury to the gate I have already 
 mentioned. I believe the first existence of the Land 
 League to have been in 1880. Up to that time I never 
 had to afford police protection to individuals. I never 
 knew this system of boycotting to be carried on before 
 the Land League existed in 1880 ; nor did I ever hear 
 the word land-grabber applied at any meetings to any 
 persons who took farms from which the tenants had 
 been evicted. Whether these secret societies existed or 
 not, none of these acts of violence took place up to 
 the year 18S0. I had never seen any boycotting notice 
 in connexion with the Land League hunt before 1880. 
 
 Sir HENP.Y James then read the boycotting notice 
 which was put in during the examination of Mrs. De 
 Blaquiere. 
 
 Re-examination continued. — I do not know why it was 
 called the Land League hunt, but that was the notice. 
 
 And until 1880 did you ever know of these Land 
 League hunts taking place — this meeting of large 
 numbers of men to sweep a property of game ? — No ; 
 Mr. De Blaquiere was not only a landlord, he was a 
 tenant also. 
 
 My learned friend has asked you as to the popular 
 feeling in your district. Did you ever hear until 1880 
 of one tenant attacking another because he had taken 
 evicted land ?— No ; I do not remember having beard 
 of such a thing. 
 
 Or of his being denounced ? — No. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Just one question. Do I under- 
 stand you to say that you were stationed at Tubber in 
 1878 and 18?9 ?— I was in Tubber from 1873 to 18S3. 
 
 Sir C. Rossell. — In reference to the name of the 
 person who was treasurer to the League in 1885, 
 mentioned yesterday by the witness Bartholomew 
 Coursey, I wish to say that the name, instead of being 
 Carey, as reported, should be Keary. 
 
 District-Inspector Dominick Barry, recalled and ex- 
 amined by Mr. Atkinson, Q.C, said, — I was stationed 
 in Loughrea in 1881, and continued there until 
 December, 1883. A branch of the Land League was 
 established in Loughrea as well as in numbers of 
 other places in the district between 1880 and 18S3. 
 
 When you first came to Loughrea what was the state 
 of the district ? — It was very peaceable 
 
 Did it continue to be very peaceable down to the 
 
 William Walsn. 
 
 Districft-Inspector Dominick Barry. 
 
208 
 
 The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 time of the establishment of the branch of the Land 
 League ? — Yes. 
 
 After the establishment of the Land League branch, 
 did you notice a change come over the character of 
 the district ? — Yes ; it gradually became disturbed ; and 
 several serious outrages took place, including five 
 murders. 
 
 Were those outrages all of an agrarian character ? — 
 Yes ; they were all of that character. 
 
 Did the murders take place in the daytime or at 
 night, as far as you were able to ascertain ? — They 
 all, with one exception — (tat of Connors, which took 
 place at about 1 in the morning — were committed in 
 the daytime. 
 
 Were they committed on the public roads ? — They 
 were committed on the public highways. 
 
 Was any person ever brought to justice for them ? — 
 No. Numerous arrests were made, but no evidence 
 could be obtained against the persons arrested in 
 consequence of the state of feeling among the people 
 in the district. 
 
 During the period you have mentioned, were many 
 people under police protection ? — Several. 
 
 Were any persons under police protection when you 
 first came to the district ? — None. I may say that 
 afterwards not only were there cases of several indi- 
 viduals being placed under police protection, but pro- 
 tection posts were established in different parts of the 
 district. 
 
 Was the force of the police increased ? — There was 
 a considerable increase in the police force in the dis- 
 trict. Even in the town of Loughrea itself the force, 
 which ordinarily consisted of 20 men, was increased to 
 60, and, in addition to that, five police protection huts 
 were established round the town. 
 
 What was the feeling of the people towards the 
 police when you first went there 'i — It was friendly, as 
 it had always been. 
 
 Did you observe any change in the feeling of the 
 people towards the police after the establishment of 
 the branch of the Land League ? — Yes, the police 
 were dsnounced at the meetings at which I was 
 present. * 
 
 Were those meetings Land League meetings ? — I 
 understoodthem to be so ;.they were called together by 
 placard. 
 
 Did those who attended them wear cards in their 
 hats ? — Yes. 
 
 What kind of cards were they ? — Land League cards 
 of membership. 
 
 Did you know the persons who spoke at those meet" 
 ings to be members of the Land League ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you know Sergeant Linton ? — Yes, he was one of 
 the officers under my command. He had special duties 
 assigned to him. He was specially detailed to take 
 notes of the speeches made at the Land League meet- 
 ings in the neighbourhood, and also to exercise super- 
 vision over the movements of prominent members of 
 the Land League and other suspected persons. 
 
 Was he a very active officer ? — Yes, very. 
 
 And did he discharge the duties you have mentioned 
 until the time of his death ? — Yes. He was very 
 zealous in the discharge of his duties, and he became 
 obnoxious to the people generally on that account. I 
 recollect having' on one occasion to withdraw him from 
 a meeting rather than risk thechance of a collision. 
 
 He gave evidence at the trials in Dublin in 1880, 
 did he not ? — Yes, but I was not present. 
 
 And on that occasion you were obliged to confine 
 him to barracks during the night ? — Yes. I confined 
 him to barracks, and I advised him not to go out at 
 any time without being accompanied by one of our 
 men. For some reason or another, however, there was a 
 disinclination on his part to have any of our men with him. 
 
 He was shot ? — Yes. 
 
 When ? — About 15 minutes before 10 in the evening 
 of the 24th of July, 1881. 
 
 Where ? — In Church-street, in the town of Loughrea. 
 
 Were there many people about at the time ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you near the spot at the time he was shot ? — 
 Yes ; I heard the shot fired. I was in my own house, 
 close to the barracks, when I heard the shot, and I 
 immediately went to the spot and saw the dead body 
 of Linton. 
 
 Were there many people about at the time ? — Yes, a 
 great number. It was a fine evening and it was not 
 quite dark. 
 
 Were you able to obtain any information as to what 
 had happened ? — No ; I was unable to obtain any in- 
 formation at that time in consequence of the state of 
 feeling which existed in the district. 
 
 Did the people manifest any feeling towards him 
 after he was shot ? — Certainly not a friendly feeling. 
 
 Was his funeral attended by anybody ? — By very 
 few persons except the police, and the few who 
 were there came out of curiosity to see the police 
 march. 
 
 Was he a married man ? — No, he was a single man, 
 42 years of age. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I was ex- 
 amined the other day in reference to some other 
 matters. The names of the murdered men were James 
 Connors, who was murdered on the 9th of May, 1881 ; 
 Peter Dempsey, who was murdered on the 2Sth of 
 May, 1881 ; Sergeant Linton, who was murdered on 
 the 24th of July, 1881 ; and Mr. Blake and his servant, 
 who were murdered on the 29th of June, 1882. 
 
 Now, is it not the fact that every one of these 
 murders occurred after the suppression of the Land 
 League'?— No. 
 
 I find I am wrong as to ' the date of the 
 suppression of the Land League, but is it not 
 the fact that those murders ocourred after the 
 arrest of the leading heads — if I may so call them— of 
 the Land League organization ? — I do not know the 
 date of the arrests in 1882. 
 
 The date of the arrest of Mr. Parnell, Mr. Dillon* 
 and others was in March, 1881. 
 
 The President.— No, it was not. We know the date. 
 It was in October, 1881t 
 
 District-Inspector Dominick Barry. 
 
The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 209 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— My Lord, I am wrong again. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 The witness. — You are. (Laughter.) It was in 
 October, 1881. Three of the murders had taken place 
 then — those of Connors, Dempsey, and Sergeant Linton. 
 
 Were not a number of persons arrested in Loaghrea 
 under the Coercion Act before these murders took 
 place ? — Before the occurrence of some of them. There 
 were some arrests previous to the murders. 
 
 Were those the arrests of persons who were rightly 
 or wrongly believed to be active members of the local 
 Land League organization ? — They were not arrested 
 for that reason. •* 
 
 Were not the persons arrested believed to be pro- 
 minent members of the local Land League organization ? 
 — Some of them were. Some of those who were arrested 
 were believed to be connected with crime which had 
 been committed in the neighbourhood. 
 
 They were not arrested as suspects under the Crimes 
 Act f— Yes. 
 
 How many ? — Perhaps 40 or 50. The arrests com- 
 menced in 1881. It was subsequently to the suppres- 
 sion of the Land League that the arrests were made. 
 It was after October, 1881. 
 
 Well, I am bound to take your statement, but I 
 must press you upon this matter. Do you say that 
 there were no arrests of persons supposed to be pro- 
 minent members of the Land League organization be- 
 fore October, 1881 ? — My impression is that there were 
 not any. 
 
 When was Martin O'Halloran arrested ? — He was 
 arrested in April, 1881. I think he was the first one 
 arrested. 
 
 Then you were in error as regarded him, at all 
 events ? — He was an exception. 
 
 When was Sweeny arrested ? — I cannot give the 
 date from memory. 
 
 Then I must put it plainly. Were there not several 
 arrests before May, 1881 ? — I cannot speak from recol- 
 lection. I have been away from the district for five 
 years. 
 
 Were not a very large number of arrests — practically 
 all — made before July, 1881 1 — I think that a great 
 many arrests were made before that date. 
 
 There was a man called Dolan ? — Yes ; he was 
 arrested for the murder of Corcoran. 
 
 And there was Keogh ? — Yes. 
 
 And Fahy ? — Yes, he was imprisoned. 
 
 And Sweeny and two men named Cunningham and 
 Cahan, and Ryan ? — Yes. Ryan was arrested in con- 
 nexion with the murder of Corcoran. 
 
 Now as regards Linton's case. There were arrested 
 in connexion with bis murder a publican named Clark 
 and his wife ? — Yes. 
 
 You had charge of that prosecution ?— No, I had 
 nothing to do with it. I was aware that they were 
 arrested. 
 
 Do you not know that it was suggested that Linton's 
 
 death was due not to agrarian but to other causes ?— 
 Yes. That suggestion was exploded by the acquittal 
 of the prisoners charged. It was upon the information 
 of their female servant that they were charged. 
 
 It was suggested that he had played the part of a 
 spy on publicans and had them punished and fined ?— 
 Yes ; he kept an eye upon the publicans. 
 
 And the man Clark who was arrested was a shop* 
 keeper in the town ? — Yes. 
 
 As far as you know, was there any agrarian cause for 
 the murder in Linton's case ? — I have reason to believe 
 that he was murdered on account of his having given 
 evidence on the Parnell trial. I have had information 
 to that effect. I do not know whether that is true oc 
 not. 
 
 You have also heard of the other cause assigned ?— > 
 It was alleged at the time. 
 
 You have spoken of the police protection posts. 
 Over what area were they spread ? — Over a radius of 
 eight or ten miles round Loughrea. 
 
 You have spoken of the feelings of the people towards 
 the police. Has not the principal cause of the enmity 
 between the police and the people been the part the 
 police have been called upon to take in relation to 
 evictions ? — To some extent it is so. 
 
 Now, in order to correct the error into which I 
 originally fell, I should like to have the dates clear. 
 The Coercion Act, so called, came into force in March, 
 1881, and continued in force until September, 1882. 
 The arrests you have spoken of began as early as 
 April, 1881. The Land League was suppressed in 
 October, 1881 ?— Yes, I believe so. 
 
 Was not the proclamation of the Land League and the 
 arrest of leaders in Dublin followed up by the 
 arrest of such of the local leaders as had not been pre- 
 viously arrested— was not that so to a great extent ? — I 
 am not quite certain as to the time that the Act ex- 
 pired. I think the Act had expired before the arrests. 
 
 Then it is the fact that, following the arrests of Mr. 
 Parnell and Mr. Dillon in October, 1881, there were 
 other arrests of local leaders ? — Yes, such as were be- 
 lieved from time to time to be concerned in the crime 
 in the district, but against whom no direct evidence 
 could be obtained. 
 
 With regard to these men who were arrested on sus- 
 picion, not one of them was brought to trial ? — It was 
 impossible. 
 
 Was not the suspicion in the great majority of cases 
 addressed to the use of intimidation and not to crime 
 generally ?— To crime generally. 
 
 Sie H. Jambs. — My learned friend has given the 
 date when the Coercion Act came into force, but in a 
 sense it came into operation earlier, it being retro- 
 spective. 
 
 Re-examined by Sie H. James, the witness said,— ■ 
 Connors, who was murdered in May, 1881, was a small 
 farmer, a poor man. 
 
 Do you know whether he had done anything to cause 
 anger against him ? — He took up the position of bog- 
 ranger in place of Keogh, who had given it up. 
 
 Districts-Inspector Dominick Barry. 
 
210 
 
 The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 Who was Dempsey ? — A man who was murdered for 
 taking an evicted farm. I firBt went into the district 
 in April, 1880. I did not find at that time that crime 
 was rife in the neighbourhood. The Land League 
 was established there at the close of 1880, and 
 after that there was a great difference in the 
 character of the neighbourhood. It was much dis- 
 turbed, and intimidation prevailed to a great ex- 
 tent, as also did threatening notices and letters. 
 The arrests commenced some time after March, 1881. 
 
 Were persons arrested only in consequence of being 
 suspected of being guilty of intimidation, or of other 
 crimes also ? — Of crimes generally and inciting to 
 orime. 
 
 Do. you call intimidation a crime ? — I believe it is 
 included in the term. 
 
 Do you include it in the answer you have just 
 given ? — I do not confine myself to intimidation alono, 
 but I refer to other crimes as well. 
 
 My friend has asked you whether the Land League 
 was suppressed ; did the Land League continue or 
 discontinue its operations in the district P — It carried 
 on its operations until it assumed the name of the 
 National League. 
 
 Were the persons who were arrested on suspicion of 
 crime as a rule members of the Land League ? — They 
 were all members or supporters of the Land League in 
 the locality. 
 
 I assume that some at least of the members of the 
 Land League in the district were left unarrested ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Sergeant Murtagh, Eoyal Irish Constabulary, ex- 
 amined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — I was stationed at 
 Loughrea in May, 1881, when Linton was murdered. I 
 was at the barracks, but was not able to hear the shot 
 fired at Linton. The report was brought to the barracks 
 that Linton had been shot, and immediately all the 
 men fit for service turned out. I was the only man fit 
 for service left. When the other constables had been 
 gone about an hour a number of men, about 13 or 14, 
 came to the barracks. They came to report that 
 Sergeant Linton had been killed in the streets, and 
 they asked me to let them in, but I did not let them. 
 The murder had occurred about an hour and five 
 minutes previously. I knew the men. They were 
 members of the local Land League, and I had seen 
 them at various Land League meetings. At the time 
 they came to the barracks the intelligence of Linton's 
 murder had been spread through the town. When I 
 refused to admit the men they left. 
 
 District-Inspector Alan Bell, Koyal Irish Con- 
 stabulary, examined by Mr. Graham, said, — I took 
 charge of the Athenry district in November, 1880. I 
 was stationed there for four years. The district of 
 which I had charge was 20 miles long and seven broad. 
 On November 28, 1880, I attended a Land League 
 meeting at Ballymcna, near Craughwell. Over 1,000 
 persons were present. Banners were displayed bearing 
 
 inscriptions, which included — " England is our only 
 foe," " The land for the people,"and "Cheers for Allen, 
 Larkin, and O'Brien, " the Manchester murderers. The 
 police were present, but those who were in uniform 
 were prevented from taking notes by being jostled and 
 pushed about by the people. I heard the Kev. P, 
 M'Philpin, Catholic curate of Athenry, make a speech. 
 He was secretary to the Athenry branch of the Land 
 League. I cannot recollect his exact words, but he 
 denounced landlords and landlordism, the police, and 
 the Government. On the 12th of December, 18R0, 
 there was another Land League meeting at Craugh- 
 well. Similar banners with the same inscriptions as 
 before were displayed. A very large number of people 
 were present, some of them mounted and carrying 
 staves like swords. The Rev. Father Considine was 
 there. He did not live in my district, and I do not know 
 precisely, but I believe he was an officer of a branch 
 of the Land League. He was a Catholic curate in a 
 neighbouring parish. Father Considine called for cheers 
 for the Fenians, which were very heartily given. John 
 Sweeney, of Loughrea, was one of the speakers. I 
 know that he was connected with the Land League, 
 and that he is now connected with the National 
 League, Martin O'Halloran, president of the Tubber 
 branch of the Land League, also spoke. I heard him 
 say that he challenged the English Government, and 
 that in 24 hours he could dissolve all the police in 
 Galway. He urged the people to boycott the police. 
 I attended a number of other Land League meetings 
 throughout my district frcm time to time. 
 
 Did you find that after the Land League meetings 
 were held in different parts of the district outrages 
 followed ? — The district became very disturbed after 
 these meetings, while it had been very quiet before. 
 
 Did you find threatening notices posted about your 
 district from time to time ? — Several were from time 
 to time posted at Craughwell. 
 
 Mr. Graham then read the following notice : — 
 
 " To the People of Ireland. — The Government of 
 England has declared war against the Irish people. 
 The organization that protected them has been declared 
 ' unlawful and criminal.' A reign of terror has com- 
 menced. Meet the action of the English Government 
 with a determined passive resistance. The no-rent 
 banner has been raised, and it remains with the people 
 now to prove themselves dastards or men. Pay no 
 rent. Avoid the Land Court. Such is the programme 
 now before the country. Adopt it, and it will lead you 
 to free land and happy homes. Reject it, and slavery 
 and degradation will be. your portion. Pay no rent. 
 The person who does should be visited with the 
 severest sentence of social ostracism. Avoid the Land 
 Court. Cast out the person who enters it as a renegade 
 to his country and the cause of his fellow men. Hold 
 the harvest is the watchword. To do that effectually 
 you should, as far as possible, turn it into money. Sell 
 your stock when such a course will not entail a loss. 
 Make a friendly arrangement with your creditors about 
 your interest in your farms. A short and sharp struggle 
 now, and the vilust oppression that ever afflicted 
 humanity will be wiped away. No rent. Your brethren 
 
 Sergeant Murtagh. 
 
 District-Inspector Alan Bell. 
 
The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 211 
 
 in America have risen to the crieB, and are ready to 
 supply you with unlimited funds, provided you maintain 
 your attitude of passive resistance and pay no rent. No 
 rent. ' The tenants of Ireland have still one tremendous 
 move in their power, and that is to quietly stay at 
 home and pay no rent. I believe that if they adopted 
 a policy of passive resistance, which I do not see how 
 it would be possible for the landlords to combat, it 
 would lead to one of the greatest revolutions that 
 Ireland has ever known.' — Nassau Williams, Senior 
 Professor Political Economy, University of Oxford. 
 ' I do not suggest an impossible hypothesis to your 
 Majesty when I state the possibility (I ought to state 
 it more strongly) of the tenantry of the country re- 
 fusing to pay tithes. The clergy and the landlords might 
 have recourse to the law, but how is the law to be 
 enforced ? How can they distrain for rent or tithes 
 upon millions of tenants ? ' — The Duke of Wellington 
 to the King. ' The land, therefore, of any country is the 
 common property of the people of that country, because 
 its real owner, the Creator who made it, has transferred 
 it as a voluntary gift to them.' — Dr. Nulty, Bishop 
 of Meith. Pay no rent. — By order, PATRICK Egan, 
 Treasurer." 
 
 Did you find that notice posted in your district ? — 
 Yes ; in December, 1881. 
 
 In the district where you found that notice posted 
 was there much boycotting and intimidation ? — There 
 was a great deal of boycotting and intimidation. 
 
 What do you mean by intimidation ? — I mean hooting 
 and groaning at a man when he is walking in the 
 street and withdrawing from him in chapel, besides 
 firing into dwelling-houses and posting threatening 
 notices and letters. Many people were under police 
 protection in my district, and a good many protection 
 posts were formed. The number of police was in- 
 creased in my district. Protection was asked be- 
 cause the applicants were afraid of being murdered 
 as landlords' agents or persons who had taken evicted 
 farms. I mean by protection posts four or five con- 
 stables being stationed in a man's house or in an iron 
 hut erected near it. Bailiffs and sheriffs' officers 
 were not able to discharge their duties in the 
 ordinary way and had to be assisted by the police. 
 On May 11, 1881, James Connors was shot dead, and 
 on May 29, 1881, Peter Dempsey was Bhot. On June 
 20, 1881, John Lambert and his son were fired at. On 
 November 2, 1881, Peter Doherty was murdered. He 
 had taken a farm that had been surrendered at Craugh- 
 well. Two of his cattle were poisoned. That was in 
 March, 1881. Doherty was boycotted, but he still 
 continued to hold his farm. On December 30, 1881, 
 a notice was brought to me relating to a man named 
 Tyrell. It was posted at a place called Lough bragh. 
 
 Mr. Gratiam then read the following notice : — 
 
 " This is to command you, M. Tyrell, if you do not 
 give up working for Mrs. Lambert, the tyrant, you 
 will be shot before a week. Too long you are going 
 on as a traitor to the noble cause. You are a lying 
 villain. Look at the shape of your coffin." (Here 
 followed a rough outline of a coffin.) "You are to be 
 visited by the people's friend. — Captain Moon- 
 light," 
 
 The witness continued, — The Mrs. Lambert who was 
 referred to was a widow, who had had some difficulty 
 with her tenants at times. She was not connected 
 with Mr. John Lambert who was fired at. John Lam- 
 bert lived in my neighbourhood. He had employed 
 emergency men to get in his hay, as people would not 
 work for him in the district. I saw a great many 
 notices posted in the district relating to this Mr. Lam- 
 bert. One of these I tore down on December 6, 1882. 
 It was as follows : — " Boycott again that tyrant — 
 that rogue — that grey-headed rascal Shawn Bawn 
 Lambert. Remember, any person who will give any 
 assistance to him will meet with a sad death." One 
 notice warned three men by name not to work f or 
 him, or they would meet with a sad death. On August 
 6, 1882, the following notice was found posted about 
 him : — "Men of Craughwell and surrounding villages. 
 — Let your spirit never fail. Boycott that sly, daring, 
 and unmerciful tyrant, Shawn Bawn Lambert, who is 
 trying to come to friendly terms with you by giving a 
 man a few greedy shillings a day, which no man 
 who sets a value on his life will take. He gives 
 one week's labour and no more, which has been 
 paid for him by the London committee for the 
 relief of starved landlords. Jack's few bobs are not 
 worth a man's life, and the man who will work for 
 the gray-headed rogue will lose his life I solemnly 
 swear, but when or where he knows not, as I will 
 wait until my opportunity. Do not depend too much 
 on the buckshots and let themselves not be too bold 
 either, as I might meet them some fine morning and 
 give them a warm breakfast. In a few weeks the 
 gray-headed rogue will be glad to get Indian meal to 
 eat, and it's a good-hearted person who would give 
 him that same. I am now as subtil as ever and long 
 to get a chance at Mannion, Black Mickey, and 
 Clasby, the emergencies. I'll make faugh-a-ballagh 
 yet my boys, as my powder is very dry. Boycott 
 Shawn Bawn, the tyrant, the rogue and the land 
 robber. Billy, take warning that if you assist him in 
 any way you will meet me on a future day. Remember 
 Billy, I am still at large, and if you assist him you 
 will meet with something warmer than cutting hay." 
 That notice was found on the 12th of August, and the 
 previous one on the 6th of August. The next notice 
 was : — " Boycott Shawn Bawn Lambert, the notorious 
 rogue and common scoundrel. Any person who will 
 work for Shawn Bawn Lambert will, in a future day, 
 get hot lead for certain. Believe me, Rory is not dead 
 yet. Ireland for the Irish and down with Shawn 
 Bawn Lambert." The police were also boycotted in 
 my district and were not able to purchase food in their 
 immediate neighbourhood. They had to get their 
 supplies brought to them by other policemen. On 
 the 12th of May, 1882, I took down this notioe 
 against the police : — " Men of Craughwell, Carrigan, 
 and surrounding villages, boycott that contemptible 
 class, the cut-throat peelers of the Carrigan hut and 
 of Craughwell. I advise the low-spiritod people of 
 Carrigan and Craughwell not to supply them any sort 
 
 District-Inspector Alan Bell. 
 
212 
 
 The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 of provisions. Any person that will allow them to go 
 into their houses or oblige them in any way will be 
 treated as a land-grabber. Let every person beware of 
 that notorious rogue, the mean double bailiff Connolly, 
 of Carrigan, and his little neighbour, whose fate will 
 be miserable. Boycott the two emergency men, 
 Connors and Hussey, as they built the walls of the 
 boycotted farm. Any person who will go into the hut 
 or act as a secret emergency will be astray. No 
 publican in Craughwell to give hay to the buckshot 
 horse." The Carrigan hut was built for the protection 
 of the Doherty family, Doherty having been murdered 
 in 1881. Warning was given that any person who dealt 
 with the Doherty family would be treated as a 
 land-grabber. Peter Doherty was an emergency 
 man who waB shot. Some of the emergency men 
 were boycotted and some murdered. The notice speaks 
 of Connolly, the bailiff to Mr. Walter Bourke, and 
 who remained after his murder. Mr. Bourke was 
 murdered on the 8th of June, 1882, and the notice just 
 read was found in May, 1882. Two other men, Connors 
 and Hussey, the emergency men mentioned in the 
 notice, had worked for Mr. Bourke, and built up the 
 wall of Peter Doherty's boycotted farm. By boycotted 
 farm I mean a farm which the Land League wished to 
 prevent any one taking. In this case the walls of the 
 farm had been pulled down. Mr. Walter Bourke was 
 shot dead on the 8th of June, 1882, near Ardrahan, as 
 he was driving home from quarter sessions. He was a 
 magistrate for county Mayo and a landowner in my 
 district. He was not under police protection, but he 
 was protected by dragoons. Corporal Wallace, a 
 dragoon who was with him as escort, was also murdered. 
 
 Do you know whether Mr. Bourke had been de- 
 nounced at Land League meetings ? — I do not know 
 that of my own knowledge. 
 
 Did you see these men after they were shot 1 — Oh 
 yes, I saw them in the road with gun-shot wounds. 
 
 Some people were there also, I suppose ?— A few 
 country people had gathered around. 
 
 What was their demeanour ? — They were laughing at 
 these poor men who were lying on the road dead. 
 ! There were two other murders, were there not ? — 
 Yes, Mr. J. H. Blake, Lord Clanricarde's agent, and 
 his servant Euane. He lived seven miles from 
 Athenry. They were murdered in broad daylight, 
 between 11 and 12 o'clock,while driving along a high- 
 road on their way to Mass. Mrs. Blake was wounded 
 at the same time. Some information was obtained as 
 to the murderers, but we could not get any evidence 
 against them. In November 1882, I was absent from 
 Athenry for some months on special duty with Mr, 
 Clifford Lloyd. About that time there were one or two 
 successful prosecutions of people who had committed 
 crimes in the district. Two men were found guilty of 
 the murder of Peter Doherty. 
 
 Did you find when you came back to that part of the 
 country that that had made a very great difference in 
 the district ? — Yes, a very great. 
 
 Was a record kept of all the agrarian outrages which 
 
 occurred in your district ? — Yes, the outrages were 
 reported to me in my official capacity. On the 8th of 
 October, 1880, there was the malicious burning of 
 Thomas Madden's hay at Athenry. Madden had 
 taken ten acres of land that had been surrendered 
 by the previous tenant. On the 1st of November, 
 1880, a notice was posted on the chapel gate at 
 Craughwell warning the people not to allow 
 Michael Colclough to sit in chapel with policemen. 
 Colclough was herd on an evicted farm. On the 
 16th of November, 1880, there was a robbery of a 
 box of guns from Craughwell Railway Station. The 
 box was consigned to a man in Loughrea who kept a 
 hardware shop and used to sell firearms. On the 17th 
 of November, 18S0, a threatening letter was sent to 
 Dennis Corbett. On the 7th of December, 1880, a 
 letter was posted threatening malicious injury to 
 Tim Mannion. The letter directed him to send back 
 some corn he had at the mill, because the owner of 
 the com had not joined the Land League. On tho 
 3d of December, 1880, the house of Michael Boche 
 was visited by an armed party, who broke three 
 windows, knocked down some corn stacks, and fired 
 shots. They also posted the following notice on 
 the door : — " Take notice, Michael Eoche, of 
 Killasqope. You had better quit the country at once, 
 or you shall meet your doom for paying rack rent or 
 any more arrears to masters or shopkeepers. I 
 solemnly swear your life is expired at once the first 
 chance of seeing you in private or public." There 
 were four persons injured by the same party on the 
 same occasion. On the same day Martin Conallon's 
 house was visited and his corn stacks knocked down, 
 and the same thing took place at Pat Lully's, Thady 
 Kilgannon's, and Michael Mannion's. All these men 
 were tenants of Mr. Walter Joyce, and paid him rents 
 and got receipts. Mr. Joyce has shown me the receipts 
 which the men had returned to him for fear that 
 they might be found at their houses. On the 4th of 
 December, 1880, 100 young trees belonging to Mr. 
 Smith were pulled up by the roots and an iron gate 
 belonging to Martin Healy was broken. Two hay- 
 cocks belonging to Martin Kennedy were thrown 
 down. In Smith's case he had refused to lend a saddle 
 to a person who wanted to ride to a Land League 
 meeting. Healy had not joined the League, but did 
 so soon after this. 
 
 On December 15, 1880, Mr. Timothy Mannion 
 received a threatening letter ? — Yes. 
 
 He is a miller by trade 1 — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gkaham then read the following letter : — 
 
 ' ' My dear Timothy Mannion, — I strongly advise you 
 to boycott Michael Hoolan out of your mill at once, as 
 he is both a spy and a traitor, also an enemy of the 
 country. There is not a word but he has told Lord 
 Dunsandle's agent, so we want to put a stop to this 
 base work. I want you, if you please, to clear him 
 out of your mill at once. I trust you will take my 
 advice on the subject, as it is a general rule through 
 the country, and whereas Mick is quite unworthy to 
 treat him otherwise." 
 
 District-Inspector Alan Bell. 
 
The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 213 
 
 What was the general rule of the country referred 
 to ? — Not to deal with any person who had dealings 
 with a landlord. Michael Hoolan sent his corn to 
 Mannion's mill to be ground, and Mannion returned it at 
 once unground. On December 17, 1880, a threatening 
 letter was written to a man named Galvin. Galvin 
 was a bailiff on the property of a Mrs. Brown. 
 
 The letter was read, as follows : — " Galvin, if you 
 do not give us the valuation on our rents at Corofin 
 you need not expect one penny. If you serve us as 
 you did before with ejectments you will be carded, and 
 worse than that will be done to you and yours. Your 
 place is not very far from Eory." 
 
 On December 18, 1880, a letter was sent to Michael 
 Hoolan, the same man referred to in the letter of 
 December 15 ?— Yes. He had taken a surrendered 
 farm. It had been surrendered because the landlord 
 would not reduce the rent. 
 
 The letter ran as follows :— 
 
 " Ireland for the Irish. The land for the people. 
 Irish National League, Loughrea. Mr. Michael 
 Hoolan, — I hereby give you notice to give up Widow 
 Hanly's land and give no more trouble about it. I am 
 giving you one chance, and if you refuse it I shall deal 
 with it as we have dealt with a good many more of 
 your sort. So I hope you won't give me any more 
 trouble, for if you do I shall pay you a visit which I 
 am anxious for. By all accounts you are the greatest 
 land-grabber I heard of yet. You had better give it 
 up at once. I have no more to 6ay, but I remain 
 yours truly, Eory ot the Hills." 
 
 On December 23, 1880, a notice was posted in the 
 neighbourhood of Lord Dunsandle's property ? — Yes. 
 It was addressed to his tenants generally. 
 
 The following was the notice : — 
 
 " Any man who will pay rent now will be boy- 
 cotted and get the contents of this card. When you 
 offered it before, why did not your landlord take it ? 
 If you wish to make a merry Christmas pay no rent. 
 If you go behind your neighbour's back we know how 
 to manage you. Go no further if you don't wish to be 
 a boycott." 
 
 What is the meaning of " the contents of this card "? 
 —A card was posted up opposite the notice on the 
 roadside. A card is the implement used for carding 
 wool. On December 30, 1880, a Mrs. Browne got a 
 letter from the secretary of the Mullagh branch of the 
 National League, asking her to reinstate an evicted 
 tenant. 
 
 Sib O. Russell. — Let us have the letter, please. 
 
 Mr. Graham. — We have not got it. 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — Kindly give me the name of the 
 /secretary and of the branch of the League youspokeof. 
 
 Witness was understood to say that the name of the 
 secretary was Hoolan. The name of the branch was 
 Mullagh. Continuing, he said .—On the same day the 
 present tenant, Clarke, received a letter. It was a 
 warning to him to give up Widow Kelly's land or 
 death" would be his doom. That letter purported to 
 come from Hoolan, the secretary of the branch, but a 
 threatening letter was received by Clarke the next 
 day :— " Michael Clark.— My good grabber,— Give up 
 
 the land or death will be your doom." Then there 
 are pictures of a coffin, and it is signed " Eory of 
 the Hills." 
 
 What had Clarko done ? — He had taken possession of 
 the land given up by Widow Kelly. On December 31, 
 1880, Mrs. Browne's hay was maliciously burnt. 
 She had previously received a threatening letter ; on 
 December 28:—" Mrs, Browne, — Take notice that if 
 you bring me to your hall door, I will give you what 
 Baker got." Then follows a picture of a coffin with 
 a woman in it, and the signature of " Eory of the 
 Hills." I do not know what the allusion to Baker 
 meant. Two days after her hay was burnt. On Jan- 
 uary 28, 1881, there was a fire at Ellen Creaghan's. 
 She had taken a surrendered farm. Then on the same 
 day there was a threatening letter to Sir M. Crofton. 
 He was a stranger in tho district and had taken a 
 house in tho neighbourhood for shooting purposes. 
 
 SIR C. Eussell. — That is not an agrarian case. 
 
 Witness. — The bailiff or steward of the property 
 wanted to get rid of him. On March 21, 1881, some 
 cattle belonging to John Doherty were poisoned. I 
 have already spoken of him. On May 29, 1881, there 
 was a threatening letter to Martin Monaghan. He had 
 taken a surrendered farm. And on June 11, 1881, a 
 threatening letter to Michael Clasby. He also had 
 taken a surrendered farm. On June 14, 1881, there 
 was a case of unlawful assembly for the purpose of in- 
 timidating John M'Laughlin, a process server. He was 
 serving processes at the time. On June 16, 1881, 
 John Donoghue received a threatening letter, for 
 dealing with Michael Clasby, who was boycotted. 
 And Michael Clasby received another threatening 
 letter on June 19, and a threatening notice on June 
 27. On June 28 there was a threatening letter sent to 
 Walter Lambert. That was not the Mr. Lambert who 
 was shot at. Walter Lambert had had trouble with 
 his tenants and had a police hut for his protec- 
 tion. On July 18, 1881, there was a case of 
 malicious injury to two men named Baldwin and 
 Kennedy. Some iron pins were fixed in a 
 meadow they were about to mow, and the knives of 
 the machine were broken. They were in the employ- 
 ment of a Mr. Goodbody, and the tenant had been 
 evicted from the farm of which the meadow they were 
 about to mow was a part. Baldwin was the owner of 
 the machine. 
 
 On July 19, 1881, there was a case of intimidating 
 Christopher Kennedy. — That was the same man. He 
 received a threatening notice. 
 
 On July 31, 1881, there was a threatening letter 
 warning Mr. Lambert's labourers not to cut his 
 hay for him.— Yes. That was the same Mr. 
 Lambert who received a threatening letter on 
 June 28 of that year. On August 8 a threaten- 
 ing notice was issued against Lord Dunsandle, 
 and on August 11 shots were fired into Egan's 
 house, and a threatening letter was posted on 
 his door, warning him to leave Mr. Lam- 
 bert's employment. On August 15, 1881, a notice 
 
 District-Inspector Alan Bell, 
 
214 
 
 The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 was issued warning people not to employ J. Car- 
 ney ; and on the same day a notice was issued 
 warning Gilligan to leave Mr. Lambert's employ. 
 On August 17, 1S81, a threatening notice was issued 
 warning Mr. Bourke's man not to work with Corbet 
 and Fury. Mr. Bourke was the gentleman who was 
 murdered, and these two men had given evidence 
 against M'Laughliu, and they were boycotted in con- 
 sequence of their having given that evidence. On 
 August 19, 1881, 'Thomas Madden's windows were 
 broken, and on September 6 the tails were stripped off 
 20 horses on a boycotted farm. The farm belonged to 
 the Earl of Perth, and was taken by a man named 
 Kennedy after it had been boycotted for some time. 
 
 On September 11, 1881, poison was placed on Good- 
 body's land ? — Yes, and several sheep died, and on 
 September 15 the ears were cut off Molloy's horse. 
 Molloy was a tenant of Lord Dunsandle, and he was 
 suspected of having given information to the police. 
 On September 17 a threatening letter was sent to 
 Hynes warning him to leave Dr. Davis's employment. 
 Dr. Davis had evicted tenants some years ago, and 
 had not reinstated them. Ilynes was working for him 
 when he received the notice, and he left immediately. 
 On September 22 the hair was cut off the tail of a 
 horse belonging to one D. Corbet, a tenant of Mr. 
 Lambert. 
 
 On September 2G a threatening notice was sent to 
 Mr. Brown, a station-master ? — Yes, requiring the 
 discharge of Kennedy. Kennedy was employed on 
 the railway, and used to work for Mr, Lambert oc- 
 casionally. On September 28 some sheep belonging to 
 Martin and Pat Kennedy were plucked. The wool 
 was torn off their backs and the sheep were bleeding. 
 On September 25 a threatening notice was sent to 
 Morning, herd to M'Donagh, who had taken one of 
 Dr. Davis's farms. On October 7 a threatening letter 
 was sent to a man named Shaughassey warning him 
 not to sell milk to the constabulary. On October 26 
 a threatening notice was sent to Kelly, Niland, 
 Martin, and Burke warning them to give up land. 
 They had taken a little land from Mr. John Lambert. 
 On November 2 occurred the murder of P. Doherty. 
 On the 5th a threatening letter was sent to Mike 
 Reilly, telling him to give up a bailiffship.and he did. 
 On the 11th there was a threatening notice warning 
 tenants to pay no rent, and Constable Eegney not to 
 tear down the notice. On the 12th there was a 
 threatening notice to emergency men warning them to 
 leave their employment on pain of death. On the 19th 
 a slate was put up at John Doherty's with " grabber " 
 and a coffin upon it. John Doherty was a cousin of 
 Peter Doherty, who was murdered. On the 11th a 
 heifer belonging to Mr. Lambert was cruelly injured, 
 its shoulder being smashed by some blunt instrument 
 like a hammer. The heifer had to be shot. On 
 December 5 there was a threatening notice warning 
 tenants at Killecuznmore to pay no rent. They met 
 their landlord next day and refused to pay a penny. 
 On December 9 two stone walls were broken down 
 
 and 120 head of cattle driven to field, where they 
 trampled three and a-half tons of hay. The herd was 
 obnoxious because he remained in M'Donagh's em- 
 ployment. This was on Dr. Davis's land. On the 
 11th there was a notice calling on people to boycott 
 Walter Bourke as a tyrant. On the 22d threatening 
 letters were sent to Pat Eafferty and Michael Newell 
 warning them to leave Walter Bourke's employment. 
 That was the Bourke who was killed. On the 26th 
 the tail of a calf was cut off and gates were thrown 
 down, because the owners, Size and Hanbury, were on 
 friendly terms with Madden, who was boycotted. On 
 January G, 1882, Arthur Flannery was seriously 
 assaulted because he was believed to be friendly to 
 the police. On January 11 Walter Smith was fired at. 
 He had evicted a herd. On February 1 a threatening 
 notice was sent to Canon Eoe warning him not to 
 employ Curney's car. On the 3d the dwelling-house 
 of Pat Coppinger, who had taken a surrendered farm, 
 was fired into. On the 5th there were threatening 
 notices warning any person who should pay rent that 
 he would be murdered. On the 11th there were letters 
 threatening Mr. Walter Lambert with death. On the 19th 
 there was a similar letter to Frank Joyce, the agent. 
 The following was the letter sent to Mr. Lambert : 
 — " Walter, you will soon meet with the fate Walter 
 Smith met with, for I am the man who was never 
 taken yet and was with him." 
 Walter Smith was the man who was fired at ? — Yes. 
 The letter sent to Frank Joyce was also read by 
 the learned counsel. It ran : — " Frank, I shall soon 
 pay you the same visit I paid to Walter Smith, for I 
 am the man who was with him that night. I hope you 
 will be at home. Ha ! ha ! ha !" 
 
 Examination resumed.— On February 20, 1882, there 
 was a threatening notice calling on the people to boy- 
 cott John Donoghoe, because he had paid his rent. On 
 the 24th 900 fir trees were torn up and destroyed. The 
 agent had asked for rent a couple of days before and 
 threatened proceedings. On the 25th a malicious in- 
 jury was done to Reilly's donkey, which was horribly 
 houghed. He had paid his rent a few days before. 
 The donkey's leg was nearly severed, and the animal 
 had to be shot at once. On March 1 there was a 
 notice threatening death to any one who should buy 
 meadow grass from Mr.W. Bourke, who was in the habit 
 of selling the grass on his meadows. On March 7 there 
 was a notice threatening John Doherty with the fate 
 of Peter, if he continued in Mr. Bourke's employ- 
 ment. On March 13 stones were placed on the road at 
 night to upset the police car, and a man was thrown 
 off. On April 9 a shot was fired into Pat M'Tagoe's 
 house, the only motive being that he had paid his rent. 
 On the 16th the house of the widow Mary Burke wa» 
 Bred into and a quantity of her potatoes were tore 
 up and destroyed, because she continued to herd for 
 Claaby. On the 24th a threatening letter was sent to 
 John Moore, the herd in Mr. Langair's employment. 
 Mr. Langair had evicted a tenant. On the 27th there 
 was a letter threatening Mr. Lambert if he did not 
 
 District-Inspector Alan Bell. 
 
The Special Commission, November 7, 1888, 
 
 215 
 
 use his influence to have a suspect prisoner released. 
 The prisoner in question was found guilty of conspiracy 
 to murder. On May 2 there was a notice warning B. 
 Ferse's labourers to leave if he did not increase wages. 
 On the 14th a wall of Mr. Bourke 's was knocked down 
 and notice was posted threatening any one who should 
 rebuild it. On the 18th there was a robbery of 
 arms from Denis Crowe by a moonlighting party, who 
 also visited Connolly's house, but he threatened to 
 fire upon them, and they went away. Connolly was 
 working for a man who was boycotted. On the same 
 day sheep belonging to Fat Finn were killed and 
 thrown into a pond. He had taken a surrendered farm. 
 On the 22d Tom Madden's house was fired into. He 
 was a boycotted blacksmith. On June 8 Bourke was 
 murdered. On the 18th Mr. Lambert received a letter 
 warning him that he would soon be murdered. He was 
 abused in the Tuam News as an evictor and a rack- 
 renter.This newspaper belonged to the Catholic curate at 
 Athenry, who was secretary of the League at that 
 place. On June 19 there was a letter threatening John 
 Doherty. He was threatened with his master's fate if 
 he did not give up the herding. His master was 
 Walter Bourke. On July 3 a letter was received by 
 Mr. Lambert threatening him with death. On August 
 2 there was a threatening notice warning Egan to give 
 up herding for Mr. Lambert. On the 12th a notice 
 was posted warning Niland to cease working for Mr. 
 Lambert on pain of death. On the 16th there was 
 another malicious injury to Finn. On September 1 
 hay belonging to Eaftey was burnt. This was probably 
 due to its being mistaken for Pat Molloy's hay, who 
 was obnoxious to the League. On the 17th there 
 was a threatening notice warning the people not to 
 buy hay on Robinson's estate. On the 30th a mali- 
 cious injury was done to Fat Callaman's hay because 
 he had paid his rent. On October 6 Pat Molloy's hay 
 was burnt because ho did not join the Land League. 
 On the 30th a letter was sent to Pat Doherty threaten- 
 ing him with death if he sought compensation for his 
 son's murder. On December 30 there was a notice 
 threatening any one who should drive Walter Bourke or 
 his agent. On the 14th a threatening notice was sent 
 to Mr. Blake because be had taken a surrendered 
 farm, and on January 21 there were notices threatening 
 death to any one who should work for Walter Bourke. 
 
 Cross-examined by SlE C. Russell. — I have been an 
 inspector for nine years. I was appointed inspector in 
 1879. I was stationed first in Cavan, then at Athenry, 
 in Galway, and I am now at Athlone, in Bos- 
 common. My native county is King's County. The 
 district from which this account of crime comes 
 covers about 120 square miles. The account I have 
 given is the account of almost all the crime perpe- 
 trated in the district from October, 1880, to January, 
 1883. There are some very large farms in the dis- 
 trict. It is not chiefly a district of small holdings. I 
 call a small holding a holding of from six to ten acres. 
 A good many farms cover from 30 to 40 acres. I should 
 not say that - the great majority of the farms are 
 
 smaller than that. There are. very large grazing farms. 
 About half the number of the tenants are large 
 farmers, and the other half small. I call farms over 
 30 acres large. I do not think that farms below ten 
 acres form the majority. The worst period for crime 
 was between August, 1880, and the autumn of 1882, as 
 will appear from an examination of the record with 
 respect to which I have given evidence. Lord Dun- 
 sandle owned a large amount of land in the district. 
 The worst part of the land — bog land — was in Lord 
 Dunsandle's own hands. It extends for some five miles. 
 I suppose he has over 1,000 tenants. The property ex- 
 tends into three other districts. That part of it which 
 was in my district was mostly in his own hands. I 
 should say there were between 60 and 100 tenants of his 
 in my district. Part of Lord Clanricarde's property was 
 also in my district, and there were about 250 tenants 
 upon it. There were only about 20 of Mr. Blake's 
 tenants in the district, but this gentleman had estates 
 in the Loughrea district as well. Mr. Walter Bourke 
 had about 700 acres in Galway, and, I suppose, about 
 40 tenants in my district. Mr. Walter Lambert has 
 about 200 tenants. He owns the town of Athenry. Mr. 
 John Lambert has property worth about £1,500 a year. 
 He has, I suppose, between 60 and 100 tenants. The 
 Earl of Perth has only a few townlands, and very few 
 tenants — about 15 or 20. The Rev. Mr. Rainsford owns 
 a very small property. These are the principal land- 
 lords, but there are others. There is Mr. French, of 
 Nunrea Castle. 
 
 Were any of the outrages which you have mentioned 
 committed on this property ? — No ; there was no branch 
 of the Land League where he lives. I do not think 
 there were any evictions on his property. He made re- 
 ductions in his rents, and is looked upon as a very 
 indulgent landlord. I do not think that there were any 
 outrages committed in connexion with his property. 
 
 What other landlords have you not mentioned ? — 
 There is Lord Clonbrock, who owns a good deal of 
 land in the district. I do not think any of the out- 
 rages which I have mentioned were committed on his 
 property. There were no evictions upon it to my 
 knowledge. I do not think that he made considerable 
 reductions in his rents, but the land is let at a low rate. 
 I do not value land myself. I have heard no complaints 
 about these rents. There was no Land League branch 
 in the immediate neighbourhood of his property. 
 
 Are there other landlords ? — Yes ; Sir Henry Bellew. 
 I could not even guess at the number of his tenants. I 
 suppose he must have a thousand, but I really do not 
 know. 
 
 Were there any outrages on his property ? — Yes ; 
 those perpetrated on Mrs. Browne. She is in the 
 position of " middleman." The whole of the pro- 
 perty is leased to her, she paying the head- 
 rent and assuming the position of landlord towards 
 the tenants. As far as I remember there was only 
 one eviction on her property. Among the remain- 
 ing landlords are Mr. Lambert and Mr. Churcher, who 
 is non-resident. Lord Dunsandle is a resident landlord. 
 
 District-Inspector Al^n Bell. 
 
216 
 
 The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 for he lives at Athenry. Lord Clanricatde is non- 
 resident. I have not yet exhausted the catalogue of 
 the landlords, but I cannot name anymore. There were 
 no evictions on Lord Dunsandle's property in my 
 district. I know of one eviction on his property else- 
 where, that of Martin Birmingham. I did not hear of 
 any eviction notices on Lord Dunsandle's property in 
 the period between 1880 and 1882. I did not hear of 
 any evictions on that part of Lord Clanricarde's 
 property which was in my district. I have heard of evic- 
 tions on the property 20 miles away, near Portumna and 
 Loughrea. There were three evictions that I re- 
 member on Mr. Blake's property. There were no 
 actual evictions on Mr. Walter Bourke's land, but he 
 took out processes against three tenants, I think. Mr. 
 Walter Lambert took out processes, but there were no 
 evictions. A great many processes were issued, and 
 then the tenants generally paid. On Mr. John Lambert's 
 property there was certainly one eviction that caused 
 trouble. That was the eviction of a man called 
 Corbett. I believe Mr. Lambert issued other pro- 
 cesses, but not in my district. 
 
 Have you assisted at evictions yourself ? — Indeed I 
 have, very often. I have been in charge of the police. 
 It has been principally outside my own district, on 
 Mr. Blake's property at Loughrea, for instance, and in 
 the west of Galway. 
 
 In all the instances of outrage which you have given 
 you have ascribed them directly or indirectly to 
 agrarian causes ? — Yes, the motives were agrarian. A 
 surrendered farm is a farm given up to the landlord 
 after the tenant has asked for a reduction of rent 
 which has been refused. 
 
 Rightly or wrongly the tenant says that the rent is 
 too high. In such cases as that there was a strong 
 feeling in the country against anybody else taking 
 the farm ? — Yes ; and there is still. 
 
 And there has been that feeling as long as you can 
 recollect ? — No ; I do not think there was that feeling 
 before 1880. 
 
 As regards farms from which tenants have been 
 evicted there is at least an equally strong feeling ? — 
 There was in those years and is still. 
 
 Do you mean to suggest that that feeling has only 
 existed since 1880 ? — I cannot speak from any know- 
 ledge of the subject before 1879, when I joined the 
 force ; but my impression is that in 1880 the feeling 
 was very strongly intensified, if it existed at all 
 before. 
 
 You are not a politician, I suppose ? — Indeed I am 
 not. 
 
 Do you know that proceedings were taken by the 
 landlords in view of the Land Act, which had not yet 
 come into operation j I mean proceedings for eject- 
 ment ?— No, I do not know. This formed no part of 
 my business. 
 
 Do you really not know that in order to defeat the 
 Act of 1881 the landlords served ejectments in 
 Galway largely ?— I really do not know. 
 
 Had you not heard it before I put it to you ? — I had 
 not. It is no part of my business to investigate these things. 
 
 The Court here adjourned for luncheon. 
 
 On its re-assembling, Sis Charles Russell re- 
 sumed his cross-examination. The witness said,-— 
 There was ill-will between the tenants and the land- 
 lords. I mixed a very great deal indeed with the 
 people when I was in charge of my district. In 1880 
 there were individual cases of distress, but there was 
 no general distress in my district. There Were in- 
 dividual cases in the district of Craughwell, but no 
 general distress. Craughwell is a parish and a village, 
 and there would be families there consisting on an 
 average of six persons each. From my own knowledge 
 I could not say that there were so many as 300 people 
 destitute in Craughwell in the beginning of 1880. I 
 do not think there were. From my observation I 
 could not say whether " Eating their last potato ; 
 destitution likely to increase," would be a true de- 
 scription of Craughwell at that time. In Athenry there 
 were individual cases of distress — no general distress. 
 I should certainly not say that there were 1,000 
 persons destitute there in 1880. I daresay that 43,260 
 persons might have been destitute in Galway, because 
 there was great distress there and in the islands. 
 There was a great deal of distress in Mayo. 
 That is also a coast country. I believe Mr. M'Phil- 
 pin, the curate of Athenry, is living, but he is 
 not at Athenry now. I do not know where he is. 
 He was prosecuted and left Athenry. He was prosecuted 
 in 1882 for intimidation, and bound over to keep the 
 peace for 12 months in consequence of language he 
 made use of from the altar. The meeting at which I 
 hoard him speak was in an adjoining parish to his 
 own ; but it was in county Galway. As to the Rev. 
 Father Considine, that was at Craughwell ; I do not 
 know in what parish he was curate. I do not pretend 
 to give the speeches with any accuracy. They were 
 taken down, I think, by a shorthand writer — I believe 
 by Head-Constable Irwin, who took them at Craugh« 
 well. With reference to the man Doherty, the farm 
 he took was a surrendered farm. He and his first 
 cousin John Doherty jointly occupied it. In that case 
 two persons were found guilty of actual murder ; they 
 were sentenced to be hanged, and the sentence was 
 commuted. One of them was a policeman of my dis- 
 trict. His name was Muldowney. The date of the 
 letter which was written by the secretary of the 
 Mullagh branch was two days before Mrs. Browne 
 received her letter. I believe it was December 26, 
 1880. Mrs. Browne gave me the letter and I returned it 
 to her afterwards. I have not asked her for it since. 
 I do not know whether she has it. The purport of the 
 letter was a request to Mrs. Browne to be kind enough 
 to reinstate the widow Kelly in the farm from which 
 sho had been evicted. The letter went on to say that 
 the widow Kelly had been in Mrs. Browne's employ- 
 ment for some time, and by reinstating this woman 
 Mrs. Browne would deserve considerable popularity. 
 It was an appeal on behalf of Mrs, Kelly. 
 
 District-Inspector Alan Bell, 
 
The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 217 
 
 The Attorney-General then proceeded to re-ex- 
 amine the witness, who said, — I know from the 
 sworn evidence at the trial that Muldowney, the 
 constable, was connected with the Land League 
 and with secret societies. No particular branch 
 of the League was mentioned. I think it was 
 in 1883 that I first heard of difficulties between Lord 
 Clanricarde and his tenants. I cannot say whether 
 there was any difficulty in my district or neighbourhood 
 between Lord Clanricarde and his tenants before 1885. 
 There was no regular combination against him before 
 that date. His land in my district was let at a very 
 low figure — half-a-crowu an acre. A regular combina- 
 tion commenced at the end of 1885 or beginning of 
 1886 in Craughwell. They took up a combination set 
 on foot in other parts of his property. This was in the 
 low-rented part. The places in my district where 
 there were Land League branches were very much 
 more disturbed than in places where there were not. 
 I have had to visit places every day where there were 
 branches, and not once in three weeks where there 
 were not. At that time Trench was always considered 
 to be a good landlord, and I have not heard that there 
 has been any difference latterly. I joined the force in 
 1879 ; but I went to Galway in 1880. I was engaged 
 in one eviction in 1879. There had been isolated 
 cases of eviction in my district before 1880, but no 
 general eviction campaign or anything of the sort. No 
 police assistance or protection was required for the 
 sheriff. It was in 1880 that necessity for a force in 
 large numbers for the protection of the sheriff began. 
 There was a branch of the Land League in those dis- 
 tricts where the sheriff had to be protected. I have 
 known cases of complaints of men paying their rent 
 behind the backs of others in my district. 
 
 Were there cases in which it was suggested that 
 outrages had occurred because people had paid their 
 rents ? — Certainly. 
 
 When did you first hear of that as a cause of oat- 
 rage ? — In the beginning of 1881 and the end of 1880. 
 
 Before that time had you ever heard of that as 
 being a cause of outrage in Ireland ? — No. 
 
 Sir C. RUS3ELL.— My Lords, I should like, with 
 your Lordships' permission, that the witness should 
 mention cases of outrage which, he says, are attribut- 
 able to that cause. 
 
 The witness. — In the case of Mr. Walter Joyce's 
 tenants the house was visited by a moonlighting party 
 the day after«they had paid their rents. 
 
 SlK C. Russell. — Is there any other case ? — Yes ; a 
 man named Riley had his ass houghed the day after 
 he had paid his rent. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Any more ? — Yes ; some of John 
 Lambert's tenants were injured for having paid their 
 rent. I cannot remember any more cases at this moment. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — In the case of Joyce, was 
 that a case of one tenant or of more ? — There were 
 four tenants. 
 
 The President. — What was your occupation before 
 
 you joined the force ? — I joined just after I had gradu- 
 ated at College, my Lord. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, I am told that Mr. 
 Ives, who was examined yesterday and partly cross- 
 examined, is in attendance, and perhaps it would be 
 convenient if his cross-examination was now finished. 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ives was then re-called, and his 
 cross-examination resumed by Sir 0. Russell. The 
 witness stated : — I went to Ireland in November, 1879, 
 with reference to the trials at Sligo of Davitt, Daly, and 
 Kelly. I do not think there was much talk about 
 famine until December, 1879. For a considerable part 
 of three years I travelled over Ireland and visited 
 Galway, Clare, Mayo, Cork, and Kerry. I took the 
 closest observation I could of the distress. Nearly 
 all my travelling was done after and during the spring of 
 1880. I always visited, wherever Iwent, the Catholic 
 and Protestant clergyman and the police, and sought 
 to get my information from the proper authorities. 
 There were five official funds, * the Duchess of Marl- 
 borough's, the Mansion-house, the New York Herald's, 
 the Canadian, and the Land League's. The New 
 York Herald Fund amounted to £70,000, the Land 
 League Fund to about £60,000, and the Canadian to 
 £20,000. The Duchess of Marlborough's Fund amounted 
 to £80,000. The official funds amounted to something 
 like £350, 000. Including the Mansion-house Fund, which 
 amounted to £130,000, and the American contributions 
 the entire relief amounted to £700,000. A large sum 
 of money was poured into the country. I should think 
 that there would have been deaths from actual want if 
 there had not been some money subscribed, particularly 
 in the west, along the seaboard ; but as there was 
 plenty of money provided deaths did not occur. I pub- 
 lished the result of my examination in the New York 
 Herald of Feb. 4, 1880, and the figures of the table were 
 furnished by the official committee at the Mansion-house, 
 and all the extracts are from the appeals of priests and 
 the local relief committees. I think my account was a 
 substantially correct statement of the case at tbit time. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell then proceeded to read the 
 account furnished by Mr. Ives to the New York Herald. 
 It spoke o,f the utter destitution and intense privation 
 that prevailed, and which were supported by unexagge- 
 rated and well authenticated figures ; 300,000 people 
 were slowly starving aud could only be kept alive by 
 superhuman efforts on the part of their fellow- 
 creatures. Some of them were living on one meal a 
 day of turnips and potatoes. There was a paragraph 
 in which opposition to the Duchess of Marlborough's 
 Fund was attributed to Mr. Parnell. If Mr. Parnell 
 were a true Irish patriot he would sink animosities, 
 and would become the champion in America of that 
 cause in which all the world was one — the 
 cause of charity. In Mayo there were 64,509 
 persons suffering distress, in Galway 43,260, in 
 Kerry 33,100, in Cork 23,896, in Clare 19,360. 
 In Cork the distress was indescribable, and in a month 
 there would be death from starvation. In Galway 
 
 District-Inspector Alan Bell. 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ives, 
 
218 
 
 The Special Commission, November' 7, 1888. 
 
 famine was inevitable ; distress was increasing. In 
 Kerry distress was increasing, clothing was wanted 
 for the school children ; while in Castleisland 2,500 
 persons were destitute, and distress was likely to in- 
 crease ; in Valentia clothing and seed were most 
 wanted, the distress was increasing, and only relief 
 works would prevent pauperism ; the landlords were 
 giving nothing. These were merely instances selected 
 from the report. 
 
 I think you yourself, when it was clear that there 
 was going to be this distress, thought it right to go 
 and see the Irish Secretary ? — Yes,I saw Mr. Lowther. 
 
 You urged upon him the state of things that existed 1 
 — No ; I asked him for information on the state of the 
 distress, and what the Government intended to do. 
 
 Did you ascertain whether they were going to do 
 anything ? — I went to ascertain matter for publication, 
 but I understood that Mr. Lowther did not wish that. 
 
 Did the Government realize the state of things that 
 existed ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I think this is going 
 rather far. 
 
 The President. — I understood that the witness went 
 there to get matter for publication, and Mr. Lowther 
 did not wish to give information in connexion with 
 that. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed. — As a matter of fact, 
 was anything done, as far as you know, except what 
 was done by charity ? — Nothing extraordinary out of 
 the line of Poor Law relief. 
 
 In your despatch you say that the land agitation was 
 subsiding, and that the people who had been interested 
 in it were devoting themselves to the relief of tho 
 distress ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — No ; I beg your pardon. 
 What he said was, " has hidden its head for the 
 moment." • 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I used the word " subsided." The 
 passage is — " and in the cause of humanity the land 
 agitation has hidden its head for the moment, the 
 agitators joining hands in the common cause." 
 
 Witness.— The Land League was a small thing then, 
 but they were certainly devoting themselves to getting 
 money for the poor at that time. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — You have had con- 
 versations on more than one occasion with Mr. 
 Parnell, Mr. Davitt, and Mr. Dillon ?— Yes, several 
 with Mr. Parnell. 
 
 My learned friend has read the account of your inter- 
 view with Mr. Parnell. Now, I ask you, is there any- 
 thing that Mr. Parnell ever said that suggested to you 
 any ground for the statement or charge that he was 
 relying upon crime to help his movement ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— With very great de- 
 ference, I eubmit that tho question should not 
 be put in that shape to the witness. If 
 my learned friend can prove a definite conversation 
 with Mr. Parnell, and asks tho witness to give i.n 
 account of it, there is no objection, but he cannot put 
 
 his whole case in the form of a compendious state- 
 ment. 
 
 The President. — I suppose that is the witness's 
 report of the conversations he had with Mr. Parnell ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — On one occasion. 
 
 The President. — On many occasions. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — It was the result of many conver- 
 sations. (To witness.) This interview on board tho 
 Scythia has appeared ; have you had other conversa- 
 tions also ? — Yes, before, not afterwards. 
 
 Did you learn from Mr.Parnell that he was relying— 
 
 The Attorney-General.— What did Mr. Pamell 
 say, please ? 
 
 The President.— I am trying to see what Sir 
 Charles is aiming at. Is the witness's report of the 
 conversation a complete statement of what Mr. 
 Parnell said ? 
 
 Sir 0. Russell. — I want more than that, my Lord. 
 I am willing to accept that report of the interview aa 
 a bond fide account. I am asking about other conver- 
 sations. (To witness.) What I want from you is this— 
 except reliance upon constitutional methods, has Mr. 
 Parnell ever suggested recourse to any other methods . 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I object to the question 
 in that form. 
 
 The President.— I think Sir Charles is entitled to 
 this. Was anything which passed between Mr. Parnell 
 and this gentleman inconsistent with the views which 
 Mr. Parnell has put forward here ? — No. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— What I want to get, and what I 
 should have thought I was entitled to get, is this— 
 whether at any time or in any form of words Mr. 
 Parnell in any way suggested his reliance on outrages. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— With the greatest defer- 
 ence, I submit that if there is any definite conversation 
 the witness can give the language used. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I am entitled to have that 
 negative. 
 
 The President. — That invites observations on some 
 of the passages in the conversation. (To witness.) 
 Have you given what you consider to be a full and 
 impartial statement of Mr. Parnell's conversation with 
 you ? — I have. 
 
 The President. — In other conversations with Mr. 
 Parnell were any statements made by him giving a 
 different character to the expression of his intentions ? 
 -No. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Did Mr. Parnell at any time, or 
 in any form of words, suggest a reliance upon or a 
 recourse to outrages for the furtherance of his political 
 objects ? — No ; all that I remember his saying is in 
 that interview. I never thought of asking such a 
 question, and I never did ask him. 
 
 Have you had conversations with Mr. Davitt on this 
 same question with reference to methods ? — I had an 
 interview with Mr. Davitt once in Sligo, when he was 
 on his trial there. He wrote it out for mo. 
 
 The Attorney-General.- What was the date of 
 that ?— It was in November, J 879. 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ires. 
 
The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 219 
 
 Me. Justice A. L. Smith.— What was Mr. Davitt 
 tried for ? 
 
 SIR C. Russell. — Making a speech at Gurteen. 
 
 The Attorney -General.— For inciting to violence 
 at Gurteen. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We only differ as to the descrip- 
 tion. (Laughter.) (To witness.) This is your account : — 
 " With respect to the case against him, he thought it 
 would fall to the ground, and that no jury would 
 convict him on the evidence. He believed thoroughly 
 in agitation as a means of relieving the necessities of 
 the people, and he intended to continue in spite of the 
 Government. He knew from his contact with the class 
 who were dependent on the cultivation of the land 
 that men lived on wretched food, and in miserable and 
 unhealthy hovels, who by their labour and moral conduct 
 deserved a better existence. On the other hand, the 
 landlords enjoyed the pleasures of life. Such a disparity 
 necessarily created the greatest discontent against 
 those responsible for this glaring inequality. From 
 this crime and evils had sprung in the past, and 
 would in the future. He considered that great ad- 
 vantage would accrue to the agitation from his trial, 
 because it was a great blunder on the part of the land- 
 lords, who were implicated in it, as they had 
 flooded the Castle with applications for his arrest. 
 The landlords had never had to encounter such 
 a spirit of resistance as they had since this agitation 
 began." 
 
 I believe Mr. Davitt did not place as much reliance 
 upon Parliamentary agitation as Mr. Farnell ? — I 
 believe not. 
 
 Did you ever come across a man named Scrab 
 Nally '—Yes. 
 
 Will you describe him ? — He was a drunkard, that is 
 all. 
 
 As far as you can judge, has he weight with any 
 class, or is he treated simply as a drunken clown ?— 
 I have seen him at a great many meetings, and he was 
 always very full. (Laughter.) 
 
 Full of whisky ?— Yes. (Laughter.) Ho generally 
 spoke at the end of meetings. 
 
 Did yon ever see him make a speech to the Govern- 
 ment reporter after a meeting ? — I do not know. 
 
 Was he treated as a serious person? — I do not think so. 
 
 Examined by Mr. Reid. — Mr. Dillon went to America 
 with Mr. Parnell. Did you have any conversations with 
 him as well as Mr. Parnell on the voyage ? — Yes. 
 
 Is the substance of those conversations contained in 
 that report ? — No ; it was published next day. 
 
 Has the question of crime and outrage ever come up 
 between yon and Mr. Dillon P — I do not think so. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — The first two paragraphs of the report in 
 the Kcw York Herald are chiefly descriptive of Mr. 
 Dillon ; I will commence at the third. The heading of 
 the article is " Mr. Parnell's Lieutenant," and it 
 runs as follows :— 
 
 " With modesty he protested that Mr. Parnell only 
 was authorized to speak with regard to the aims of 
 their mission. He did not adopt the more extreme 
 views with regard to the solution of the land question, 
 though he regarded landlordism as monstrous and hate- 
 ful. Speaking of the object of his visit to America, 
 
 the said, We feel it a bitter humiliation to parade 
 before America the poverty of our nation. I wish it to 
 bo clearly understood that if Ireland had the control 
 of her own resources she would neither ask nor require 
 any assistance in this difficulty. The charity at pre- 
 sent being collected in England wilL, I consider, be 
 worse than useless. It will be miserably inadequate to 
 meet the emergency, will be badly administered, and 
 is, I believe, serving as a pretext for covering Ire- 
 land with every kind of insult as a nation of paupers. 
 
 " Correspondent. — What should the Government have 
 done, Mr. Dillon ? 
 
 " Mr. Dillon, — By putting it in the power of Ire- 
 land six months ago to provide, out of her own re- 
 sources, against the distress, which was then clearly 
 foreseen, England would have done more to avert the 
 calamity than if she were now to subscribe a million 
 of money for distribution among the people. 
 
 " Correspondent. — The agitation at least deserves 
 credit for making known the distress that exists in 
 Ireland, does it not ? 
 
 " Mr. Dillon. — It certainly warned the Government 
 in ample time, but the public was long in grasping the 
 true state of the case. The subject of distress was 
 scoffed at until a month or two ago, but now it is 
 thoroughly recognized. The amount of distress was 
 brought before Parliament on two notable occasions 
 last April, once by Mr. Parnell, but it was regarded as 
 an obstructionist trick. But we knew that such distress 
 was certain to ensue, and we started an agitation in 
 order to force the knowledge of it upon the Govern- 
 ment, and to attack the source of it — landlordism. 
 The Government refused attention to the state of the 
 people until the landlords acknowledged the distress 
 and special correspondents of some newspapers, who 
 were sent to Ireland, made the geueral public aware 
 of the real condition of affairs. 
 
 ** Correspondent. — I understand that you and Mr. 
 Parnell are willing to take charge of any American 
 funds for the distress in Ireland that may be offered ? 
 
 " Mr. Dillon. — For my own part, I do not intend to 
 ask for alms for Ireland. At the same time I think it 
 right to say that we are in a position, by means of the 
 organization of the Land League, to distribute money 
 more effectually to the distressed districts than aDy 
 other body I know of, and if the Americans in their 
 generosity should wish to intrust funds to us for that 
 purpose, I need hardly say no exertions would be 
 spared on our part to secure the greatest possible 
 results. 
 
 " Correspondent. — What form do you think assistance 
 to Ireland should take, Mr. Dillon ? 
 
 " Mr. Dillon. — Money, by all means. The approach- 
 ing partial famine in Ireland will not be a famine of 
 food, but of money. I saw in tho Herald a few weeks 
 ago a letter from some generous person proposing to 
 send a ship-load of food to Ireland every week. Such 
 a suggestion arises from complete misapprehension of 
 the state of the country. There is plenty of food, 
 but the people have no money to buy it with. It 
 was the same in this respeot in the famine of 1847. 
 £17,000 worth of food left Ireland during the famine 
 year, and in spite of the distress this £20,000 worth 
 will probably be exported. What the people want is 
 money to buy food with. I have no hesitation in saying 
 that £100 judiciously distributed would do more good 
 than £300 worth of food poured into the country. We 
 can easily arrange with local traders to distribute 
 meal at cost price, and as these are the usual depdts 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ires. 
 
220 
 
 The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 of supply for the people in the distressed districts they 
 are best situated to deal with them. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Do you think with your colleagues 
 that landlordism in Ireland should be abolished '/ 
 
 " Mr. Dillon. —I think it would be a pity to see 
 the landlords exterminated. They are an educated and 
 refined class, and are in many ways of benefit to the 
 community. But it has always been the misfortune of 
 the privileged class to be impervious to reason and to 
 refuse to yield to compromise. It was so in the 
 Southern States of America. The slaves were bound to 
 go, and if the slave-owners had only recognized this 
 they might have been amply compensated for the loss 
 and avoided ruin. 
 
 " Correspondent. — Are there not very few of the 
 larger and more influential farmers connected with your 
 movement ? 
 
 "Mr. Dillon. — We do not want the large farmers. 
 Their interests are not the interests of the small 
 tenants, and there is no sympathy between the two 
 classes. But if they did favour our movement they 
 would be free to join us. A landlord can evict a big 
 farmer without much trouble, and they would so evict 
 without hesitation in order to make an example ; but 
 the landlords cannot evict a determined body of small 
 tenants without much difficulty. In the ease of 
 Dempsey, recently evicted at Balla, and with his nine 
 children thrown out by the roadside, what a storm has 
 been raised by it ! The moral effect of such an affair 
 is very great. 
 
 " Correspondent. — What would be the effect of a 
 general resistance to the payment of rent ? 
 
 " Mr. Dillon. — The tenants must win in most cases, 
 except by enormous cost. For instance, on Lord 
 Dillon's estate there are 3,600 tenants who do not pay 
 over £4 a year rent. If these tenants should combine 
 and strike, what would the landlord do ? It would 
 take him two years to evict them all, and it would 
 cost him an enormous sum as well. He would be 
 losing his rental of £27,000 a year during that time. 
 These 3,600 tenants represent probably 10,000 per- 
 sons, and it would be impossible to accommodate them 
 in the poor house ; while if they were assisted to 
 emigrate a further great sum would be involved — in 
 fact, it would be impossible to evict under such cir- 
 cumstances. But I have never advised such a strike. 
 
 "Correspondent. — If the truth were known, do you not 
 think the landlords are at preseat as distressed as the 
 tenants ? 
 
 " Mr. Dillon. — They are doubtless in a bad state. For 
 instance, there is one property owner in Sligo, and he 
 is only one of a very large number in the same diffi- 
 culty, whose rental is about £40,000 a year, but who, 
 in consequence of encumbrances, charges, &c, only gets 
 from the estate about £10,000. The encumbrances 
 have to be paid in any circumstances, so that if he is 
 asked and consents to reduce his rents 25 per cent., he 
 absolutely has nothing left. His income is wiped out. 
 " Correspondent. — What do you think is the per- 
 centage of landlords who charge exorbitant rents ? 
 
 " Mr. Dillon. — It.is not possible to tell exactly ; but 
 oven if nine-tenths of the landlords aro not rack- 
 renters, that is no defence of the land system. A 
 majority of the Southern slave-owners were fair, 
 hnmane men ; but it is not right that any man should 
 hold such a power over another as a slave-owner did 
 over the negroes, or as the landlord of Ireland does over 
 the tenants. But too much credit should not be given 
 io landlords for fair treatment of their tenants, 
 Many of them are good so long as their absolutism is 
 
 recognized and the tenant is properly slavish ; but when 
 they are crossed they treat their tenants but badly. 
 
 "Correspondent. — There has been a great change in 
 the demeanour of the tenant towards his landlord since 
 the agitation began, has there not ? 
 
 "Mr. Dillon.— You would hardly believe the change 
 that has come over the tenant within a few months. 
 The utter slavishness of tenants towards the landlords, 
 the agents, and even the very bailiffs, was formerly 
 humiliating to see. It was worse in times of pro- 
 sperity than at others, because the tenants knew the 
 landlords could then easily let their holdings without 
 trouble, and did not care whether the tenants went or 
 stayed ; but now they understood their true relation to 
 the land, and they feel that the landlord wants to keep 
 them. A bailiff recently came into an hotel in the West 
 of Ireland and ordered some liquor. He remarked to a 
 friend, ' When I used to come to this town there 
 were half a dozen fighting to see who should pay for 
 my whisky, but now I walk: through the town and 
 not a soul pays any attention to me,' and so it is 
 throughout that part of the country." 
 
 Ee-examined by the Attorney-Genebax.— Just 
 one word about this statement you published on 
 February 4. You told me, I think, that you arrived in 
 America on January 1 ? — Yes. 
 
 How long were you in America ? — Twelve days, I think. 
 
 You were then telegraphed for back ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you arrive in England or Ireland ? — About 
 ten days before that was published. 
 
 As you told Sir Charles Russell this statement was 
 taken entirely from applications for money in the 
 various districts ? — The figures and the remarks were 
 taken from that source. 
 
 The only thing that is yours is the summary ? — That 
 is all. 
 
 In what districts did you yourself personally verify 
 any of the statements ? — I did not go anywhere to 
 verify the statements. 
 
 Where did you yourself see any general distress, if 
 anywhere ? — All over the western counties. 
 
 Was any part particularly bad ? You mentioned the 
 islands. Was there great distress in the islands of the 
 west ? — There was, great distress. I visited nearly all 
 the islands. I was three weeks in a gunboat. 
 
 As far as you saw was tho distress worse in the 
 islands you visited than in any other place you went 
 to ? — I think it was rather, but it was bad all along 
 the line of coast. It was almost equally bad in Clifden 
 and Conncmara. 
 
 You have been asked about this interview 
 with Mr. Dillon. I understood you to say the other 
 day, that the memorandum you published was 
 corrected before publication by Mr. Parnell ? — Yes. 
 
 I also understood you to say that Mr. Dillon was 
 present at the time some corrections were discussed ? — 
 He was present all the time. 
 
 I notice in this statement just read, that Mr. Dillon 
 said that Mr. Parnell was the person to speak in 
 America on behalf of the programme of the party ?— 
 I believe that was so. 
 
 Only one question as to the Sligo interview with 
 Mr. Davitt. On November 29 you were at Sligo 
 
 Mr. Albert Chester Ives. 
 
The Special Commission, November 7, 1888. 
 
 221 
 
 and Mr. Davitt was on his trial. I gather that this 
 statement was the result of an interview you had 
 with Mr. Davitt ? — It was absolutely written by Mr. 
 Davitt. I gave him a series of questions in Court to 
 which he wrote answers. 
 
 Now about Sorab Nally. About how many meet- 
 ings did you hear him speak at ? — I do not think I 
 heard him speak more than two or three times, but I 
 saw him at a great many meetings. 
 
 When these speeches were made,did you ever notice 
 any other persons on the platform at the time ? — Yes. 
 
 Were his speeches cheered ? — Yes, certainly. 
 
 What I want to know is, did you ever hear aDy one 
 on the platform repudiate or rebuke Mr. Nally for the 
 speeches he made ? — No. 
 
 Do you remember any occasion on which any person 
 on the platform repudiated his words ?— No, I do not 
 think so. 
 
 William Charleton was next called and examined by 
 Mr. Atkinson. He said : — I am a sergeant in the 
 Royal Irish Constabulary. 1 was stationed at 
 Ardrahan, in county Gal way, about four months before 
 the month of June, J 882, and have continued there 
 since. I knew Mr. Walter Bourke. I had not seen 
 Corporal Wallace until I saw him dead, after he was 
 shot. I remember the day on which I saw him. A 
 message from Mr. Taylor had been brought to the 
 barrack about 3 o'clock in the afternoon saying I was 
 wanted quickly. I went as fast as I could, taking 
 the road across the fields. I met Mr. Taylor on the 
 way. When I got to the road where Mr. Taylor 
 told me to go, I found the bodies of Mr. Bourke 
 and Corporal Wallace. . They had both been shot. 
 The road at the spot where the murder was committed 
 is bounded by walls, which I examined. People assembled 
 while the bodies were lying there, and they walked 
 backwards and forwards through the blood of the dead. 
 About 30 people were present, almost all of whom I 
 knew. Sgme of them were members of the local Land 
 League. The crowd gave me no assistance in removing 
 the bodies. I had to take up the body of Corporal 
 Wallace with my own hands, and place it on the grass 
 by the side of Mr. Bourke. The loopholes in the walls 
 have been filled up from time to time, and have 
 then been cleared. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid.— You say that some of 
 these men walked through the blood. Were they 
 walking in that direction, or did they walk through it 
 deliberately ?— They were walking round about where 
 the bodies lay and in the blood of the dead. 
 
 Did they walk in the blood deliberately and osten- 
 tatiously ? — I believe it was doneto show disrespect to 
 the dead. I cautioned them and said that if they 
 had any decency they would not do it. 
 
 Who were the men ?— 'One of them was Martin 
 Kane. He was a member of the Land League. There 
 were other young men, but I did not take much notice 
 of them at the time on account of the excitement. 
 
 Can you give me any other name ? — No, I cannot 
 ;0w. I cannot remember. 
 
 Head Constable James Preston, examined by Mr. 
 Murphy, deposed. — In December, 1880, I was in 
 charge of the Maam district. I was there from 
 January 24, 1879. In that year the country was very 
 quiet. At the end of 1880 things were hot. Land 
 League branches had been established in the mean- 
 time. There was a Mr. Robinson, who had in his 
 employment a man named Armstrong. Kyne had 
 a son working with Armstrong. On December 29, 
 1880, John Kyne, the boy's father, brought Arm- 
 strong the following letter : — " You are hereby re- 
 quired to take your son John, which you have 
 working for Armstrong, from him and I will feel 
 very thankful to you. If you do not take my 
 advice I will tear your old hide with slugs. This was 
 written by orders of the very — — that nailed 
 Lord Mountmorres." Processes were served on some 
 tenants before the letter was written. Before the 
 service of the processes a large body of men marched 
 up and down the road, carrying sticks, and opposite 
 the house of Mrs. Mallet called for cheers for the 
 occupant. Mrs. Mallet was looked upon as a very 
 strong supporter of the Land League. A man named 
 Thomas Joyce was in her employment, and I arrested 
 him for setting fire to an ass belonging to John Kyne. 
 When I saw the animal it was a charred, corrupt mass. 
 The man was tried and convicted for the offence. Mr. 
 Conolly defended him, and Father Conway seemed to 
 be instructing Conolly. A man named Lowry also 
 appeared to be instructing Conolly. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD. — Mr. Conolly is a 
 solicitor who practises in the neighbourhood. I could 
 not say that he defended many people, but he was 
 employed in the court on other occasions. 
 
 Were you in Mr. Bell's district ?— No. 
 
 The President. — The case which Mr. Bell gave was 
 that of a donkey that had its leg cut. This is a case 
 of burning, you know. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — This is what is called Joyce's 
 country P — Yes, further north. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — What was the condition of the 
 people when you went there in January, 1879 ? — They 
 were then very quiet. They were well-to-do. 
 
 Did things become better or worse for them up to 
 1880 ? — They were much in the same state. Relief 
 works were got up. 
 
 Were the people better off ?— I would not say they 
 were better. 
 
 If they were a thriving, well-to-do population, why 
 should they require relief ?— They were fairly well-to- 
 do. 
 
 Why, then, should they require relief ?— Well, I know 
 people 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— Ah, I see 
 
 The Attorney-General and Mr. Murphy simultane- 
 ously. — Let him finish, please. 
 
 Sergeant William Charleton. 
 
 Head Constable James Preston. 
 
222 
 
 The Special Commission, November 7, 188S. 
 
 The President. — He had not finished his answer 
 when you interrupted him, Mr. Lockwood. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — 1 think my learned friends with 
 their startling chorus of interruption are responsible. 
 
 The President. — Your words came first. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Well, you said something about the 
 people and relief works ? — I said that there were people 
 getting relief who did not require it. That was not 
 part of the scheme of relief works. There were a 
 number of people working on roads that were 
 begun about the place. When I went there in 
 1879 the people were very well-to-do. Speaking 
 generally, I should say they were thriving and 
 well-to-do people. As time went on, coming 
 to February, 1880, I should say the relief works 
 and the relief given improved their provision. 
 Numbers of them did not require the relief they 
 obtained. I heard of several giving their relief — the 
 Indian meal — to their cattle. My district is about 15 
 miles one way, by 10 another. The district was a 
 thinly populated one. I should say there were about 
 3,000 people in it. 
 
 Of that 3,000, how many were obtaining relief in one 
 form or another ? — Eeally I could not say. I know 
 that as many as got it, took it. (Laughter.) 
 
 Can you suggest any way in which a man could get 
 it without taking it ? — As many as could get it, took 
 jt. There were local agents established for the purpose 
 of district relief. In this district Lord Mountmorres 
 was one in the beginning ; the Rev. Father Conway 
 was another ; the Rev. Father Gandy was another on 
 the Leenane side. That is part of Connemara ; I do 
 not speak of anything outside my district. Portions 
 of my district were very well-to-do ; that is my opinion 
 of the district generally. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Murphy. — Father Conway was 
 a man of wonderful influence; the clergy of the locality 
 had nothing like the influence that Father Conway 
 had. Up to the end of 1879 and the beginning of 1880 
 the district was remarkably quiet. 
 
 Sergeant Williams, examined by Mr. Murphy, 
 said, — I know. Mr. Robinson. He is a very old man 
 and unable to travel. I was stationed at Ronnastone, 
 in county Galway. A man named Armstrong, who was 
 working for Mr. Robinson, told me that he was boy- 
 cotted, and also a boy named Kyne. I was told to pro- 
 tect Robinson when he went about. I remember on the 
 26th of August going from Maam Hotel with Mr. 
 Robinson, when he was going to collect his rents, on 
 a car. He had to pass a lonely part of the mountain 
 road near Dooletter, and in passing across that mountain 
 he was fired at by some one who was lying in wait. 
 There was a wall with a loophole in it, and it was 
 through the loophole that he was fired at. He was not 
 hit. There was another policeman with me. We got off 
 the car and more shots were fired, but when they saw 
 us facing them two men got up and ran away. After 
 this it was found necessary to increase the protection 
 to four constables. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My Lords, there will be 
 further evidence about Robinson's case, which I am 
 not able to call to-day. Your Lordships will hear more 
 of that case before the end of this inquiry. 
 
 Mr. John Kennedy Burke was then called and ex- 
 amined by Mr. ATKlNSON.and said : — I am a magistrate, 
 residing near Woodford, county Galway. I know the 
 Rev. Mr. Egan. In January, 1887, he was curate of the 
 parish in which I live. I believe he was a member of 
 the Land League. I did not see him attend 
 meetings of the Land League. I know Mr. 
 John Roche, and I know he is the secretary of 
 the Land League ; but I never saw him act as 
 secretary. On January 9, 1887, Mr. Egan came to me. 
 He referred to a former letter which I had received 
 from Father Coen. He hoped that I would attend in 
 the interests of Mr. Roche, and he referred to the in- 
 tended prosecution and said it was a mere farce, got 
 up by the police for spite ; that no magistrate of any 
 conscience could convict, but the people expected that 
 I would attend. I said that there were not cordial 
 relations between me and Mr. Roche, and if I sat on 
 the bench I would not interfere in the case. As he 
 was going away he said that the people expected that 
 I would sit, and that he would be very sorry if I got 
 into any difficulty. I took that to mean that he would 
 be sorry that I should be boycotted. I did not go to 
 the sessions. I told Father Egan that I would not 
 attend, that I had business of my own, and that if I got 
 into any difficulty I would live as long as I could, and 
 I could do nothing more. (Laughter.) On the follow- 
 ing Sunday my labourers left my employment ; they 
 were called up before the League. I was not present 
 at the meeting. I asked them their reasons individu- 
 ally, and they gave various excuses. They probably 
 knew that I would be boycotted, and were afraid. 
 
 Did they all leave ? — All but two ; then two came 
 back after a while. 
 
 How many servants left you ? — Three regular men 
 (laughter) ; several of the men were only occasional 
 workers for me. 
 
 Were you able to get any groceries in the village ?— 
 No, nor in Woodford. I could not get my horses shod 
 or get any provisions. The horses were shod privately 
 by a blacksmith. When I wanted a plough mended 
 the smith came by night, and the part of the plough 
 was left in a bush at night when repaired. The boy- 
 cotting lasted for two weeks. 
 
 Were you under police protection ? — No. The house 
 was. (Laughter.) 
 
 CrosB-examined by Mr. HARRINGTON. — I believe you 
 are a connexion of Mr. John Roche ? — No, I don't 
 know that I am. (Laughter.) 
 
 Have you a sister married in county Galway ? — Yes, 
 I believe so. (Laughter.) 
 
 You believe so ? — Well, it is only a belief. 
 
 Only a belief ? Don't you know your sister is 
 married ? — I have not the slightest doubt that she is 
 married, but not with my knowledge. 
 
 Sergeant Williams. 
 
 Mr. John Kenned? Burke. 
 
The Special Commission. November 7 and 8, 1888. 
 
 223 
 
 Did you hear she was married ? — Yes, from herself. 
 
 To whom was she married ? — To John Roche's 
 brother-in-law. 
 
 Is that no connexion? — Well, just as you take it, 
 (Laughter.) I believe John Roche's wife is connected 
 with Father Egan. She is his second cousin. I never 
 boycotted John Roche. 
 
 Did you withdraw your custom from him ? — Let me 
 see. I think I paid my last account for grinding corn 
 in 1881, before there was any Land League in Wood- 
 ford. I gave up Roche's custom because when the boy 
 went there a couple of evenings, and there was a mis- 
 take about the flour. The next lot was sent up to 
 Macdermott's mill, and between that time there was 
 some little dispute about Poor Law business. 
 
 Now listen to me. Did you withdraw your custom 
 from Roche because of the action, he took at the Poor 
 Law election ? — No ; it was before that ; as a matter of 
 fact it was about nothing. 
 
 Did you apply to any people to shoe your horses ? — 
 i*es, several. 
 
 Who were they ? — I do not think it would be fair. 
 
 Who were they ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lord, the witness 
 says that it would not be fair to answer that question ; 
 it might injure the persons named. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— We are entitled to know whether 
 the statement is true that people refused to shoe his 
 horses. 
 
 The President. — He says that it will expose these 
 people to danger. That is a reason which I shall con- 
 sider. • 
 
 Mr. Harrington. — Surely if they refused it cannot 
 expose them to danger to mention their names ? 
 
 Witness. — Some of them refused openly. 
 
 Well, who refused openly ? — A man named Conroy, 
 and Hough in Portumna, and Mannion. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Tho horses name back 
 unshod ? — Yes, 
 
 The Commissioners adjourned at five minutes past 
 4 o'clock. 
 
 TRUliSDAY, NOVEMBER 8. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 11th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 The Commissioners having taken their seats, the 
 examination of witnesses was resumed. 
 
 Thomas Huddy, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said : — 
 My father was named Joseph Huddy. He followed 
 the business of a bailiff on the estate of Lord Ardilaun. 
 He had been a bailiff for 20 years. 
 
 Had he been on good terms with his neighbours up 
 to 1880 ? — Yes ; he continued on good terms up to 
 1882. 
 
 Do you remember on the night of January 2, 1882, 
 seeing him with a number of ejectment processes ? — I 
 do. I read some of them. We lived in county Mayoj 
 by the side of Lough Mask. One of the ejectments 
 
 was for a man named Higgins, but I do not remember 
 whether another was for Flynn. 
 
 Do you recollect your father leaving home on 
 January 3 'i — Yes. 
 
 Did any one accompany him ? — Hi» nephew John. 
 
 Did they take these processes with them ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they ever return 'i — No. 
 
 Was any report made to you about them on the after- 
 noon of that day ? — There was. 
 
 In consequence of that report did you go in search 
 of them ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you able to find them ? — No. 
 
 Did you make every inquiry possible in the dis- 
 trict ? — I was out day and night for three weeks, but 
 neither from man, woman, nor 'child could I get any 
 information about them. The population of the dis- 
 trict speak Irish, and I made inquiries in Irish. 
 
 Did you afterwards see the bodies of Joseph 
 Huddy and John Huddy ? — I did, on Friday, January 
 27, 1882. Each was wounded upon the head. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I had been 
 bailiff to Lord Ardilaun for 20 years. 
 
 I thought Lord Ardilaun had only purchased the land 
 a few years before ? — Be made several purchases of 
 land. 
 
 Were these processes for tenants of Lord Ardilaun 
 or other landlords ? — For tenants of Lord Ardilaun. 
 
 Had your father been very busy serving processes ?— 
 He had been serving them on the previous day. 
 
 He had a number to serve ? — Yes. 
 
 Mathias Kerrigan was sworn, and gave his evidence 
 in Irish through an interpreter. 
 
 Examined by Mr. Atkinson, he said, — I live in 
 county Galway. I know Tom Higgins. I know Flynn, 
 who lived near me. 
 
 Did you go to a Land League meeting in company 
 with Flynn ?— I did not go to the meeting, but I went 
 to Clonbar one day and saw them. I believe Flynn 
 was a member of the Clonbur Land League. I do not 
 know at what time that visit took place. 
 
 Do you remember the day of the Huddys' murder ? — I 
 remember that it was after Christmas. I am not sure 
 whether it was before that that I paid the visit to 
 Clonbur with Flynn, but I believe so. 
 
 Did you pay any money to Flynn ?— I gave him 6d. 
 on one occasion. He was collecting for the Land 
 League. 
 
 Mr. Harrington.— May I ask the interpreter not to 
 suggest answers to the witness, in addition to asking 
 the question put by counsel ? 
 
 The Interpreter. — I was not doing so, and I am 
 sworn. 
 
 Mr. Harrington.— I happen to know Irish, and I 
 heard him suggest that the money was for the League. 
 
 The President.— This must be done in regular form. 
 If you throw doubt upon the correctness of the in- 
 terpreter you must have another interpreter here. 
 
 Mr. Harrington.— I only spoke with the view of 
 
 Thomas Huddy. 
 
 Mathias Kerrigan. 
 
224 
 
 The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 asking the interpreter not to ask questions except 
 those put to him. 
 
 The President.— Your observations should have been 
 addressed to the Court. 
 Mr. Harrington.— They were, my Lord. 
 The President.— They did not appear to me to be 
 addressed to the Court. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I think they were addressed to the 
 Court. Perhaps your Lordships would ask the 
 interpreter only to ask questions. 
 The President.— He has heard what I say. 
 Examination continued. — What was the 6d. for that 
 was paid to Flynn ?— He collected for the Land 
 League. 
 
 Did you become a member of the Land League your- 
 self ? — No, I only took a look at them standing in 
 the streets of Fairhill. 
 
 Was there a meeting going on? — People were going 
 backwards and forwards. There was talk, but I do 
 not know who were the speakers. I do not remember 
 the day of the month ; but one morning in January 
 I saw John Joseph Huddy and John Huddy. It 
 was the morning when they came to the village. 
 I did not see them go to the house where Higgins 
 lived, but they were close to my own house. 
 I saw them being killed by Pat Higgins and Tom 
 Higgins and Michael Flynn. They killed them with 
 sticks, but Pat Higgins hit one of them on the back 
 of the head with a stone. He fell against the wall. 
 Tom Higgins then came and put some shots in 
 them. They carried the bodies away with them to 
 the water. I do not know what they did with them 
 then. I did not see their bodies afterwards taken up ; 
 I was in gaol at the time. I was charged with this 
 murder myself, and I was in gaol nine months. I was 
 afterwards discharged when I gave the names of 
 those who were charged. I was discharged from gaol 
 before I was examined in the Court. The people of 
 the country knew I gave evidence. As I was coming 
 out of the gaol I received a trifle of money. I am not 
 sure whether the sum was three or four pounds. It 
 was given to me just when leaving gaol. I do not 
 know who gave it to me. It was not a policeman ; I 
 could not say if it was a countryman or a farmer. He 
 did not say what he gave it to me for. After my 
 being examined there was a change in the conduct of 
 the people towards me. I do not know except by 
 hearsay what boycotting is. I know it is bad. 
 
 What was the change in the conduct of the neigh- 
 bours towards you ? — If I send my cattle to the fair 
 or my pigs to the market, won't I know then ? 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 What was done to them ? — Nothing was done to 
 them ; I could sell them, but very badly. 
 
 Can you get your food where you got it formerly ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did the people shout at you ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell (to Mr. Atkinson).— Don't lead. 
 
 What change did you observe in the conduct of the 
 
 people towards you ? — The gentlemen and the world 
 know. 
 
 Tell what it was. — I was one day in Cong when they 
 beat me. 
 
 Are the police protecting you ? — Yes, and from that 
 day to this. They began to protect me when I left 
 the Galway Gaol. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Your Lordships 
 probably know the fact ; but I may just ask him 
 whether these men were convicted and hanged ? — They 
 were. 
 
 How soon after the murders were you taken into 
 custody ? — The very night they were killed. I was in 
 gaol nine months. 
 
 The President. — I understand you to say that you 
 received money as you came out of gaol. Did you 
 receive it inside or outside the gaol ? — It was inside 
 the gate, my Lord, that I received the money. 
 
 Was it from somebody you had seen before leaving 
 the gaol ? — I did not see any one I knew in the gaol. 
 
 What I want to know is, whether it was from some 
 officer of the gaol or from somebody outside the gaol 
 that you received the money ? — I could not tell who it 
 was, no more than any gentleman in this house, except 
 I saw him. 
 
 Bridget Kerrigan, wife of the last witness, 
 who was also interrogated through an interpreter, 
 was next examined by Mr. Atkinson. She said :— 
 I remember the day my husband was arrested, 
 but I cannot tell the night. Some time after 
 that I got a letter from Mrs. Keating. He had been 
 in gaol a good while when I received that letter. 
 After I got the letter I went into the town of Galway. 
 I saw Mrs. Keating there. I do not know that I had 
 ever seen her before. She was speaking to a girl and 
 the girl was speaking to me. The girl was inter- 
 preting. 
 
 Did Mrs. Keating send you any money ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Surely, my Lords, this is hardly 
 relevant. 
 
 The President.— As far as it goes I do not see its 
 relevancy. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson.— We shall prove presently, my Lord, 
 who Mrs. Keating was and the position she occupied. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— We ought certainly to have had 
 notice of this. 
 
 Examination resumed. — Mrs. Keating gave me £4 at 
 that time. She gave it to me without saying anything. 
 She sent me £2 on another occasion in a letter to 
 Cahill. I got the money contained in the letter at the 
 post-office. I never saw Mrs. Keating again after my 
 husband was discharged. Mrs. Keating has never given 
 me any money since. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— My Lords, I wish to make clear 
 this point. Perhaps my learned friends will correct 
 me if I am wrong, but I think I am right in saying 
 that originally the last witness was arrested as a 
 
 fispect under Mr. Forster's Protection of Person and 
 roperty Act. 
 
 Mathias Kerrigan. 
 
 Bridget Kerrigan. 
 
The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 225 
 
 The Attorney-General. — No, niy Lord, that is not 
 so. He was arrested on the charge of the murder of 
 the Huddys. 
 
 The President. — He said so himself. I was relying 
 on the interpreter, who said the witness was arrested 
 immediately after the murder. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The interpreter may very well 
 have understood it so, but I must call your Lordships' 
 attention to the fact that he was arrested as a suspect 
 under Mr. Forster's Act. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — All I can say is that the 
 witness stated what was correct. We shall be able to 
 prove that he was arrested on the charge of the mur- 
 der of the Huddys. 
 
 The President. — That is what he said and that is 
 how the evidence stands. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have a return here, my Lords, 
 drawn up at the time Mr. Forster's Act was in force. 
 It is a list of suspects, and I find that the witness is 
 No. 757 in that list. His name appears and his resi- 
 dence is given as Clonbur and the date of his arrest as 
 February 21 and the date of release March 20. Your 
 Lordships will see that something will turn upon this 
 later. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We shall prove by the 
 evidence we shall call that, as the witness stated, he 
 was arrested and charged with the murder — whether he 
 was in custody afterwards or not. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am not disputing the fact that 
 he was arrested, because he was suspected of the 
 murder. 
 
 The President. — He was arrested, according to the 
 return, in February and discharged in March. If that 
 be so, it is evident he was taken into custody again, 
 because he says he was in gaol nine months. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — That return only speaks of 
 his arrest in February, six weeks after the murder. He 
 was arrested the day after the murder, and the evi- 
 dence will show that he was arrested on the charge 
 of the murder the day after, if not the very day on 
 which it took place. 
 
 Sir C. Rossell. — I do not want to discuss the 
 matter. 
 
 The President. — The two things are quite consistent. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes, but it is quite clear he cannot 
 have been in custody nine months on that charge with- 
 out examination. 
 
 The President.— The probability is that he was 
 arrested on suspicion of the murder and detained under 
 the Act. 
 
 SIR C. Russell (to witness). — Was your husband 
 arrested as a suspect ? — No ; he was in for the 
 murder. 
 
 Michael Rudden, examined by Mr. ATKINSON. — I 
 am a sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary. I 
 arrested Michael Kerrigan on the morning of the day 
 after the murder. I charged him with the murder of 
 the Huddys. He was kept in custody, for about six 
 
 Michael Rudden. 
 
 weeks on that charge. He was then re-arrested under 
 the Act. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. RUSSELL, — I was stationed 
 during 1881 and 1882 in the West Riding of Galway. 
 I was there in 1880. I was stationed in Clonbur in 
 1880 and 1881. 
 
 I do not suppose you know the exact figures I am 
 going to quote, but tell me as near as you can. 
 Between January, 1880, and June, 1880, had there been 
 employed in protecting process servers 107 officers of 
 the constabulary and 3,300 men ; and were there 16 
 officers and 626 men engaged in carrying out actual 
 evictions ? — I cannot say exactly the number, but I 
 know there was a large number of police employed in 
 that way. 
 
 Were there some 40 or 50 cases of process serving 
 and some 12 evictions ? — I could not say exactly. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Atkinson. — I scarcely ever 
 knew it to be necessary to protect process servers up 
 to 1880. 
 
 David King, examined by Mr. Atkinson. — I am a 
 sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary. I know 
 Mrs. Keating. She lived in Galway. I never saw her 
 attend meetings. She used to be head of the Ladies' 
 Land League in Galway. 
 
 Did you see her on any occasion giving money to 
 prisoners, or persons who had been in custody and were 
 discharged ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I say at once, my Lords, that 
 there is no doubt she did. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I know there? 
 were some 1,000 persons arrested under Mr. Forster's 
 Act and that subscriptions were got up for the pri« 
 soners. There was support from the outside. I know 
 the subscription list was an open and public matter. 
 
 Of these 1,000 persons who were arrested were any 
 brought to trial that you know of ? — I cannot say that 
 they were. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — These suspects got 
 money from their friends in order to live more com- 
 fortably in prison. They were supplied from the out- 
 side. 
 
 Is it not the case that they were at liberty, if they 
 thought proper, not to accept the better living, but to 
 live on the prison fare, so that their families might 
 get the money ? — Those who were not supplied from 
 the outside in gaol usually got £1 a week in lieu of 
 support, 
 
 Patrick Bolger, examined by Mr. Murphy.— I 
 am a constable, and I was on duty at Ahascragh, in 
 Galway, at the end of 1879 and the beginning of 1880. 
 I remained there until the 3d of April, 1886. 
 
 What was the state of the country when you first 
 went there as regards outrage and crime ? — It was 
 very peaceable. 
 
 Were there any Land League branches established 
 there at that time ? — No. Among other gentlemen 
 living in the neighbourhood there was a Mr. John Ross 
 Mahon, . He is now dead. *-. He was a landed proprietor 
 
 David King; 
 Patrick Bolger. 
 
 8 
 
226 
 
 The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 and a land agent. He lived at a place called Western- 
 house, near Ahascragh. 
 
 On what terms was he with his tenants when you 
 first went there ? — He was on very good terms with 
 them. 
 
 What was the condition of the country around there 
 as regards poverty ? — The people were at that time 
 fairly off, and there was a good deal of employment 
 in the neighbourhood. Ahascragh is about seven and 
 a-half miles from Ballinasloe, and about 30 or 10 
 miles from Galway. Among other tenants who paid 
 rent to Mr. Mahon was Tim M'Loughiin. He was a 
 publican who lived at Ahascragh. Application was 
 made to Mr. Mahon by the tenants for a reduction of 
 their rent by 6s. 8d. in the pound. That application 
 was not acceded to at the time. 
 
 What was the result ? — The result was that the 
 tenants refused to pay the rent. 
 
 Is it within your knowledge that Tim M'Loughiin 
 did pay his rent to Mr. Mahon ? — Yes, he did. ' 
 
 After that date was anything done to M'Loughlin's 
 signboard ? — Yes ; it was daubed with paint. 
 
 For what purpose was it daubed ? — To show that he 
 was boycotted. 
 
 What was the result of the paint being put on it ? — 
 The man was boycotted. 
 
 Did you know a person named Malachy Fallon ? — I 
 iid. I saw him at M'Loughlin's shop one evening, in 
 good health and uninjured. M'Loughiin was a shop- 
 keeper as well as a publican. 
 
 Sip. C. Russell. — That is usually the case in these 
 country districts. 
 
 Examination continued. — Shortly after that did any- 
 thing happen to Malachy Fallon ? — Yes ; on that night 
 going home he was severely beaten. 
 
 Just answer this question in the terms I put it to 
 you. Did he make a complaint to you with regard to 
 a particular person ? — He did. 
 
 Was that person summoned for beating him ? — He 
 was. 
 
 When Malachy Fallon appeared at the sessions did 
 he or did he not mention the name of the person he 
 had mentioned to you as that of the man who had 
 beaten him ? — He did not. He said he did not know 
 who had beaten him. That beating occurred in Feb- 
 ruary, 1881. Mr. Mabon was land agent for Sir 
 William Ross Mahon. In August, 1881, a man named 
 Daniel Cruice was evicted from land. A notice was 
 afterwards found upon the land as to what would 
 happen to any person who took the land. It was a 
 threatening notice. An auction was held on Gruice's 
 holding, which was attended by some 12 or 14 people, 
 Cruice made a statement at the auction and said that 
 he had been evicted,and had been badly treated by Mr. 
 Mahon, and he hoped that no one would buy his meadows 
 as he expected to be back again in a few days. 
 He said he was a member of the Land League. 
 There were no bids for the meadows. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — It may be convenient for your Lord- 
 ships for me to state that we shall endeavour to 
 
 prove that on the 13th of August, 1881, the day after 
 the auction, Cruice was allowed £7 by the Land 
 League. 
 
 Examination continued. — There was a meeting of the 
 Ahascragh Land League, held on the night before the 
 auction. At that meeting there were present Andrew 
 Manning, John Egan, Pat Pender, and James Tully. 
 On the 26th of March, 1882, Mr. Mahon's house was 
 blown up. I saw it the next day. Among other 
 persons arrested in connexion with this offence was a 
 man named M'Connican. He was defended by Mr. 
 Kelly, a solicitor, 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Mr. Matthew Harris has been sub- 
 poenaed to produce a letter written by Mr. Kelly to 
 M'Connican. Is the letter produced ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I have no objection to a copy being 
 read. 
 
 Mr. Murphy was about to read^the letter, when 
 
 Sir C. Russell said, — I understand there is no such 
 letter. Prove your copy in the ordinary way. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — My object is to prove that M'Connican 
 was defended by the Land League. I will postpone 
 reading the letter for the moment. 
 
 Examination continued. — Morrissey was a witness 
 for the prosecution at the trial of the persons charged 
 with blowing up Mr. Mahon's house, and shortly aftel 
 Morrissey's house was burnt. One John Raiferty was 
 afterwards charged with burning it, and he was con- 
 victed of the offence at the Sligo Assizes. John 
 Raiferty was a member of the Land League. After the 
 attempt to blow up Mr. Mahon's house Mr. Mahon was 
 placed under police protection, and he remained under 
 that protection until his death in June, 1882. Af tel 
 Cruice was evicted a man named Corless, who had 
 been herd under him, remained as herd to Mr. Mahor/. 
 
 Was anything done to Corless'a house ? — An attempt 
 was made to burn it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Mr. Mahon was 
 agent for Dr. Vown, Sir William Mahon, Lord Clon- 
 brock, and several others. He was the agent for a 
 considerable amount of landed property. He had also 
 a small farm of his own. The tenants who demanded 
 a reduction of their rents were all tenants of Sir 
 William Mahon. 
 
 Did they get a reduction of their rent ? — Yes, but 
 not at that time. 
 
 Did they go into the Court ?•— Yes, some of them, 
 but not at that time. I believe they have gone in 
 lately. 
 
 Was that the first reduction they got when they went 
 into the Court ?— Sir William Mahon reduced the rent 
 a couple of months after the demand for the reduction 
 was made to the Court. 
 
 Just fix the date of the reduction ? — It was in the April 
 or May after January, 1881. 
 
 How much had the rent been above Griffith's valua- 
 tion ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Had there been any ejectment processes served ?— 
 None at the time that I know of. 
 
 Patrick Bolger. 
 
The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 227 
 
 You 6ay that there was a great deal of employment 
 in the neighbourhood in 1881 ? — Yes. 
 
 How did that arise ?— Sir William Mahon had his 
 own tenants employed in working. 
 
 How many ? — I could not say — a great many. 
 
 Was that after Parliament had granted the landlords 
 a considerable sum of money ? — I believe there was 
 something in that way for drainage purposes. 
 
 There were relief works, then ? — Something like that. 
 
 Then, when you said the people were fairly well off 
 did you mean that they were being employed upon 
 relief works ? — Outside of that Sir William Mahon 
 gave them employment. 
 
 On his own lands ? — Yes. 
 
 How many tenants had Sir William Mahon alto- 
 gether ? — I never counted them. 
 
 This man Tim M'Loughlin paid his rent, you say ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Whose tenant was he ? — He was Sir William Mahon's 
 tenant. 
 
 He was not altogether dependent upon his land for 
 his support ? — No. 
 
 He was a publican and a shopkeeper ? — Yes. 
 
 You say that the country was very peaceable when 
 you first went there ? — Yes, around that neighbourhood. 
 
 What neighbourhood ? — The parish of Ahascragh. 
 
 But have you not heard of agrarian crime, as it is 
 called, in that part of Galway before 1879 ? — Not 
 there. 
 
 Was not a Mr. Nolan shot at before that time ?— 
 That was at a place nine or ten miles away. 
 
 Do you recollect the bailiff of Sir William Mahon 
 being shot ? — That was in 1879, before I went there. 
 
 There are two cases I have put to you. Was not 
 Nolan shot at more than once ? — I could not say. 
 
 Now, you have been asked whether you know of 
 anything being paid to Cruice ? — I did not know of 
 anything being paid to him of my own knowledge, but 
 I saw the fact mentioned in the Freeman. 
 
 Was it you who gave information about the Freeman ? 
 —No. 
 
 When were you brought here first ? — Last night. 
 
 Wno brought you here ? — The subpoena on which I 
 have come here was signed by Mr. Soames. 
 
 Who was it that first came to you about giving your 
 evidence ? — No one came to me. I had a letter from 
 my own authorities. 
 
 From whom ?— My own district inspector, Mr. 
 Gilman. 
 
 Were you asked by your own district inspector to 
 make a statement ? — Not personally. 
 
 By a letter ? — No, by the Head Constable of the 
 district. He asked me to make a statement about 
 what I knew, and I told him. 
 
 Who wrote the statement ? — The Head Constable. 
 
 What is his name ? — Hughes. 
 
 When was that ? — About the first week in October 
 last. 
 
 You have been asked with reference to Cruice, the 
 evicted tenant. You did cot know of that payment 
 
 yourself — you merely saw the statement in tho 
 Freeman ?— Yes. 
 
 You know that there was a fund called the Evicted 
 Tenants' Fund ? — I saw it so stated in the papers. 
 
 And you saw in the papers it stated to what evicted 
 tenants the money was dispensed ? — Yes. 
 
 Is it not the fact that after the tenants were evicted 
 their families were maintained by this fund ? — Yes. 
 
 And in some cases huts were erected for evicted 
 tenants ? — Yes. 
 
 You saw all this in the papers — there was no con- 
 cealment about it ? — No. 
 
 I understand from your statement that Mr. Kelly, 
 the solicitor, defended the men who were charged 
 with blowing up Mr. Mahon's house ? — Yes, Mr. Kelly, 
 a solicitor from Malone. 
 
 Who were the persons charged ? — Pat Rogerson, 
 Bryan M'Connican, Pat Naughton, William Tansey, JohD 
 Curley, James Kelly, John Kogerson, Thomas Gately, 
 Bernard Geraghty, and John Jones. 
 
 How many were convicted ? — All those I have men- 
 tioned. Four others got away to America. 
 
 Did Mr. Kelly defend the men who were tried ? — He 
 did the first time. 
 
 You know, do you not, that a number of persons 
 who were charged were defended by public funds ? — I 
 could not say. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD. — The prelimi- 
 nary examination of the men took place at Galway, 
 when Mr. Kelly appeared for them. He did not appear 
 for them at the trial, which took place at Sligo. 
 Mr. Kelly appeared for the prisoners at the prelimin- 
 ary inquiry in Galway. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— There was 
 a preliminary charge before the magistrates in Gal- 
 way, at which nine or ten men were charged. They 
 were all committed for trial. Mr. Kelly appeared for 
 the prisoners when they were charged in Galway. Four 
 other men were accused, but they were never con- 
 victed, as they fled the country. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I wish to call Mr. Harris 
 on his subpoena to produce the letters. (To Mr. Harris.) 
 Do you produce the letters ? 
 
 Mr. Harris. — I have not got the letters. If the 
 letters have not been copied I have no objection. I 
 have no objection to state what their contents were, 
 so far as my memory serves me. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I call for the original 
 letters. (To witness.) Who defended the prisoners 
 in Sligo ? — Mr. M'Cormick, of either Tuam or Ballin- 
 robe. 
 
 I suppose you were asked about the outrages that 
 had taken place in your district, and Inspector Hughes 
 wrote down your statement ? — I made a statement, and 
 he took it down. 
 
 Was there distress in your district at the end of 1879 
 and beginning of 1880 ?— Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Michael Corless, examined by Mr. Murphy, said,— I 
 
 Patrick Bolger. 
 
 Michael Oorless. 
 8-2 
 
228 
 
 The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 was formerly employed on the farm of Daniel Cruice,at 
 Pairfield. The land belongs to Sir William Mahon,and 
 Mr. John Eoss Mahon is the agent. I was present on 
 the day that Cruice was evicted, and after the eviction 
 I went to work for Mr. Mahon. I had been something 
 like 15 years employed on the farm. Up to the time 
 of Cruice's eviction the neighbours had been on the 
 best of terms with me. After the eviction in August, 
 1881, they were not on good terms with me. On the 
 17th of June, 1882, an attempt was made to burn my 
 house. There were ten of us in it at the time — myself 
 and wife and eight children. The fire caught the rear 
 of the house, and burnt about three feet along. We 
 got the fire out as well as we could, water being near. 
 The land which had been occupied by Cruice was not 
 let for 12 months afterwards. I had no means of 
 earning a livelihood except going as herd for Mr. 
 Mahon, as I had done for Mr. Cruice. I heard that a 
 threatening notice had been put up, bat I did not see 
 it. 
 
 By Sir C. Russell. — Cruice had occupied the land 
 for 28 years, but did no? succeed his father. Cruice was 
 a man between 55 and 60 years of age. I occupy 
 about 16 or 17 acres of land. I receive about £20 a 
 year as herd, and I have to pay for my house. 
 
 Sergeant Hugh Kelly, Eoyal Irish Constabulary, 
 examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I am stationed at 
 Creggs, county Galway. In May, 1882, I was 
 stationed at Ahascragh at the time that Morrissey's 
 house was burned. John Rafferty was convicted of 
 that offence. 
 
 Do you know whether he was connected with the 
 Land League ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sib C. Russell. — I have been 
 stationed at Creggs, in county Galway, about three 
 years. It is on the borders of Roscommon. I have 
 previously been in Athenry, Loughrea, and other parts 
 of Galway. The Pollock property is near Creggs. I 
 have heard that there were very extensive evictions 
 there, and that as many as 6,000 or 7,000 people had 
 to leave. There were no evictions during my time, but 
 I have seen the ruins of the houses and the villages. The 
 land has been turned into large grazing farms. I am a 
 native of county Sligo and a sergeant in the constabu- 
 lary. The pay of a sergeant is £80 a year, but with 
 very little allowances except on duty. If a man is 
 absent for a night he gets 3s. 6d. As part of my duty 
 I have been present at evictions. 
 
 Have you been present when the police and soldiers 
 have themselves made a collection for the poor people 
 turned out ? — No. 
 
 Until and except when the police were engaged in 
 these evictions was there any ill-feeling between the 
 police and the people ? — I never heard of any ill-feeling 
 between them up to the evictions. 
 
 Was there any distress in Galway in 1879 ? — Not 
 where I was stationed. 
 
 You have been stationed in different parts of Galway ; 
 was there not considerable distress in parts of the county 
 
 after the bad seasons of 1878-79 ? — I could not say. 
 Where I was they" were comfortable. I am speaking 
 of Creggs. The principal landowner at Creggs is Mr. 
 Pollock, who farms his own land and has no tenants. 
 The holdings on the surrounding properties are small. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— I only 
 know about Pollock's property from hearsay. I am 
 told the clearance took place more than 20 years ago. It 
 might ha veoceurredinl848. I heard that the people were 
 paid for going out, and for everything in their houses. 
 
 How long have you been in the police force ?— 
 Twenty-four years. 
 
 When first in your experience was it necessary to 
 have police assistance at evictions ? — Not until lately. 
 
 About what year had the police to give help at 
 evictions ? — About 1881. 
 
 How many evictions were you present at before 
 that ? — I do not think I was present at any. 
 
 Did evictions occur in the district before that ?— • 
 Yes ; a few. 
 
 At these evictions did any scenes occur or were 
 police required ? — No. I was at one myself and there 
 were only three policemen. 
 
 Have you been present at any evictions where the 
 police subscribed for the people ? — I have not. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — There is one more witness in this 
 case, my Lords, but he cannot be found at the present 
 moment. 
 
 Robert Botterill, examined by Mr. Ronan, said,— 
 My property is situated at New Garden, near Tuam, 
 county Galway. Up to the commencement of the 
 Land League agitation I got on perfectly well with 
 my tenants, and rents were fairly well paid. There 
 was the best possible feeling between myself and my 
 tenants. Since the outbreak of the land agitation in 
 1879 threatening notices have been posted up about my 
 property. There was one on the 17th of December, 
 1879, cautioning iny tenants not to pay rent unless 
 they got a reduction. I had no difficulty in dealing 
 with my tenants for two years after that. About two 
 years afterwards, in December, 1881, I had to process 
 some of them. Before the land agitation I had been 
 able to get on very satisfactorily with the men I had 
 to process. I gave them a great deal of employment. 
 The place was a wreck when I went there. I rebuilt 
 the offices and made drains. I paid the men regularly 
 every week, and had no difficulty when the time came 
 for paying rent. On the 19th of January, 1882, I was 
 driving home from Galway with my son and two 
 daughters. About a mile from my house, when passing 
 a bush, two shots were fired at me. A man was 
 arrested for the outrage, but was not convicted. After 
 this attempt on my life a police-hut was erected on 
 my property, and was continued for nearly two years. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I am not a 
 magistrate, nor a large landowner. I have two small 
 properties. On the one at New Garden, where I 
 live, there are 16 or 18 tenants. I have another pro- 
 perty, which came to me through my wife, about 
 a mile away. There are altogether 23 tenants 
 
 Sergeant Hugh Kelly, 
 
 Mr. Robert Botterill. 
 
The Special Commission, November 8, 18S8. 
 
 229 
 
 on the two properties. I have been in possession of 
 the property since 1S71. 
 
 Were the years up to 1877 reasonably prosperous 'I — 
 Yes. 
 
 Were 1878 and 1879 very bad years ?— The distress 
 was exaggerated. It was not nearly so bad as was 
 reported. 
 
 Were they not very bad years for the small farming 
 class ? — I did -not say they were, but there was a 
 difference. 
 
 Do you know the difference as shown in the Regi- 
 strar-General's return between the potato crop of 1879 
 and 1876 ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Do you know it represents a difference of millions ? 
 — I cannot say. 
 
 Then what are your reasons for saying it was not a 
 very bad year ? — The corn crops, which they princi- 
 pally relied upon to pay their rent, were very good. 
 The potatoes, which they relied upon for the 
 sustenance of their families, were bad. 
 
 Oh, I see. The crop which was to pay the rent was 
 good. It was only that which was for the sustenance 
 * of the families which was bad ? — The potato crop 
 was an inferior one. 
 
 Did you make a reduction in 1878 and 1879 ? — No, I 
 was never asked. 
 
 When did you make any reduction ? — I really cannot 
 say. 
 
 Tell me to two years ? — I cannot recollect. 
 
 Did your tenants take you into Court ? — Not until 
 1884 and 1885. 
 
 CJp to that time had you made any reduction ? — No. 
 
 What redaction was made ? — None in some instances ; 
 small in others. I think 20 per cent, was the highest. 
 
 Had you a tenant named Lardner ? (Reading) 
 " Valuation, £10 ; rent, £17— reduced to £11." That 
 is more than 20 per cent. ? — That was a property I 
 had with my wife. 
 
 But you got the rents ? — No ; my wife did. 
 
 You managed it ? — No ; my son, for my wife. 
 
 Well, let us look at your own. 
 
 Sib C. Russell then read the following list : — 
 
 Poor Lnw 
 Valuation. 
 
 Robert He well £5 15 
 
 Catherine Leony •• .. 5 15 
 
 Patrick La wler . . .. a , 5 15 
 
 Patrick O'Brien,, .. .. 10 
 
 Do you recognize those figures ?- 
 
 correct. 
 
 Did you instruct any one to represent you at the Land 
 Court ? — My son did. 
 Sir C. Russell continuing— 
 
 Bent. 
 
 Reduced. 
 
 £11 7 
 
 .. £7 
 
 11 7 
 
 .. 7 
 
 11 
 
 .. 7 
 
 17 
 
 .. 11 
 
 -No doubt they are 
 
 Henry Hussey .. 
 
 ,. £5 3 
 
 . 
 
 . £6 14 
 
 
 
 . £4 16 
 
 
 
 John Flood ,. 
 
 .. 1 17 
 
 6 . 
 
 . 2 15 
 
 
 
 , 2 5 
 
 
 
 Thos. Monagban 
 
 .. 3 
 
 . 
 
 . 6 
 
 
 
 . 4 
 
 
 
 Hannah Cann .. 
 
 ..2 
 
 . 
 
 . 3 12 
 
 
 
 . 2 16 
 
 
 
 John Newell .. 
 
 .. 10 
 
 . 
 
 . 1 1 
 
 
 
 . 16 
 
 
 
 Matthew Bozan 
 
 .. 1 10 
 
 . 
 
 . 2 8 
 
 
 
 . 1 12 
 
 
 
 Patrick M'Gann 
 
 ..14 
 
 . 
 
 . 1 9 
 
 
 
 . 1 9 
 
 
 
 Did you get in the distressed times any of the loans 
 that were made ?— No ; I paid the money out of my 
 own pocket. 
 
 You have spoken of the outlay you made. Was that 
 upon the tenants' farms or your own ? — On my own. 
 
 Have you ever expended one farthing upon youi 
 tenants' property ? — There was no necessity. 
 
 Nor upon the property your wife has ? — No. 
 
 You mean that in employing labour upon your own 
 lands you employed that nearest your hand ? — Yes. 
 
 What were the wages ? — From 6s. to 15s. a week, 
 according to the time of the year ; 6s. in the winter, 
 9s. in the spring, 15s. in harvest time. 
 
 So that the normal wages in winter and spring are 
 from 6s. to 9s. ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you recollect the large funds got up for the relief 
 of distress ? — Yes. I was on the committee in my 
 neighbourhood. 
 
 How much did you subscribe ? — Me ? Nothing. 
 
 You were distributing the charity of others ? — Yes, 
 with the curate. Had he remained in the parish we 
 should have had no outrages. 
 
 Who was he ? — The Rev. John Flatley. I am glad to 
 have an opportunity to mention his name. 
 
 Where is he now ? — He is in Mayo. 
 
 Although you did not contribute to it did you 
 endeavour honestly to apply the funds to the desti- 
 tute ? — As I told you, the clergyman was president, and 
 any recommendations made to him he considered. 
 
 I ask, Sir, did you dispense: honestly the money of 
 other people to the destitute ? — Yes, to the best of my 
 ability at the time. 
 
 How much did you distribute among your own 
 tenants ? — Only three got relief at the time. One was 
 a widow and another a man with a long family, 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 That means a large family ? — Yes. The third was a 
 widow also. 
 
 I may take it'that those were the only three ? — Yes, 
 to the best of my recollection. 
 
 Can you undertake to eay that not a single one of 
 your tenants did not have relief ? — Yes. 
 
 Mention one ? — There was Nolan, Hussey, Ryan, and 
 some others. 
 
 Do you undertake to say that none of these three 
 obtained relief ? — According to the best of my recollec- 
 tion. 
 
 Are you able to say positively ? — As far as my re- 
 collection serves me. 
 
 When this relief was dispensed it was in 1879-80 ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you ever forego any of their rents ? — No ; I was 
 never asked to do so. 
 
 Did yon wipe off any arrears ?— There were no 
 arrears up to that time. 
 
 When you were dispensing relief in 1879-80 had they 
 paid their 1879 rent ?— Yes. 
 
 They were a hardworking people, were they not ?— 
 Very fairly. 
 
 Did you buy the property ? — Yes. 
 
 When ?— In the year 1871. 
 
 Did you raise the rent when you got it ?— In soma 
 instances. 
 
 Mr. Robert BotterilL 
 
230 
 
 The Special Commission', November 8, 1888. 
 
 In what instances ? — At the present moment I could 
 not tell yon. I think I did on all of them. 
 
 What percentage ? — It was very small. I could 
 not say. 
 
 They were small rents were they not ? — Yes. 
 
 Was the deduction 10 or 20 per cent. ?— Say 10 per 
 cent, at all events. 
 
 The Attoeney-Gesteeal.— You say that you had 
 16 or 18 tenants on your property. Did they remain 
 from the time you went in 1871, or were there any 
 changes ? — There were three changes altogether. 
 
 What was your total income from these estates ? — 
 Only very small ; about £00 or £70 a year from the 
 whole of the tenants. 
 
 Up to the time of the notice in 1879, had 
 you any demands made for reduction, or complaints 
 from your tenants at all ? — No ; not from one. 
 At first this notice had no effect. It was more than 
 12 months before the actual resistance to the payment 
 of rent began. With a few exceptions the tenants paid 
 their rent iD 1879 without any complaint. I had to 
 serve about six or seven of them with processes. In 
 my opinion these men could have paid their rent well, 
 and would have paid it if they had been allowed to 
 do so. 
 
 Your tenants never took you into the Land Court 
 until the year 1884 or 1885 ?— No. I could not identify 
 the man who shot at me, but I knew that he and one 
 other man were the ODly two men who had arms in 
 the district. In 1879 and 1880, when the payment of 
 rent was first resisted, the distress in the district was 
 not nearly so great as has been stated. It has been 
 very much exaggerated. There was a Land League in 
 the district. The postmaster, Bartholomew Callighan, 
 was the president, and the secretary was Patrick 
 Lamer, son of Margaret Lanier, who lives on town 
 land in the neighbourhood. There were two or three 
 other persons who were prominent members of the 
 League. 
 
 You said that if Mr. Flatley, yonr formes parish 
 priest, had remained in the place there would have 
 been no outrages ? What was the difference when he 
 left ?— It is my belief that his successor, the Rev. John 
 Canning, encouraged the Land League. He is since 
 dead, I believe. 
 
 You say on your oath that it was a change favouring 
 the Land League as distinguished from opposing it ? — 
 That is my belief. 
 
 Are you a tenant as well as a landlord ? — I am also 
 a tenant farmer. I used to pay £1,000 a year rent. 
 The first Land League meeting in my district was held 
 in August, 1880, and the first refusal by my tenants to 
 pay rent was on the following rent day. Six or seven 
 tenants refused to pay then. The notices did not have 
 much effect on the tenants until after the establish- 
 ment of the Land League. 
 
 By SlE C. K0SSELL.— The Rev. Mr. Flatley is now in 
 some part of Mayo ? — I do not know what part. 
 
 The President. — We have heard all about Mr. 
 Flatley before. 
 
 SlE C. Rdssell. — No, my Lord, with great defer- 
 ence. When did Mr. Flatley leave your district ? — In 
 1880. 
 
 Are you certain it was not in 1881 ? — It might have 
 been in 1881. 
 
 It might have been in 1882 ? — No, because Mr. 
 Canning came before that time. I could not fix the 
 date of his coming. I believe he came in 1881. 
 
 You say you paid £1,000 a year in rent ? — Yes. I 
 paid £300 a year to Lord Do Clifford. I paid £150 a 
 year on the St. George Estate ; I paid £160 a year to 
 a man named Jones, in the neighbourhood of Dublin, 
 and about £S0 a year to a Mrs. Anderson. There were 
 one or two other farms I gave up. 
 
 As a tenant, have you applied for a rednction of 
 roit ? — No, but I have gob a reduction where there 
 has been a general reduction on the property. No 
 reduction was made by Lord De Clifford. I do not 
 know oxactly whether there was a reduction of 20 per 
 cent, on the St. George Estate, but 20 per cent, was 
 the highest reduction I ever got. 
 
 Did the Kev. Mr. Canning take part in the Land 
 League proceedings ? — I believe he did. Previous to 
 the notice declaring the League illegal they used to 
 hold meetings in the house of a tenant of mine. The 
 proceedings of the Land League Court were not pub- 
 lished . I was summoned before a Court for dismissing 
 a herd for neglect of duty, but I did not attend. The 
 name of the herd was Patrick Flannigan. I left him 
 in his house. Mr. Canning is dead, but I believe the 
 postmaster is still living in the district. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-Geneeal. — You said 
 the Land League Court was held in the house of one 
 of your tenants ? — Yes. I was summoned to the Court. 
 I do not know whether the man in whose house the 
 meetings were held had anythingto do with any similar 
 organization before this period. I had previously been 
 on good terms with him. I could not tell exactly 
 when I was summoned to the Court. I think it was 
 about two months before the shooting. 
 
 Me. Justice A. L. Smith. — Did they send any 
 document to you ? — Witness. — No, they sent me a 
 message by one of my tenants, asking me to appear before 
 them to explain the reason of Flannigan's dismissal. 
 
 Cornelius Heagley, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, 
 — I live near Portumna, in county Galway. I knew 
 a man of the name of Fahy. He was the son of a farmer. 
 I purchased a farm from his father-in-law in 1869. 
 
 From 1860 to 1887 did you live on the farm and 
 work it ? — No, I lived at a distance from it, but I 
 worked tho farm. I got no annoyance or hindrance 
 from any person. In 1887 I saw a notice posted on 
 the buildings on this farm. It was a boycotting notice 
 against land-grabbing. ' A sergeant of the constabu- 
 lary took charge of the notice. After reading 
 this notice, I attended before a Land League Court at 
 Loughrea. Father Eyan and John or Michael Sweeney 
 were present. I do not knpw the names of the 
 other persons present. My case was entertained at 
 
 Mr. Robert BotterilL 
 
 Cornelius Heagley. 
 
The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 231 
 
 the meeting. James Fahy was present. The man I 
 purchased the farm from was an uncle of his. He 
 made a claim to the land. He said he had a right to 
 it. I produced my lease. Mr. Sweeney and Father 
 Egan condemned Fahy's claim and decided in my 
 favour. I subsequently appeared before the convention 
 in Dublin. I was told that the case had been referred 
 there. Fahy did not appear there. A letter was sent 
 from the Central League in Dublin to the branch at 
 Loughrea condemning the party who made the applii 
 cation against me. I got a letter directed to myself. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — After that decision in your favour 
 did you notice any change in the demeanour of the 
 people towards you ? — I did, a lot. 
 
 What used they to do to you ? — They shouted and 
 groaned at me. That occurred more than once. 
 
 Were they reproved by any person for doing that ? — 
 Yes ; they were summoned to the sessions and bound 
 over to keep the peace. The annoyance ceased, so to 
 speak, after the Roman Catholic Bishop had said that it 
 was not a case for boycotting. 
 
 Was this notice (produced) posted up ? — Yes. 
 
 The learned counsel read the notice as follows : — 
 
 "Hurrah for the power of a united people. Down 
 with land-grabbing. Boycott Larry Heagley and his 
 precious son Corn, that never wished a neighbour 
 prosperity, but are always ready like hungry sharks to 
 pounce upon a poor neighbour. Men of Portumna and 
 Woodford, show that your power is not to be despised. 
 Force the Heagleys to give up this farm or else grind 
 them in the dust," 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Kussell. — I paid £100 
 for getting the lease. I got it from John Fahy, and 
 the man who complained was his son-in-law. I was a 
 member of the National League myself, and I went to 
 the meeting of the League. John Sweeney and Father 
 Egan were there, the former being in the chair. He 
 was commonly called the chairman. They heard Fahy 
 and me face to face, and the end of it was that Sweeney 
 and Father Egan both said that Fahy had no ground of 
 complaint. They held that I was in my right and said 
 that they would not hear anything more about it . 
 Beforo that I had heard that some communication had 
 been sent to Dublin, by the branch of the League, I 
 think. Thereupon I went to Dublin of my own accord 
 and saw Mr. Quinn, the assistant secretary of the 
 League. I told him the story. At that time I was 
 beginning to be annoyed by the men hooting at me. 
 Mr. Quinn told me to summons them at the petty 
 sessions and he wrote a letter. 
 
 Did you recently return this letter (produced) to 
 Dublin ?— Yes. This is a copy of it. It is not the 
 original. There is another letter also. 
 
 The President.— Where are the originals 'I 
 
 The witness, who had them with him, produced them. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — You took the original letters to 
 Dublin H— Yes. 
 
 Were copies then taken of them ? — Yes. 
 
 And these are the originals ? — Yes. 
 
 When was it that you went to Dublin ? 
 
 The witness was understood to say that he was there 
 on Monday. 
 Sir C. Kussell then read the following letters :— 
 
 " Feb. 28, 1887. 
 " To Mr. Cornelius Heagley, New Bridge, Portumna. 
 " Duar Sir, — You do not expect, I am sure, that I 
 could have control over individuals in their individual 
 action. My right to interfere is only so far as the 
 action of our branches is concerned, and according to 
 your own letter the conduct complained of by you has 
 been condemned by the branch and the committee 
 existing in Loughrea. Therefore, I cannot have any- 
 thing more to say in that matter. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " T. Harrington." 
 " March 2, 1887. 
 " Dear Sir, — With reference to the boycotting 
 notices that have been issued against you in the dis- 
 trict of Portumna, I would suggest your bringing the 
 matter under the notice of the local branch, and when 
 doing so you may produce this letter of authority from 
 the central body, for the purpose of having them adopt 
 a resolution condemnatory of the " posting of these 
 notices, and that the alleged charge against you is 
 groundless. " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " T. Harrington, Hon. Sec." 
 
 Both the letters read were initialled " D. J. n." 
 
 The President. — I imagine that " D. J. n." are 
 the initials of the person who copied the letters ? 
 
 Sir C. Edssell. — No, my Lord. The initials in the 
 original are " D. J. H." They are the initials of the 
 clerk who took the letters down in shorthand from 
 dictation. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Did the local branch 
 of the League pass a resolution condemning these boy- 
 cotting notices ? — I do not know. I produced the 
 letters. The boycotting became less troublesome after 
 the Bishop spoke, but not before. 
 
 As far as you know the local branch did their best to 
 prevent you from being annoyed ? — They did their best, 
 but the annoyance did not stop until the Bishop spoke. 
 No respectable man in the town or country interfered 
 with me. 
 
 Were there many people in Portumna who were 
 members of the League ? — Each and every one of 
 them, I believe, are members of the National 
 League. 
 
 What extent of land have you yourself ?— I have not 
 much. I live in the house of my father. The farm is 
 not a large one. I gave up a great deal of land. It 
 was a grass farm in Tipperary. 
 
 You say that the people about Portumna are all 
 members of the League ? — To my knowledge, all. 
 
 Is it true that it is only the riff-raff of the place 
 that are members, or are all the respectable people 
 members of it ? — All the respectable people to my 
 knowledge are members. 
 
 How far was your grass farm in Tipperary from 
 Portumna ? — About two English miles. 
 
 Had a man been evicted from it f — No, it was only 
 
 Cornelius Heagley. 
 
232 
 
 The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 the proprietor's own land that I gave up. I had not 
 the time to work it very well. 
 
 You have told us that practically all the people 
 about Portumna are members of the League. Has there 
 been any compulsion put upon men to become members 
 of the League ? — Not to my knowledge. ) 
 
 ■ He-examined by the Attorney-General. — What was 
 the branch of the League which you joined ? — The 
 Portumna branch. 
 
 When did you take the letters back to Dublin ? — On 
 Monday, when I got the subpoena. I wanted to know 
 what was the cause of my being brought here. 
 
 Did you show the letters to somebody in the Land 
 League offices in Dublin ? — Yes. I do not know the 
 name of the gentleman. Copies of the letters were 
 taken by him. .The originals were handed back to me. 
 I do not know to whom the copies were given. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— They are produced by Mr. Har- 
 rington now. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Had you any other letters 
 from the Land League besides these ?— No. 
 
 Sir C. Ritssell. — My Lord says you can have these 
 letters back if you place any value on them. 
 
 District-Inspector Frederick Wade, examined by 
 Mr. Atkinson, said, — I am stationed at Portumna, and 
 have been there since October, 1885. I received the 
 notices produced from constables under my charge. 
 They were found in the neighbourhood of Heagley's 
 farm. 
 
 The following notices were then read by the learned 
 counsel, the first word of the first being missing : — 
 
 "—boycott Con. Heagley, the grabber that grabbed 
 Fahy's farm — Edward Maloney, shopkeeper, Portumna, 
 who is supporting Heagley the spy ; no man to go 
 into his house on fair day." 
 
 " Don't boycott Con. Heagley, the grabber that 
 grabbed Fahy's farm — Edward Maloney, shopkeeper, 
 Portumna, who is supporting Heagley the spy ; no 
 man to go into his house on fair day." 
 
 " Hurrah for the power of a united people — Down 
 with Heagley — Boycott Mick Conway and family — As 
 usual Conway's pullet was caught in the act of return- 
 ing from church on Ash Wednesday — She was in high 
 conversation with Boycott's wife — She has trampled 
 on her father's oath— She did not what she could — He 
 would take 9 oaths for a blackberry. Men of 
 Portumna, Killamore, Tynagh, and Woodford make the 
 sign of the Cross on your foreheads when you meet the 
 man who will supply him." 
 
 " Boycott Mick Halloran, Heagley's herd — do not 
 allow him to run anything down there." 
 
 Cornelius Heagley, recalled, said, in answer to Mr. 
 LoCKWOOD, — I know Edward Maloney, the shopkeeper 
 mentioned in the notices. He is a member of the 
 National League. 
 
 Matthew Leonard, examined by Mr. Atkinson, de- 
 posed. — I am in the employment of Mr. Bodkin as 
 gamekeeper. I was in his employment in February, 
 1880. There was a tenant named Mannion on his 
 
 District-Inspector Frederick Wade. 
 Cornelius Heagley. 
 
 estate. He was evicted for non-payment of rent. I 
 could not exactly tell the time. 
 
 Shortly after Mannion was evicted did a number of 
 people come to your house ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they come at night ? — Yes. 
 
 What did they do ? — They knocked at the door and 
 asked to be let in. I said, " Who is that?" 
 " Police," they said. " Well," I said, " I don't 
 think there is any need for any policemen to come to 
 my house at night, and if there is they can stop and 
 watch my door till morning. Once I close my door 
 I am not in the habit of letting anyone in. "(Laughter.) 
 
 Did they make any reply ? — " You won't let us in ?" 
 they said. *" No." No sooner was the word said than 
 there was a shot fired in, and another, and another. 
 
 Through the door ? — Through the door and through 
 the window. 
 
 Did you say anything ?— I said, " I defy you to 
 come in. As long as a hundred shots will last me I 
 will have them." 
 
 You wanted to frighten them ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they ultimately come in ? — They cried out then 
 that if I did not let them in they would get the paraffin 
 oil and burn the place down ; and before they should 
 do that I let them in. 
 
 Were there many ? — Sure I could not tell. The 
 house was thronged. There might have been 500 out- 
 side. 
 
 Were they disguised ? — No, they were fine-looking 
 men, dressed in good clothes. 
 
 Had they anything on their faces P — No, they were 
 well-cleaned and good-looking men. 
 
 Had they any arms ? — Plenty. 
 
 What kind ? — Revolvers and carbines — good as the 
 Queen has. 
 
 Did they do anything to you ? — They wanted to 
 put me in a coffin. 
 
 Did they bring a coffin with them ? — A great big one. 
 
 Did they bring it into the house ? — Yes, and put it 
 on the floor. 
 
 When the coffin was brought in, what did they say ? 
 — They made me pray for my soul and go on my knees 
 on the coffin. They took the lid off. They said it was 
 a great shame on me to carry lies to my master, and 
 to be going to take the holding of Mannion. I said 
 that was the greatest mistake ; that I had never in- 
 tended to buy a plot of land, because if I was offered 
 it for nothing I would not take it ; I had so much of 
 my own I was not able to manage. Some of them 
 said it was quite right. They were going to another 
 place, and thought they would pay me a visit on the 
 way. 
 
 Did they administer any oath to you ? — No. 
 
 Was any gun presented at you ? — Yes ; five on 
 one side and five on the other. They told me not to 
 leave my house till the morning. One man turned 
 back and told me that if I left I would suffer, and 
 that there were two men outside the door who would 
 watch till day ; so I did not leave the house. 
 
 What time was that ? — It was between 11 and 12, for 
 
 Matthew Leonard. 
 
The Special Commissi on, November 8, 1888. 
 
 233 
 
 I have a clock, and sometimes it is right and some- 
 times wrong. (Laughter.) 
 
 Do you know any of the men ? — No, I do not. 
 
 You did not take Mannion's farm ? — No, nor any 
 farm. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Keid. — None of the men had 
 their faces disguised ? — No ; they were white and clean, 
 with fine moustaches. 
 
 You know the people in the neighbourhood ? — Yes ; 
 there is hardly a man within five miles I do not know. 
 
 Your house was thronged with the people who came, 
 and you say there were 500 outside ?— I think there 
 were more ; but there could not be under 500. 
 
 And you cannot identify a single one of them 'I Was 
 anybody else in the house ? — Yes, my missus and 
 family. My wife only saw some of the men. 
 
 Did you complain of this to the police ? — I did. 
 
 Did you ask them to see the places where your house 
 was shot through ? — They came themselves. 
 
 Who were the police who came ? — I did not notice 
 them much. I was vexed, as I thought they should 
 have heard the shots at the barracks, which was only a 
 mile off. 
 
 Did the men bring lights with them ? — Yes, a big, 
 thick candle. (Laughter.) 
 
 And they lit it in the house, so that anybody could 
 see their faces ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — You said that 
 they were making their way to another place, and paid 
 you a visit in passing ? — That is what I heard. 
 
 They passed your house, and thought they would just 
 look in — is that what you mean ? — That is what they 
 said. They said if I let them in in time they would 
 not do me any harm. 
 
 Did you use the word " fun " in your examination- 
 in-chief when you were speaking of this visit ? — No, 
 Sir. • 
 
 Have you said yoa thought it was all in fun ? — Until 
 they fired the shots. 
 
 You do not know, I suppose, which way they came 
 to your house ?— Oh, yes, I know. 
 
 Would they pass the police barracks ? — Oh, I could 
 not tell you. 
 
 Can you tell me the names of the constables who 
 came to your house ? — I could not. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — I live in 
 the same place still. 
 
 The President. — You said something about the 
 men's whiteness and moustaches. Do you mean by 
 that that there was something which directed your 
 attention to the faces ? Do you mean that the men 
 tvore false moustaches ? — I could not tell whether they 
 were or not ; I could not say that they had false mous- 
 taches. 
 
 The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On its re- 
 assembling, 
 
 Thomas Oonnair was then called and examined by 
 Mr. Murphy. The witness, whose evidence was occa- 
 sionally quite unintelligible, said,— I was living in 
 
 November, 1881, at Shrahanananta, in the county of 
 Galway, and was -the . tenant of Sir Henry Burke. I 
 had been living there somewhere about 34 years. 
 
 Who was there in your house on the night of Novem- 
 ber 26, 1881 ?— I don't know, Sir. 
 
 About how many people ? — I did not see any one in 
 it. 
 
 How many members of your family ? — There are 
 somewhere about nine in the family, Sir. 
 
 What is the large town near where you are living ? 
 —It's a small town. 
 
 What is the largest town ? — Longhrea. 
 
 Did anything happen to your house on the night of 
 November 26, 1881 ?— It was burnt. 
 
 About what time ? — Between 12 and 1 o'clock. 
 
 Were there any shots fired in at the window at the 
 time?— I don't know, Sir; I heard some reports at the 
 time. I couldn't say whether it was like the report 
 of the shot of a gon. 
 
 Was it like anything else yon can suggest ? — I don't 
 know, Sir ; I was fast asleep. (Laughter.) 
 
 Had your rent been paid shortly before that ? — The 
 rent was paid, Sir, but I never was threatened about 
 paying rent or any other thing of the sort. 
 
 Were you living on good or bad terms with your 
 neighbours ? — I had not spoken a word to my next 
 door neighbours for the last 12 years. Their name was 
 Walsh. With that exception I was on good terms with 
 all of my neighbours. 
 
 After the burning of this house did you make a claim 
 for malicious burning of your house ? — I did. 
 
 Were you allowed the full amount of your claim ? — 
 Yes, £80. 
 
 When you made that claim what did you say was 
 the ground which you suggested— that your house had 
 been maliciously burnt ? Did you allege that your 
 house had been burnt because you paid your rent ?— 
 The witness's answer was unintelligible. 
 
 The President. — Witness, will you remember that I 
 have to hear what you say ? It is of no use talking 
 like that. Turn towards me and let me hear what you 
 say. Did you allege that the house had been burnt 
 because you had paid your rent ? — No, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. M0RPHY. — Do you mean to swear that you did 
 not state before the grand jury that your house was 
 burnt 
 
 Witness.— I can't answer two. 
 
 The President. — You are to answer that gentle- 
 man ; but you are to make me hear. I am sure you 
 understand. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I caution you. Will you swear you 
 did not state before the grand jury that your house was 
 burnt because you paid your rent ?— I did not mention 
 any rent. 
 
 Did you say that 
 
 Witness.— I did not speak of any rent (The wit- 
 ness here became unintelligible.) 
 
 Do you saggeBij any cause for the burning of your 
 house except that you had paid your rent ? — I cannot. 
 
 Thomas Connair. 
 
234 
 
 The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 The President (to Mr. Murphy).— What ground did 
 he put forward for having his claim allowed ? 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Any malicious injury ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I believe, my Lords, it is necessary 
 to prove the class of malice. 
 
 The President. — I should have thought so. I am 
 only judging by what I should imagine myself. It is 
 not sufficient for a man to come and claim without 
 some grounds. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — Certainly, my Lords,, He has to 
 prove that it was wanton and malicious. 
 
 Mr. Mukphy. — What did you say was the ground for 
 burning your house ? — I don't know, my Lord. 
 
 Do you know Martin Murphy ? — Yes, he lives some- 
 thing about a mile from me. 
 
 Was his house burnt the same night ? — I don't know any- 
 thing about that. I heard next morning that it was burnt. 
 
 Did you see the ruins of the house ? — I saw them the 
 next day. 
 
 Have you any doubt that it was burnt ? — I don't 
 know anything at all about the man's house. How could 
 I know anything about a man's house that was at a dis- 
 tance from mine ? 
 
 Did you see the burnt ruins ? — I did, but afterwards. 
 I don't know whether his house was burnt because he 
 had paid his rent. 
 
 Did you tell the police your house was burnt because 
 you paid your rent ? — I did. not. 
 
 Did you tell them why it was burnt ? — I told them 
 that they came to the house - — 
 
 Did you ever prosecute the Walshes for burning your 
 house ? — I did not. 
 
 Did you ever tell the police you thought the Walshes 
 had anything to do with it ? — I did not. I could not 
 say that, your Worship. 
 
 Were you at the chapel at Ballinakill on December 4 ? 
 — I do not think so, because it is too far from me. 
 
 After the burning of your house did you take a Land 
 League ticket ? — I cannot say, Sir. 
 
 Did you ever take one ? — I never took one ; but a 
 son of mine that went to America took one. 
 
 For you ? — Not for me, for himself. 
 
 Was that after the burning of your house ? — I cannot 
 say. 
 
 Will you swear that the ticket of the Land League 
 was not taken by your son after the burning of your 
 house ? — I cannot tell. I cannot say it. 
 
 Did you give your statement to one of Mr. Soames's 
 clerks — Mr. Beauchamp — and did he take down your 
 evidence for him ? — I do not understand what this man 
 said. 
 
 Did a gentleman ask you what you knew about this 
 case ? — Which gentleman. 
 
 That gentleman (pointing to Mr. Beauchamp). — He 
 asked me some questions — the same questions your 
 Lordship has asked me. 
 
 Did you tell him what you knew about this case this 
 morning ? Did you tell him that you took a League card 
 and paid for it ? — I did not say that. I was at Lough- 
 rea and got a card, and I don't know whether I paid for 
 
 it or not, because I was too much intoxicated. 
 (Laughter.) I had the ticket the next morning, but I 
 do not know where I got it. 
 
 Did you tell him that you did pay for it ? — I don't 
 know. 
 
 Will you swear that you did not tell that gentleman 
 that you paid for that ticket ? Was it a Land League 
 ticket ? — I don't know what sort of ticket. I never 
 had anything to do with the Land League. 
 
 I warn you there is a shorthand writer present who 
 took down the words that you used. I ask you whether 
 it was a Land League ticket or card ? — I cannot remem- 
 ber. 
 
 Did you say you paid for it ? — I said that I do not 
 know how I got it. I do not know whether I paid for 
 it or not. 
 
 Do you believe that you did pay for it ?— I cannot 
 say, Sir. 
 
 Where did you get it, in Loughrea ? — I don't know 
 how I got it. I had it in my pocket, and my son said 
 it was a card from the like. 
 
 From the like ? Did your son tell you it was from 
 the League ; do you think he did ? — I cannot 6ay. 
 
 Where did you go to in Loughrea before you got this 
 card 1 — I went into a publichouse. 
 
 Is there a Land League branch in Loughrea?— I don't 
 know. 
 
 Did you ever hear of a Land League ? — I did, Sir, 
 often. 
 
 Did you ever hear there was one at Loughrea ? — I 
 don't know. 
 
 Did you attend a Land League meeting at Loughrea ? 
 — They were talking about the land, that the times 
 were very bad, and the people would not be able to 
 pay their rents unless they got reduction. 
 
 Was that a Land League meeting ? — It appeared to 
 me that it was about distress, about the land. 
 
 Did you tell this same gentleman this morning that 
 you had been at one meeting of the League in the town 
 of Loughrea ? — I did not speak of the Land League or 
 anything, but that I was at a meeting where the 
 people were standing in the middle of the street. 
 
 The President. — You were asked a question and can 
 answer it. Did you or did you not say to that gentle- 
 man that you had attended a Land League meeting in 
 Loughrea ? — The witness made a rapid and unintelligi- 
 ble reply, and the President repeated the question ; 
 but the witness's answer was again unintelligible. 
 
 The President.— You say the Land League 
 was not mentioned. Do you mean by that that the 
 words " Land League* " were not mentioned ? — I know 
 nothing about it. 
 
 The President. — I will put the question to you 
 once more, and I caution you to be careful. Will you 
 say, one way or the other, whather the meeting was 
 spoken of as a Land League meeting between you and 
 that gentleman who was examining you ? — My Lord, 
 you are going very hard on me, on a man of my age, 
 68 years, to remember. Sure he asked me, but sure I 
 
 Thomas Connair. 
 
The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 235 
 
 was not on my oath at the time, and I would not like 
 to chance my soul. 
 
 The President. — Upon your oath, which you say you 
 respect, were the words "Land League" mentioned when 
 you were being examined f — Sure I don't know anything 
 about it, Sir. I was standing in the middle of the 
 street and listening, and I got a ticket next day, and 
 my son told me it was a card of the Land League. 
 
 The President (to Mr. Murphy).— You have the 
 League mentioned there. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — After you got the subpoena in Galway 
 where did you go ? 
 
 The President (to witness).— Stand up, Sir, stand 
 up ; don't lean on your elbows in that way. 
 
 The witness, in answer to Mr. Murphy's question, 
 enumerated some places he had passed through on his 
 way to Dublin. 
 
 Mr. MrjEPnr.— Did you stay a night in Dublin ?— 
 Sure, and I did not, Sir. 
 
 When did you arrive here ? — This morning. 
 
 The President. — You put some question.Mr. Murphy, 
 as to what the witness said to the police. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— Yes, my Lord, but the police witness 
 is not here. 
 
 The President.— I only wish to give him another 
 opportunity of stating what he did tell the police. 
 (To witness.) What do you say you told the police 
 about your house having been burnt ? — They were 
 
 there on Sunday morning (The rest of the answer 
 
 was unintelligible.) 
 
 I am asking you what you told the police was the 
 cause of your house having teen burnt. I am asking 
 you, because the policeman is coming here to be ques- 
 tioned, to tell us what you did say.— My Lord, I 
 cannot remember what I did say to them. 
 
 Mr. Justice A.L. Smith. — What time to-day did you 
 give your evidence to that gentleman ?— This morning. 
 
 How long ago ? — I don't know what time ; I know 
 nothing at all, and I did not ask him what hour of the 
 morning. 
 
 Where have you been to since you gave your evidence ? 
 — Here, outside there (pointing to the door of the 
 Court). 
 
 Who has been talking to you ? — No one. 
 
 Will ydu swear that since you gave your evidence 
 this morning nobody has be.en talking to you about the 
 evidence you were to give in Court ?— The witness 
 was understood to say that no one had been talking to 
 him on the subject. 
 
 Sie C. Russell.— Will your Lordship ask whether 
 there is not a room where these witnesses sit ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — There are two rooms in 
 which the statements of the witnesses are taken, but 
 the witnesses are not kept in that room, and could not 
 be, as there are large numbers of them. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — As far as we are concerned, we 
 have no one single witness here except those who are 
 parties in this inquiry. 
 
 The President. — We may have what we want from 
 somebody else. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— We may iret it from this witness. 
 
 The President. — The result of his examination is 
 that he possesses a stolidity which is invincible to 
 me. You may follow the matter up if you like, Sir 
 Charles. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — I am not suggesting, Sir 
 Charles, that any one on your side has been talking to 
 the witness since this morning ; but it is quite clear 
 to me that he made one statement this morning and 
 has made another in the box. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — At present, of course, there is no 
 evidence of it. I will try what I can get out of the 
 witness, but I confess I am not very hopeful. (To 
 witness.) You live about four miles from Loughrea 
 and you have some neighbours named Walsh ? — Yes ; 
 we were not on good terms. We beat one another, and 
 we were bound over to keep the peace. 
 
 When were you bound over ? — Something about five 
 years ago at Loughrea Petty Sessions. 
 
 Was that the last time you beat one another ? — I 
 have not spoken to them since. 
 
 Now, about the payment of your rent ; when did 
 you pay it ? — When there was a settlement made on 
 the property. 
 
 You say your house was burnt on the 2Gth of No- 
 vember, 18S1 ; how long before that had you paid 
 your rent ? — I do not know. I could not say how 
 long. 
 
 What time of the year are the rents paid ? — What, 
 the last time ? ' 
 
 Yes. — \Yell, then, I do not know. 
 
 At what time were the rents usually paid ? — It used 
 to be on the 2Sth of October some years ago. 
 
 Had you paid your rent a short time before your 
 house was burnt down?— Some time before. 
 
 Had any one complained of you because you paid 
 your rent ? — No ; no man nor woman. My stepson 
 thought to get my land, and he offered to pay three 
 years' rent. 
 
 You had a dispute abiut the land ? — I had no dispute 
 with him ; he went to law and got no law. (Laughter.) 
 
 It was on a Saturday night that your house was 
 burnt ? — Yes. 
 
 Did the police come next morning ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know their names ? — I think one was 
 Sergeant Boylan. 
 
 Had he any policemen with him ? — Yes. 
 
 What did they say to you when they saw you on that 
 Sunday morning? — How can I remember or think what 
 they said 1 
 
 Well, of course it is a good many years ago, but try 
 and recollect. — They told me something about whether 
 I was going for compensation. I said I did not know 
 anything about it. I think Mr. Barry came from 
 Loughrea ; he was the receiver of police and district- 
 inspector. (District-Inspector Barry, who was in Court, 
 was then identified by the witness.) I think Barry 
 came over between 12 and 1 o'clock on the same 
 Sunday with another policeman. 
 
 What did Barry say to you ? — Ha examined the house 
 
 Thomas Connair. 
 
236 
 
 The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 and asked me if I knew how it was burnt. I said I 
 did not know any one at the head of it. 
 
 Were you asked to put your mark to any paper ? — I 
 could not say. 
 
 Had you a solicitor acting for you, or did the police 
 look after the claim ?— They did not look after the 
 claim until I applied for it. 
 
 Did you employ any one ? — I think I employed an 
 attorney of the name of Tighe, from Ballinasloe. I 
 had to go before the road sessions in Woodford, and 
 afterwards I went before the grand jury. 
 
 Were you asked at the road sessions if you knew 
 anything about how your house was burnt ? — I could 
 not say for sure. 
 
 What my Lords want to know is this, Did you say to 
 any one that your house was burnt because you had 
 paid your rent ?— Never, never. Never, as far as I 
 can understand it. I never heard that there was any 
 hindrance about rent at that time. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — When 
 you made your claim, did you h»ve tco put your mark 
 to a paper ? — I could not say. 
 
 You remember taking an oath before the magistrate ? 
 •—Yes. I think it was in the office of the clerk of 
 petty sessions. I got the paper there, in Mr. Toole's 
 office. 
 
 That was within three days of the fire ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you have to swear to the story you told in the 
 paper ?• — I had. 
 
 Did they read it out to you ?— They did not put any- 
 thing in the paper but what I applied for. 
 
 Did you say anything about why your house was 
 burnt down ? — I could not say. 
 
 Mr.W. M. Beauchamp was then called and examined 
 by Mr. Murphy. 
 
 You are a solicitor practising in Limerick ?— Yes. 
 
 You have been acting for Mr. Soaraes ? — Yes. 
 
 Are you acquainted with the practice as to applica- 
 tion for compensation for malicious injuries ? — Yes. 
 Within three days after the injury is discovered the 
 person injured must go before a magistrate and swear 
 an information, which has to be lodged with the clerk 
 of petty sessions. Within sis days a notice must be 
 served on two principal inhabitants of the parish, the 
 inspector of police of the district, and the secretary of 
 the grand jury of the county. The information must 
 state whether the person injured has any knowledge of 
 the person who has committed the outrage. 
 
 The President.— Have you got the particulars, Mr. 
 Murphy ? 
 
 Mr. Mtrp.PHY. — No, my Lord ; this has come upon us 
 by surprise, and we have not got the papers here. 
 
 The PKE3IDENT. — Can you get them ? 
 
 Witness. — They are on record, my Lord. 
 
 Examination continued. — Was the statement made by 
 the witness this morning made " in your presence ? — I 
 was standing beside him and examined him, and the 
 shorthand writer took it down. 
 
 Did he say anything as to the circumstances in which 
 
 this outrage was committed ? — Ha said he was a tenant 
 on the Marble-hill estate. 
 
 Did you prepare the proof from the shorthand writer's 
 notes ? — Yes. I asked him what malice he alleged to 
 the grand jury, and he said he had paid his rent. I 
 asked him whether he was a member of the Land 
 League. He said he had a League card, and had paid 
 for it. I asked him whether he had ever attended a 
 League meeting, and he said one, at Loughrea. 
 
 Did he say anything about a shot being fired ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— Was the evi- 
 dence taken in the form of putting questions to 
 him ; did the shorthand writer take a note of 
 both question and answer ?— Oh no, the shorthand 
 writer only took what witness said in the form 
 of a story. It would be wasting the shorthand 
 writer's time. 
 
 Then whether the questions put to the witness 
 were leading questions or not does not appear from 
 the note of the evidence ? — No. I asked him, 
 " Are you a tenant on the Marble-hill Estate?" He 
 answered, " Yes ;" and it would be put down, " I 
 am a tenant on the Marble-hill Estate." 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — You can 
 give evidence as to what you remember him saying ? 
 — Yes. I distinctly remember his statement. On 
 the 26th of November, 1881, his dwelling-house was 
 burnt to the ground ; at the same time a shot was 
 fired through the window. He had previously paid his 
 rent. The malice alleged was that he had paid his 
 rent on the Marble-hill Estate. He was at one meet- 
 ing of the Land League at Loughrea. He claimed 
 £80, and got it in full. That is a truthful pricis of 
 what he said. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I understand you to say that you 
 have had much to do with claims arising from 
 malicious injury 1 — Yes. 
 
 In your experience of these claims, have you not 
 found since 1879 that people got the notion into their 
 heads that those claimants who suggested agrarian 
 causes for the injury to their property were more 
 favoured than others ? — No. 
 
 And were treated more liberally by the road 
 sessions than by the grand jury ? — It all depends 
 upon the evidence of the value of the property 
 destroyed . 
 
 Re-examined by the "Attorney-General. — In 
 these cases they have to go before the road sessions. 
 Are some of those sessions elected ? — Yes. Rate- 
 payers are summoned ; the majority are farmers. 
 
 Before that tribunal is an agrarian claim more 
 favoured than others ?^-No, because there is an appeal 
 to the grand jury. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Is it your experience that the 
 grand jury sometimes increases the damages given ? — 
 Yes, and sometimes decreases it. 
 
 Henry Gordon Holderness, examined by the Attorney- 
 General, said, — I am a shorthand writer, employed 
 on behalf of Mr. Soames. This morning I took down 
 
 Mr. W. M. Beauchamp. 
 
 Henry Gordon Holderness. 
 
The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 237 
 
 notes of the evidence of the witness Connair, and 
 transcribed them. Witness was then about to read 
 his transcript of his notes, but, at the suggestion of 
 Sir C. Russell, he read from his shorthand notes : — 
 " Witness lives within five miles from Loughrea. On 
 November, 22, 1881, his dwelling-house was set on 
 fire and burnt to the ground ; at the same time a shot 
 was fired through the windows. Witness had previously 
 paid his rent. The malice he alleged, when making his 
 claim for compensation, was that he had paid his rent 
 on the Marble-hill Estate, belonging to Mr. Burke. 
 Witness took a Land League card and paid for it. 
 He was at one meeting of the Land League at 
 Loughrea. He claimed £80, aud got the amount in 
 full." 
 
 The President (to the Attorney-General). — Kindly 
 follow up what the witness Connair said to the police. 
 There appears to be a distinct contradiction here. 
 I should like to know how that occurs. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— We will see what the 
 police know of this matter ; it shall not be lost sight 
 of. 
 
 The President. — Do not let the witness leave until 
 this has been looked into. 
 
 District-Inspector Dominick Barry, who has pre- 
 viously given evidence in the inquiry, was then re- 
 called and examined by Mr. Murphy. 
 
 Did you visit the dwelling-house of Connair on the 
 following day ? — Yes, and investigated the circum- 
 stances. 
 
 Did you have any conversation with him as to the 
 cause of the outrage ? — My impression is that the 
 motive he assigned at that time was that he had paid 
 his rent, but without the official report I cannot go 
 beyond that. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I suppose you can get the 
 report ? — I suppose so ; at all events, it is sure to be 
 stated in the report. 
 
 Examination continued. — Was any other house 
 visited when Connair's house was burnt down ? — Yes, 
 the house of a man named Murphy. I have not been 
 in that part for some years. 
 
 William Conway, examined by Mr. Ronan, said, — I 
 live on Sir H. Burke's property, near Woodford. I 
 remember Sir H. Burke being boycotted in 1886. 
 
 Did you in that year cut some turf on Sir H. 
 Burke's bog ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember the night of the 15th of May, 
 1886 ? — Yes, my house was burnt, I had a couple of 
 pigs in it. 
 
 Had you any dispute with any of your neighbours or 
 given them cause to injure you ? — Nothing I know of. 
 
 Except cutting the turf ? — That is what I blamed it for ; 
 it may be otherwise ; i>ut that is what I blamed it for. 
 I made a claim on the county for it, and I got 
 some compensation from the grand jury. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I got £60 com- 
 pensation and £5 for expenses, hut I was put 
 
 District-Inspector Dominick Barry. 
 William Conway. 
 
 to £10 expense. The bog belonged to Sir Henry 
 Burke. I was cutting turf for him. I went to 
 the bog the next day as well. There were some 20 
 persons cutting turf on the first day, and I think there 
 were 19 or 20 on the second day. On the night of 
 the third day my house was burnt. I am the only 
 man whose house was burnt. I cannot say how 
 long Sir Henry Burke had been boycotted. As long as 
 he was getting his work done I could not swear he was 
 boycotted. 
 
 The President. — For whom were these 19 or 20 
 persons cutting turf ? — They were cutting for Sir 
 Henry Burke. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Was there any dispute as to 
 whether the tenants had a right to cut turf ? — This 
 was the rule. The tenants cut turf for Sir Henry 
 Burke and cut their own turf. They were paid for 
 cutting his turf. A notice was put up by the agent 
 stating that no person was to cut turf for himself 
 until Sir Henry's was cut. The people did not like that. 
 They were saying that they ought to be allowed to cut 
 their own turf early, because if it was not cut early 
 it did not dry properly. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — Had any- 
 thing been said about Sir Henry Burke before you cut 
 for him ? — All I can know about was after the cutting 
 of the turf. The names of those who had cut turf for 
 Sir Henry Burke were read out at Chapel Cross. My 
 name was read out. 
 
 The name of Martha Lyden was next called, but 
 considerable delay took place before she made her ap- 
 pearance in Court. In the meantime, 
 
 The President, addressing the Attorney-General, 
 said, — I hope you will have your witnesses ready. 
 
 The Attorney-GenekAL. — Yes, my Lord ; I will en- 
 deavour to have them arranged as far as possible. 
 
 It was understood that the delay was due to the 
 crowded state of the corridor outside the Court. 
 
 Martha Lyden was next sworn through an inter- 
 preter and examined by Mr. Atkinson. 
 
 Do you understand English ? — Not very much, Sir. 
 
 You appear to understand English very well ? — No, 
 indeed, Sir. (Laughter.) 
 
 The examination of the witness proceeded in English. 
 
 Did your husband work for Mr. Graham ? — He did, 
 Sir. I knew a man named Walsh who was a tenant to 
 Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham took up Walsh's farm in 
 1876. After that my husband was herding the farm and 
 looking after it for Mr. Graham. I had a son living 
 with me. Up to April, 1881, my husband was on good 
 terms with his neighbours. 
 
 Do you remember the time the Land League was 
 established f— I heard them talking about it. I did 
 not attend meetings myself. I remember the day 
 my husband was murdered. 
 
 How long before that had you heard them talking about 
 the Land League 1 — They were always talking about it. 
 I remember some men coming to our house on the 
 night of April 24, 1881. A good while of the night 
 
 Martha Lyden. 
 
238 
 
 The Special Commission, November 8, 1888. 
 
 had passed when they came. I cannot say how many 
 they were, but there were a good many. Their faces 
 were not disguised. They broke the door in. My 
 husband was sleeping in the bed at the time and my 
 son was lying by the side of his father. My husband 
 was about 40 years of age, and my son was 21. They 
 took my husband out of bed and killed him. They 
 dragged him out of the house, taking him through the 
 kitchen and out of the door. When they had got him 
 out they killed him with guns and pistols ; I think 
 they had both. When they had killed my husband they 
 took out my son, who shrieked and hallooed. He 
 was screeching like anything. They fired at him and 
 he died a month afterwards from the wounds which he 
 received. I saw a number of men, but as the night 
 was dark I was not able to recognize them. Walsh, 
 the former tenant of the holding, was living in Letter- 
 frack. He had not been to America before this time. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Rr/SSELL. — The cottage 
 was near the cross-roads on the way to Letterfrack. 
 There is a village at Letterfrack, and my house was a 
 mile and a-half from it. There were no houses near 
 mine. The land from which Walsh was evicted was 
 Graham's land. Walsh had three sons. One of them 
 was afterwards tried and hanged for the murder of my 
 husband and another was transported in connexion with 
 the murder of a police-sergeant. 
 
 SIR C. Russell. — You say that these men who came 
 in this brutal way to your house were not disguised ? 
 ■ — I did not see anything upon them. 
 
 Were any of them from your own neighbourhood ? — 
 Oh, they were my neighbours ; yes, indeed. 
 
 You did not know them ? — No, I did not know 
 them. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — The 
 mother of the man Walsh who was hanged was a 
 widow. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Your Lordships will hear 
 something of this widow. This is the widow Walsh 
 for whom a fund was got up. 
 
 Head Constable Michael Butler, examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson, deposed : — I was stationed three miles 
 from Letterfrack in 1881. There was a Mrs. Walsh 
 living at Letterfrack. She was the mother of the 
 young man who was executed. She was a widow. I 
 do not know when her husband had died. I had only 
 been in the place three months before the murder 
 occurred. Mrs. Walsh was living in the village and 
 the man who was subsequently executed was living 
 with his mother. The second of the Walshes was trans- 
 ported for being one of the party who killed Sergeant 
 Kavanagh, who was shot when he was engaged in 
 working up the evidence in the Lyden case. He was 
 shot about 40 yards from the door of the police 
 barracks in Letterfrack, at half-past 10 at night. 
 Only one man was made amenable for that murder — 
 namely, this man Walsh. I had no knowledge of Mrs. 
 Walsh before the murder. I am not aware that either 
 of these young Walshes was a member of the Land 
 
 League. I arrested one of the Walshes myself in the 
 village of Letterfrack. 
 
 Cross-examined by SlJR C. Russell. — I am a native 
 of Kerry. I have been stationed in LimericE and 
 Galway. I was about four ( or five months in 
 Limerick, and I came to Galway on October 1, 1880. 
 I have been in Tipperary, Limerick, Galway, and 
 King's County. That was before 1879. Since that 
 date I have been in Cork, Mayo, Tipperary, and Gal- 
 way. I am at present in Limerick. There were Land 
 League branches in all these counties, and in later 
 days National League branches. I have no personal 
 knowledge whether there is any parish or village in 
 which there have not been branches of the Land 
 League and afterwards of the National League. I 
 cannot name any place where there is not a branch of 
 the National League, or where there was not a branch 
 of the Land League up to the time of the suppression 
 of the League. They were common all over the country. 
 I have not lived in Kilkenny for the past seven years, 
 but from what I have heard my statement applies to 
 that county. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Atkinson. — I heard there was a 
 branch of the Land League at Letterfrack. I had no 
 opportunity of observing whether there were any Land 
 League meetings in that district after the execution of 
 Walsh. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — My Lords, we have another 
 witness in this case, but he will be here to-morrow 
 morning. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — You said that after the execution of 
 Walsh there had been no Land League meetings in the 
 neighbourhood of Letterfrack ? — I said I was not aware 
 of it ; I never heard of it. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — What was the date of Walsh's execution ? 
 — It was some time in September, 1882. 
 
 That was a considerable time after the suppression 
 of the Land League ? — I do not remember. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — What was the date of Kavanagh's 
 death ?— The 15th of February, 1882. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Were you aware of any meetings in that 
 district between the date of the suppression of the 
 Land League in October, 1881, and the execution of 
 Walsh ? — I am not aware, Sir. 
 
 Patrick Small was then examined by Mr. RONAN. 
 Witness said,— I know the farm from which Tom 
 Byrne was evicted ; it was within a quarter of a mile 
 of Aughrim. I took that farm after Byrne was evicted, 
 but not until six months after. A short time after I 
 took the farm I went to a fair. I was buying ca ttle 
 and my son came up, and Byrne, the son of the man 
 who was turned out, came up and said he would give 
 more than I would 
 
 The President.— I did not Catch all that answer. 
 
 Mr. Ronan.— " And told them I was a boycotted 
 man." 
 
 Witness, continuing.— Byrne was fined for that, and 
 afterwards I was boycotted entirely. I used to 
 get my horses shod at John Hurley's ; Jut after that I 
 
 Head Constable Michael Butler. 
 
 Patrick Small, sen. 
 
The Special Commission, November 8 and 9, 1888. 
 
 239 
 
 could not get them shod. The smith refused to shoe 
 them, and said he would not put the county against him 
 for my custom. He said he got letters telling him 
 not to work for me. Thomas Byrne, the man I 
 took the farm from, did not come and talk to 
 me about the farm. I remember the meeting of 
 the League in December, 1886. After that meeting I 
 had police protection ; from that time np to this day. 
 I am under police protection still, and am holding the 
 farm, and I will hold it. I am a Roman Catholic 
 bred and born. I was at Mass last about last Christmas 
 twelvemonth. I have not been since, because when 
 I was on my knees they called me names and groaned 
 at me add my children, and a stone was thrown at me ; 
 it missed my head and hit the wall. My wife and one 
 of my sons go to chapel now. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sik C. Rcssell. — How many 
 acres of land had you of your own ? — On the farm I 
 live I had over 20. I had 22 acres of my own, 40 
 acres under Mr. Wade, and Byrne's farm was some- 
 thing short of eight acres. 
 
 When was Byrne evicted ? — In the year 1846. 
 
 Do you mean 1886 ? — Yes. 
 
 Well, that is only a mistake of 40 years. (Laughter.) 
 Then Tom Byrne was evicted in 1886 ?— I think so. 
 
 Had Tom Byrne a family ?— He had. 
 
 How long had he lived under Wade on this farm ? — 
 He never lived there at all. 
 
 How long had he possession of it ? — For three and 
 a-half years. I had it myself before that. I paid my 
 rent for it and he paid no rent. 
 
 After yon took possession of the land oat of which 
 Byrne had been turned, his son used to follow you to 
 the fair ?— Yes. 
 
 And outbid you for the beasts ? — Yes, and said I 
 was boycotted. 
 
 When did you get possession of the farm ? — On 
 October 11, 1886. 
 
 For following you in the market and saying that you 
 were boycotted he was sent to gaol for two months ? — 
 Tes. 
 
 Was that punishment enough ? — His father would 
 have got three months, but he was too old. (Laughter.) 
 
 What age are you ? — If I live till next March I will 
 be 70 years. 
 
 What is Tom Byrne doing now ? — He has a oow. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 What meeting was this that yon speak of ?— It was 
 on December 19, at Aughrim. I was not there. 
 
 Do you know who were there ? — I do not know. I 
 heard Matthew Harris was there and a fellow named 
 Byrne and several other speakers. 
 
 What does police protection mean in your case ? 
 Do you have the policemen in your house ? — They 
 walk round my place and pay me occasional visits. 
 
 Aughrim. My father was boycotted. When I went to 
 Mass I was groaned and hooted. Up to the time my 
 father took the farm I was on good terms with my 
 neighbours, and had no difficulty in dealing at fairs. 
 I used to go to Mass, like everybody else. 
 
 The Commissioners adjourned at ten minutes to 
 4 o'clock. „ 
 
 Patrick Small, the son of the last witness, examined 
 by Mr. RONAN, said : — I remember the meeting at 
 
 Patrick Small, sen. 
 Patrick Small, jun. 
 
 FBI DAY, NOVEMBER 9. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 12th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Koyal Courts of Justice. 
 
 The Commissioners having taken their seats, the 
 examination of witnesses called on behalf of The 
 Times was resumed. 
 
 Michael Joyce, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said,— 
 I am a farmer and reside at Oranmore, in the county 
 of Galway. I knew a man named John Cusack. He 
 had a farm near mine called Rineen. He was not 
 evicted, but he surrendered the farm in May, 1880, 
 to the owner, Mr. Walter Stanners. I took it in 
 July, 1880, and stocked it. At the time of taking the 
 farm I was on good terms with my neighbours. When 
 I took the farm there was no branch of the Land 
 League at Oranmore, but I heard that there was one 
 at Athenry. On the night of the 8th of August, after 
 I had stocked the farm, 16 sheep and six head of 
 cattle were either killed or mutilated. I gave the 
 farm up at once. After I had given up the farm 
 nothing, more was done to my cattle on my other 
 farm. Since I gave it up I have been at peace. Sub- 
 sequently a branch of the Land League was established 
 in a parish adjoining Oranmore, and I joined it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — I do not know 
 who committed the outrages upon my cattle. I can- 
 not exactly say how long after August, 1880, a branch 
 of the Land League was established at Oranmore, 
 but I think it was about November ; at any rate it 
 wa,s about the end of the year. Before I took this 
 farm, in July, 1880, I had lived in the same neighbour- 
 hood under the same landlord for a term of years. 
 Times were very bad in 1879 ; prices were sinking 
 and the crops were very poor. I think 1879 was as 
 bad a time as any. 
 
 Were there many evictions about you ? — Not many ; 
 the; landlord has been very considerate ; bat the people 
 were in very poor circumstances. My landlord is Mr. 
 Walter Stanners. 
 
 Was 1880 a very bad year ? — I have no recollection ; 
 the years pass by and I do not remember. 
 
 How long had the man who preceded you been in 
 occupation of it ? — I could not exactly tell, but I bid 
 for the farm and Cusack outbid me for it ; we com- 
 peted for it ; I could not say the exact date, bat it 
 was years before. I was always on good terms with 
 Cusack before that, but I never had much to say to 
 him since then. . 
 
 ' Re-examined by Mr. ATKINSON.— Athenry i3 seven 
 miles from Oranmore. I do not think there were any 
 
 Michael Joyce. 
 
240 
 
 The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 evictions in our parish till the time-of this occurrence, 
 but I do not exactly recollect. I do not recollect 
 whether there were evictions before the establishment 
 of the League there. 
 
 Mrs. Caroline Blake, examined by Mr. Murphy, 
 said, — I live at Ryndvale, in Galway. 
 
 In what part of the county ? — In Connemara. In 
 1872 I became guardian of my son, Edgar Henry, who 
 was the owner of the estate. 
 
 Towards the end of 1879 was there any difficulty 
 with some of the tenants as to the payment of rent ? — 
 There was some difficulty when the agitation began ; 
 none before. I was on the very best of terms with the 
 tenants. The family had lived some 200 years in that 
 part of the county. 
 
 At the period you refer to did the tenants come 
 openly to pay their rent ? — Yes. Before the agitation 
 they came openly and willingly. 
 
 And afterwards ? — Afterwards they refused to pay 
 unless with a reduction, and they came round the 
 house in a number and said they would be killed if 
 they paid, and asked would I support their children 
 if they were murdered ; they had the rent, but dared 
 not pay. I went out to them and said I would give 
 no reduction demanded in that way, but I would con- 
 sider every case on its merits, and give time or 
 reduction according to what I thought right. 
 
 After that, did some of them come to you ? — Some 
 of them came secretly, and one old man came with a 
 little boy, and the little boy had the money in his 
 sleeve. It was taken out of the sleeve — £5 or £6 — and 
 he paid his rent, and got a receipt pinned inside the 
 jacket of the little boy, for fear he might be searched 
 going home and the receipt found. Others came 
 knocking at the window, and we had to let them in 
 without the servants seeing them ; a good many came 
 /secretly and paid their rent at first. 
 
 As far as your judgment goes, were the tenants able 
 to pay or not ? — Oh, yes ; they said to me, " We can 
 pay, but dare not." 
 
 What date do you fix for the commencement of the 
 agitation when this disturbance grew up ? — There was 
 a meeting at Olifden, where there were some violent 
 speeches made. 
 
 Sib 0. Ettssell. — Were you there ? 
 
 Witness. — No ; but I saw it in the Galway Vindicator. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — What happened ? — It was some time 
 afterwards — I cannot say exactly how long — that about 
 200 tenants came round the door, first demanding a 
 reduction and saying they dared not pay, and asking 
 whether I would support their children if they were 
 murdered. 
 
 Had you a tenant named Peter Flaherty ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he pay his rent ? — Yes, always. Shortly after 
 the tenants came round the house his hay was burnt. 
 I had a caretaker and herd on my farm named John 
 Kane, and a portion of my estate was let to Mr. 
 Michael O'Neill. O'Neill took some grazing on the 
 Curragh farm ; Pat Halloran had a small farm, close to 
 
 Ourragh farm. Halloran had it from O'Neill. I had 
 also tenants named Pat Nee, Thomas Nee, and 
 Michael Connolly. O'Neill and the Others stocked their 
 farms with sheep. On December 10, 1879, 18C odd 
 of those sheep were thrown into the sea and drowned. 
 It is quite impossible that that could have been an 
 accident. It was certainly not an accident. 
 
 The President. — 1 understand you to say 180 of 
 those sheep ? — I do not know exac'tly ; 100 and some- 
 thing. The other witnesses will tell what the number 
 was. O'Neill and Halloran had compensation for their 
 portion of the sheep. I think O'Neill did not put any 
 more stock on the farm. He gave me notice in April 
 and gave up the farm. He told me 
 
 Sib C. Eussell.— I object, my Lords. 
 
 The President. —If it is his reason for giving up 
 the farm it is allowable. 
 
 Witness. — He told me he had got a threatening 
 letter, but whether that threatening letter was to the 
 effect that he was not to pay his rent or that he 
 was to give up the farm I cannot tell. He did not 
 mention when he gave me notice ; he just handed me 
 the notice to surrender the farm. 
 
 The President. — You mean he handed you the notice 
 which was 
 
 Witness.— He told me that he had had a threatening 
 letter. 
 
 Mr. Mubphy.— Do you know a Mr. Henry Smith ?— 
 Yes ; he had Derryinver farm from me on lease. 
 
 Do you know of anything happening to his cattle or 
 sheep ? 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — Of your own knowledge, madam ? 
 — Of course I know that it happened 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — Were you there when it 
 happened ? — I was not there when it happened ; 
 unless I was one of the agitators I could not 
 have seen it. (Laughter.) I had a tenant named 
 Michael King. One bullock of his was drowned. 
 I saw the place where it was supposed to have 
 been pushed in. There were traces of the 
 struggles of the animal. That was not a place where 
 the bullock would have got in of its own accord. I 
 cannot say at this distance of time whether there wero 
 marks of men's feet about the spot. There was a 
 canoe with the hair of an animal upon it, and it was 
 considered that the men who did this were in a canoe. 
 About this time police protection was given me. The 
 people used to drive their cattle on to my land to tres- 
 pass in great numbers, and one could get no one to 
 drive them off. Even the most friendly would not do 
 so unless you were with them to give them the support 
 of your presence, and I had myself to go and help to 
 drive the cattle off. I have driven 50 sheep, 16 head 
 of cattle, and nine horses off one grass farm where 
 they were trespassing. The horses were scattered when 
 we got them off. This happened constantly after the 
 agitation ; and when I had to go out sometimes at 
 night at 11 o'clock to drive them off I thought I ought 
 to have protection. One Sunday I went out and evidently 
 
 Mrs. Caroline Blake. 
 
The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 241 
 
 disturbed a crowd of people, and on the following 
 Thursday King's bullock was drowned. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Was there a man named John Kane, 
 a herd of yours, on your property ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I shall give evidence that this lady 
 was named by Mr. Matthew Harris at a Land League 
 meeting at Carna on April 7, 1881, He said, " Mrs. 
 Blake, of Eyndvale, is no better than a she devil." 
 
 On April 8, the day after that speech, do you know 
 of Kane, your herd, being visited i 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Do you know of your own know- 
 ledge, madam ? — I was not there ; it was reported to 
 me. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Did you go to the house the day 
 after ? 
 
 The President. — We can have that. 
 
 Witness. — My herd reported it to me. 
 
 Sir O. Eussell. — My Lords, I object. 
 
 The President. — He reported it to you ? The 
 witness assented. Then I shall allow it ; it was a part of 
 his duty to go and tell what had happened. 
 
 Sir'C. .Russell. — Well, my Lords, I formally object 
 to any statement of this kind. 
 
 The President. — Well, I take your formal objection. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — I object to any statement being 
 made by this lady or any other lady of this kind 
 which is merely hearsay evidence, and I say that 
 unless that rule is observed I contend that this ceases 
 to be in any sense a judicial investigation. 
 ■ The President (warmly). — That is not a proper 
 observation to make. I entertain no doubt as to the 
 admissibility of this evidence. The witness has stated 
 that her herd had reported to her, and it is part 
 of the duty of any servant in the employment of a 
 master to make a report as to anything affecting the 
 property under his charge. I therefore hold that the 
 evidence is distinctly admissible. 
 
 , Examination continued. — I cannot remember the 
 exact words in which he made his report, but I heard 
 the whole story from him, and that Kane's house was 
 visited at a quarter to 3 in the morning. In November, 
 1881, Patrick O'Neill put some bullocks on my farm at 
 Tullymore. The matter was reported to me 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I object again. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Do you know what happened to tbem ? 
 —I saw one of the bullocks with a rope round its 
 horns, and it appeared to have been struck with a 
 hatchet. I am not quite sure whether I saw any foot- 
 prints on that occasion. 
 
 What was the result of all this ? — I was severely 
 boycotted in many ways. I could get no labour. I 
 had 60 acres of meadow grass to be cut down, and only 
 one man stood by me and worked for me. I had eventu- 
 ally to take an hotel to support myself, and after the 
 No-rent Manifesto people would hardly come in. 
 Notices were posted up calling upon the people to pay 
 no rent. 
 
 Did you see these notices yourself ? 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— Are we to have evidence of these 
 notices without the originals being produced ? 
 
 The President.— It is not necessary to produce the 
 actual notices that were posted up. If you will be 
 kind enough to make your objection in the proper way 
 I shall be glad to listen to it. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — I have, my Lord, made my objec- 
 tion in the proper way — the only way open to me. 
 
 The President.— I do not think you have. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— I am sorry your Lordship should 
 differ from me. I have endeavoured to restrain my« 
 self. 
 
 The President. — I do not think you have restrained 
 yourself. On the contrary, I think you have expressed 
 yourself in a most disrespectful manner. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — Not intentionally disrespectfully, 
 my Lord, but firmly and earnestly, and I shall continue 
 to do so. 
 
 The President. — Very well, then, I accept that. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— My Lord 
 
 The President. — Some one must have the last word, 
 and I think it is desirable that I should have it. 
 
 The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Look- 
 wood. 
 
 When did you first begin to have any trouble ? — When 
 the agitation began. 
 
 Do not speak, please, of what you call the agitation, 
 but tell me as nearly as you can when you first began 
 to have any trouble ? — In 1879. 
 
 At about what period of the year ? — I cannot fix the 
 date. 
 
 Well, was it in the summer or in the spring ?— I can« 
 not tell you that ; it was in 1879. That was the -first 
 time the tenants came round the house. 
 
 Cannot you tell me a little more than that ? Can- 
 not you tell me what period of the year it was ? — I 
 cannot fix the date. I do not carry the exact date in 
 my mind. 
 
 But I am a,nxious to ascertain from you whether it 
 was the beginning, the middle, or. the end of the 
 year 1879 that you first began to have trouble ? — It 
 was in 1879 when the agitation began. 
 
 You will let your mind go back to the agitation. 
 — Well, the tenants paid well and regularly up to the 
 time of the agitation. 
 
 I want you to tell me about what time of the 
 year it was that your first trouble with your tenants 
 began ? — We had no trouble up to the time they came 
 round the house. 
 
 When was that ? — I cannot tell you exactly. 
 
 Can you tell me the time of day ? — It was towards 
 daylight. 
 
 Was it in the summer ? — I could not be certain. 
 
 Was it before the hay was cut ? — The hay was cut. 
 
 How long was it before the hay was burned ? — I could 
 not tell exactly. 
 
 How long was it after the hay harvest ? — It was some 
 time before the hay was burned. The hay was cut and 
 in the stack before it was burned. 
 
 In 1879 had the times been very had for the 
 tenants ?— No, I do hot think they had, because people 
 
 Mrs. Caroline Blake. 
 
242 
 
 The Special Commission, November 9, IS 8 8. 
 
 told me they could pay their rents, but they dared not 
 do so. 
 
 Had the times been bad in 1870 ? — Some complaints 
 were made. 
 
 Ilad prices gone down ? — They got ap a cry of dis- 
 tress . 
 
 Do you mean to insinuate that the distress did not 
 exist 1 — Distress existed afterwards. A cry of distress 
 will always produce distress. 
 
 I dare say it will among people who have any feel- 
 ing. Do you mean to suggest that a cry of distress 
 was got up when, as a matter of fact, distress did not 
 exist ? — I do say so. 
 
 Were the crops bad in 1879 ? — I do not think so. 1 
 know they were selling potatoes in the maiket after it 
 was said that there were none. 
 
 How do you know that ? — I had the market returns, 
 from which I obtained the names of those who sold. 
 
 How did the return show you that any of your 
 tenants sold, potatoes ? — I knew who were tenants and 
 who were not. The return related generally to the 
 people dealing in the market, and not to any particular 
 person. 
 
 Was a public return made in the newspaper ? — Ob, 
 no, the return was given to me by the man who kept 
 the market. 
 
 I thought, my Lord, the witness was referring to a 
 published market report. 
 
 The President.— You are now cross-examining her 
 as to her knowledge. 
 
 Mr. LocKW'OOD. — I presume your Lordships would not 
 admit any knowledge obtained in that way. 
 
 The President. — It would not have been admissible 
 in examination in chief, but if you ask her source of 
 belief she is entitled to answer. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Your Lordships will appreciate the 
 source from which this information came. 
 
 Had there been a failure of the potato crop ? — Well, 
 I will tell you what happened at one time to give you 
 an idea of the state of things. I was brought to one of 
 my farms and they showed me the potatoes. They 
 showed me only little potatoes in a ditch. Some one 
 gave me a hint to look on the other side of the ditch. 
 I did so, and there were quantities of large and good 
 potatoes taken out. 
 
 Who was the tenant who practised this potato trick 
 upon you (laughter) ? — His name was Hyland. 
 
 How is it spelt ? — Oh, I could not spell it for you. 
 
 Surely that would not bo such a very great in- 
 tellectual effort. Is this man still a tenant of yours ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Now, was it in consequence of the failure of the 
 potato crop that the price of potatoes went up at 
 the period to which I am referring ? — As a matter of 
 fact 
 
 I must ask you, before you make any comments, to 
 answer my question. Do you know as a fact that the 
 enhanced price of potatoes was due to a failure of the 
 potato crop 1 — I do not know that, but if the potatoes 
 were scarce the price would go up. As a matter of 
 
 fact people had potatoes long after they said they had 
 none. 
 
 Give me, please, as many names as you can of those 
 who came, to your house upon the occasion when you 
 say the trouble began ? — It would be very hard to go 
 oyer the names of 200 persons. 
 
 I ask you to give me as many as you can. Can you 
 give me any ? Give me those you are able to give ?— * 
 Well, 'there were Simon and Gregory Mullins, James 
 Lyden, Johnny Buane, and the Kenealys, and a great 
 many: Others. 
 
 Do you. mean to suggest that all your tenants came 
 on that day ? — A great number of them came. 
 
 .You have stated that some 200 persons surrounded 
 your house. Will you give me, as nearly as you can, 
 the number of your tenants at that time ? — I cannot 
 give it you exactly. Some went to America. 
 
 I suppose one man was spokesman for the others ? — 
 Several were spokesmen. 
 
 Do you mean in the names of the persons you have 
 given you have included the names of those who spoke 
 on behalf of the others p — Several spoke. John 
 Kowan spoke. 
 
 If you can remember the names of any other men who 
 spoke I wish you would give them to me ? — I could 
 not say exactly. Several spoke. One of them asked 
 me whether I wonld support his little children if 
 he was murdered. 
 
 Who was that ? — I forget who it was. 
 1 That was said to you by one of your tenants ? — Yes. 
 
 And yet you cannot remember his name ? — No ; ] 
 cannot. 
 
 Was that Baid so that the rest could hear ? — Yes, it 
 Was. 
 
 Hross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — What was the 
 name of the priest of your parish in 1879 ? — Fathei 
 M 'Andrew, who was the president, and Father 
 Cdnnolly, who was the secretary, of the Land League. 
 It was in consequence of Father Connolly that I was 
 spokfln of in Parliament. 
 
 You say that your affairs have been discussed in 
 Parliament ?— Yes ; during the time Mr. Forster was 
 alive. 
 
 When was that ? — I do not know, but I suppose that 
 the date can be ascertained. 
 
 In what year was it ? — I cannot tell you. All that 
 I know is that it was in Mr. Forster's time. The 
 reports of Mr. Henry Robertson and of Dr. Ronan, the 
 Local Government Inspectors, were referred to and 
 discussed. 
 
 Did either of those gentlemen live in your neigh- 
 bourhood ?— Oh, no ; they were Bent down by the 
 Government to see whether the report as to my case 
 was true or not. 
 
 But your case has been mentioned elsewhere than in 
 the House of Commons. Did you ever see a book 
 called " Disturbed Ireland," written by the Special 
 Commissioner of the Daily News 1 — I have not seen the 
 book, but I have seen it noticed in the papers. Mr. 
 
 Mrs. Caroline Blake. 
 
The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 243 
 
 Forster contradicted the statements in it in the House 
 of Commons. 
 
 You say that you cannot fix the time when this de- 
 putation waited upon you, but that it was after the 
 hay crop was got in ? — No ; before. The hay was 
 brought in shortly afterwards. 
 
 To your knowledge, was any Land League meeting 
 held in your neighbourhood before that deputation of 
 your tenants waited upon you ; and, if so, where ? — I 
 could not_exactly tell you. They had a meeting at the 
 cross roads, but I could not say whether it was before 
 or not. I was not present at the meeting, so I cannot 
 tell what passed at it. 
 
 You have told us a good many things that occurred 
 when you were not present. Can you say, either from 
 your own knowledge or from any report made 
 to you, that any meeting of the Land League was held 
 in your neighbourhood before your tenants came in a 
 body to you ? — I could not answer that question. It 
 is a good time ago, and I cannot remember. The 
 meeting at Clifden, I believe, was held before then. 
 There were a great many misstatements made, which 
 I contradicted in a letter headed " Facts versus 
 Fiction." 
 
 Where did it appear ? — In the Freeman's Journal. 
 Clifden is 14 miles from Letterfrack. My place is five 
 miles beyond Letterfrack on the seaboard. My ad- 
 joining owners are Mr. Mitchell Henry and Mr, 
 Graham, but the estate of the latter does not actually 
 adjoin my property. 
 
 Were there much arrears on your property ? — No ; it 
 was the best paid estate with which the agent had to 
 do. He always said so. 
 
 I am going to ask you a little about that. Do you 
 recollect the passing of the Arrears Act ? — Yes. 
 
 That was in 1882 ? — I have a very bad memory for dates. 
 
 Were things rather quieter after that ? — I ex- 
 perienced no personal disturbance after I set ' up my 
 hotel in 1883, except that some hundreds of my fowls 
 were poisoned. 
 
 Am I right in saying that all the worst outrages and 
 listurbances were bef orethe middle of 1882?— I said 1883, 
 ifter I set up my hotel. 
 
 I am asking whether you cannot tell me generally 
 whether the worst of the outrages were not before the 
 autumn of 1882 ? — I think that the drowning of my 
 bullocks was the last of the serious outrages. 
 
 Cannot you tell us what that date was 1 — Other 
 people can prove that. The date is well known. 
 
 At all events, you tell us that after 1883, except that 
 your fowls were poisoned, you did not suffer ? — My 
 tenants and I are now upon the best of terms again. 
 They come in and out of my house just as ever they 
 did. 
 
 Did not a great many people in your neighbourhood 
 formerly work away from their homes ? — Very few. 
 
 To your knowledge have not your, tenants paid their 
 rents to a large extent out of the earnings of their 
 children which were sent over from America ?— Some 
 
 of them did, but others had plenty of means and were 
 thriving and prosperous. 
 
 You say that some were thriving and prosperous I— 
 Yes, those who were deserving. Of course there were 
 exceptions, as there always will be. Some people 
 will never be as well off as others. 
 
 Those who deserved to be well off were thriving and 
 prosperous? — Yes, they were and are. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biqoak. — What was the gross 
 rental of your estate before 1879 ? — What do you mean 
 by the gross rental ? 
 
 How much did you get from the tenants ? — £1,600 a 
 year. If I had known that I should have been called 
 upon to answer these questions, I would have brought 
 my rent book. 
 
 Did any of your tenants go into the Land Court ? — 
 Yes, a few. A great many were settled with. It was 
 a dreadful idea to go into Court with so many tenants, 
 so we said to the tenants — and the plan was suggested 
 by one clergyman at any rate — that we might have 
 each holding gone over to see what reductions could 
 be made considering the times, and that they were all on 
 low and fair rents. So we sent a person round to all 
 the holdings, and he made a careful entry with regard 
 to each holding in a book as to the amount of the 
 rent and its history as far as it could be told him, and 
 nothing was taken off some, something was taken off 
 others, and a great deal more off the remainder. And 
 then we brought in all the tenants and said, " This 
 is the valuation. Take it home and consider it. 
 If you do not agree to that, you can go into 
 the Land Court." That was our agreement. (Laughter.) 
 We wrote the valuation on a slip of paper and handed 
 it to the tenants. Some of the tenants — not very 
 many, perhaps 18 or 20 — went into the Land 
 Court when it came round. To tell you the truth, 
 I thought that if we settled with those tenants 
 the others would be discontented. Those tenants said, 
 " If you do not agree to our terms, we will give you 
 nothing ; no rent shall be paid." We tried to make a 
 further settlement, taking off a few shillings here and 
 a pound there. Then, with regard to the cases of those 
 who went into Court, the Commissioners when they 
 came did just the same as we had done — they took 
 none off some rents and more or less off others. 
 
 And then the tenants were satisfied ?— They were 
 content. 
 
 About what year was this ? — I cannot say without 
 my books. 
 
 Cannot you guess ? — No. 
 
 Was it long after 1879 ?— I cannot say, but we lost 
 three shillings in the pound by the Government reduc 
 tion, because we had an early settlement. 
 
 How much is your rental now ? — I cannot tell. 
 
 Do you mean to swear yon cannot tell me ? — There is 
 a receiver on the estate, and the rental is being re- 
 duced. 
 
 About how much has the rental been reduced ?— I 
 could not tell yon. 
 
 Mrs. Caroline Blake, 
 
S44 
 
 The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 How much is the present rental 1 — I cannot tell 
 you. 
 It is over £1,200 a year ?— I cannot tell. 
 Can you swear it is over £1,000 ? — I cannot tell. 
 Do you think it is above £1,000 a year or not ? — I do not 
 know. I have not been doing business myself latterly. 
 But cannot you think ? — No, I cannot. 
 Can you offer an opinion ? — An opinion would be no 
 good. I do not know what the rent is now. 
 
 Can you tell me this — did you make any reduction to 
 the tenants ? — I did ; I said I would consider each 
 case on its merits. 
 
 Did not the reduction amount to £600 a year ? — I 
 cannot tell. The £1,600 included more than mere 
 rent. 
 
 Did you make any reductions voluntarily to your 
 tenants ? — 1 did, because everybody did. I refused at 
 first except to consider each case upon its merits. I 
 made reductions , in any case of distress, or where the 
 tenants could not pay. I refused at first to make a 
 general reduction on the demand of so many tenants, 
 but afterwards I made a reduction of 10 per cent. 
 
 The first controversy with your tenants occurred in 
 1879 — how long after did you make this reduction of 
 10 per cent. ? — I made it for two years. 
 
 When did it commence ? — At least I offered it. I do 
 not know whether they accepted it. I offered it 
 twice. 
 
 When did the 10 per cent, reduction commence ? 
 How soon after 1879 ? — A good while after. 
 
 Then it was about 1883 that it took place ?— No, it 
 took place in 1880 or 1881. 
 
 What is 10 per cent, on £1,600— £160, is it not ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 And when you found that the rents were likely to 
 be reduced by the Land Commissioners, you gave a 
 reduction of £600 ?— No ; we made each reduction on 
 the merits. 
 
 Mr. BlGGAR.— You have said all this before. 
 The President. — Yes, but yon are asking ques- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. BlGGAE. — But the witness does not answer 
 them. She makes a speech, and does not answer the 
 questions at all. (Laughter.) 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We have the figures. In 
 three cases there was no reduction at all, 
 but in all the others there was, the least re- 
 duction being 13 per cent, and the highest being 33 
 per cent., while the average was from 20 to 25 per 
 cent. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attobney-Genebal.— How old 
 is your son ? — Between 23 and 24 years of age. 
 
 Now, you have told us that you have lived among 
 these people for a very long time ? — Yes ; since I 
 Was married in 1861. 
 
 And you have been on good terms with them ? — On 
 the very best of terms ; they used to come in and out 
 of my house. 
 
 Were you acquainted with their social condition ?— v 
 Yes. 
 
 In cases of want, did they come to you for help ? — 
 Yes, they would come to borrow money of me, and 
 they would pay it again, and if they wanted a bag of 
 meal they came to me. If a cow died or a pig was 
 ill they used to come. Then, whenever they got any 
 money from America they would come and tell me. I 
 knew exactly the means of some of them, and could 
 have known the means of all of them. 
 
 Did you know from personal observations who were 
 thrifty and who were idle P — Yes, certainly. 
 
 What do you mean by saying that a cry of distress 
 had an effect on the neighbourhood ? — What I have 
 always held was that the cry of distress produced dis- 
 tress, because it prevented merchants giving credit in 
 the way they sometimes did. If potatoes failed, the 
 people could get a bag of meal on credit until fair-day 
 came, and they could sell their cattle. Therefore, a 
 cry of distress would injure credit. But had there not 
 been relief, I think there would have been distress at 
 one time. 
 
 Among the people on your estate up to the time of 
 this meeting was there any such distress as to affect 
 the tenants as a whole ? — Certainly not. .1 have seen 
 people sitting in the road wanting relief that I knew 
 to be well off. 
 
 For about how many years has the agitation ceased in 
 your neighbourhood ? — Since I set up the hotel at the 
 end of 1883. 
 
 Previously had you done any trade ? — No trade at 
 all. 
 
 Why were you obliged to start the hotel ? — To get a 
 living, because I saw the way in which the people 
 were keeping back the rents, and that they could in 
 fact crush us if I did not do something. 
 
 You had previously been enabled to live indepen- 
 dently, and you started an hotel in order to get a living ? 
 — I did. I had a good allowance left me by my husband. 
 
 Are you still carrying on the hotel ? — Yes. 
 
 Since the agitation has ceased on what terms are 
 you with your tenants ? — On the very best of terms. 
 They come in and out of my house as they did before. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell has asked you whether the Arrears 
 Act affected you in 1882 ? — We lost very little by the 
 Arrears Act, because I made the tenants pay up when 
 they said they had the money. 
 
 At the time of the agitation had you substantially 
 any arrears ? — No. 
 
 You have said that you used to lend the people 
 money. Will you explain what sort of amounts you 
 used to lend to the tenants? — I lent them small sums, a 
 pound, three pounds, or even a few shillings — what 
 they wanted. 
 
 Did they always repay it ? — Always. I once advanced 
 £150 worth of meal at one time to the kelp burners. 
 The kelp agents used always to give them money, 
 but they were pinched to start with, and I advanced 
 the meal for them to go on with. They paid every 
 penny back, except one poor man. 
 
 So far as your tenants were concerned, did the 
 
 Mrs. Caroline Blake. 
 
The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 245 
 
 Arrears Act have any effect on your relationship ? — 
 No, we only lost £300. 
 
 After the Crimes Act was passed in 1882 was the 
 condition of the country around jou better ?■ — Some 
 of the people who had committed murder were taken 
 up, and suspects were put into prison. 
 
 Is any land in your own hands being worked by a 
 receiver ? — I have land in my hands and my son has 
 land in his. Grass land which has been thrown up is 
 now worked by us. 
 
 Have you more land upon your hands now than at 
 the time Mr. Biggar sjroke to you about ? — We have a 
 great deal more which we work ourselves. 
 
 What is the total acreage of your property ? — 4,000 or 
 5,000 acres. 
 
 How much more is now in your hands ? — Consider- 
 ably more than before. 
 
 The President. — You say that the land is in the 
 hands of a receiver, how did that come about ? — From 
 the tenants' rent not being paid. The rents were paid 
 before the agitation. 
 
 Have your creditors possession of it ? — The mort- 
 gagees have taken it. The interest was paid so long 
 as the rents were paid. 
 
 Henry Blake, examined by Mr. Murphy, said : — I 
 am the son of the last witness. I have seen outrages 
 committed on cattle. In December, 1881, I saw some 
 bullocks ripped up at Tullamore. Nine bullocks were 
 slaughtered altogether. They were driven into the 
 sea. I saw the footprints of a great number of 
 people on the sand. Afterwards a donkey of ours was 
 found with its ears cut oft". 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD. — My mother had 
 the entire management of the estate up to 1885. , 
 
 Henry C. Smith, examined by Mr. Murphy, said : — 
 In 1879 I took the Derryinver farm from Mrs. Blake. 
 On December 11 of that year I lost some sheep. 
 I cannot say what was done to them ; they were 
 taken off the place. None to my knowledge were ever 
 found. The police were communicated with, and I 
 claimed compensation for malicious injury. 
 
 Why malicious injury ? — Because they were taken off 
 the place at night. 
 
 Yes, but why malicious injury ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I must ask whether this is evidence. 
 
 The President. — The witness has stated that he lost 
 the sheep and that he claimed for malicious injury, 
 and he is asked how it was malicious injury. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — How is that evidence P Suppose 
 he said, "I claimed for malicious injury because of the 
 suspicion that they hid been maliciously injured." 
 
 The President. — That is not the question. The 
 question is upon what ground he preferred the claim. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My point is that that is not evi- 
 dence. 
 
 The President. — It is evidence to know upon what 
 ground the compensation was claimed. 
 
 MR. Justice A. L. Smith. — I agree that it is not 
 evidence as to whether the injury was malicious. 
 
 Henry Blake. 
 Henry C. Smith. 
 
 Sir C. Kussell. — If it is not evidence as to whether 
 it was malicious injury, the Court is asked to infer 
 that it was from it. 
 
 The President. — It is material to know what was 
 taking place in the district at the time and what 
 claim was preferred by this man. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Can the suspicion of any man who 
 was going to make a claim for compensation be evi- 
 dence of the state of the district ? 
 
 The President.— I allow the evidence. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Might I be allowed to add to what 
 Sir C. Russell has said ? I think we gathered from 
 Mr. Beauchamp yesterday that the claim took the 
 form of a written information. 
 
 The President. — I requested that if there were any 
 such they should be put in. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — If the claim is the subject of a 
 written inf ormaxion, the best evidence we could have 
 is the written information. 
 
 The President. — Your objection is a very good one, 
 and a very different one to that of Sir O. Russell. If 
 there is any written claim I hope it will be produced. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I hope I shall not be misunder- 
 stood as not acquiescing in the objection of Sir C. 
 Russell, 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — You have made one 
 good objection. Is not one enough for you ? (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I would rather have that of Sir C. 
 Russell. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General.— If the claim was made 
 in writing we will get it if possible. I will point 
 out that the claims were investigated at the time, and 
 were paid, not because the injured man alleged they 
 were caused by malice, but because it was believed by 
 the sessions that they were. 
 
 The President. — I pointed that out yesterday. 
 
 The examination of the witness was then continued 
 by Mr. Murphy. He said : — I made the claim in 
 writing. It was preferred at Clifden special sessions 
 on a sworn information made before a magistrate. 
 
 Was anything done to any other of your cattle ? — 
 Yes. In the last week in October, 1879, I had some 
 cattle grazing on a farm at Derryinver, and my herd 
 reported to me that 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I again object to the report being 
 received as evidence. I would point out that there is 
 no such rule of law that, because it is the duty of one 
 person to make a report to another, that report is evi- 
 dence. There is only one exception to this rule, and 
 that is when it is the duty of an agent in the discharge 
 of his business to make a written report, and if that 
 agent is dead, or otherwise not available as a witness, 
 the decided cases say that that written report may be 
 made evidence. I submit there is no rule of law per- 
 mitting the admission of statements which are merely 
 verbal statements by an agent in the discharge of his 
 duty. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I would respectfully sub- 
 mit that my learned friend has forgotten the rule that 
 the res gestce may be proved, and if in the course of 
 
246 
 
 The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 the proof of the facts it is shown that servants have 
 made inquiries with regard to them and reported the 
 result, those reports form part of the res gestce for the 
 purpose of ascertaining under what circumstances the 
 occurrences took place. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is taking fresh ground, and 
 implies that my learned friend cannot meet my first 
 sbjeetion. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I beg your pardon. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — As regards the res gestce, what is 
 the res ? That certain cattle were injured. How 
 can it be part of the res gestae that a man who was 
 present and saw the injury afterwards made a statement 
 to a third person of what he had seen ? To say that 
 this is part of the res gestce is an entire misapprehen- 
 sion of the rule. 
 
 A consultation here took place between the Commis- 
 sioners. After the lapse of a few minutes, 
 
 The President said,— As this objection has been 
 taken in a formal manner and argued before us, we 
 think it right that we should consider it further. In 
 the meantime the evidence should proceed without 
 referring to statements made by other persons. We 
 will give a definite opinion upon the point at a later 
 period. 
 
 Examination continued by Mr. Murphy. — Did you 
 go and investigate the place where the outrages took 
 place ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see any of the cows ?— Not at that time. A 
 week or ten days after I saw one of the five missing 
 bullocks on the farm. 
 
 Were there any marks on it you could see ? — No. 
 
 Was the matter investigated by the police ? — Yes, 
 by Sergeant Cavanagh. 
 
 Was he subsequently murdered ? — Yes. 
 
 John Eane was next called, and examined by Mr. 
 Murphy. 
 
 Were you employed by Mrs. Blake ? — Yes, 
 
 For how long ? — Since I was eight years old I have 
 worked for the family. 
 
 Were you there when the agitation began about the 
 rent ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 About how many of them came ? — It seemed as 
 though all the tenants came. I could not give the 
 number. 
 
 After that was anything dono to Mrs. Blake in the 
 neighbourhood ? Did the people deal with her as 
 before ? — No answer. 
 
 Do you know what boycotting means ? — I do not, 
 Bir. 
 
 Don't know what " boycotten " means ? — Oh, 
 " bycoiten," I know him. (Laughter.) I have not 
 much good English to speak. 
 
 You put the accent on the second syllable ? — Witness 
 looked puzzled, and at last said, "I go about my 
 own business." (Loud laughter.) 
 
 Do you remember what happened at your own house ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Tell us what happened ? — Some of them came to the 
 
 Henry C. Smith. 
 John Eane. 
 
 room and took my son out of bed. I hid myself in the 
 room. 
 
 Where did you hide ? — Under the bed. (Laughter.) 
 
 What did they do to your son? — I don't know. I 
 was listening to my wife. (Laughter.) 
 
 What was she doing ? — Asking them not to do any- 
 thing to my son. 
 
 Did they say anything '/ — They said if I would 
 not give up the holding they would come again, but 
 if I did it would save me from anything. (Laughter.) 
 
 Do you remember O'Neill's sheep ? — I was herd at the 
 time. 
 
 Can you tell me the date ? — As far as I can remem- 
 ber it was 1881. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Did they injure 
 your son ? — No. 
 
 Or your wife ? — No, indeed, they did not. 
 
 Did your son see the neighbours ? — He didn't know 
 anything, I tell you. We had no light, and he could 
 not make anything of them. He did not know what it 
 was about. 
 
 How old was he ? — Fourteen, 
 
 Do you farm any land ? — Yes. 
 
 How much ? — Three or four acres. 
 
 What family have you ? — I had a large lamily. 
 About six children now (laughter) ; I had more at 
 that time. (Laughter.) 
 
 What wages do you earn ? — £14 a year. 
 
 Do you recollect your neighbour going to Mrs. 
 Blake to ask for a reduction of rent ?— Yes. 
 
 Can yoa give us the names of any of the tenants ?— 
 No ; there were so many I could not make out. 
 
 Were they hard-working men ? — Certainly, they 
 earned their living. 
 
 Did they need any reduction. Were they badly off ?— 
 They were not different to other parts of the country. 
 
 Did the crops of potatoes fail ? — Indeed they did. 
 
 Was there a great deal of distress in the neighbour- 
 hood ? — Yes, indeed. 
 
 Did you get any relief ? — No, indeed I did not. Mrs. 
 Blake relieved me. 
 
 Was there a committee giving relief at Letterfrack ? 
 — Certainly, we got some. 
 
 Did you get some of the relief from the committee ? 
 — Later in the year I did ; but in the spring when we 
 wanted seed potatoes there was none. 
 
 You were badly off ? — I was, indeed. 
 
 Were your children able to do anything for them 
 salves ? — Not except one. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — What is your 
 age P— Close on 70. 
 
 How old is your eldest Bon ? — About 23. 
 
 Has he gone to America ? — Yes. 
 
 Your son in America helps you ? — Yes. 
 
 Since he has been away has he sent you any money ? 
 —Not much ; I have not heard from him for two years. 
 
 But before that did he send you money ? — Yes. . 
 
 Is he the only son you have in America ? Have you 
 any more in America P — Only that one 
 
The Special Commission, November 9, IS 88. 
 
 247 
 
 Do any of your other sons live with yon P — Yes, the 
 whole of them. 
 
 And do they help you in the herding ? — Yes. 
 
 They do not get anything beyond what you are paid 
 — the £14 a year — that is divided among yon ? — Yes. 
 
 How many of you have to live oat of that £14 ? — 
 Seven in family and myself and wife. 
 
 How much is the rent that you have to pay ? — It is 
 about £2 17s. 
 
 What used it to be in 1879 ? — I was paying £3 8s., 
 and Mrs. Blake allowed me to earn something for my- 
 self. 
 
 How much could you earn in that way in the year ? 
 —It depends. 
 
 Do you understand what I mean ? Take your time. 
 I will put the question to you again. How much 
 altogether could you earn in a fair year ? — Maybe I 
 would have debts in the shop. 
 
 I can well understand that ; but how much money 
 would you make in the year besides working for Mrs. 
 Blake ?— That is more than I can say. 
 
 When you were working for Mrs. Blake and yourself ? 
 —I got my living, but I never saved any money. 
 
 No, no. The witness seems to think, my Lords, that 
 I am accusing him of amassing a fortune. (Laughter.) 
 How much did you get paid a year for your work ? — 
 Ko answer. 
 
 Well, how much did you get a day P — According as 
 wages was going. I would earn about Is. a day. The 
 highest wage in the county was about Is. 6d. a day. 
 That is all I can say about it. 
 
 By Mr. Harrington. — I remember the famine years. 
 I lived down in that district in Connemara during the 
 famine. I have lived there since I was five years of 
 age. 
 
 You saw many bad things happen there during the 
 famine ?— Yes. God forbid I should see many more 
 such. 
 
 Did you see any people die of starvation there ? — I 
 did, Sir, many. 
 
 Do you know what brought about that famine ? 
 What crop was it that failed ? — It was the potatoes. 
 Potatoes were the only food the people were eating 
 during that time, and they are the chief food they are 
 eating now. 
 
 In 1879 was there a great failure of the potatoes in 
 that district ?— Yes. We had not half the potatoes in 
 1879 that we had in 1877 ; 1878 and 1879 were the two 
 worst years since the famine. 
 
 The people there did not get any outdoor relief from 
 the Board of Guardians ? — Oh, certainly, some of them 
 got it. Some of them got relief from the Board of 
 Guardians, and I also saw a steamer going about dis- 
 tributing relief. Father M'Andrew was formerly in 
 charge of the parish I live in. He gave out a good 
 deal of relief. His curate's name was O'Connor. He 
 helped the parish priest in giving out relief. 
 
 Do you know anything about the Land League that 
 was formed ? — I had nothing to do with the Land 
 League at all. 
 
 Can you tell me the names of any others who were 
 helping the priest in distributing relief ? — There was 
 the Hon. Mr. Bourke, and a good many others. 
 
 Were the shopkeepers or farmers helping ?— The 
 people were getting notes to the shopkeepers for relief. 
 
 I suppose it was only during the harvest time you 
 were working for yourself ? — Oh, no. Any day I can 
 get time I work for myself, during the harvest and in 
 the spring. I could not say that my time belongs to 
 myself. 
 
 Were you down mere when the tenants came round to 
 Mrs. Blake ? — I was. I saw them, but I did not hear any- 
 thing they said. I was doing my work about the house. 
 I did hot hear any of the tenants say they had their 
 rents and would not pay. Her royal honour herself 
 told me. (Laughter.) 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — You told 
 me that you have been herding for Mrs. Blake ever 
 since you went there ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Were you on good terms with her ? — Certainly. 
 
 How much land have you ? — About four acres. I 
 have no cattle. I sowed the land. I had to herd the 
 cattle for Mrs. Blake. My children used to help me 
 — those that were old enough. When I had someone 
 to help me in that I went away to work for myself. 
 Up to the time of the people visiting the house I had 
 got along very well, and I was contented with my 
 employment. I do not know what were my total 
 earnings in the year. 
 
 Jiow, about the relief ; what people did get relief 
 in the neighbourhood P^Sure, the man who did not 
 need it maybe got more than the poor man. 
 
 Do you know whether anybody who had horses got 
 it ? — I do, indeed. 
 
 Do you know whether anybody who had sheep and 
 cattle got it ? — I do. 
 
 Strong people as well as weak people ? — They may 
 have got it ; I suppose they were entitled to it. 
 
 Mr. MrjRrnY. — Those are all the witnesses in this 
 case we have at present. 
 
 Archibald Edward Honan, examined by Mr. Atkin* 
 SON, said, — I live at Whitegate, in county Galway. 
 Whitogate is about six miles from Woodford. I carry 
 on the business of a general country merchant. I am 
 also postmaster at Whitegate and clerk of petty 
 sessions at Mount Shannon. I have been carrying on 
 business there for about 21 years. There was a Land 
 League branch established in Whitegate about 1879 or 
 1880. I have some land. I had some of it in my 
 hands at the time the Land League was established. I 
 know a man of the name of Pat Bogers. He was a 
 tenant on the property of Dr. Oogan, near Whitegate. 
 He was evicted in March, 1882. A man named Michael 
 White went to live in the house after Bogers was 
 evicted. He was put into the house to do general 
 work for the landlord. After the eviction of Rogers, 
 Terry Minogue took a piece of bog belonging to the 
 evicted holding. That was in 1882, immediately after 
 the eviction. White was also put in immediately after 
 
 John Kane. 
 
 Archibald Edward Honan. 
 
248 
 
 The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 the eviction. The Land League was established in 
 Whitegate about 1879 or 1880, and the National League 
 in 1884 or 1885 ; I am not sure which year it was. 
 These two men dealt with me tip to November, 1885, 
 very regularly, and up to that month in 1885 I was on 
 good terms with my neighbours. I had a large 
 business. In November, 1835, I supplied goods to 
 White and Minogue. I supplied White with goods 
 about the 25th of November, I think. White came to 
 me in the company of a policeman. I cannot fix the 
 date when I supplied the goods to Minogue. I do not 
 think he came to me with a policeman. Shortly after 
 I supplied these men with goods there was a great 
 falling-off in my business. I heard on Sunday, 
 November 29,that I was boycotted by the League. The 
 committee met in the chapel. I was not present. 
 That was the Sunday after the day when I supplied 
 the goods. Scarcely anybody entered my shop after 
 that, and that state of things has continued up to the 
 present day, more or less. People having business in 
 connexion with letters are obliged to come to my shop. 
 Some who come for letters take advantage of the op- 
 portunity to get goods. Others come secretly for goods, 
 not publicly. If they came publicly they would be 
 boycotted. At the time when I was boycotted the 
 president of the National League at Whitegate was 
 the Rev. Mr. Horan, parish priest. The treasurer was, 
 I believe, John M'Dermott, a Poor Law guardian. I 
 never went before the League myself, and I have not 
 been summoned to attend before it, but I have had 
 indirect messages. The president of the local branch 
 knew of my being boycotted. I spoke to him im- 
 mediately after it began. 
 
 After this falling-off in your custom was anything 
 done to your stock ? — My corn was thrown about the 
 fields ; the coping was torn from a wall , and a filly of 
 mine was houghed on the fore-leg. I had to kill her 
 and I obtained compensation at the assizes. On Easter 
 Sunday in 1886 windows were broken in my dwelling, 
 house. On September 19 in the same year an attempt 
 was made to break the windows, but the stones fell 
 on the roof over my bedroom. The windows were not 
 broken. I prosecuted a man for that. The smith 
 wonld not shoe my horses, and I had to send to 
 Loughrea, 20 miles off, for a travelling forge which I 
 obtained from the police. 
 
 Did your servants leave your employment ? — They 
 refused to leave, but I understood they were called 
 upon to do so. 
 
 Sib C. Russell objected. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Has your business yet recovered ? — 
 No. In May, this year, a man named Hourigan came 
 to my house with a cart for half a ton of artificial 
 manure. The wheels of his cart were taken off on the 
 following night. I then lent him my cart. Four or 
 five nights afterwards my cart was taken out of the 
 yard, and it was subsequently found by Hourigan in the 
 Shannon, in 8ft. of water. It was without wheels. 
 
 Except that you had supplied goods to the two men 
 whom you have mentioned, was there any cause for 
 
 your being treated in this way ? — No ; I had been in 
 the place 21 years, carrying on my trade and friendly 
 with everybody. 
 
 Do you read United Ireland 1 — I have sometimes seen 
 resolutions of the League in it. 
 
 The learned counsel then read the following extract 
 from United Ireland :— " Whitegate, May 29, 1886.— 
 Irish National League — Branch Meeting. — The acts of 
 the persons who had brought a travelling forge into 
 the parish were also under discussion and were unani- 
 mously disapproved of." 
 
 Does that apply to you ? — Yes ; I was the only 
 person who had brought a travelling forge into the 
 district. 
 
 Now, listen to this :— " Irish National League.— 
 Branch Meeting, Whitegate, Galway, February 19, 
 1887. — Resolved, that we disapprove the action of 
 a local trader in supplying emergency men at 
 Saunders' Fort. We also disapprove of the conduct of 
 those men and women who resort to this emergency 
 house, and we pledge ourselves to forward their names 
 to the local branches." 
 
 Were you the person pointed at as supplying those 
 goods ? — Yes. 
 
 Here is another extract : — " Whitegate, Galway, July 
 23, 1887.T-Resolved, that we condemn the police for 
 having torn down a perfectly legal notice, of which 
 the following is a copy : — ' Important Notice. — A 
 meeting of ratepayers will be held after last mass to 
 take steps to prevent Archibald B. Honan from getting 
 £25 for a foal six months old from the Galway grand 
 jury, to-morrow. Rackrenters and farmers, look ( to 
 your conduct.' In the opinion of this meeting this 
 conduct was as illegal as the arrest of Miss Cass." 
 
 Was that a reference to the foal that was houghed ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Up to this time had you had any difficulty in getting your 
 horses shod ? — I had no difficulty until I was boy- 
 cotted. I sent the horses to a man who had been 
 working for me for 20 years and he sent them back 
 without shoeing them. A baker who had supplied me 
 with bread for 20 years refused to supply me any 
 longer. I do not require to get Other provisions in 
 the locality. All other supplies I get from Limerick. 
 The baker used to serve me three times a week, but 
 as soon as I was boycotted he refused to serve me. 
 
 After you were boycotted the demeanour of the 
 people towards you changed ? — In some cases, not 
 generally. 
 
 Had you a communication with the Rev. Mr. Horan 
 about this ? — We spoke about it and he showed me, a 
 communication from Mr. T. Harrington. I read tha 
 letter in his house. 
 
 What was in the letter ? 
 
 Sie 0. Russell.— No, no. I object ; I prefer tdr 
 have the letter. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Well, we cannot carry 
 the matter further at present. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington.— My name having been men* 
 
 Archibald Edward Honan. 
 
The Special Commission, Novembers 9, 1888. 
 
 249 
 
 tioned, my Lords, I wish to say that I do not object 
 to the contents of the letter being given. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — What was the date of this communi- 
 cation ? — It was in January or February, 1886, some 
 few months after the boycotting began. The substance 
 of the letter was this : — Mr. Harrington said that he 
 considered the action of the local League incon- 
 siderate, having regard to the fact that I was a Go- 
 vernment official and not as free to act as other traders 
 in the district, and that Mr. Horan should use his in- 
 fluence to get the boycotting stopped. 
 
 Did Mr. Horan use his influence ? — I understood that 
 he did and that he handed the letter to the treasurer 
 of the League, John M'Dermott. 
 
 Did the boycotting discontinue ? — Oh, no ; it was 
 more rigorous after that. The letter was written 
 before any of the resolutions were passed. I received 
 threatening letters through the post, which I gave to 
 Sergeant Clancey. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sis C. Russell. — I keep a shop 
 for the supply of general goods ; I am the postmaster 
 and I am also petty sessions clerk. I have no legal 
 education. I was appointed sessions clerk in 1873. I 
 was appointed by the Registrar, having been nominated 
 by the magistrates of the district. I was made post- 
 master in 1882. My mother-in-law managed the ofEce 
 for some years before that. 
 
 Can you give us the dates of the outrages of which 
 you complain 'I — It was at the end of April, 1886, that 
 my drawing-room window was broken. My corn was 
 thrown about at the latter end of August or the 
 beginning of September, 1886. On November 28 the 
 foal was houghed. It was a very valuable foal, and I 
 obtained £20 compensation. The travelling forge 
 which I have mentioned I got from the constabulary. 
 I got it for my use from Saunders's Fort. That was 
 where the Clanricarde evictions were being carried 
 out, and Saunders was himself an evicted tenant. 
 
 The men who have been called emergency men were 
 in possession ? — Yes. 
 
 For the purpose of carrying out further evictions ? — 
 I cannot say. 
 
 Are they there still ? — I do not think there is any 
 one at Saunders's Fort at present. 
 
 Do you know that, rightly or wrongly, with cause 
 or without cause, the reason of your unpopularity was 
 the fact of your dealing with the emergency men ? — 
 No ; because I had not supplied any of them when I 
 was boycotted. 
 
 Do you not know that that was the main cause of 
 your unpopularity '1 — I do not. The main cause of my 
 unpopularity was supplying White and Minogue in 1885. 
 
 This baker that you speak of, where does he live ? — 
 At Scariff, county Clare. 
 
 Not at Whitegate ? — No, he has nothing to do with 
 the local League at Whitegate. 
 
 You have told us the president of the League was 
 Mr. Horan, the parish priest, and that the treasurer was 
 Mr. John M'Dermott ? — Yes ; I have heard so from 
 hearsay. 
 
 Were they the two most important men in the 
 League ? — I do not think that Mr. Horan was very 
 active. The most active were John M'Dermott, 
 William Burke, and Peter Madden. 
 
 Did you ever speak to Burke, M'Dermott, or Madden 
 about the boycotting ? — No ; I spoke to Mr. Horan. 
 
 Did lie not say he had condemned it, and would 
 express his views to the League ? — He said he was 
 sorry that I was boycotted and placed in the position 
 in which I was. 
 
 Do you know that Mr. Harrington exerted himself 
 to put down the boycotting ? — No ; not beyond that 
 letter. 
 
 Did you ask a friend of yours to see Mr. Harrington, 
 and did he not convey to you that Mr. Harrington was 
 anxious to condemn the boycotting and put it down ?— • 
 He said he wrote a strong letter to Mx. Horan. 
 That is all I heard. I have given the purport of the 
 letter. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood.— When did the 
 interview with Mr. Horan take place ? — In December, 
 1885, I think. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. HARRINGTON. — You have made 
 some reference to the church. You do not mean that 
 any mention had been made of your name in the 
 church ? — It was when they were holding a meeting in 
 the sacristy. 
 
 That is where parochial meetings are usually held ? 
 — Yes ; and that is where they met. 
 
 Do you know whether any letter was sent threaten- 
 ing the branch with dissolution if they did not put an 
 end to the boycotting ? — No ; I never heard of it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biogar. — Have you ever 
 seen an advertisement in the English papers, " No 
 Irish need apply 'I " — No. 
 
 Have you heard of it ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you ever read in a Dublin or Irish paper that 
 persons applying for situations " must be Pro- 
 testant ? " — No. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. — The 
 baker whom I have mentioned: supplied all the other 
 traders. He used to come three times a week. I do 
 not know of his refusing to supply anybody besides 
 myself. There were, as far as I know, two branches of 
 the League in Scariff. 
 
 Sergeant Clancey, examined by Mr. ATKINSON, said 
 that he was stationed at Whitegate in 1882, and was 
 there still. 
 
 Do you know the locality well ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember a man named Rogers being 
 evicted ? — Yes. 
 
 And a man named White being put in to take care 
 of the farm ? — Yes. 
 
 And a man named Minogue ? — Yes. , 
 
 Were you protecting them ? — Yes. 
 
 When did the protection begin? — In 1883. 
 
 How long had White been in possession before the 
 protection began '{ — Three or four months. 
 
 When was the Land League established in White« 
 I gate ?— In April, 1882. 
 
 Archibald Edward Honan. 
 
 Sergeant Clancey. 
 
250 
 
 The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 Were any Land League meetings held there ? — No, 
 not meetings. 
 
 Any committee meetings ? — No ; not until the 
 National League was established. 
 
 How long had White been in possession before the 
 Land League was established ? — About two or three 
 months. 
 
 When was the National League established ? — In 
 April, 1884. 
 
 After the National League was established were 
 there public meetings ? — There were no public meet- 
 ings, but committee meetings. 
 
 Have you watched the persons going in to the com- 
 mittee meetings ? — Yes. 
 
 Are these the names of the members of the committee 
 you have seen (holding up a paper) ? — Yes. 
 
 They are John M'Dermott, Peter Madden, William 
 Burke, Michael Flannery, John Kennedy, Timothy 
 Minogue, John Hogan, Michael Hogan, and James 
 Minogue ?— Yes ; John Hogan was supposed to be 
 treasurer and John M'Dermott secretary. 
 
 You have told us that you were protecting White 
 and Minogue ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you go with them to the houses of local traders 
 to get provisions ? — They were refused, and then White 
 and I went to Mr. Honan's. White was boycotted at 
 the time. After our visit he dealt with Mr. Honan. 
 I never accompanied Minogue to Mr. Honan's. 
 
 Did you get from Mr. Honan a certain threatening 
 letter ? — Yes ; I sent it to my superior officer, Mr. 
 Wade. I also took down a threatening notice which 
 was posted on a wall in the village. I sent the 
 originals to Mr. Wade, but I have correct copies 
 (copies produced). 
 
 Mr. Lockwood objected to the copies being read in 
 the absence of the original documents. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We do not happen to 
 have the originals here to-day. We did not know 
 until the witness came here that these were not the 
 original papers. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — If the original documents had been 
 destroyed I should not have objected. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— We must see if the 
 original documents can be found. 
 
 The President.— They must be produced. 
 
 The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Lock- 
 wood. 
 
 When did you take this list of names ? — In March, 
 1884, or April. 
 
 But it is written on a piece of paper which contains 
 a communication to you or some other officer, and has 
 the date July, 1885. Does that enable you to fix the 
 date more accurately ? — I took it from the names I 
 took in 1884. 
 
 I understood you to say you took them down on 
 that piece of paper ? — Witness took the paper, looked 
 at it, and said, It is all right. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — That it satisfactory, no doubt ; but 
 it will not do for me. 
 
 The paper was handed to the President. 
 
 The President.— The paper bears the date July 6, 
 1885, and the words " Prospect Hill." That is in a 
 different handwriting. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — You say you wrote this in March, 
 1884, at the time you saw these gentlemen going into 
 the house. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— He did not say that docu- 
 ment. He said he took the names in 1884. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I understood him to say he wrote it 
 when he saw the men going in. 
 
 The President. — His words might mean that, but 
 they were ambiguous. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Did you or did yon not write that 
 down at the time you say you saw the persons attend- 
 ing the committee ? 
 
 The President. — On that paper — that very paper ? 
 — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood (to the Attorney-General). — You see 
 I am right. (To witness). — How did that piece of paper 
 which relates to a transaction in 1885 come into your 
 possession in March, 1884 1 
 
 The President. — That is not quite so. It is a 
 memorandum made in 1885, and is in a different hand- 
 writing. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Did you see the words on that 
 paper, " Complied with July, 1885 ? " Whose writing 
 is it ? — The head constable's. 
 
 Do you suggest the head constable wrote that aft el 
 you wrote the names on the other side in March, 
 1884 ? — That is a copy of the names I took down in 1884. 
 
 You had forgotten that, hadn't you? Now, I am 
 very anxious to see the original document. Where is it? — 
 I have not got it. I knew the names of the committee. 
 
 You wrote from your memory? — Yes, I knew the names. 
 
 When did you write it, last week ?— Oh, no, Sir. 
 
 The week before ? — No, Sir. 
 
 When ? Some time in 1885 ? Some time after 
 July ?— Yes. 
 
 From memory ? — No. When they were going in. 
 
 Was the document written by you from memory in 
 July, 1885 ? — It was written at the time I saw them 
 going in. 
 
 Will you swear you stood in the street and wrote it 
 down in ink on the paper in your hand ? — I took it 
 first in pencil and copied it in the barracks. 
 
 Will you swear you stood in the street with pen and 
 ink ? — I took it first in pencil and wrote it afterwards 
 in ink. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I am sure that.without the slightest 
 intention, the Attorney-General is carrying on a conver- 
 sation which the witness can hear. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— You are under a misappre- 
 hension. 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — I am not under a misapprehension. 
 
 The President.— I did not hear it. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — But I did. (Laughter.) 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — You swore to me dis- 
 tinctly that you wrote that in March or April, 1884 i 
 —That is a mistake of mine. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did you write that document at the time you saw the 
 
 Sergeant Clancey. 
 
The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 251 
 
 men going into the committee-room ?— No ; I wrote in 
 pencil and then copied in ink. 
 
 Then yon say you wrote it in the street ? — I wrote 
 it in ink afterwards. 
 
 Do attend, please, and do yourself justice. Did not yon 
 swear to me just now that yon wrote it in the street in 
 pen and ink ? — It was a mistake of mine. 
 
 Another mistake ! Have yon made any more mistakes 
 in your evidence ? — No. 
 
 You are sure of that ? — Yes. 
 
 Where is the paper you wrote in the street ?— I burnt 
 it. I thought it enough to keep one. 
 
 Why did not you keep the original ? — I thought it 
 enough to keep the one written in pen and ink. 
 
 Did you know all these men ? — Yes. 
 
 What were they, tradesmen ? — Farmers ; all farmers. 
 
 Were there any tradesmen among them ? — They all 
 bare land. 
 
 Are they persons of respectability ? — Yes ; farmers. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Asqtjith. — I went to White- 
 gate in July, 1880. There was not a branch of the 
 Land League there until 1882— until about August or 
 September, 1882. I know these men. M'Dermott 
 has a farm. He is not a miller. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Harrington. — Have you any 
 recollection of the time the Land League was sup- 
 pressed ? — September, 1887. 
 
 September, 1887 ! The Land League ?— Oh, the Land 
 League. I conld not exactly say. I think 1882. 
 
 About that list of names. What did you write it for ? 
 — To know the names of the members who attended. 
 
 Did not you know them, as they were attending 
 every day ? — Yes ; but some of them did not happen to 
 attend every day. 
 
 Is that the list of men you saw going in on a par- 
 ticular day ? — Yes. 
 
 Can yon fix that particular day ? — I could not. 
 
 There must be a date on the original document you 
 burnt. What was the date of it ? — I could not exactly 
 tell. 
 
 Has that piece of paper been in your possession ever 
 since the time when you transferred the names to it ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Who told you to bring it over here ? — I just brought 
 it myself. 
 
 Did anybody tell you to bring it ? — No. 
 
 Did any one tell yon what you would be examined 
 about ? — No. 
 
 Who subpeenaed you ? — Mr. Soames. 
 
 Who served the subpoena ? — It has not been served yet. 
 
 Why did you come here ? — I received a telegram. 
 
 Produce it, please. 
 
 The telegram was produced. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Read it, Mr. Harrington. 
 
 Mr. Harrington read as follows : — " Come over at 
 once ; urgently wanted on Commission caso. Subpoena 
 served on arriving." 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Head it all. 
 
 Mr. Harrington.—" Soames, Lincoln's-inn-fields, 
 London." 
 
 The President. — It would not have been a very 
 material fact if it had not been sent by Mr. Soames, 
 
 Mr. Harrington.— If the Irish police are able to 
 come over here at the request of Mr. Soames, it may 
 be a question for comment hereafter. 
 
 Did you get permission of your superior officer to 
 come ? — I was directed to come. 
 
 By whom ? — By my superior officer. 
 
 Who was he ?— The head constable of Woodford. 
 
 Ho directed you to come ? — Yes. 
 
 When did he direct you to come ? — On the night of 
 the 6th inst. 
 
 Was that before you received the telegram ? — No. 
 
 After receiving the telegram ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know if he got permission for you to come 
 over ? — I don't know. 
 
 Can a head constable give you permission to leave 
 your district 1 — Yes. 
 
 Have you ever known him to do it before ?— Oh, yes, 
 he can. 
 
 Did yon ever get permission before to leave your 
 district ? 
 
 The President. — We do npt consider there was any 
 impropriety in his being allowed to come. 
 
 Mr. Harrington. — I don't suggest there was. I am 
 only cross-examining him as to the means by which he 
 has been brought, and I consider it perfectly open to 
 me to do so. 
 
 The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On its re- 
 assembling, 
 
 Mr. Frederick Wade, district-inspector at Portumna, 
 was examined by Mr. Atkinson. Witness, having been 
 shown the copies of the notices referred to in the course 
 of Sergeant Clancey's examination, said : — The letters 
 were in my office when I was away on duty in the 
 North of Ireland. When I came back the head constable 
 told me that Mr. Byrne, a magistrate, had come to the 
 office and taken them away with him, together with 
 speoimens of handwriting, to have them compared by 
 Mr. Peek. I have searched for them since, and have 
 not been able to find them. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Rr/ssEix. — Mr. Byrne is a 
 magistrate — a divisional magistrate. He does not sit 
 in petty sessions, in court, or anything of the sort ; 
 but he is a magistrate. He is, as a matter of fact, a 
 police officer and a county inspector. He is both a 
 divisional magistrate and a county inspector. 
 
 What are the functions of a divisional magistrate 1— 
 I can hardly tell you, Sir. 
 
 I want to know. — He has charge of a certain divi" 
 sion comprising so many counties. 
 
 And are there certain magistrates under his orders in 
 that district ?— Certain resident magistrates are to a 
 certain extent under his superintendence. 
 
 Do I understand that this magistrate visited the 
 police office and took away certain documents for the 
 purpose of comparing the handwriting ? — Yes ; for the 
 purpose of submitting them to Mr. Peek, an expert. 
 
 Sergeant Claacey. 
 
 District-Inspector Wade. 
 
252 
 
 The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 And had the divisional magistrate that duty ? — 
 Certainly. 
 
 Was he a divisional magistrate before he was 
 appointed to that post ?■— No, a county inspector. 
 
 Be-examined by Mr. Atkinson. — The divisional 
 magistrates do not adjudicate ; they are the head of 
 the Executive. 
 
 After a short conversation between Mr. Lockwood 
 and the Attorney-General, 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith said, — Is it worth while 
 bringing Mr. Byrne into Court ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — My Lords, Byrne is here. 
 
 The Attobney-Geneeal.— I think he is at the Lord 
 Mayor's Show. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Well, when the Lord Mayor's Show 
 is over perhaps he will attend this Court. 
 
 Sib H. James, addressing the President.— With re- 
 spect to copies of the speeches, we have done all we can 
 to place them in the hands of your Lordships and of my 
 learned friends. We have now to suggest that all the 
 portions of the text that are of importance be arranged 
 in order of counties and dates, if you will authorize 
 this to be done. 
 
 John Hughes was then examined by Mr. Eonan. 
 He said : — I live at Ardrahan, that is six miles from 
 Gort. I have lived there about 18 years. I was on 
 the best of terms with my neighbours and the people up 
 to 1886. I have the post-office, a general shop, and a 
 farm. Up to 1886 I was doing a fairly good business 
 there. 
 
 Do you remember in July, 1886,sending a car to take 
 some policemen to an eviction ? — During 1886 I 
 worked for the police. I remember the morning of 
 the eviction you speak of. 
 
 You gave it to the police ? — Yes. 
 
 And you were paid for the car by the people who 
 took it ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you remember a large meeting being held near 
 your place in September, 1886 — the Gaelic sports ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see notices posted up about that time ? — I 
 did not see ; I heard of it. 
 
 After that meeting did the bands pass up and down 
 the town ? — Yes. 
 
 As they passed your house did they do anything ? — 
 There were occasional groans. 
 
 From that date were you boycotted f 
 
 Sib C. Eussell. — My Lords, I would ask what have 
 we to do with these Gaelic sports ? 
 
 Mr. EONAN. — I am about to prove an interview 
 between this gentleman and the president of the 
 League, when, for a money consideration, the boycott- 
 ing was taken off. Perhaps that will simplify the matter. 
 
 Sib C. Eussell. — That does not make it in the least 
 more explicit. 
 
 The Pbesident. — I do not know what the Gaelic 
 sports are. 
 
 Sib 0. Eussell. — Nor I either. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — As I understand it this is 
 only noticed for the purpose of fixing the date in his 
 
 mind. We will withdraw the band. I shall give evi- 
 dence presently as to the boycotting alleged being part 
 of a system, and as to the leader of the Land League 
 taking off the boycotting. 
 
 Examination continued by Mr. Eonan. — The man I 
 used to get bread from refused to supply me about a 
 month after that day. He supplied me as long as he 
 could, and after that he was afraid to do so any 
 longer. I remember meeting Father Considine. 1 
 believe he is president of the League. He was a great 
 friend of mine, and was very sorry for what had 
 happened. He said he did not know anything about 
 the matter except the sending of the car to the police, 
 and I said that had I known there would be such a row 
 about it I would not have sent the car. We talked 
 over the matter, and he said people thought I could do 
 without the money I made by letting out the cars. I 
 said I could do without it. I gave him a cheque for 
 the money I had made by the work. 
 
 The Pbesident.— Did you give him a cheque ? — 
 Yes ; I gave him one for £15, and he said he would 
 give it to the poor of the next parish. He said he did 
 not know what to do with the money. He said some- 
 thing about a defence fund. He asked me if I had 
 any objection to give a little for the fund for Wood- 
 ford. 1 know nothing as to what that fund was. 
 When I had paid him my £15 the boycotting was taken 
 off. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sib C. Eussell. — The people in 
 general were very sorry that anything had happened to 
 me ; there was no man in Galway they were 
 more sorry for, and this man that supplied me with 
 bread was very sorry that he should have to refuse to 
 do so. He held on as long as he could — about a month. 
 The people generally were very sorry. Most of the people 
 who expressed themselves as being sorry about it were 
 members of the Land League. I was popular there 
 and am now. It was in 1886 that this difficulty 
 arose. There was a branch of the League in my own 
 village of Ardrahan ; I believe the president there is 
 our parish priest, Father Considine, who is a great 
 friend of mine. 
 
 Was there a vice-president of the League ? — I am 
 not much up in the business. Sir, 
 
 Who was the treasurer ? — I could not tell you who was 
 the treasurer at the time. I think it was a young man 
 named Mr. Burke, a farmer. 
 
 Were all the people, respectable people, members of 
 the League ? — To the best of my knowledge they were. 
 I was not. 
 
 You kept the post-office ? — Yes ; I farm a whole lot 
 of land round the place too. 
 
 Perhaps if it had not been that you kept the post- 
 office you might have joined the Land League ? — No, 
 it is not in my line. (Laughter.) 
 
 When you complained to Father Considine that you 
 were annoyed did he express regret for it ? — Very 
 much. 
 
 Did he say he would speak of it ? — I think he did. 
 
 How were you annoyed besides this man refusing to 
 
 John Hughes, 
 
The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 253 
 
 supply you with bread, if at all ? — When it comes to a 
 matter of pounds, shillings, and pence a man is rather 
 annoyed. (Laughter.) When it went down from £150 
 a week to £20. People did not come to deal with me, 
 except the gentlemen. 
 
 You mean that your customers did not come to you 
 as they used to do ? — They were afraid to do so ; but 
 a few did, Sir. My customers came back to me before 
 Christmas of the same year — 1886. 
 
 So your business began again to be prosperous ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, as I understand, the complaint against you was 
 that you had " worked all through with the police," as 
 the phrase was? — Yes. Since I went to Ardrahan I 
 kept post cars and a private hotel, and I always worked 
 for the police. I had worked cars for a long time for 
 the police. 
 
 But at this particular time they were cars used for 
 eviction purposes ? — No, Sir, art this particular time 
 my car was ordered out in the morning, and the car 
 went out, and the boy came back and said the car had 
 gone on to Woodford ; and I heard next day it went 
 on to the evictions at Woodford. 
 
 Father Considine was against evictions ? — Yes. 
 
 You did not know the car was going to be employed 
 in these evictions. You afterwards heard that it had 
 been P — Yes. 
 
 TJp to the time of your car being used in these evic- 
 tions nothing had been done to you at all ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Rightly or wrongly, did you not know that there was 
 a very strong feeling in the country about these evic- 
 tions 'i — Yes, Sir. 
 
 And that anybody who was supposed to take an 
 active part in them came under the public condemna- 
 tion ? — Right you are, Sir. 
 
 Father % Considine took the same view about these 
 evictions at Woodford that you and the rest of the 
 country took ? — Yes. 
 
 He said to you when you spoke to him, " I think 
 you might do without the cav-hire to the police ?" — He 
 did not exactly say that. 
 
 He said a man like you might do without that kind 
 of thing, and you said all you had made out of it was 
 £15 ? — I got £19 in all ; £4 expenses on the drive, and 
 £15 I gave to Father Considine. 
 
 Did you volunteer that, or did he ask you for it ? — 
 He never asked me for it. 
 
 When you handed it to him what did he say ? — That 
 was more than the people expected I would do. He 
 asked what he was to do with it, and I said I did not 
 care. He said he would give some of it to the poor 
 of the next parish, Father M'Donagh's parish. 
 
 What is the name of that parish ? — I think it is 
 Clasenbridge. 
 
 And then he asked you if you would have any objec- 
 tion to give some of it to the defence fund ? — Yes. 
 
 I do not know what this defence fund was ?— Well, I , 
 suppose it was to pay some man like yourself, Sir. 
 (Loud laughter.) 
 
 I want to know were there men in custody for 
 resisting the sheriff, or what ? Was it to help the 
 
 evicted tenants of Woodford P— Well, I am not sure, 
 Sir. There were evicted tenants and prisoners, and 
 counsel to be paid, and all sorts of things, which 
 brought about a good deal of expense. 
 
 Who are the landlords about Gort ? — My landlords ? 
 I have a lot. 
 
 I do not so much mind your own landlords. Who 
 are the principal landlords about Ardrahan ? — Well, 
 there is Lord Gort, the Laves, and Sir William Gregory, 
 Mr. Robinson, of Roundstone, and Mr. Wright. I hold 
 myself next to him from the Protestant bishop — the 
 rectory. I hold from Mr. Shaw Taylor there, and also 
 from Lord Clanm orris. He is a good landlord, Mr. 
 Shaw Taylor. 
 
 Those are the principal landowners in the neighbour" 
 hood ? — There are some more ; there is Mr. Blake, 
 and others. 
 
 Was there much distress in your neighbourhood in 
 1878 and 1879 ?— 1878 was a very bad year. 
 
 And 1879 ? — The last seven years until this year 
 were all very bad years ; it was very hard to pay rent, 
 and all that sort of thing. 
 
 Were there relief committees in your neighbourhood 
 in 1879 ? — I do not know what you mean about relief 
 committees ; there is the union, that gives outdoor 
 relief. 
 
 Do you remember the Duchess of Marlborough's 
 Fund and the Mansion-house Fund ; had you committees 
 of that kind about the neighbourhood ? — Yes ; to the 
 best of my opinion, I had relieving orders that were 
 given in connexion with them. 
 
 Is the land good about Ardrahan ? — Some very good ; 
 some very bad — wretched bad. 
 
 Do you recollect the agitation about the land — as it 
 is called — beginning ? — Yes. 
 
 Had any landlords made any reductions in rent until 
 after that agitation '1 — Mr. Shaw Taylor gave a reduc- 
 tion of his own accord without being asked. I know 
 I got a reduction from him myself without being 
 asked. I think Mr. Blake also gave a reduction. 
 
 When you started your shop, did you find you were 
 obliged to give a good deal of credit at your shop ?— 
 Indeed, I did. (Laughter.) 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — You 
 spoke of your shop beiDg boycotted, and your business 
 going down from £150 to £20. You paid the money 
 about the 15th of December ? — Yes. 
 
 How soon after that was the boycotting removed ? — ■ 
 Three days afterwards. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — One question more. Was the fact 
 that you had repaid this money which had been paid 
 you by the police mentioned publicly ? — It was. 
 
 Mrs. Blake, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said :— 
 I am the widow of Mr. John Henry Blake, and re- 
 side near Loughrea. My husband was for several years 
 agent to Lord Clanricarde. He lived at Rathville, 
 six or seven miles from Loughrea. 
 
 Now, np to the autumn of 1881, was he on good 
 terms with his neighbours ? — Yes, I think so. 
 
 And with the tenantry on the estate ? — I think so. 
 
 John Hughes. 
 
 Mrs. Blake. 
 
254 
 
 The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 About the year 1881, were meetings of the Land 
 League held at Loaghrea ? — I believe so. 
 
 In October, 1880, were yon yourself asked to sub- 
 scribe to the League ? — I was asked to subscribe to 
 it, but I cannot fix the date. It was during my 
 husband's lifetime. 
 
 Was it about the latter part of 1881 ? 
 
 Sir C. Bt/ssell. — I hope my learned friend will not 
 try to lead up to any date. 
 
 Examination continued. — Did you see a threatening 
 letter in your husband's possession ? — I did. 
 
 Do you know what was done with it ?— To the best 
 of my recollection, I found it among my husband's 
 papers and handed it to the Commissioner who was 
 investigating under the Crimes Act. 
 
 Sir C. EnssBLL.— What was his name ?— I think his 
 name was Byrne. It was never returned to me. 
 
 Examination continued. — Between the receipt of 
 that letter and the month of June, 1882, did you 
 observe any change in the demeanour of the people 
 towards your husband ?— Yes ; there was a change 
 generally throughout the county all through that period. 
 I cannot describe particularly in what way ; but, for 
 instance, the same civility did not exist as to people 
 touching their hats on the road.. 
 
 You remember driving on the 29th of June, 1881, 
 with your husband ? — Yes, we were driving In a 
 jaunting car. It was a holiday. 
 
 Had you a servant driving you ?— Yes ; his name was 
 Thady Euane. It was between 11 and 12 in the day. 
 We were going into the town of Loughrea. 
 
 Were there many people on the road, going towards 
 the town ?— Yes, and coming from it. 
 
 You remember a turn of the road near Loughrea ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 As you approached it what happened ? — I saw a boy 
 on the road. I noticed that he looked at us not in a 
 kind way. I asked my husband who that boy was, as 
 I did not like his look. He said he did not know, and 
 asked the servant. The servant said, "I do not 
 know," and my husband said, " Oh, Thady, that is the 
 first time I have heard you say that you did not know 
 who any one was." Then we drove on to the turning 
 of the road. 
 
 What happened ?— A shot was fired. 
 
 Did it strike you ?— Yes ; it struck me and wounded 
 me. A few seconds afterwards I heard another shot. 
 
 At this point the witness was much affected. 
 
 Did it hit your husband ?— Yes ; he fell off the car. 
 
 Was there a third shot fired ?— I think there was ; I 
 believe the servant was hit then. I do not know 
 where. He fell across the well of the car. 
 
 Did the horse proceed on ? — Yes. 
 
 Were there people on the road who saw the horse go 
 on ?— Yes. 
 
 Did they give any assistance to stop it ?— None what- 
 ever. At that time Euane's body was lying across 
 the well of the car. I besought the people for 
 
 God's sake to stop the car and go back to my husband, 
 who was still in sight, lying on the road. 
 
 Was the horse going fast ? — No, it was going at an 
 easy trot, and there would have been no difficulty is 
 stopping it. The reins were severed and trailing on 
 the ground. 
 
 Ultimately the horse was stopped ? — Yes, by somj 
 man in the middle of the road. 
 
 Do you know the Eev. Father Egan, of Woodford ?— 
 I know the Eev. Father Egan, who was then at Loughrea. 
 
 Did you meet him on the road ? — He was on the side 
 path, after the horse was stopped. 
 
 Who stopped the horse ? — I did not know at the time, 
 but I believe it was a man named Cooney. 
 
 Did Father Egan give you any assistance ? — I called 
 him over more than once, and he did then come to 
 me. 
 
 That was to attend Euane ? — Yes, he was dying. I 
 called upon Father Egan to come and do his duty as a 
 Catholic priest to a dying man. 
 
 Did you call upon him more than once before he 
 came ? — I did. 
 
 Did a policeman then come up^ — Yes, and ulti- 
 mately I was brought into Loughrea by the police. 
 
 Did you continue to live there after the death of 
 your husband ?— I have never lived there much since. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Eussell. — I want to ash 
 yeu as little as possible. How long had your husband 
 been agent to Lord Clanricarde ? — A great number of 
 years ; I cannot put the date to it. He held some 
 property also. 
 
 D° you recollect in 1879 and 1880 the tenants of 
 Lord Clanricarde demanding a reduction ? — Yes, they 
 did, I think. 
 
 Is it not, in fact, due to your husband to state that 
 he was of opinion that they ought to get a reduction ? 
 — He was of opinion that certain portions of the 
 estate should get a reduction. 
 
 Do you know that he so expressed himself ? — I do. 
 
 He would not be allowed to grant that reduction ? — 
 No. 
 
 Now, as to this boy who attracted your suspicion 
 on the road. I understand he was known neither to 
 you nor your husband, nor to your driver ? — He was 
 not. 
 
 You know the people pretty well about there ? — I 
 know the appearance of the people I used generally 
 to meet on the road. 
 
 Have you in your possession letters showing that 
 your husband urged upon his principals that a 
 reduction was necessary ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I do not want to raise any technical 
 objection, but the letters should be produced if the 
 contents are to be given. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — I merely wish to identify them, 
 not to give their contents. (To witness.) Have you 
 letters from Lord Clanricarde to your husband, and 
 copies of letters from your husband to Lord Clanri- 
 carde ?— Yes. 
 : Since your husband's death, and in defence of your 
 
 Mrs. Blake. 
 
The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 255 
 
 husband's memory as a humane man, have you sought 
 to publish that correspondence ? — Yes. 
 
 And have you been restrained ? — Yes, by injunction, 
 at the instance of Lord Clanricarde, restraining me 
 from publishing it. 
 
 Sib C. Rossell. — I would ask your Lordships that 
 this correspondence may be forthcoming. I do not pro- 
 pose that your Lordships should give any opinion upon 
 it at this moment, but I would submit to your Lord- 
 ships that it is desirable that it should be forthcoming. 
 The President. — I do not understand that any 
 objection is made. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Oh, no ; it is not for us to object 
 on the part of those we represent. If your Lordships 
 think fit we have no objection. 
 
 The President. — Very well ; I understand it is not 
 
 objected to. But for that I do not see its relevancy. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — May I point out its relevancy — — 
 
 The President. — No ; there is no objection taken, 
 
 »nd we will have them put in. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I think I shall show shortly why 
 it is relevant. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — I only want to ask ybu 
 one other question ? — You know Father Egan ; was he 
 a friend of yours ? — I do not know that there was 
 ever a formal introduction. 
 You do not belong to his church ? — Oh, yes. 
 Not to his particular parish ? — He is not my parish 
 priest. 
 
 I think you would wish to be fair to this gentleman, 
 who is not here ? — Oh, certainly. 
 
 I do not know whether you mean to suggest that 
 he intentionally declined to come forward ? — I do not 
 suggest anything. I only answered what happened 
 when I was asked. 
 
 You do not mean that you thought that he was 
 shirking his duty ? — I thought it was very extraor- 
 dinary that he did not come over at once, seeing the 
 situation. 
 
 How do you know that he knew the situa- 
 tion ? — I think it was very palpable ; he 
 was as close to me as I am to you. The 
 poor man was pouring with blood, and if not dead he 
 was at the point of death, and the car was standing. 
 
 Then you think he did ? — I merely state the circum- 
 stances. He did not come over iu the first instance 
 when I asked him. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. J AMES.— You have said thai 
 your husband recommended a reduction on 'part of 
 the estate ?— To the best of my recollection ; T cannot 
 say on what portions of the estate. 
 
 Did he refuse to recommend a reduction oh other 
 parts of the estate ? — No ; I do not think So. In the 
 autumn of 1879 he wrote a letter to Lord Clanricarde, 
 stating generally that there was a great deal of dis- 
 tress in the country ; that the tenants had difficulty in 
 meeting their various engagements, and that the 
 autumn was a bad one ; calling attention to the poor- 
 ness of the crops, the low price of cattle, and the 
 then state of the country, and putting it before his 
 
 lordship that it was advisable to consider the cases 
 generally. I think he specially mentioned the Craugh- 
 well estate. 
 
 Now, with regard to the murder ; you say you did 
 not know the boy ? — No. 
 
 Were there people in the road both before and after 
 you were fired at ? — Yes. 
 
 About how many people ? — I cannot say ; it was 
 market day, and some people were going in to attend 
 chapel. 
 
 Is it your idea that these people were all strangers to 
 the neighbourhood ? — Oh, no ; in a great measure they 
 were people belonging to the neighbourhood. 
 
 Had you any idea where the shots came from ? — No, 
 No one made any attempt to arre3t the persons who 
 had fired the shots, or gave the slightest assistance. 
 From the time when the second shot was fired and my 
 husband fell until the car stopped it had gone about a 
 quarter of an English mile. 
 
 You passed people ? — Yes. 
 
 I ask you again ; did any one offer you the slightest 
 assistance ? — Not lha slightest. 
 
 Were you going to Mass at the time ? — Yes ; at 
 12 o'clock. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Will you be able to send for those 
 letters ? — I suppose so. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— If you please. 
 
 William O'Connor, a sergeant of the Royal Irish 
 Constabulary, examined by Mr. Atkinson, 
 
 Were you protecting Mr. Blake ?— I was not giving 
 personal protection, but I was sent to meet him and 
 escort him into Loughrea, accompanied by another 
 policeman. It was a fair day, and also a holiday ; 
 there were a great many people on the road. After 
 leaving Loughrea I met Mr. Blake's horse and car on 
 the road. Before that I met about 20 or 25 men, who 
 were walking along together and singing. When Ihcy 
 saw us they separated, and let us pals. A hundred 
 yards further I saw the horse and car. In it wire 
 the driver of the car and Mrs. Blake. Ruane was 
 lying dead on the car, supported by Mrs. Blake's hand. 
 I brought her part of the way to Loughrea, and when 
 I met the escort I delivered her and the car to them . 
 
 What did you do then ? — I returned to search for 
 Mr. Blake's body, and found it on the road some 200 
 yards further. That was between five and ten minutes 
 after I met the car. 
 
 Was there any crowd about the body ? — Not about 
 the body. There were persons whom I met who must 
 have passed the body as they came along the road. 
 At that particular part of the road where this took 
 plaoe I examined the walls. There were loopholes in 
 the walls. I only noticed them on one side. I did 
 not choke them up myself. The body was taken into 
 Loughrea. I asked several people if they had seen 
 any one on the road. I found a piece of crape about 
 50 yards from where the body was lying. I could not 
 obtain any information from anybody. 
 
 Mrs. Blake. 
 
 Sergeant O'Connor. 
 
256 
 
 The Special Commission, November 9, 1888. 
 
 By Sir C. Russell.— The crape was found in the 
 fields about 50 yards from the wall. 
 
 Did you find any footprints going in that direction ? 
 —There was a kind of pathway going in that direction. 
 I could not say whether or not it was a public path. 
 When I came up with the ear the horse was standing. 
 I went further back along the road to where Mr. Blake's 
 body was lying. I should think it was between 200 and 
 300 yards back. I could not say whether Mr. Blake 
 iiad fallen immediately from the car. 
 
 Sie H. James.— As far as you could learn, had the 
 shots been fired from the side of the road ? — I should 
 say the shots had been fired from the loopholes in the 
 wall. 
 
 From the field ?— Yes. ' 
 
 Honoria Lyden, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — 
 In 1886 I was living with my husband at Kilvalla, 
 in county Galway. My husband was keeping an hotel 
 there, and used to let out cars for hire. In August, 
 
 1886, he let out a car to police busy on eviction duty. 
 Up to that time we had been on good terms with our 
 neighbours. After that boycotting notices were posted 
 about, and his name was mentioned in them. I have 
 Been a few of these notices. They stated that if any 
 one dealt with my husband he would meet the death 
 of Carey. After these notices were posted all our 
 customers stayed away, except a few of our old 
 friends. Some time after this my husband was taken 
 ill ; and in consequence of a message I got my husband 
 went to a meeting of the Land League. He was ill at 
 the time, and he left his bed to go. I went with him. 
 The meeting took place in the month of February, 
 
 1887. I cannot remember who the chairman of the 
 meeting was. The whole parish was assembled there. 
 My husband paid 5s. at the meeting, and got a card. 
 He said he was very sorry he had let the cars. The 
 meeting was held in the chapel yard at Kilvalla. 
 Father Maloney, the parish priest, was there. I could 
 not say who gave my husband the ticket. It was a 
 ticket to show he was a member of the League, and 
 that he had paid what he was supposed to pay towards 
 the fund. He had not been a member before. After 
 my husband had paid for his ticket some paint was 
 put upon our house, and some of the windows of the 
 house were broken. The letters "BC" were painted all 
 over the house. In that neighbourhood the letters 
 "BC" mean boycott. 
 
 The President. — I do not quite understand the order 
 of events. She went with her husband to the Land 
 League meeting and paid the fees, and after that ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Yes, after that the windows of the 
 house were broken. (To witness). — Have your customers 
 kept away up to this time ? — Yes ; and after the 
 letters were painted up they kept away, though not 
 so much as previously. During the time we were boy- 
 cotted we had no difficulty in getting provisions. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell — Ardrahan is the 
 next town to Kilvalla. It is within five miles. 
 Ardrahan is about six miles from Qort. 
 
 Will you tell me the date of the meeting your hus- 
 band attended ? — It was February, 1886. 
 
 Had there been any Land League or National League 
 there before that time, or was that the beginning of it ? 
 —It was the beginning. 
 
 February, 1886 ?— Yes. 
 
 You are sure it waB February, 1886 — not 1887 ? — I 
 think it was 1886. 
 
 When was it that your husband sent the cars for the 
 evictions ? — It was in the month of August, 1885. 
 
 That would be after your husband had become a 
 member of the Land League ? 
 
 The President. — I had the date of her husband's 
 joining the League as February, 1887. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— She corrected herself, my Lord. 
 
 Witness.— It was 1886. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Did your husband join the League 
 in February, 1886 ?— Yes. ( 
 
 Was the eviction for which the cars were supplied in 
 August of that year or the year before ? — The year 
 before. 
 
 The eviction cars were supplied in August, 1885, and 
 your husband joined the League in February, 1886 ? — Yes. 
 
 Where were those evictions ? — At Woodford, on Lord 
 Clanricarde's farm. 
 
 Rightly or wrongly, waB there a very strong feeling 
 in the country about those evictions ? — I believe there 
 was. 
 
 When did your husband's custom begin to fall off ? — 
 About a fortnight or three weeks after the cars came 
 back from Woodford. 
 
 That would be about September, 1885, and before 
 the Land League or the National League was esta- 
 blished ?— Yes. 
 
 Now, except your custom falling off, was there any- 
 thing else you had to complain of ? I think you said 
 something — I did not quite catch what — about the 
 windows being broken ? — Yes, they were broken the 
 first time after the cars came back from Woodford. 
 
 Then your custom to some extent fell off ? — Oh,yes, 
 completely. 
 
 Then these letters were posted on your house ?— Yes. 
 
 After that, I understand, your customers began to 
 come back ? — In April or May, 1886. 
 
 I want just to know a little more about this. Your 
 husband was a member of the League ; was his 
 father a member of it ? — Yes. 
 
 Were all the neighbours about members of it ?— Yes. 
 
 Who was the president of it— Father Maloney, I 
 think you said ? — Yes. 
 
 Who was the treasurer ? — I cannot exactly say at 
 that time. 
 
 Were all your respectable neighbours members of it ? 
 — They were, indeed. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir Henry James. — How far do you 
 live from Loughrea ? — I live 14 miles from Loughsga. 
 
 When was the Land League established in the village 
 of Kilvalla ?— In February, 1886. 
 
 Where was the nearest branch to you ? — There is a. 
 branch three miles off. 
 
 Honoria Lyden. 
 
The Special Commission, November 9, 1888 
 
 257 
 
 Do you know anything of the working of the Land 
 Leaguo at Loughrea ? — No. 
 
 You were boycotted the first timo after supplying 
 tho cars used by the police at the Woodford evictionu ? 
 i— Yob, about a fortnight or three weeks after. 
 
 Had the Land League been established then or not ? 
 •—It had not, I am quite certain. At the time we 
 sent the cars to the Woodford evictions there was no 
 Land League in our village, nor was there one three 
 miles off. Kilvalla is 14 miles from Loughrea. 
 
 Sergeant Keogh was next examined by Mr. MUE.PHY. 
 — Witness said he was in the Irish Constabulary in 
 August, 1886. On the 18th of August, 1886, he engaged 
 a car to go to the evictions. Ho employed Lyden to 
 supply the car. He was sure it was in 1886. After 
 the cars had been supplied he saw several notices about 
 with reference to Lyden. The notices said that any 
 person who would enter Lyden's hotel or deal with him 
 would receive the death of Carey. Ho was employed 
 to try and trace out the persons who had written sumo 
 of these notices. As sergeant of the station he was 
 called on by his duty to trace them out as muck as he 
 possibly could. They purported to be signed by " The 
 good men and true," and " God save Ireland " was 
 their termination. He kept patrols in the vicinity of 
 Lyden's hotel in order to prevent outrages. He re- 
 membered the windows of the hotel being broken in 
 the month of January. He found six or eight persons 
 outside in the street. One of them was rather a 
 prominent member of the National League. 
 
 What was his name ? — His name was' I know 
 
 he was a prominent agitator. 
 
 Try and recollect his name. — Austin Stanton. I have 
 reason to know 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Do not tell us anything you have 
 reason to know, please. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Do not tell us anything you have not 
 reason to know. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — What have you seen him doing that 
 you know him to be a member of the Land League ? — 
 I have seen him very prominent at all the meetings, 
 and have seen him prominent in the streets with people 
 round him paying attention to his sayings. 
 
 Although it was said that there was no regular Land 
 League at Kilvalla until 1886, had there been speeches 
 made as far back as 1885 ? — I am not personally aware 
 of that, as I was not there at that time. 
 
 At what date was the Land League established at 
 Kilvalla ? — I could not say the date. I think it fell 
 through in July, 1886. There was ono established 
 Bome time previous to that. 
 
 The President.— What do you mean by falling 
 through ? — The neighbours ceased to meet, and 
 the association was dissolved, like, and did not 
 carry on the operations of the League. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — At the time the cars were supplied 
 was there a National League there ?— No, there had 
 been in the June or July previous to that. 
 
 There had been, as I understand, u League before, 
 and it had fallen through ? — Yes, before August, 1886. 
 
 Do you know James Burke, a blacksmith? — Yes, I do. 
 
 Had he been in the habit of shoeing Lyden's horses i 
 — I am not personally aware that he had . 
 
 Did James Burke bring you a threatening letter he 
 had received? — Yos, I initialod it and sent it attached . 
 to a report to the district inspector at Gort. Tho 
 purport of the letter was that it cautioned Burke from 
 working for Lyden ; if he worked for him he would 
 meet the death of Carey. I made all possible inquiries 
 as to who was the writer of that letter, but in vain. 
 
 You were boycotted afterwards in reference to the 
 work which you did in trying to find out the author 
 of this letter ? — On account of a prosecution I had 
 against parties a threatening letter 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — How does he know on what 
 account it was ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Dicryou receive a threatening letter ? 
 — A threatening notice was put up on the chapel gate 
 at Kilvalla. I was named in the threatening letter 
 or notice, which stated that I was boycotted on account 
 of a prosecution I had against parties who assaulted 
 the bailiffs whom I was protecting in company with 
 seven constables. The mob attacked the bailiffs and 
 assaulted them with stones. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — Is this all in the notice referred 
 to ? — After the notice a threatening letter was sent to 
 my wife. I had great difficulty in getting milk for my 
 family, and suffered much on that account, asl had an infani 
 at that time who was living upon nothing but milk. 
 
 There was no cross-examination. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — While the next witness is being 
 called I wish to renew the application I made to the 
 Court with regard to the inspection of the contents of 
 the box of documents. 
 
 Tho President. — Some documents have since been 
 brought in, and we have not had time to go through 
 the whole. We will deal with it at the next meeting. 
 
 Mrs. O'Flaherty, of Killala, near Oughterard, ex- 
 amined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — I live near Oughterard, 
 and my husband is a farmer. I know Father Coyne. 
 
 Do you remember in October, 1880, going to mass 
 one Sunday at Father Coyne's chapel? — Yes ; a man of the 
 namo of Henry Wilmot drove me in my own car. 
 
 After mass in the chapel did you see Father Coyne 
 making a speech to the people ? — I saw him, but I do 
 not know what he said except about our family. 
 
 What did he say about your family ? — He said that 
 we should be shunned as lepers. 
 
 After that address did you speak to Father Coyne ?— 
 Yes ; I said, " Oh, Father Coyne, what have we done 
 that we should be treated so ?" One or two people in 
 the crowd made grimaces at me. After this the man 
 who had driven me to the chapel did not offer to drive 
 me back. 
 
 After that were your neighbours as friendly as 
 before ? — Not exactly ; they were very much against 
 me. People camo to work for my son on the sly. 
 
 Sergeant Keogh. 
 
 Mrs. O'Flanerty. 
 
258 
 
 The Special Commission, November 9 and 13, 1388. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lcckwcod.— Did you stop to 
 hear what Father Coyne was talkirg about ? — Well, 
 the country people came in, and I did not hear much 
 abui.it it. 
 
 Mr. 'Flaherty, son of the last witness, examined 
 by Mr. RoNAN, said,— I know Mr. Eobert Martin, a 
 landed proprietor. In the Bummer and autumn of 1880 
 there were differences between him and his tenants- 
 I took a poition of the grass land of Mr. Martin's 
 demesne and I put cattle on the land. I was living 
 with my father and mother at the time. In October, 
 1880, there was a meeting at Killannin, which is about 
 1\ miles from our home. After that meeting our 
 labourers left us. I received a letter from Father 
 Coyne. I have not got it. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— Is Father Coyne connected with a 
 branch of the National League ? My learned friend 
 must show that in order to supply some foundation for 
 the production of the letter. 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — Do you know whether Father Coyne 
 was connected with the Land League in your district 't 
 — Yes. I received a letter from him, and the substance 
 of it was 1hat I had taken grass land and that it ought 
 to be given up. 
 
 Did he say what would be done to you if you did not 
 give it up ? — I cannot exactly say. Sergeant Lrng- 
 ford saw the letter. I had only taken grass 1 arid from 
 September till May, and I gave it up. A man named 
 Kyland was holding a farm for us which had been 
 surrendered a short time before. I remember seeing 
 maiks of bullets in the door of his house. After the 
 outrage he partially ceased to herd for us. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Sergeant Langford, examined by Mr. Roxan, 
 said, — I saw the letter that Father Coyne had 
 written to Mr. O'Flaherty. The substance of 
 it is this : — " I have heard you are about 
 taking the grass farm at Boss. You know our rules 
 against it. If you take it I shall be obliged, though 
 reluctantly, to bring you before the public." Father 
 Coyne was president of the League in the district. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood.' — Was this letter 
 shown to you ? — Yes. 
 
 And you gave it back ? — Yes. 
 
 You have not seen it since 1880 ?— No. 
 
 And you profess to tell my Lords that you recollect 
 its contents ? — Yes, immediately after leading the 
 letter I took my tablets and copied it. 
 
 Show me your tablets. — I have not got tbem with 
 me. The memorandum is in my scribbling diary at the 
 hotel. 
 
 Well, bring it with you at the next sitting. 
 
 The witness's reply was inaudible in the body of the 
 court. 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — I think he says that he has something 
 in his pocket. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I dare say he has. He would not 
 be a witness for The Times if he had not. 
 
 The President (to witness). — Bring your scribbling 
 diary here. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — You would not object to leave 
 this diary with any of these gentlemen (pointing to 
 the legal representatives of The Times) ?— Well, 1 
 could. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I think it will be well to see the 
 document which he says he wrote at the time. There 
 is a material contradiction in his evidence. At this 
 point the learned counsel abruptly broke off and sat 
 down. After a pause he added, — I did not think that 
 my suggestion was meeting with approval, at any rate 
 from one of your Lordships. 
 
 The President. — No one here made any observation, 
 and I was listening with great attention. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Yes, my Lord. My observation did 
 not apply to your Lordship. I am anxious to see this 
 document. 
 
 The President. — If there is anything in the diary 
 which ought not to be seen on the page where this 
 memorandum is written, everything except the memo- 
 randum mi^ht be covered over when the inspection is 
 made. 
 
 Sir II. James.— There will be no difficulty in keep- 
 ing the witness here. 
 
 Mr. Harrincton. — I submit that we ought to see 
 in the diary the dates before and after this par- 
 ticular entry. 
 
 The President. — Well, we appear to have got over 
 the difficulty. 
 
 The Commissioners adjourned at five minutes past i 
 i o'clock. 
 
 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 13th sitting to- 
 day at half -past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 Mr. Bucknill, Q.C., appeared for the Marquis of 
 Clanriearde. 
 
 On (he Commissioners taking their seats, 
 
 The President said, — At our last sitting our subject 
 of discussion was the admissibility of certain evidence. 
 It was proposed to ask certain employers whether any 
 and what reports had been made to them by persons in 
 their employment concerning property in charge of 
 those persons. We took time to consider, and I now 
 have to state the conclusion at which we have arrived. 
 The questions were addressed to employers of herds as 
 to what reports they made on the subject of the pro- 
 perty which was in their charge. I am satisfied, 
 speaking for myself, that there was a misunderstand- 
 ing between the Court and counsel on the subject. 
 The arguments of counsel were addressed to showing 
 that hearsay evidence would not be proof of the facts 
 alleged to have taken place. It never was the 
 intention of the Court to lay down anything contrary 
 to that. The question on which I expressed an opinion 
 — I believe with the concurrence of my colleagues — 
 was this — that the fact that a particular report had 
 been made by a person in discharge of his duty was 
 
 Edmund O'Flaherty. 
 
 Sergeant Langford. 
 
The Special Commission, November 18, 1888. 
 
 259 
 
 admissible in evidence, not that the contents of that 
 report should be taken as evidence of the facts to 
 which it related. Let me illustrate it in this manner. 
 Suppose that, instead of its being the employer, the 
 employed had been called to state the facts. He might 
 have been asked, " Did you report that to your employer 
 at the time ?" And in the same way the employer may 
 be asked the fact whether he as employer received that 
 report. The bearing of sach evidence is not to prove 
 the facts. It has this bearing : — If the person employed 
 were to say " I made no such report, I intended to 
 say nothing about it to my employer," that would 
 have a tendency to discredit the fact of such a thing 
 having happened. On the other hand, the fact that 
 the report was made in the discharge of his duty at the 
 time is admissible in evidence. If the matter rested 
 there, without there being any other evidence of the 
 facts except that contained in the report, that could 
 not be regarded as evidence of the facts by the Court. 
 That is the opinion at which we have arrived. There 
 is another point that has been raised, as to certain 
 claims which were made by employers for compensa- 
 tion. It was clear that these claims were in writing 
 and we at once said, at an early stage of the inquiry, 
 that the writing must be produced. Still, if the writing 
 were produced, the objection taken by Sir Charles Russell 
 was that the claims themselves were not admissible. 
 Upon that we are of opinion that they are admissible. 
 Again, it turns out that there is a broad distinction 
 between a thing being merely admissible in evidence 
 and its being taken as proof of the facts alleged. Of 
 course,the fact of a man making a claim does not prove 
 the ground on which the claim was made, but it is ad- 
 missible in eviden.e on the ground that he made the 
 claim at the time, and that it is an essential part of 
 the res gestcc. On these grounds we think these two 
 branches of evidence admissible. 
 
 Mk. Justice A. L. Smith. — I have nothing to add, 
 except that I agree entirely in what Sir James Hannen 
 has said, and for the grounds which he has given. 
 
 The President. — With regard to the documents, I 
 cannot say that absolutely every document has come 
 under our eyes, because in some instances we have 
 thought specimens of the class to which they belonged 
 were sufficient. With that reservation, we have examined 
 every document, and we are of opinion with regard to 
 some of them that they ought to be disclosed. I refer 
 particularly to some documents which are alleged to 
 have come into the possession of Mr. Soames, purport- 
 ing to be written by certain persons, among whom are 
 those against whom the charges and allegations are 
 made. They appear to be admitted to be spurious, 
 and were rejected by Mr. Soames because he 
 thought so. I think from his point of view he was 
 justified in not including them in his affidavit of docu- 
 ments ; but we have a larger discretion to exercise. 
 We are of opinion that some of these documents 
 should be disclosed in this trial. It is alleged on the 
 side of those charged that certain documents are 
 forgeries, and we think thai they are entitled to the 
 
 assistance which it is conceivable they might 
 derive from the examination of those documents, 
 because after examination it might be found that 
 the documents produced to Mr. Soames and re- 
 jected by him might be shown to be in the same 
 handwriting as those documents which are said to bo 
 in the handwriting of Mr. Parnell. I only throw this 
 out as an illustration. We are therefore of opinion 
 that these ought to be disclosed. We have also found 
 that some of the documents are in the handwriting of 
 Mr. Davitt, and we are of opinion that in fairness to 
 Mr. Davitt they ought to be disclosed. It is unneces- 
 sary to point out the bearing of these documents, 
 because I may observe generally with reference not 
 only to those documents in which Mr. Davitt is 
 interested, but to those also in which others are 
 interested, that the fact of our directing that they 
 should be disclosed to the other side does not make 
 them evidence, but if it should be sought hereafter to 
 use them in evidence their admissibility will depend 
 upon other considerations than those to which I have 
 referred. With regard to other documents, of which 
 there is a large mass, we have examined them, and 
 we find in them nothing inconsistent with the statements 
 which were made on oath with regard to them. They 
 appear to us to be documents which relate exclusively 
 to the case of the defendants in the action of 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter." They do not in any way 
 tend to assist the case of the other side, and we are 
 of opinion that they are not documents which the 
 persons charged are entitled to inspect. It has 
 occurred to us that with regard to many of them 
 there might naturally arise this sort of observation on 
 them, " We kuow nothing about these documents," 
 and that that might be a ground for delay in dealing 
 with them. But I must say that, considering this 
 question of disclosure of documents, we cannot fail to 
 see that the disclosure of them would show who were 
 the witnesses about to be called, and that is not a 
 thing to which the other parties are entitled. We must 
 be careful that in our search for the truth we do not 
 obstruct the sources of truth. There is some reason 
 to fear that the mention of names might be an impedi- 
 ment to justice, and this is illustrated by the fact 
 that I myself, several days ago, received a threatening 
 letter. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I have received two or three, my 
 Lord. 
 
 The President. — The fact that any one should 
 venture to threaten a member of this Court makes it 
 not improbable that other means of intimidation might 
 be brought to bear upon the witnesses. On these 
 grounds, therefore, we do not think that any other 
 documents than those mentioned should be submitted 
 for inspection. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We have no opportunity of know- 
 ing what the documents are which it would be con- 
 venient or inconvenient that we should see ; might I 
 suggest to your Lordships that the Secretary to the 
 Commission, under your Lordships' direotion, should 
 
 Admissibility of Certain Evidence. 
 
 9-2 
 
260 
 
 rs 
 
 The Special Commission, November 13, 1S88. 
 
 make acme kind cf schedule as to the class of docu- 
 ments we are entitled tc see J 
 
 The President.— Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell,— Or, at all events, some kind of 
 description such as your Lordship has given. 
 
 The President.— Yes ; I will endeavour to have 
 it done. I am not able at once to decide the point, 
 but whatever can be done shall be done. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I would mako only one 
 observation. With regard to the documents which are 
 to be seen of course there is no difficulty ; these can 
 easily be scheduled. But with regard to the others 
 your Lordships' previous judgment is that they are 
 [airly within the protection, on oath, of Mr. Soames. 
 Therefore, that being so, my learned friend would not 
 be entitled to anything that would give him further 
 information with regard to them. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — If my learned friend had been listen- 
 ing he would have seen that your Lordships made one 
 exception with respect to certain classes of docu- 
 ments. Your Lordships came to the conclusion that 
 they relate exclusively to the case of " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter," and have no bearing upon the issues in this 
 sase. So far as that exception is concerned I at once 
 admit we can make no claim, but with regard to that 
 exception I have not been able to appreciate that 
 there should be any further extension. Your Lordship 
 said that in discovery a party is not entitled to know 
 the names of witnesses. I agree ; but he is not to be 
 precluded from his right of discovery of certain docu- 
 ments merely because that might put him in possession 
 of information as to the witnesses who were to be 
 called on the other side. I do not desire to prolong 
 this discussion, but I contend that we are entitled to 
 such description as your Lordships may think proper of 
 the documents which we are not entitled to see. 
 
 The President. — You must remember that it was 
 agreed that we should inspect the documents and 
 judge. That puts the matter in a different position 
 than would have been the case if the request had not 
 been made. I have given the reasons why we do not 
 consider that you are entitled to inspection — because 
 from our examination of them there appears nothing 
 inconsistent with the statement made upon oath by 
 Mr. Soames. We have given reasons why, in the 
 exercise of ourdiscretion,we have said what documents 
 you are entitled to inspect and what might impede 
 the course of justice, and we will use our discrimina- 
 tion in the matter. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — There are certain other 
 decuments which have been handed in. We have just 
 seen 
 
 The President. — Yes. I had forgotten to mention 
 those. We are of opinion that there is nothing in 
 them which calls for disclosure. 
 
 Mr. Buoknill, Q.C. — Will your Lordships allow me 
 to make an application on behalf of the Marquis of 
 Clanricarde, with reference to some correspondence 
 that passed between him and his agent, Mr. Blake ? 
 
 Application on behalf of the Marquis of 
 Clanricarde, 
 
 The President.— No order has been made as to that. 
 If an order had been made I am not sure that you have 
 any locus standi here, 
 
 Mr. Buckn'Ill.— If no order has been made I am 
 afraid I have no tocus standi to make an application ; 
 but it has been understood by Lord Clanricarde, and i) 
 has been generally gathered from the report of the pro- 
 ceedings before you in the newspapers, that an order 
 was made by your Lordships, or something amounting 
 to an order, there being no objection on either side. 
 
 The President. — Oh, no. No order has been made. 
 I suppose you desire to be heard against such an ordei 
 being made ? 
 
 Mr. Buoknill. — If your Lordships tell me that no 
 such order has been made, I will not trouble your 
 Lordships with any observations, I will only remind 
 you that Mrs. Blako, the widow of the murdered 
 agent of Lord Clanricarde, was asked by my learned 
 friend, Sir Charles Russell, whether she had in hei 
 possession certain letters showing her husband'srecom- 
 mendation to Lord Clanricarde that a reduction should 
 be allowed on the rents on certain parts of his estate. 
 The answer was to the effect that she had them. 
 
 The President. — I really cannot see what locus 
 standi you have. I do not mean that I am going 
 beyond that ; but I really do not see that anybody wuo 
 may suppose himself to be affected by our proceedings 
 can on that ground como before us. 
 
 Mr. Bucknill. — My argument is of a very limited 
 nature, because Lord Clanricarde, on my advice, does 
 not propose to offer any opposition to the jurisdiction 
 of this Court ; he admits tho power of your Lordships 
 to direct that any correspondence relative to the 
 matters before you should be produced, even the 
 letters which passed between him and his agent. 
 But the application I have to make is this — 
 and I think you will see the justice of it. This 
 correspondence was of a strictly private and con- 
 fidential nature between Lord Clanricarde and 
 his agent, and a Court of competent jurisdic- 
 tion in Ireland has for good reasons directed in tho 
 case before it that the correspondence should not be 
 published ; yet, if that correspondence can be shown 
 to throw light on any matters now before your Lord- 
 ships, of course that correspondence will be forth- 
 coming. Lord Clanricarde, acting on my advice, will 
 make no objection ; but what I ask on his behalf is 
 this — that, although such of this correspondence as is 
 relevant should be produced, there is a mass of corre- 
 spondence which passed during the agency of Mr. 
 Blake which, as I have said before, is of an entirely 
 private and confidential nature, and could in no way 
 throw any light on the matters your Lordships are 
 asked to decide. On the other hand, there may be 
 some letters which your Lordships may think relevant 
 to the matters before you, and my application on 
 behalf of Lord Clanricarde is that you will be good 
 enough to look at that correspondence yourselves, 
 which is now in Ireland, and to say what you think 
 should be produced and what should not. Unless such 
 
The Special Commission, .November 13, 18S8. 
 
 261 
 
 an order is made the whole of the correspondence will 
 be handed in to my learned friends, on the one side 
 and the other, to deal with in any way they may 
 think fit, and, although I am sure they would not do 
 anything which might be improper or unjust to Lord 
 Clanricarde, it is possible that an effect might ensue 
 which would be unjust and cruel to him. Therefore 
 I ask your Lordships to look at the correspondence and 
 to ascertain what is relevant and what is not relevant. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Perhaps, my Lords, I may be 
 allowed to say that, so far as we are concerned, we 
 shall not make any such application as my learned 
 friend has foreshadowed without giving full notice 
 of our intention to do so. As to the suggestion of my 
 learned friend, I must say that I think it would be a 
 highly inconvenient course, on several grounds. In 
 the first instance, your Lordships would be in posses- 
 sion of a number of documents which will make an 
 impression on the minds of those who read them — an 
 impression which might or might not be injurious to one 
 side or the other. I would therefore respectfully submit 
 that your Lordships will not be in a position to judge of 
 the relevancy of the whole or any part of this corre- 
 spondence until you have heard the case as repre- 
 sented by those on either side. 
 
 Mr. Bucknill. — I can hardly think that my learned 
 friend is serious in his contention that the perusal of 
 the correspondence may affect the minds of those to 
 whom it is produced. He has not dealt with my 
 point, which is this — that the Court will not direct by 
 what I may call a wholesale order that the corre- 
 spondence, all the correspondence, that has ever 
 passed between Lord Clanricarde and Mr. Blake 
 should bo handed in, in a matter of this description, 
 by the widow of the late Mr. Blake, to be dealt with 
 by my learned friends as they may think fit. 
 
 The President. — Yes ; I am in possession of your 
 point. We will deal with the matter presently. 
 
 The subject then dropped. 
 
 Sir H. James. — With the permission of your Lord- 
 ships, I will re-call Sergeant Langford in order that he 
 may be examined as to a document which, in his evi- 
 dence on Friday, ho said was a copy made immediately 
 after he had seen the original of a certain letter. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Sir Henry James has handed this 
 document to me pinned down, and I understand from 
 my learned friends that the only portion of it which 
 relates to the matter before your Lordships is now 
 exposed. I would ask your Lordships kindly to 
 look at the document. (The document was handed 
 to the Court.) Your Lordships will remember the 
 circumstances in which this document was produced. 
 Sergeant Langford stated that immediately after 
 reading it he took out his tablet and copied it. 
 Will your Lordships allow me to put a question to 
 Sergeant Langford with reference to this document ? 
 
 The President.— Certainly. 
 
 Sergeant Langford was recalled. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I understood you to tell their Lord- 
 
 ships on the last occasion that you wrote this copy of 
 the letter in the station immediately after you had 
 seen the original ? — Yes. 
 
 Can you tell me from any documents in your posses- 
 sion on what date you saw the letter first ?— I believe 
 it to have been about the last days, of September, 
 1880. 
 
 Is it not a fact that after you had seen the letter 
 you endeavoured to obtain the original on a subsequent 
 date, about the end of October ?— I endeavoured to 
 obtain the original letter. 
 
 Was not that about the end of October ?— I really 
 do not know. 
 
 Did you ever write down your recollection of that 
 letter until you found that you could not obtain the 
 original ? — I wrote it at the station. I wrote it in 
 my tablets first. 
 
 Take that document in your hand. Is that what you 
 call the tablet ?— No. 
 
 Do you mean to suggest that your recollection of the 
 letter has not been quickened from any other source ? 
 — The document was copied from the small tablet. 
 
 Look at the letter as you have written it there with 
 the alterations ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you mean to say that that is copied from some- 
 thing else ? — I do. 
 
 Let me read the document. You begin here, on 
 October 28, by stating that you had endeavoured to 
 get the original letter. You say : — " I beg to state 
 that I have been" to see Mr. O'Flaherty on this day, 
 and I endeavoured, but unsuccessfully, to get the letter 
 from him. I give underneath some of the words as I 
 recollect them from reading the letter." You go on : 
 — " Sir, I have heard you are about taking a grass 
 farm at Boss. You know our rules are against it." 
 Then you write, " To give it up," and then some 
 words are scratched out, and then you say, " If you 
 take it I shall be obliged," and then other words are 
 put in and crossed out. Then you go on — " reluctantly 
 to bring you before the public." Now is not that 
 simply written from recollection ? — I believe still 
 that I took a copy from Mr. O'Flaherty wiien I spoke 
 to him. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I think the document speaks 
 pretty well for itself. There are some other documents 
 produced by this witness, I think. 
 
 Sir H. James. — It is for the Court to decide what 
 shall be done with them. They relate to confidential 
 matters which are not relevant to the matter before 
 the Court. 
 
 The Secretary of the Commission.— I will have a 
 facsimile copy made of the entry in the diary. 
 
 The President.— With the alterations. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood (to witness). — Were you acquainted 
 with the family of Mr. O'Flaherty ?— Yes. 
 
 Before this inoident ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you say that you were in the chapel on the 
 Sunday when Father Coyne alluded, to. the O'Flaherty 
 family ?— No. i 
 
 You have no report of that f— No, 
 
 Sergeant Langford. 
 
262 
 
 The Special Commission, November 13, 1888. 
 
 Had you heard that the Bishop of the diocese had 
 censured a member of the family on some previous 
 occasion for something not connected with the taking 
 of land ? — No. 
 
 Did you hear that after this incident at the chapel 
 Father Coyne received a threatening letter ? — I never 
 did. 
 
 You have never heard anything as to the Bishop of 
 the diocese having censured one member of the family 
 on a previous occasion ? — I never heard of it. 
 
 SIR H. James. — You have given the Court the best 
 information you can as to the contents of the letter ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 The incident, we know, occurred eight years ago ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — May I, my Lords, be allowed this 
 afternoon to inspect the documents that are said to 
 have been written by me ? May I inspect them with 
 Mr. Lewis ? 
 
 The President. — I cannot say that it will be pos- 
 sible this afternoon, but probably it will. At any rate 
 you shall inspect the documents as speedily as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Patrick Kennedy, examined by Mr. Atkinson. — 
 Where do you live ? — I object to that. 
 
 To tell where you live ? — Yes. 
 
 Where you live in London or where you live in the 
 country ? — Where I live in the country. 
 
 Did you take a farm from a woman named Katherino 
 Dempsey ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Wait a moment ; we want to have 
 this case in some way localized. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— There will be no difficulty. 
 There is no difficulty as to the farm. The question 
 which he does not wi6h to answer is where he is living 
 now. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson (to witness). — Did you take a 
 farm from which a woman named Katherine 
 Dempsey had been evicted ? — Yes ; that farm 
 was in Kylebeg, county Galway. At that time 
 I lived at some distance from there. There 
 is a village called Mallagh near that farm. There 
 was no Land League established in Mullagh at the 
 time I took the farm. I took it in April, 1879. I 
 lived near the village of Carrol at that time. I know 
 a man named Martin Halloran ; he lives, I believe, 
 about s^ven miles from Mullagh ; it is not near the 
 place where I resided. Martin Halloran is a wheel- 
 wright. I know a man named Cunningham, a reporter 
 on the papers ; I also know a man named John Farrell, 
 a railway clerk. These three men came and had an 
 interview with me in October, 1880. I have since 
 ascertained that thece men were members of the Land 
 League. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell. — How has he ascertained that ? 
 
 Witness. — I cannot account for that. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Have you attended any Land League 
 meetings ? — I have only attended one, in November, 
 1880. 
 
 Were these men present at the meeting ?— There 
 were two of them present, Cunningham and Hallo- 
 ran. It was held at Kylebeg on this farm, which 
 formerly belonged to Mrs. Dempsey. One Hogan, a 
 man I knew, was present at the meeting. Neither Mr. 
 Mat Harris nor Mr. Sheehy was present. There 
 wore three or four speeches delivered in my presence. 
 I heard a man named O'Sullivan speak, but I do not 
 remember much of what he said. He said he hoped 
 the grass might wither beneath my feet. Halloran 
 said he had come there all the way from Newinn to 
 evict the land-grabber and to reinstate the widow 
 Dempsey and her five orphans. There were about 600 
 or 700 persons, or over, present at that meeting. 
 Halloran had had an interview with me in October. 
 He was on the farm at this meeting, and made a 
 speech. When he came to me on the first occasion in 
 October, Cunningham was with him. I met them 
 going to visit the farm Mrs. Dempsey had been evicted 
 from. They talked to me about the way the widow 
 Dempsey had been evicted and said they were going 
 to reinstate her, and that if I did not give up 
 the farm I should meet with so and so. 
 
 Didtheysaywhattheymeantby " so and so ? " — Those 
 were the words they used. Isaid" Very good,"andthey 
 left me. The meeting was held in November, 1880. 
 On the day of the meeting some people came to me. 
 I believe they were on the platform at the meeting. 
 They said if I gave up the land it would not be any 
 loss to me, and that there would be no man in the 
 country more thought of. In the following spring 
 I sent a communication to the central office of the 
 Land League in Dublin and received a reply to it. 
 I gave the letter to a member of the Mullagh Land 
 League. A branch of the League had been established 
 at Mullagh in 1881. Mat Ryan's son was the president 
 or the secretary. I cannot say whether the parish 
 priest, Father Bodkin, was the president of that branch 
 of the League. I went to Father Bodkin's house with 
 the letter. On leaving his house I gave the letter to 
 some person, either the secretary or to some member 
 of the local League. On a Sunday shortly afterwards 
 I saw Mat Ryan about the letter, and he talked about 
 paying my losses if I would give up the land. He said 
 that there would be some delay in writing backwards 
 and forwards to the central office, and ho gave me 
 directions to go up to Mat Harris in Dublin. He said 
 that Mat Harris was the only person who could arrange 
 in cases of this kind. I did not go to Dublin to see 
 Mat Harris. A few days after I tilled the land, and a 
 short time after I was put under police protection. 
 That was in the latter end of April, 1881. 
 
 Do you know what being boycotted is ?— I do, Sir. 
 
 From April, 1881, were you boycotted '/ — I was, 
 slightly. After some time the League ceased at 
 Mullagh. I got no annoyance from my neighbours be- 
 tween 1883 and 1886. I believe that the Land League 
 had been suppressed during those years. I saw no 
 meetings of the Land League during those years. I 
 had no knowledge of a branch of the National League 
 
 Patrick Kennedy, 
 
The Special Commission, November 13, 1888. 
 
 263 
 
 being established at Mullagh in 1884. A branch was, 
 I believe, established there in July, 1886, when the 
 annoyance recommenced. I then noticed a change 5n 
 the demeanour of the people towards me. In that 
 month I attended an auction of hay at Lisstuff a»d 
 was declared the highest bidder, but when t&e 
 auctioneer heard my name he would not let me boiy 
 the hay. The auctioneer gave no reason for his ecu- 
 duct. In November, 1886, I received a notice through 
 the post that a public meeting of the National League 
 would be held at Kylebeg. It was a printed notioe, 
 and I gave it to Sergeant Hennessy. After the receipt 
 of that notice a meeting was held on my farm — thai 
 was on the 21st of November. I did not attend t'jie 
 meeting, because I had notice that I was to give tjp 
 the farm. Two men came to me and asked me to give 
 up the farm. I saw the persons assembled on my farfti. 
 I was some distance from them. I saw my stock all 
 right that day. The next day I examined my stoclr, 
 and I missed eight or nine cattle and about 30 shee^ 
 I looked for them the next day, and I could not g^it 
 anybody to tell me where they were. I ultimately 
 Found them about a mile and a half from the farm. I 
 was living with his brother at the time. His brother 
 was boycotted. A few days afterwards a messecgf ■; 
 came to him from the League. 
 
 Was he a member of the League ? — I believe he waa. 
 
 What was his name ? — I object to give his name. 
 
 Why ? — Because there might be ill-feeling towaeis 
 me. 
 
 What did he say ? — He advised me to give up Jhe 
 land. He talked cf how they spoke at the rneetihg. 
 He told me it was said that I would be found dead Mae 
 day. I had had police protection some time before, 
 but it had then been taken off. It was remove ii in 
 January, 1882, and from that time until 1886 I 7'.red 
 without protection. I had nothing but two dog;- for 
 protection. After receiving that message I went t< the 
 parish priest at Mullagh, Father Bodkin. I told him 
 I would remove the stock if I could get leave to find 
 other grass. Father Bodkin said nothing to that. I 
 tried to get other grass for the purpose of transferring 
 my stock to it, but I did not succeed at that time, 
 because I had not the consent of the League. I re- 
 member passing the house of Derwin, the secretary 
 of the League, at Tynagh. I lived at Tynagh, but my 
 farm was at Mullagh. Mrs. Derwin came out and 
 spoke to me as I was passing. I went back with her 
 to her house. 
 
 There was a meeting being held in the house ? — There 
 was. 
 
 Did you go into the meeting ? — I did. 
 
 Who were at the meeting ? — Pat Weyland, Thomas 
 Lawless, and a stranger. 
 
 Did you subsequently ascertain that the stranger was 
 Mr. David Sheehy, the member of Parliament 'i — I 
 was told so subsequently. 
 
 Was anybody else present ? — Yes, Mat Harris. He 
 was presiding. 
 
 Was your brother with you P — He was. 
 
 Did your brother say anything as to what brought 
 him there ? — Yes ; he wanted to explain how I came to 
 take the land, but Mr. Sheehy said he did not want to 
 hear about that at all. What he wanted to know was 
 whether I was going to give up the land. I said I 
 would give up the land if I could get leave to get 
 grass for my stock. 
 
 From whom were you to get the leave ? — From the 
 League. 
 
 Did Mat Harris say anything? — He said that if I 
 would give up the farm I would get leave to get the. 
 grass. I said I would not give up the farm until I 
 had got the leave. I told him I would give up the 
 land to the person I got it from — to the agent. 
 
 Some time after that did any person come to 
 you from the Tynagh branch ? — Yes, the same night 
 Ford came to my house. 
 
 Was Ford a member of the Tynagh branch of the 
 National League '! — I suppose he was. I cannot exactly 
 say. As far as I uuderstood he was a member of it. 
 
 Did Ford give you any message from the Tynagh 
 branch of the National League as to whether they 
 were satisfied with you ? — Yes, he told me that Harris 
 knew nothing about the matter, and that if I would 
 give up the land to the landlord they would be 
 satisfied. In consequence of what he said I attended a 
 meeting of the Mullagh branch of the League when the 
 committee was sitting. Pat Dillon, the secretary, 
 and Michael Garvey were present. The parish priest 
 was there. I told them the reasons why I did not give 
 up the farm and they said they would give me hand- 
 writing for it if I gave up the farm. 
 
 Handwriting for what '/ — For permission to remove 
 my stock — to get grass. 
 
 What were you to do if you got the grass ? — I was 
 to clear the farm. 
 
 What were you to do with the farm when you had 
 cleared it '{ — I was to give it up to the landlord. 
 
 Was any time fixed for you to give it up ? — Yes, on 
 the 8th of January, after Ballinasloe Fair, when I 
 could dispose of my cattle. 
 
 Did Dillon say anything to you ? — Yes, he said he 
 did not like me. (Laughter.) I asked him what was 
 the reason, and he said because I was a land-grabber. 
 I asked him what did he know about a laud-grabber 
 in 1879, when I took the farm. As I was leaving 
 Dillon said, " This arrangement will do us a great 
 deal of good." I said to him, " I suppose it is not 
 for the benefit of widow Dempsey you are doing it ?" 
 and he said, " No, it is only to benefit ourselves," or 
 " to save ourselves." 
 
 On getting that authority did you take grass ? — I 
 did, and I put sheep upon it. I was still boycotted. 
 I took the grass from a Mrs. Kelly, who is a farmer, 
 and who keeps a grocer's shop. After I took the grass 
 Mrs. Kelly's customers were boycotted. I thereupon 
 gave her the leave I got from the League. 
 
 Why ? — To avoid the boycotting. I had afterwards to 
 remove my sheep from her land. 
 
 Patrick Kennedy. 
 
264 
 
 The Special Commission, November 13, 1888- 
 
 Some time afterwards did you get the authority back 
 again from Mrs. Kelly ?— I did. 
 
 What became of it ? — I put it in my pocket and it 
 fell to pieces. Sergeant Hennessy took a copy of it. 
 I went to the agent in January to give up the land, 
 but he refused to take it without my notice to sur- 
 render. I still continued in possession up to March 
 or April, 1887. I then got a letter from the League. 
 (Letter produced.) 
 
 " Mullagh Branch. 
 " I am instructed by the committee to communicate 
 with you with regard to widow Dempsey's farm. We 
 are informed you are still in possession of the farm. 
 If you do not send us a satisfactory account on or 
 before next Sunday, »e shall be brought to the dis- 
 agreeable necessity of declaring you still a land- 
 grabber. " By order, 
 
 " Patrick Dillon, Assistant Secretary." 
 There is no date on the letter, but I received it in 
 March or April, 1887. After that I received a second 
 letter. (Letter produced.) 
 
 " Mullagh Branch, April 4, 1887. 
 " Sir, — I am directed by the committee of the above 
 to communicate with you with regard to widow 
 Dempsey's farm, to give some satisfactory answer 
 whether you have given up possession or not. Waiting 
 your reply by return of post, 
 
 "lam your obedient servant, 
 
 "Patrick Dillon." 
 Now in June of that year did you see stock on your 
 land ?— I did. 
 
 Were they yours ? — No ; I believe they were Mrs. 
 Dempsey's. In the following month hay was cut on 
 my land, but not by me. I was told it was the 
 Dempseys. Later on it was removed off the land. I 
 attended Wicklow Assizes for the trial of some of the 
 men who had removed the hay. I told the same story 
 then — at least part of it ; as much as I was asked — and I 
 do not know whether any one was called to contradict 
 me. After giving evidence at the trial I was still 
 boycotted. 
 
 Now, up to 1879 were you on good terms with your 
 neighbours ? — Yes, I was. 
 
 And there was no reason for the change except 
 taking up this land ? — No, I never did anything to 
 make them on bad terms with me. I had police pro- 
 tection in 1881. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Who was Hen- 
 nessy ? — He was a sergeant of police at Tynagh. I 
 cannot tell you about what time he came ; I have no 
 knowledge of it. He might have been there five years 
 off and on. 
 
 How long ago ? — I object to the question. (Laughter.) 
 
 Who told you to object to the question ? — No one : I 
 Eonld not tell you the time exactly, or about how 
 long ago it was. 
 
 Where do you live ? — With my brother. 
 
 Where ? — I object to the question. 
 
 Why do you refuse to say where you live ? — So many 
 people know where I live. I know there will be an 
 ill-feeling against me when I go back. 
 
 You had police protection, you say ; people must 
 have known where you lived ? — In Ireland. 
 
 You do not want people in London to know where 
 you live ? Now, answer a straightforward question. 
 Where did you live at the time you took Mrs. Demp- 
 sey's farm ? — With my brother. 
 
 Where ? — In the county of Gal way, in the parish of 
 Tynagh. I had no land ; I was not farming land 
 with my brother, but I was with him. I was not with 
 him as a labouring man ; I had no gains from the land. 
 
 How were you earning your bread ? Come, speak 
 out. — I got it from my father. 
 
 Had you a share of the land ? — No. 
 
 A share of his means ? — Aye. 
 
 Living on his money ? — I was living with my 
 brother. 
 
 Were you living on your father ? — No, I was in the 
 house with my brother. 
 
 Do you mean he gave you bite and sup ? — I was sup- 
 porting the house. \ 
 
 The President. — Do you say you were supporting 
 the house. What were you living on ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Come, Sir, give an answer. 
 
 Witness. — How can I answer you ? I was living with 
 my brother and working on the land. I was helping 
 him on the land. I am not married. 
 
 How long were you living with your brother ? — I 
 could not exactly tell you. 
 
 Aboat how long ? (Witness did not answer.) 
 
 Come, do not keep us here all day. — I cannot tell 
 you ; I am not going to answer such a question, 
 because I cannot tell the exact time. Since my father 
 died. 
 
 When did your father die ? (Witness again hesi 
 iated.) ■ 
 
 Come, Sir, none of this nonsense ; when did your 
 father die ? — About 12 or 13 years ago, but I could 
 not exactly say. 
 
 When was widow Dempsey evicted ? — In April, 1879. 
 
 I guess from her description she was a widow ? — I 
 suppose she was. 
 
 Had she a family ? — Yes. 
 
 How many acres of land had she ? — Twenty-eight 
 acres 39 perches. The landlord was Mr. Trench, and 
 the agent Mr. Allen. 
 
 What rent did she pay ? — I cannot tell: 
 
 What rent were you paying ? — £36. 
 
 You say she was evicted in April, 1879. When did 
 you take the land ?— About the 18th or 19th of April. 
 
 Did you clear up any arrears on getting the land ? — 
 No, I only took it for six months. 
 
 You only took it for six months, from April to 
 October, 1879 ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— As your Lordship is 
 aware, tenants have six months to redeem. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Yes, we understand that. (To 
 witness.) Was it understood that if she did not redeem 
 you would continue the farm ? — I do not know. I took 
 it for the six months. 
 
 There was no arrangement that you were to stay on 
 
 Patrick Kennedy. 
 
The Special Commission, November 13, 1888. 
 
 265 
 
 it if she did not redeem ? — Well.no such word was used 
 at the time. If she wished to redeem I would have 
 gone out. 
 
 Where did Mrs. Dempsey go when she was evicted ?— 
 To Clontubber. 
 
 How far was that from the evicted farm ?— About an 
 English mile. 
 
 Who put her there ? — I do not know whether it was 
 the landlord or the agent. 
 
 Do you think it was one or the other ? — I do not 
 know ; I cannot account for it. 
 
 A few days after Mrs. Dempsey went out did you go 
 to the agent ? — I went to the agent ; the farm was 
 put up to bidding. 
 
 When was the first Land League, to your knowledge, 
 established in Mullagh ? — There was no branch up to 
 November 15, 1880. 
 
 In 1881 ?— There was in March, 1881. 
 
 Is that the nearest date you can fix ? — Well, it did 
 not trouble me. 
 
 Was there one in Tynagh ? (Witness hesitated for 
 some time.) Come, wake up and answer the question. 
 —I do not know in March ; in November, 1881, there 
 was no branch established. 
 
 When was the first branch established in Tynagh ? — I 
 could not exactly tell you ; it did nob trouble me ; I 
 do not want to hear about it. 
 
 As nearly as you can ? — I have no knowledge of it. 
 
 Do you tell my Lords that you do not know when 
 the first branch was established in Tynagh ? Do you 
 hear my question ? — Yes, I object to answer. 
 
 The President. — I thought he gave an answer. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — He said that it was not before 
 November, 1881. (To witness.) Why do you object to 
 answer that question ? — I cannot give a particular 
 account of it. 
 
 I want to know as nearly as you can about what 
 time. You say it was not there in November, 1881 ? 
 —I did not say 1881 ; I said 1880. 
 
 I am sorry you should contradict me so rudely, 
 Kennedy ; you said 1881. — To the best of my belief 
 there was not a branch in 1881. 
 
 Who was the president of the Mullagh branch ? — I 
 had no knowledge ; I believe Father Bodkin was, but I 
 could not exactly say. 
 
 In the spring of 1881 you say you wrote to Dublin 
 and got an answer ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you show your answer to the police ? — I cannot 
 say whether I did or not. 
 
 Will you swear you did not tell the police you had 
 written to Dublin and got an answer ? — I could not 
 tell you. 
 
 Have you not since 1881 been in constant communi- 
 cation with the police, informing them of these meet- 
 ings and when you were attending them ? On your 
 oath ? — I did not tell them half of what, passed. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Answer me ; have you not since 1881 been in 
 constant communication with the police, telling them 
 
 what you were doing and the meetings you were 
 going to ? — I went to no meetings since 1881. 
 
 You have told us of several. Have you not been in 
 constant communication with the police and told 
 them practically all of what took place at the meet- 
 ings, and the names of the parties attending them ?— • 
 I have no recollection ; but I was at a Star Chamber 
 Court ; it was held at Killamore. I do not know 
 when that was. It was nnt in 1882. 
 
 The President.— I suppose " Star Chamber " is a 
 nickname ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Yes, a court of seeret 
 inquiry. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — When was this ? (Wit« 
 ness did not answer.) Come, you are not treating me 
 — and, what is more important, the Court — respect" 
 fully. — It was some time in 1887. I do not know 
 exactly what time it was. 
 
 I am not asking you the exact time ; about what 
 time ? — I do not know what time ; I believe soma 
 time in 1887. Mr. Joyce was the magistrate. 
 
 Do you swear that that was the first time you made 
 any communication to the police ? — I had nothing to 
 do with them to the time when I had protection. 
 
 I ask you again, do you swear that in 1881 you were 
 not in communication with the police, informing them 
 as to meetings you were going to ? — I will. 
 
 Did you tell the police you wrote to Dublin ? — I 
 cannot exactly say. I could not tell you. 
 
 Did you show them the answer you got ? — I cannot 
 say whether I did or not. 
 
 Will you swear that you did not ? — I could not say 
 whether I did or not. 
 
 You say that you gave that letter to some one to give 
 it to the Mullagh branch ; who was it ? — A man 
 named Kennedy. 
 
 A relation of yours ? — Yes, a cousin. 
 
 Now, I ask you, did you not show that letter to the 
 police before you gave it to your cousin Kennedy ? — I 
 could not say whether I did or not. 
 
 Did I understand you to say that you said when you 
 attended the meeting that you would give up the land 
 if you were paid for your loss ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you say any annoyance began ? — No annoy« 
 ance began till November, 1880. 
 
 What was the annoyance ? — They held a meeting on 
 my land. 
 
 Anything else ?— They boycotted me. 
 
 How ? — When I went to the fair to buy a onw a man 
 would ask me a price I would not give, and when ha 
 knew who I was and I came back he put another £1 
 on. 
 
 Anything more ? — I cannot tell you anything more. 
 
 I want you to tell me everything. Was there any- 
 thing more ? (No answer.) 
 
 Come, Sir, anything more ? — They used te sheut and 
 groan after me. 
 
 Who, the children ?— And the men. There was am 
 understanding among them. 
 
 Has there been more than one meeting on your 
 
 Patrick Kennedy. 
 
266 
 
 The Special Commission, November 13, 1888 
 
 land ? — Yes, the first in November, 1880, and the last 
 in November, 1886. 
 
 When you attended the meeting you were called to at 
 Mrs. Der win's did you say that you would clear off the 
 land by January, 1887, if you got leave to get grass 
 isomewhere else ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you mean it ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you afterwards go to Constable Hennessy and 
 tell him what had taken place ? — I did not go to 
 him. 
 
 Did he come to you ? — He was in the house when I 
 came back. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did you tell him what took place ? — He asked me 
 about it. 
 
 Did you intend to keep your promise about giving 
 up your land ? — I did. 
 
 In order to avoid trouble ? — Yes. 
 
 And to get on good terms with your neighbours ? — 
 I suppose so. 
 
 Did the constable tell you not to give up the land ? — 
 He did not. 
 
 Why did you give it up ? — Because he would not 
 take it from me. 
 
 Did you give notice ? — No, I went to him. 
 
 When did you go ? — On January 10. 
 
 Did you ever give notice to give it up ?— No. 
 
 I understand you to say you have a letter from 
 Secretary Dillon authorizing you to get grass else- 
 where ? — It was not from him, but from Andrew Cahill 
 I had it. 
 
 Did you show that to the head constable ?— He was 
 in the house when I got home. 
 
 Did I understand you to say Sergeant Hennessy took 
 a copy of it ? — He did. 
 
 In your house ? — Not in my house ; in my brother's 
 house . 
 
 You continued to live with your brother ? — Yes. 
 
 With reference to what took place in respect of the 
 hay cut by Mrs. Dempsey there was a prosecution of a 
 number of people, was there not ?— Yes, about 11. 
 
 How often was Mrs. Dempsey sent to gaol ? — I can- 
 not say. 
 
 About how often ?— Only once— about the meeting in 
 1880. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — Mrs. Derwin is 
 some relation of mine. I do not know whether she 
 had been to see Mr. Harris to ask him to use his in- 
 fluence for me. I did not want to go to Mrs. Derwin's 
 at all, but she called me in when I was passing. After 
 being there I had no communication with the police. 
 I ha9 no communication with the police that day. I 
 could not exactly say when I next had any communica- 
 tion with the police, but it might have been the next 
 day. 
 
 Just tell me the names of some of the police you 
 have communicated with since 1881 ? — No answer. 
 
 The question was repeated, and still no answer was 
 given. 
 
 Are you afraid to give me the names of the police 
 you have communicated with since 1881 ? — No answer. 
 
 The President. — We cannot wait here all day for 
 your answer. What is your answer to this question ? 
 It is a very simple question. 
 
 The witness. — Sergeant Hennessy is one of them. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Now give us the rest of the names ? 
 — Sergeant Burns. 
 
 When did you first communicate with him ? — I could 
 not exactly tell you. It might have been 1881. 
 
 Do you mean to say on your oath that you cannot 
 give me the names of any other men besides the two 
 you have mentioned ? Answer me this. What did you 
 get for your communications to the police since 1881 ? 
 — Nothing. 
 
 Do you swear that ? — Yes. 
 
 From 1SS1 to 1888 '—Nothing. I have been more 
 at a loss than I have gained by it. 
 
 But I want to know what you gained ; then we can 
 judge ? — Don't I tell you I got nothing ? 
 
 Not up till to-day ?— Yes. 
 
 Who is keeping you now ? 
 
 The witness not answering, Mr. Lockwood asked 
 again. — Do you know or don't you ? — I suppose The 
 Times is keeping me now. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biggar. — Did you never know 
 of cattle and sheep straying from land in parts where 
 there is no ill-feeliDg among tenants and neighbours ? 
 —I have heard of cattle straying. 
 
 Has land-grabbing always been unpopular, so far. as 
 you know ? — I do not remember much of it. 
 
 Had there not been a great deal of land-grabbing in 
 the county Galway long before 1879 ? — I do not know. 
 I never heard of such a name as " land-grabbing " 
 until 18S0. 
 
 But do you not know that land-grabbing means the 
 taking of land over people's heads, and from those 
 who have been unfairly evicted ? — There was no objec- 
 tion to my taking the land. 
 
 Was land-grabbing ever a popular practice ? — I never 
 heard the word mentioned at all till 1880. 
 
 Was it ever popular to take land over people's 
 beads, or from which tenants had been unfairly 
 evicted ? — I did not see many cases of that kind. 
 
 Did you ever think it a popular thing ? — A man could 
 not let the land go idle. 
 
 Was it a popular thing to take land from which a 
 widow had been evicted ? — It was often done. I do 
 not know whether it was popular or not. * 
 
 You told us that you took the land for six months ; 
 did you make a fresh arrangement at the end of the 
 six months ? — Yes. I gave £20 as security and £20 to 
 give to Mrs. Dempsoy. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — There is one other question I 
 should like to ask, my Lords. (To witness.) You 
 have spoken of the Star Chamber tribunal before 
 which you appeared. Did you make any statement of 
 your evidence to any one apart from the statement 
 you made before the Star 'Chamber ? — (The witness 
 made no reply.) 
 
 The President. — Has your evidence been checked 
 by somebody ? — Yes, it has. 
 
 Patrick Kennedy. 
 
The Special Commission, November 13, 1888. 
 
 267 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — When ? (No answer.) 
 
 Question repeated. 
 
 The President (to witness). — Why will you not 
 answer the question ? — (The witness continued to be 
 silent.) 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Where did you make any state- 
 ment of your evidence ? (No answer.) 
 
 The President. — Will you not answer ? You told us 
 you had made a statement ; do you remember that ? — 
 I do. 
 
 Well, then, you must remember where you made the 
 statement ? — In Killamore. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Before whom ? — Mr. Joyce. 
 
 Is that the only statement you have made ? (No 
 answer.) 
 
 Can you tell me of any statement you have made 
 besides that to Mr. Joyce ? (Witness made no reply.) 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Just look at this gentle- 
 man, Mr. Shannon. (Mr. Shannon here stepped 
 forward.) Did that gentleman ask you any questions ? 
 — Yes. 
 
 When you came to London ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see anybody writing down ?— Yes. 
 
 When you took over this land what did you tell Mr. 
 Allan ? — I told him I would have nothing to do with 
 the land if the widow Dempsey was able to hold it. 
 He told me he could get many to take it if I did not. 
 
 In reply to further questions, witness said, — I gave 
 Mr. Allan £20 as security and £20 to give to the 
 widow Dempsey. I held about 30 Irish acres. I lived 
 in my brother's house and had my meals with him. 
 My brother did not pay me any money and I wanted 
 none. I had some money from my father, and I was 
 looking out for land. I had been two or three 
 years helping my brother before I took the 
 widow Dempsey's farm. The police gave me pro- 
 tection without my asking for it. So far as I know, 
 no one interfered with me except the Land League. I 
 mean by the Star Chamber a Crimes Act inquiry. I got 
 the name from hearing it so called by a solicitor at 
 Loughrea, who appeared for the defence of the 
 prisoners there. It had never happened to me before 
 not to get information as to where my cattle had 
 strayed. 
 
 Sergeant Michael Hennessy, Royal Irish Constabu- 
 lary, examined by the Attorney-General, said,— In 
 1880 I was stationed at Tynagh ; in 1882 I went to 
 Purtumna ; and in 1884 I went back to Tynagh, and 
 have been there ever since. I know the last witness 
 Kennedy. After the meeting on his farm in December, 
 
 1880, I found he was protected by patrols. In April, 
 
 1881, he was under special protection. That was 
 because his life was in danger. I think at that time 
 that special protection was necessary. I believe that the 
 Land League at Tynagh was established in December, 
 1880. In the earlypartof 1881 Land League meetings were 
 held there. The officers of the Land League in Tynagh 
 were John Derwin and Thomas Lawless. That is all I 
 
 am positive about. Special protection was accorded 
 to Kennedy from April, 1881, to January, 1882. He 
 refused to take two men of the auxiliary force when 
 the police left him. In 1882 the Land League at 
 Tynagh was suppressed. The National League was 
 established in 1885, and its principal officers were John 
 Derwin and Thomas Lawless, the same as for the Land 
 League. On the night of December 5, 1886, I went 
 to Kennedy's house, and he showed me a letter which 
 he said he had received from Mr. Patrick Dillon at 
 Mullagh. The letter was as follows: — "5th Dec., 
 1886.— Mullagh Branch.— Mr. Patrick Kennedy, tho 
 man in possession of the widow Dempsey's farm at 
 Kylebeg, has appealed to the committee of the above 
 asking time until January, 1887, in order to dispose of 
 his cattle, and we have come to the conclusion that 
 any person would be justified in exchanging dealings 
 with him. By order of the committee." I have no 
 doubt that letter referred to the National League. I 
 knew from Kennedy at that time that he was trying to 
 get grass for the cattle upon his farm. From what he 
 told me I knew that he had difficulty in doing so. 
 Kennedy arranged to put his cattle on Mrs. Kelly'e 
 farm. Mrs. Kelly kept a bakery, and had a large farm 
 besides. I do not know whether anything happened to 
 her when Kennedy's cattle were on her farm. Previous 
 to November, 1886, I saw a notice posted calling a 
 meeting at Kylebeg. It called upon the people to meet on 
 Kylebeg farm, which was the one occupied by Kennedy. 
 I do not recollect by whom the notice was signed. 
 I remember a meeting afterwards taking place. I 
 was not there. I do not know whether the people 
 I have mentioned were there. I remember receiving 
 two notices from Kennedy. They were sent to him 
 by Patrick Dillon. I received tho first on March 9. 
 I happened to be in Kennedy's house on the day when 
 he came in and he gave me the notice. I got the 
 other one from him subsequently, in a similar manner, 
 on April 14. At this time patrols were looking after 
 Kennedy — not special protection ; and when a man is 
 being looked after by patrols it is our duty to visit 
 his house from time to time. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Kusseia. — Was there 
 any looking after Kennedy from December, 1880, 
 to January, 1882 ? — Yes, he had special protection 
 part of that time, and after that was withdrawn 
 he was protected by patrol. From December, 1880, 
 to April, 18S1, he was protected by patrol. 
 
 Were you in communication with Kennedy during the 
 whole time you were in the neighbourhood ? — Not 
 much, because he was some time under special pro- 
 tection. When I returned in October, 1884, he was 
 neither under patrol nor special protection. He told 
 me he was willing to give up his farm. 
 
 You have no doubt, I suppose, in your mind that 
 the cause of ill-will towards him was the having taken 
 this farm ? — I believe there was no other reason. 
 
 What countryman are you ? — I am a native or Kerry. 
 
 You know there is a very strong feeling against any 
 one who takes an evicted farm ? Was it a popular 
 
 fatrick Kennedy.. 
 
 .Sergeant Michael Hennessy. 
 
268 
 
 The Special Commission, November 13, 1888. 
 
 thing to do ? — I never knew any ill-feeling being caused 
 by it before the time of the League, except among the 
 parties evicted. 
 
 Were you present in London when Kennedy's evi- 
 dence was taken? — I was — that is, when his evidence 
 was taken down by Mr. Shannon. It was taken down 
 in Mr. Soames's office. There were present three 
 clerks, Mr. Shannon, and two others whom I did not 
 know. 
 
 Had Mr. Shannon a printed paper before him? — No. 
 
 Do not answer without thinking. Had he a copy of 
 the evidence taken before what has been called the 
 " Star Chamber " inquiry before Mr. Joyce ? — I do 
 not know. I did not see one. My evidence was taken 
 down at the same time. I brought Kennedy over. I 
 was not examined at that inquiry. 
 
 Who instructed you to bring Kennedy over ? — My 
 superior officer, Mr. Somerville. He is a district 
 inspector. 
 
 Did you get money to bring Kennedy over ?— Yes, I 
 got money, but I handed it to Mr. Somerville. 
 
 Ee-examined by the Attokney-Genekal. — Sir Charles 
 Eussell has asked you about this unpopularity of 
 taking evicted farms. Now, before 1879, if land was 
 vacant in the district in which you were stationed, 
 was it generally taken up by another tenant ? — It 
 was. There were always people ready to take the 
 land. Apart from any ill-feeling entertained by the 
 man turned out against the man who went in, I never 
 knew it to be regarded as an offence to take an 
 evicted farm or to pay rent. I never knew of 
 land-grabbers being denounced before League meet- 
 ings, arid until the League was established I never 
 knew of any meetings being held to prevent people 
 taking farms, nor heard of persons being punished for 
 paying their rent. I have been in the force about 
 20 years and four months, and have been stationed 
 in Tipperary and Galway. 
 
 Did Kennedy give his evidence at Wieklow Assizes ? 
 — He did. I was present in Court at the time. He 
 gave more evidence than he has given to-day. Mat- 
 thew Harris was also in Court. 
 
 Were any of the other people whose names you have 
 mentioned present in Court ? — Yes, John Derwin was 
 there. He was attending the assizes as a witness. 
 
 Was any witness called to contradict the story 
 Kennedy told ?— No. Father Bodkin was a witness 
 for the defence, but I cannot say whether he was 
 sitting in Court while Kennedy gave his evidence. 
 
 Sergeant Eoughan, examined by Mr. Bonan, said,— 
 I was formerly in the constabulary, and had charge of 
 the Mullagh sub-district from April, 1883, to Novem- 
 ber, 1887. A branch of the National League was 
 started in Mullagh in March, 1884. I was present at 
 the meeting,at which Matthew Harris and Father Bod- 
 kin were present. I remember on August 1 attending a 
 committee meeting of the League in the chapel yard at 
 Mullagh. I know a man named John Donellan. He 
 was a member of the committee. He said there was a 
 
 land-grabber in the district. * A member of the com- 
 mittee asked him who it was, and Donellan said it was 
 Kennedy. The committee on that occasion decided to 
 take no action, but appointed three members to attend 
 a public meeting which was to be held at Loughrea on 
 August 8 to consider the matter. I remember a com- 
 mittee meeting being held on October 24, 1886. I 
 know Michael Garvey. He was present on that occa- 
 sion, and introduced the name of Kennedy. He said 
 that some action ought to be taken in the matter. I 
 remember a League meeting being held on November 
 21, 1886, at Kennedy's farm, at which Mr. Sheehy, 
 M.P., was present. He made a speech. I am aware 
 that immediately after that meeting Kennedy had to 
 send away his stock. I remember getting some in- 
 formation in April, 1887, that people were to attend to 
 till the farm. In consequence of that I went to the 
 farm with two of my men. I saw a man named Andrew 
 Hardiman. I had a conversation with him. I asked 
 him why they were sowing potatoes. There were eight 
 police there altogether,and in consequence of their pre- 
 sence the people did nothing on the farm. I remember 
 going to the farm on July 8, when I saw a man mow- 
 ing the grass. That man was Michael Dempsey. Dur- 
 ing the months of July, August, and September I saw 
 Mrs. Dempsey and her two sons and two daughters on 
 the farm. Ten loads of hay were removed from the 
 farm on September 21. The police pursued the people, 
 who took the hay to Loughrea. They were brought up 
 at the Wieklow Assizes and charged. Four of the men 
 were convicted of conspiracy in connexion with Ken- 
 nedy's farm. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Eussell.— These com- 
 mittee meetings were held in the chapel yard in the 
 open air and were above-board. I was present at them. 
 I took no part in the proceedings. 
 
 You did not move any resolution ? — Oh, no. 
 (Laughter.) The majority of the people" about there 
 were members of the League. They made no objection 
 to my presence and treated me civilly. 
 
 By Mr. Eeid. — Was any police reporter present at 
 the meeting at which Mr. Sheehy spoke ? — Yes, a note 
 was taken by a shorthand reporter, Constable Noble. 
 
 Mr. Eonan. — That is a speech we shall put in. 
 
 Mr. Eeid.— I am much obliged. That is what I 
 wanted to know. 
 
 Ee-examined by the Attorney-Genekal. — The people 
 were asked to subscribe to the League. I saw sub- 
 scriptions handed in at some of these meetings. 
 
 The Court here adjourned for luncheon. 
 
 James Mannion was next called, and, in answer to 
 Mr. Atkinson, said,— I am a farmer and live in the 
 county of Galway, in the west, near Letterfrack. I 
 remember the Land League being established in Letter- 
 frack. It was established by members of the League. 
 Among them were Pat Euane, of Tully, who was a 
 money collector or treasurer, and a man named James 
 Varilly. I do not remember exactly when the League 
 
 Sergeant Roughan. 
 
 James Mannion. 
 
The Special Commission, November 13, 1888. 
 
 269 
 
 was established, but it was some time in 1880. These 
 two men were most active in establishing it. 
 
 la addition to these two men were there inj others 
 who collected money for the League ?— There was 
 another man named Michael Cawley. He was another 
 collector. There were also Michael M'Donnell, Pat 
 M'Kerran, and Michael Coyne. 1 was myself a mem- 
 ber of the League for a while. I attended meetings 
 of the League. These meetings were held in 
 Letterfrack, in the house of a Mrs. Walsh, one 
 of whose sons was hanged for the murder of 
 Lydeu. Meetings were very often held there. 
 The meetings were held about cr.ee a fortnight, but 
 there was no special day for meeting. I was also a 
 member of the Fenian Society. I was sworn into it 
 by Pat Ruane, in 1880, I think. Varilly was a member 
 of the Fenian Society. All the men whom I have 
 mentioned as collectors for the Land League were 
 members of that society. All the men who attended 
 the meetings at Mrs. Walsh's house were members of 
 the Land League. I am not aware that there were any 
 persons present who did not belong to it. The members 
 of the Fenian Society had a sign by which they could 
 know one another. I joined the Land League first. I 
 was asked to join it by James Varilly. I did not 
 collect for it. I did not get money from those who 
 collected, but sometimes drink. At the meetings in 
 Mrs. Walsh's house drink was distributed, aud I 
 believe it was the League that paid for it. 
 Ruane used to pay for it. After I had been 
 sworn in by Ruane I received a notice from 
 John Faherty, who was a member of the League and a 
 Fenian. In consequence of that notice I went to a 
 place called Tully with John Faherty. On the way to 
 Tully we stopped at James Varilly's house. From there 
 we went on with Edward Varilly and Patrick Walsh. 
 At the Tully cross roads we met Pat Ruane, Michael 
 M'Donnell, and others. Altogether 00 or 70 people 
 assembled. From there we went a mile further off to 
 Anthony Coyne's house. Ruane gave M'Donnell certain 
 orders. Up to that time he had been in command, but 
 he then left M'Donnell in command. After this we 
 approached Coyne's house. When we had reached it 
 M'Donnell told us to break open the door and pull 
 Coyne out of bed. We had been told that Coyne was 
 going to evict an under-tenant of his named Lyden. 
 The circumstances had been discussed at a meeting at 
 Mrs. Walsh's house before the expedition. It had been 
 arranged at that meeting that Coyne should be given a 
 good beating, and that he should be asked for a copy 
 of the processes. 
 
 Had any of the party firearms with them ? — Yes. 
 Michael Cawley had a pistol, Pat Walsh had a rifle, 
 and M'Donnell had a revolver. I could not say who 
 broke open the door of Coyne's house. John Faherty 
 ind a couple more pulled Coyne out of bed. There was 
 oo light in the place. He was dragged into the 
 kitchen and warned not to exercise the law against 
 Lyden, and he was asked for a copy of the processes. 
 He swore that the process-server in Clifden had them 
 
 and that they were, not in his possession. He was very, 
 much beaten and received a great kicking. Sbols 
 were fired through the roof of the house. Afterwards 
 we scattered and_ went home, each to his own place. 
 I went back to Letterfrack. No one was apprehended 
 for this outrage. It occurred, I guess, in 1880, very 
 soon after 1 was sworn in. I think I was sworn in in, 
 the month cf November. 
 
 After this business at Coyne's house did you receive 
 notice to attend a meeting ?— I did. Edward Varilly 
 gave me notice to attend at Mullaghglass, but 
 I did not go. Subsequently I attended a meeting 
 at which there was a discussion about Mr. 
 Graham's tenants. The meeting was held at 
 Letterfrack, in Pat , Ruane's shop. It was in 
 1881, seven or eight months after Coyne's affair. 
 The hour was about 9 o'clock. There were only 
 five or sis persons present. Pat Ruane was there him- 
 self. I happened to be in his shop that evening, and 
 he told me to wait, as he wanted me. 
 
 Tell us what occurred with reference to Mr. 
 Graham's tenants ? — I. was one of his tenants myself. 
 Ruane said that the tenants would ruin the country by 
 paying rent, and I replied that Mr. Graham and his 
 tenants were on good terms, that he had given good 
 reductions, and that we were all satisfied. It was 
 then said that Mr. Graham or somebody belonging to 
 him should be shot. 
 
 Was anything more done that night ? — No. Our party 
 gave the tenants notice not to pay any more. I went 
 myself and posted notices on two tenants' doors. 
 
 What was the substance of the notice ? — That no rent 
 must be paid, and that any man who should pay would 
 be found out and shot. Other notices were posted by 
 others on other doors. 
 
 After that did the tenants pay ? — They paid by 
 stealth, not openly. 
 
 Were proceedings taken ? — No, the tenants paid on 
 the sly. 
 
 Do you remember after that having a conversation 
 with Ruane about a Mr. Joseph M'Donald ? — Yes, I. 
 received a message telling me to be at Letterfrack at ; 
 4 o'clock. I met Pat Ruane and five or six others at ; 
 a place near Letterfrack where three roads meet. 
 Ruane called me aside and said, " I am told that Mr. 
 M'Donald is going to dine this evening with Mr. 
 Graham, and I want you to find out at what time." 
 
 Did he say what Mr. M'Donald had done ?— He did 
 not. Mr. M'Donald was Mr. Graham's agent. 
 
 Did he state why he wanted to ascertain whether 
 Mr. M'Donald was to dine with Mr. Graham that 
 night? — Yes, he wanted to know, because Mr. M'Donald 
 was to be shot, adding that anybody who would shoot 
 him would be well paid for the work. 
 
 Did you go to Mr. Graham's ? — I did. I asked the 
 butler, who was a great friend of mine, whether Mr. 
 M'Donald was going to dine that night, and he told 
 me that Mr. M'Donald would be there. Then I went 
 back and told Ruane that Mr. M'Donald would not ba 
 
 James Mannion. 
 
270 
 
 The Special Commission, November 13, 1888. 
 
 there, and that Mr. Graham was going to dine at 
 Mr. Brown's. 
 
 That was not true ?— No. 
 
 Why did you say it ? — Because I knew the gentleman, 
 and did not want to have a hand in it. 
 
 According to the rules of the Fenian Society, are 
 you obliged to do what you are ordered ? — Certainly; 
 if you do not you will be shot if you are found out. 
 
 Was anything done to Mr. M'Donald ?— No, except 
 that a great number of his sheep were taken. 
 
 What was done with the sheep ? — They were taken to 
 Mrs. Walsh's farm at Letterfrack. We wanted to 
 boycott Mr. M'Donald out of his farm. He had 
 succeeded to it, and we determined to boycott him. 
 That was discussed at a meeting held at Mrs. Walsh's 
 house. We resolved to boycott him, and we determined 
 to take his sheep. They were taken at intervals, five 
 or six at a time, to Mrs. Walsh's. Both her sons were 
 alive at this time. 
 
 Did you know the Rev. Canon Fleming, of Bal- 
 linakill ? — Yes. I remember once working in the 
 quarry near his house. John Faherty was working 
 with me. Young Mr. Fleming passed us, and Faherty, 
 speaking in the Irish language, said that he should not 
 like to be in the canon's shoes. 
 
 Was Canon Fleming subsequently fired at ? — Yes. Had 
 you attended a meeting in Mrs. Walsh's house with 
 reference to this outrage 'I — No, I knew nothing about 
 that. 
 
 " The President. — Was Faherty a Fenian and a Land 
 Leaguer ? — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Do you remember a meeting 
 at Cawley's Mountain ? — Yes, I guess it was 
 in 1881. It was a large meeting, attended 
 by 200 people. They wanted to . boycott Mrs. 
 Blake, of Byndvale, and another lady, Mrs. Prior. 
 The meeting was held at night between 12 and 1 o'clock, 
 by the moonlight. Euane was there ; all the members 
 of that locality were there. All those persons were 
 members of the Land League ; they were also Fenians. 
 As far as I was concerned, I did not know any differ- 
 ence between the members of the two bodies ; the 
 members of the one were members of the other. I 
 remember the time that the Lydens were murdered. 
 Before that day a meeting was held in Mrs. Walsh's 
 house. Her son Pat was present ; he was the son who 
 was hanged for Lyden's murder. Michael was also 
 present. There were also present Edward Varilly, 
 Mike Cawley, John Faherty, and others. I do not 
 remember all. A good many were there. I got notice 
 to attend from Buane. Euane himself was not there, 
 but his brother Johnny Euane was. He was both a 
 Land Leaguer and a Fenian. There was a discussion 
 about the Lydens. It was said that they ought to be 
 Bhot on account of herding for Mr. Grahnm on part of 
 the farm from which the Walshes had been evicted. It 
 was arranged that a party was to go to the Lydens 
 for the purpose of shooting them, and Euane said he 
 would send for them. This meeting was the second 
 meeting, and about six of us went to the house, about 
 
 a mile or a mile and a half away — John Faherty, John 
 Euane, Pat Walsh, Edward Varilly, and myself — and I 
 forget the name of the other man, but there were six. 
 They were named by Euane and Pat Walsh. Pat 
 Walsh was the boy who was hanged for Lyden after- 
 wards. We went within 50 yards of Lyden's house. 
 We had firearms. Mike Cawley had one, and Walsh 
 had a revolver. I had none, but Edward Varilly had 
 a revolver. When we arrived at the house there was 
 a light in it. There were cattle about the house when 
 we arrived. The cattle were about 50 yards away from 
 the house, and because the light was there we did not 
 make any appearance, and one said that the best plan 
 was to drive the cattle about the house, so that Lyden 
 might come out and drive them away ; but he did not 
 come out. The dogs were barking, and they did not 
 get the chance of shooting. The party then dispersed. 
 Afterwards Lyden was shot. I was not there when 
 that took place, and did not know it until the follow- 
 ing morning. Between the time of this visit till the 
 time he was shot I did not attend any meeting. I get 
 notice from time to time to attend these meetings at 
 Mrs. Walsh's house, but I could not attend. I have 
 been at many of these meetings, but I did not attend 
 one out of a hundred of those which were held. I 
 know what moonlighting means, and I have some- 
 times been moonlighting. The Land Leaguers were 
 the moonlighters. I do not know any moonlighter who 
 was not a member of the Land League. 
 
 When the moonlighters go to a man's house to visit 
 him, what do tbey do to him ? — Well, Sir, perhaps they 
 might beat him, or shoot him, or commit some outrage 
 on him. 
 
 For what offences ? — That defends on what he was 
 doing out of the way. 
 
 What do you mean," out of the way " ? — It depends, 
 Sir, whether he was paying rent. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— I object, my Lords, to these 
 general statements. 
 
 The President. — He has been moonlighting, and he 
 will tell us what that means. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Have you yourself engaged in any 
 moonlighting ? — Nothing, except paying rent or taking 
 an evicted farm. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— My Lords, I object. It is most 
 unfair to make any statement of that sort. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Have you yourself moonlighted a 
 man for paying rent 1 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — No, no ; I object again. 
 
 Witness. — I have left a notice at a man's door that 
 he was not to pay any rent. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Seme of these men you have men- 
 tioned, were they tried ? Euane, for instance ; where 
 is he 1 — In America. 
 
 Were some of the others tried ? — Some of them were 
 tried for conspiracy to murder. 
 
 Who were tried ? — Conneally, Joyce, Varilly, and 
 John Faherty were all tried for the Lydens' murder. 
 I was present in court at the trial for conspiracy to 
 murder. I was examined before the grand jury. I 
 
 James Mannion. 
 
The Special Commission, November 13, 188S. 
 
 271 
 
 made a deposition before a magistrate in the presence 
 of these men, and they pleaded guilty. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sm C. Russell. — Are you a 
 Ribbon man ? — I do not understand you, Sir. 
 
 Did you ever hear of the Ribbon Society ? — I did 
 not, Sir. 
 
 Never ? — Never. 
 
 When did you first hear of Fenianism ? — I never 
 knew anything about it until I was a Land Leaguer 
 down in that country of ours. I never heard of. it 
 before. 
 
 Have you lived in Lctterfrack all your life ? — Yes, 
 Sir. 
 
 Have you been in America ? — No ; I never left the 
 country except to come to London. 
 
 With whom did you come to London ? — I came by 
 the train. 
 
 With whom ? — There was any amount of persons with 
 me, but I do not know who they were. 
 
 Not even policemen ? — I saw some policemen in the 
 society that I had seen in Galway. 
 
 Were you charged yourself with having anything to 
 do with the murder of Lyden ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 How long were you in gaol ? — Something about three 
 or four months. 
 
 How did you come to be let out ? — I was let out be- 
 cause they could not find much against me. 
 
 Did you make any statement before you were let 
 out ? — Not to my recollection, Sir. 
 
 Think. — Well, if I did, Sir, I don't remember. 
 
 Did your mind give way at all when you were in 
 prison r — Yes, Sir ; I got a little excited. 
 
 You think you have got back your recollection quite 
 clear 1 — Oh, yes ; I guess so, now. 
 
 What was it that excited you ? — I don't know, Sir. 
 
 How long was your mind affected ? — About five or 
 6ix weeks. 
 
 Where were you at that timo ? — I was in an institu- 
 tion at Ballinasloe. 
 
 In gaol ? — No, in an asylum. I was removed from 
 the gaol to the lunatic asylum, and I was there five 
 or six weeks. 
 
 And after that five or six weeks, what then ? — I 
 came home. I was let out. The doctor said he would 
 not want me any more. 
 
 Had you been released before you went to the lunatic 
 asylum ? — No ; I was a prisoner at the time I was re- 
 moved to the asylum. 
 
 Did you make any statement before you left the 
 lunatic asylum ? — No. 
 
 Or before you left the gaol ?— No. 
 
 What age are you ? — I cannot exactly tell you, Sir, 
 but I think I am about 23 or 29. 
 
 On this particular night, when you went with five 
 other men to Lyden's house, you went to murder 
 Lyden if you got the chance, and you knew that when 
 you went ? — I did. 
 
 And when you went to Coyne's house you knew you 
 were going to commit an outrage on that man, and 
 you went ? — Yes. 
 
 Except those two outrages and the posting of these 
 notices, have you taken part in anything else ? — Cer- 
 tainly, Sir, I have not taken part ; but I went with 
 the others. 
 
 Have you taken part by going with the others ? If 
 so, where ? — I do not understand you, Sir, well. 
 
 You have told us of two or three outrages. Have you 
 taken part in other outrages ? — Well, yes, some more. 
 
 Upon whom ? — Well, 1 just went when Mr. M'Donald 
 — but I did not go 
 
 Will you tell us what you know ? You say 
 that you put the other murderous men off the sceut ? — 
 Yes, Sir. 
 
 Is there any other that you have taken part in P— • 
 Well, I have seen some of those sheep of Mr. 
 M'Donald's taken away. 
 
 On your oath do you say you never heard of Fenian- 
 ism before 1880 ? — I swoar I did not. I swear I never 
 heard of it or knew anything about it. 
 
 Is it not the fact that secret societies existed in 
 that part of Galway, and to your knowledge P — Not to 
 my recollection. 
 
 Have you heard them spoken of ? — I knew nothing 
 about them until I had seen the Land League started. 
 I have heard of them since. 
 
 Have you heard since that they existed before your 
 childhood in that part of the country ? — Well, I heard 
 something about it afterwards. 
 
 Were these meetings at Walsh's Fenian meetings ? — I 
 do not see how I could call them Fenian meetings 
 because they were Land League meetings. 
 
 Was there any one there who was not a Fenian ? — I 
 would not know what to call them. I call 
 them Land Leaguers. 
 
 Was there any one there that was not a Fenian? — No. 
 
 Do you allege — be cautious in your answer — that 
 people who were members of the Land League there 
 were all Fenians ? Take care, now, before you 
 answer. — I do not know, Sir. I did not know much 
 about them at the time, but just attended them some- 
 times. 
 
 Did you know the clergy of the district? — I did, Sir ; 
 the parish priest is down there now. 
 
 Do you know that he is a Fenian ? — I do not, Sir. 
 
 Do you say that he was a member of the Land 
 League ? — I do not know, Sir. 
 
 You do not know if he was president of the Land 
 League ?— I do not, Sir. 
 
 Do you know Father O'Connor ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Was he a Fenian ?— I do not know anything about the 
 rev. gentleman. 
 
 Was he connected with the Land League ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 If ho was the secretary of the Land League you 
 never knew anything about him ? — I did not, Sir. 
 
 We have been told by another witness that he was 
 the secretary ?— Well, he might know a little more 
 than I do, Sir. (Laughter.) 
 
 Were any of these meetings that were held at night 
 at the widow Walsh's house Fenian meetings and 
 
 James Mannicm. 
 
272 
 
 The Special Commission, November 13, 1888. 
 
 nothing else ?— I would not call them so. Sir. The 
 FeDians are the people who would not kill cattle or 
 anything else ; they would have gone up and shot their 
 man. 
 
 Have you any reason except that for suggesting that 
 these were not Fenians ? — That is my belief. 
 
 All these men, then, that you did meet in the dead 
 of the night at widow Walsh's were Fenians ? — I would 
 not call them Fenians. I would call them Land 
 Leaguers. 
 
 But you have told the learned counsel that every one 
 of them was a Fenian. Is that true or not ? — Well, I 
 might, Sir. 
 
 Is it true or not what you have sworn ? — They wore 
 sometimes called Fenians and sometimes Land 
 Leaguers. 
 
 Is it true or not that you have sworn that each one 
 Df the persons that attended these night meetings at 
 the widow Walsh's, that they were to your knowledge 
 Fenians ? — I guess they were both parties ; that is as 
 far as I could go. 
 
 Do you now say that no persons attended at widow 
 Walsh's that were not Fenians ? — They called them- 
 selves both parties — they were both Fenians and Land 
 Leaguers. 
 
 Do you now swear that no one attended these night 
 meetings at Mrs. Walsh's who was not a Fenian ? If 
 so, name one. Come, Sir, answer.- — I call them 
 
 I am not asking you what you call them ; I am ask- 
 ing you, will you swear that any whom you saw at 
 these night meetings of widow Walsh's were not 
 Fenians ? — There were some women in the house. 
 
 I am not talking of the women and children. Were 
 the people who went there Fenians ? Did you know 
 them by a secret sign ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Was it true that, knowing these men by secret signs, 
 each of them was a Fenian ? — Yes, that is true. 
 
 Well, we have got it at last. Are you a Land 
 Leaguer ? — I was, Sir. 
 
 Had you a card ? — I got one, Sir- 
 Had yon a card ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Who gave it to you p — Euane, Sir, about six or 
 seven years ago. I got it at Letterfrack. 
 
 Where? Letterfrack consists of several houses at 
 least. — He gave it to me at Mrs. Walsh's on Sunday. 
 There were no meetings on that day. 
 
 Whose name was signed to it ? — I cannot read, and I 
 do not know. 
 
 Did you ever get a card signed, as membersljip cards 
 are signed, by the president and secretary of the Land 
 League ? — I cannot read, and I do not know. 
 
 There was a card, and you did not know what it 
 was ? — "Here is a card for your being a LandLeaguer," 
 he said. 
 
 Have you got it ? — I do not know whether it is in 
 the house or not. 
 
 What house ? — Ireland, at Letterfrack. 
 
 I suppose you could get it ?— Well, it may be, Sir. 
 
 Well, I wish you would try. Who asked you to be 
 
 a member of the Land League ? — The members of the 
 Land League. 
 
 That is no answer. Who asked you, if any one, to 
 join the Land League ? — Fat Kuane and James Varilly. 
 James Varilly is at Letterfrack. When I saw the 
 whole of. them joining it, they asked why was not I 
 going to do it. 
 
 When ? — I cannot understand what you mean. 
 
 When were you asked to join the Land League?-' 
 About the same time that I had been sworn being : 
 member of the Fenian Brotherhood, or whatever the;, 
 call themselves. I was joining the Land League befor 
 that. 
 
 When were you asked to join the League ; what 
 year ?— I guess it was in 1880. 
 
 Will you swear it was in 1880 ? — As far as I can go 
 it was. 
 
 Will you swear there was any League in Letterfrack 
 in 1880 ?— As far as ray opinion goes that was the 
 time. I cannot exactly swear. 
 
 In reference to this man Lyden, did you come over 
 with poor Mrs. Lyden, the wife of the murdered man ? 
 — I have not seen her for the last six years. 
 
 You were a tenant of Graham's, were you ?— My 
 father was. 
 
 And was Mrs. Walsh,- at whose house these night 
 meetings were held, any relation to the person who 
 was evicted by Graham ? — I do not understand, Sir. 
 
 Do you know there was a tenant named Walsh 
 evicted by Graham ? You know that Lyden went in to 
 take care of the land ? — Yes. 
 
 Was Mrs. Walsh, at whose house these night meetings 
 were held, any relation to the evicted tenant ? — No. 
 
 Was she herself the evicted tenant ? — Yes, Sir. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Why did you not tell me ?— I did not understand 
 you. 
 
 And tho man who was hanged for the murder was 
 her son ? — There was one, Sir, hanged. Yes. 
 
 And he was not one of tho six that went on the 
 night when you went as one of the murderous party ? 
 — He was, Sir. 
 
 You did not mention that ? — I did, Sir. 
 
 Pat Walsh was one of the party ?— Yes. 
 
 Were you examined at any inquiry — at any secret 
 commission ? — I do not know. Yes, I was examined 
 before the, grand jury in Galway. I was not before any 
 other Court. I was not examined at tho trial. 
 
 Who came to you at Letterfrack about giving your 
 evidenco ? — I was arrested by the police at Letterfrack. 
 
 Who came to you about giving your evidence here ? 
 — Oh, I do not know the gentleman that handed me 
 the summons. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Bbid. — You told us you wera 
 a Fenian ; are you a member of any other secret 
 societies ? — No. I never heard of any other secret 
 society in Ireland except the Fenians. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — Do you remember anything of 
 the oath you took in 1880 ?— I do not ; it was verv 
 
 James Mannion 
 
The Special Commission, November 13, 1888. 
 
 273 
 
 bard, and I cannot remember it. I repeated it, but I 
 cannot remember it now. 
 
 Do you remember the Rev. Mr. Ryder beiDg shot at ? 
 —I do not know that gentleman. Yes, I remember 
 he was fired at. I guess that was about 1S80 or 1881. 
 
 Do you remember the incident ? Do you suggest 
 that it was after the Land League was established in 
 the neighbourhood ? — I do not know about that gentle- 
 man. 
 
 You have heard the question ; now, I ask you 
 whether you mean to suggest that took place after the 
 Laud League came into existence ? — I never heard a 
 word about him. 
 
 Yes, you said he was shot at in -1880 or 1881.— Do 
 you mean Lyden ? 
 
 I understood you to say that Mr. Ryder was shot at 
 in 1880 or 1881. Now, with regard to this Mr. Ryder, 
 a Protestant clergyman ? — I know a certain gentle- 
 man, a Canon FlernVng. 
 
 Leave Canon Fleming alone for a short time. 
 (Laughter.) Do you know in that neighbourhood a Pro- 
 testant clergyman called Ryder? — I never heard of him. 
 
 Do you suggest that Canon Fleming was shot at in 
 1880 or 1881 ?— Yes, he was fired at, but I forget 
 which year. 1 thought you were asking me about 
 Lyden . 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Do you know anything about the 
 evidence given at the trial of Walsh ?— I do not know 
 anything except what I told the gentleman at the 
 trial. 
 
 Do you remember the evidence given for the 
 defence ? — I do not know anything about Pat Walsh's 
 evidence. 
 
 Re-examined by Sip. H. James. — I understand that 
 you became a Land Leaguer and a Fenian ; which 
 were you first ? — A Land Leaguer. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — That is a flat contradiction of his own 
 evidence. 
 
 The President. — No ; I took it exactly as he says 
 it now 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — I paid a shilling to 
 James Varilly, and then I received a card from another 
 person— I think it was Pat Ruane. I do not know 
 whether I have kept that card or not. After paying 
 that money and receiving the card I attended meetings 
 at Mrs. Walsh's. 
 
 Did you attend those meetings before paying the 
 money and receiving the card ?— I was there before to 
 get a card of the meeting. 
 
 Had any one spoken to you about becoming a 
 member of the Land League before you paid the 
 money ? — Yes, Ruane said I would have to be a 
 member of the League. 
 
 Did he ask you that before you went to Mrs. Walsh's 
 or after ?— Before. 
 
 You knew of Canon Fleming being shot at ?— Yes. 
 
 But not about Mr. Ryder ?— I never heard of the 
 gentleman. — — — 
 
 Peter Flaherty, examined by Mr. Mtjbphy, said,— I 
 am a farmer, and live at Ardnagreeva. I am a tenant 
 
 of Mrs. Blake. I remember being asked to join the 
 League. James Hanna asked me. I agreed to do so 
 and paid money. 
 
 At that time were there any secret societies in the 
 neighbourhood to your knowledge ?— Not at that 
 time. 
 
 After you joined the Land League did you attend 
 any of the meetings ? — I did. 
 
 Can you give me the date, when you joined ?— I 
 could not give you the exact date, but to the best of 
 my belief it was in 1880. The men I remember to 
 have taken part in the Land League when I first 
 joined were the two Ruanes,Mulcarran,John M'Donnell, 
 and Michael Cawley. 
 
 After you had become a member of the Land League, 
 do you remember joining some other society ? — I do, 
 Sir. A party of men came to my house, and I was 
 sworn in my own house. They got me out of bed. 1 
 did not know who they were at the time. I was sworn 
 not to pay any rent and to be true and loyal to the 
 Irish Republic. There were about thirteen men. I did 
 not know who they were that night, but I afterwards 
 got to know them. I got to know the names from 
 Hanna on the night of the outrage on O'Neill's sheep. 
 Hanna was the man who swore me in. 
 
 You have spoken of the outrage at O'Neill's farm. 
 I want to ask you a little about that. Had there been 
 a meeting the night before this outrage ? — There was, 
 Sir. It was held on some townland on Mrs. Blake's 
 property, between 12 and 1 o'clock at night. There 
 were some eighty men present. To my knowledge 
 there were a good many Land Leaguers present. It 
 was decided at that meeting to banish O'Neill's cattle 
 and sheep from the farm, and that if after notice 
 O'Neill did not take them away, they should be 
 destroyed. 
 
 What had O'Neill done ?— Nothing at all, Sir. He 
 was a very good man. They wanted him to give up 
 his land. He was at that time a tenant of Mrs. Blake's, 
 and she was boycotted. The two head men in this 
 affair, that I knew of, were Ruane and Mulcarran. I 
 went to O'Neill's farm on the night of the outrage. 
 Pretty near ninety men went, I suppose. I was 
 appointed, with ten other men, to go and watch the 
 herd's house. If he or any of his family were disturbed 
 we were not to allow them to come outside. If they 
 attempted to do so we were to destroy them. 
 
 Had some of the men got guns with them ? — One had 
 a revolver. The sheep were drowned, I believe, but I 
 was not present. Five or six weeks after that I re- 
 member attending another meeting at Derryherbert, at 
 which about sixty men were present. It was held at 
 between 1 and 2 o'clock in the night. Ruane made a 
 speech at that meeting. He told us to repeat what ha 
 said after him, and to hold up our right hands while 
 we did so. We did as he told us. I do not remember 
 the substance or the form of the oath. When I became 
 a member of the Land League I paid the money to 
 Hanna. He collected money for both societies. I 
 
 James Maimion 
 
 Peter Flaherty, 
 
274 
 
 The Special Commission, November 13, 1SS8. 
 
 attended another meeting which was held at the 
 sacristy of the chapel at Tully. 
 
 What sort of a meeting was that ? Was it of the 
 Land League or of the secret society ? — It was a 
 meeting of evicted tenants on Mrs. Blake's property. 
 They were expecting to get more or less money from 
 the priest, and he told them that it was not right at 
 all to give the League money to the landlords for 
 rent. 
 
 Who was the priest ?— Father O'Connell. Mr. Robin- 
 son, the agent, was to come and collect the rents, and 
 Pat Mulcarran swore by Hod to make it his business to 
 go and watch Mrs. Blake's house that day, and if any 
 one went to pay his rent we should know it. The 
 priest had then gone out. On another occasion, when 
 I came out of the chapel, in the square of the chapel 
 Michael Cawley read out of a letter that any one who 
 settled with Mrs. Blake would not get any money 
 from the Land League. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I really must submit, my Lords, that this 
 is not admissible in evidence. 
 
 The President.— First of all, who is Michael 
 <'awley. 
 
 Mr. Mur.rnv (to witness). — Who is Michael Caw- 
 Jey ? — He was connected with the Land League. 
 
 The President. — Assuming that the letter was read 
 at the meeting, surely it would be admissible ? 
 
 Mr. Reip. — I apprehend that that would be so. 
 
 Mr. Muephy (to witness). — Did he read the letter 
 out loud to you ? — Ho read it when there were 12 or 
 13 standing by. 
 
 The President.— From whom was the letter 1—1 
 could not tell you from whom it came. 
 
 Mr. Mukphy. — On whose land were the secret meet- 
 ings held ? — On Michael Cawley's land. 
 
 Is Pat Mulcarran in the country now ? — No, he went 
 away to America for fear of arrest. That was after 
 Cawley and the rest were tried for conspiracy. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — You took part in the 
 moonlighting at O'Neill's ?— Yes. 
 
 You went there to watch the herd's house and to 
 shoot the herd. You were quite prepared to do it, of 
 course ? — We were. 
 
 Did you take part in any other outrages ? — In only 
 that one. I had nothing to do with any other outrage. 
 I knew that outrages were committed, but I had 
 nothing to do with them. 
 
 You took care to be absent yourself ? — I was not 
 asked to join in them. 
 
 You have said that you joined a society and took an 
 oath in favour of the Irish Republic ? — I did. 
 
 Do you mean to say that you did not know the nature 
 of that society ? — I did not know what it was. 
 
 Have you never beard of the Irish Republican 
 Brotherhood ? — I have not. 
 
 Do you say that you do not now know what it was 
 you swore to join ? — I do not, Sir. 
 
 You took another oath at another meeting ? — I did. 
 
 Do you know what it was for ? — We were sworn in 
 
 to be moonlighters, I suppose. That is what I under- 
 stood by it. 
 
 And you were perfectly prepared to go moonlighting 
 whenever requested ? — Yes ; whenever I was called 
 upon to go. 
 
 How long did you remain in that frame of mind ? — 
 Not very long— a year or a year and a half, between 
 1880 to 1882. 
 
 In what form did repentance come, or did you 
 repent ?— No, Sir ; they accused me of things I was 
 not guilty of, and then I turned against them. 
 
 There was no repentance, then, on your side ? — There 
 is not, Sir. 
 
 And you would be ready to do it again ? — I would do 
 it again. 
 
 Why ? — Because they treated me badly. 
 
 How came you to quarrel with these moonlighters ? 
 • — They accused me of saying things which I did not 
 say, and then on one occasion Mulcarran seized me 
 by the collar and threatened me and fired a shot at 
 me. Then I gave information to the police. 
 
 When was that ?— In 1882. 
 
 Did you complain that you had been shot at your- 
 self ?— I did. 
 
 Was the man ttied for it ? — He was. 
 
 Was he convicted ? — He escaped to America. 
 
 Since then have you been constantly giving informa- 
 tion to the police ? — Never since. 
 
 Did you ever see Mannion, the last witness, at any 
 meeting ? — No. 
 
 You saw Ruane ? — Yes. 
 
 Where did these meetings generally take place ? — 
 On the mountain. 
 
 Were you ever at a meeting held in any building ? — No. 
 
 When were you first asked to give evidence in this 
 inquiry ?— Last Thursday, about 8 o'clock, I was served 
 with a summons. 
 
 By whpm ? — I do not know. I had had no com- 
 munication with the gentleman before. 
 
 You received a subpoona ? — Yes. 
 
 You came to London ? — I did, Sir, and made a 
 statement. 
 
 Whom did you travel with ? — Mannion, the last 
 witness. 
 
 Any one else ?— There was another woman along 
 with me. (Laughter ) 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biggar. — Were all the tenants 
 prosperous on Mrs. Blake's farms in 1880 ? — They were 
 better off than now. 
 
 Do you know whether the tenants were getting 
 relief from the relief funds ? — There were some of 
 them. 
 
 How many ?— Every one got more or less, but the 
 poorest class of them got it three or four times. 
 
 Was Mrs. Blake's brother-in-law one of the com- 
 mittee appointed to distribute the relief ? — He was. 
 
 In spite of the fact that her tenants were prosperous 
 and that she was giving no redactions, her brother- 
 in-law was distributing relief among a large number 
 of the tenants ? — Yes. 
 
 Peter Flaherty. 
 
The Special Commission, November "13,' 1888. 
 
 275 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — How far does Man- 
 nion live from you ? — About nine miles. 
 
 Were you examined in May, 1883, in Galway ? — 1 
 ■was, before the grand jury and in Sligo. 
 
 Now, you were asked by my learned friend whether 
 you were ashamed, and you told us you were not 
 ashamed, because you had been ill-treated. What was 
 it you were not ashamed of ? — I was not ashamed to 
 be a Crown witness, because they ill-treated me. 
 
 The President.— I so understood it. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I think he went on to say that he would 
 do it again. Of course, we may have been at cross pur- 
 poses. I hope I have not made any unfair suggestion. 
 
 The President. — No, no. Nothing can be fairer 
 than your mode of cross-examination. 
 
 Mr. Reid (to witness). — As I understand^ you were 
 prepared to join in moonlighting affrays whenever 
 required until 1882 ? — Yes, I should have gone. 
 
 And you were prepared to commit murder in these 
 moonlighting affrays, if necessary ?— Yes, I should lake 
 hand and part with them. 
 
 In 1882 you quarrelled with your confederates, you 
 say ?— Yes. 
 
 And thereupon became a Crown witness ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it not from anger or revenge that you left the 
 confederacy ? — If there had not been an attempt to 
 shoot me I should never have left it. 
 
 And you would have been prepared to continue moon- 
 lighting and to commit murder, if held to be ex- 
 pedient ? — Yes, I should. 
 
 Your ideas upon murder have not altered ? — Well, I 
 do not want to murder anybody. 
 
 Sir H.James.— Before you went out on these expedi- 
 tions, had you taken an oath ? — I had. 
 
 How many people were present when you took the 
 oath ?— About 13. 
 
 What was the oath ? What did you undertake to 
 do ? — I was to be true and loyal to the Irish Republic. 
 That is all I understood. 
 
 Was there any oath taken binding you to obey orders 
 or to commit outrages ? — I do not understand. 
 
 The President. — I understood him to say before, 
 " I was sworn not to pay rent and to the Irish Re- 
 public. " 
 
 Witness. — I was sworn, first, not to pay any rent j 
 and on the mountains I was sworn to be true and loyal 
 to the Irish Republic. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Did you receive any summonses to 
 take part in moonlighting outrages after taking these 
 oaths ? — No, but Hanna used to tell me what was 
 going on, and I used to go with him. Hanna told us 
 that if one refused to go out when called upon one 
 would be killed on the following night. 
 
 And having taken the oath, you did go out ? — YeS. 
 
 Edward Flanagan, examined by Mr. ATKINSON, said, 
 — In 1879 I was in America. I landed in New York, 
 and went to Pittsburg, and then to the Jersey Steel 
 Works. I was introduced to Stephen Joseph Meaney 
 by my brother. 
 
 Did Meaney say where he came from ? — He did not 
 then. I heard he had come from Ennis. 
 
 Did you see him attend meetings of the Irish National 
 League in New York ? — No ; in Pittsburg. 
 
 What position did he occupy ? — He was president. 
 I have seen him on two more occasions. I saw him 
 presiding in Pittsburg in December, 1879. That was 
 the first time. I afterwards saw him in the same year 
 presiding at meetings. The last time I saw him pre- 
 siding was in New York. I have seen him presiding 
 there twice. The last time I saw him in New York 
 was iu 1885. Both occasions in New York were in 
 1885. He collected money from me in Pittsburg. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I would interpose here, my Lords, and 
 ask if this is in any way evidence. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Several speeches by Mr. Meaney in 
 Ireland have already been given in evidence. 
 
 MR. Justice A. L. Smith. — It is in evidence that in 
 December, 1879, Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon sailed to 
 America to further the objects of the Irish Land 
 League there. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I am now asking how this is evidence. 
 Here is a gentleman who is proved to have made a 
 speech, or two speeches, if you will, on the same 
 platform with one of the 65 members, and afterwards 
 he is found in the same year or, indeed, I think, 
 before 1879 in America collecting money. I submit 
 that that really does not make this evidence in any way. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — The charges convey that there was 
 a combination subsisting between the Irish and 
 American National Leagues to form a confederacy 
 together. This gentleman, Meaney, is proved to have 
 been president of the Irish National Land League at 
 Pittsburg, and was therefore one of the conspirators 
 with the National Land League in Ireland. Therefore, 
 his conduct, action, and words out there were directly 
 evidence of the furtherance of the conspiracy. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Beally there are associations in America 
 aad associations in Ireland, and I am not at all 
 averse to its being assumed that there may have been 
 some sort of connexion ; but, supposing that much, 
 everything that any man in America says in the 
 presence of any one of the persons incriminated may 
 be made use of against him. We have no way of 
 answering it. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — My question has no reference to 
 anything Mr. Meaney said in America, but to some- 
 thing he did in America in direct pursuance of the 
 conspiracy. 
 
 The President. — The allegation is that these persons 
 were all members of a combination, and that they did 
 various acts in various places ; and among the rest, 
 therefore, if Mr. Meaney was a member of the Land 
 League in Ireland and had become president of a 
 Laud League in America, surely what he has to say, 
 addressing a meeting of that body, would be evidence 
 ul an overt act in the combination which is alleged to 
 havj existed. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Did Mr. Meaney collect money 
 
 Peter Flaherty. 
 
 Edward Flanagan. 
 
276 
 
 The Special Commission, November 13 and 14, 1888. 
 
 from you in America ?— Yes, for firearms for the 
 west of Clare. He did not give me any firearms ; 
 bat when I returned to Ireland iu 1S85 he did. I 
 came back in 1882 until 1SS5. My brother did not 
 go with me in 18S2. My brother tooli Hollywood 
 Farm in 1882 when I was in' Ireland. Some person 
 had been dispossessed for non-payment of rent — one 
 John Rochford. I returned to America in 1885, and 
 remained there about three months. While I was living 
 at home, from 1882 till 1885, I lived with my brother. 
 There is a village called Shanaglish ; the nearest vil- 
 lage to my brother's place is Lahine. Nothing was 
 done to me at all during the three years I lived with 
 my brother. I had returned from America before the 
 National League started. I cannot exactly say at 
 what time it started at Shanaglish, but I think it might 
 have been 1884. It was not in existence when I re- 
 turned from America. When I came back in 1S85, 
 alter stopping a short time there, it was in existence. 
 When I returned I saw a vast deal of change in the 
 conduct of the people towards my brother. There was 
 faction against faction and disunion among the people, 
 and an honest man could not live there at all at that 
 time if you were not in with the crowd. My brother 
 was not in with the crowd, beeause he had taken a 
 larru, and was obnoxious to them. I was able to get 
 provisions at Ennis. I had to go ten miles for them ; 
 I could not get them nearer. We had two boys to 
 work for us. Some people remained on friendly terms 
 with us ; a few. I got two revolvers from Meaney 
 in America to give to Pat M'Inerney in Ennis. I did 
 not give them to him. I brought one with me home 
 and gave the other to the steward on board the White 
 Star Line vessel. I was arrested for having firearms 
 myself, and got three months' imprisonment. (Laughter.) 
 I never attended any meeting of the Shanaglish branch 
 of the League after my return. I saw a resolution of 
 the branch in the Tuam News directed against my 
 brother. 
 The Court then adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 14th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On the Commissioners taking their seats, 
 
 Mr. Atkinson, addressing the President, said, — Will 
 your Lordships permit me to ask a few questions of 
 the last witness which I omitted yesterday ? 
 
 The President.— Certainly, hut as far as yester- 
 day's examination of the witness went, I cannot see 
 how it was pertinent to the matters in hand. 
 
 , Edward Flanagan was then recalled, and examined 
 by Mr. Atkinson. You said that Stephen John Meaney 
 came to you at the Jersey Steel Works to collect money 
 (or arms ? — Yes. 
 
 If Did any one accompany him ? — Yes ; O'Donovan 
 Rossa, with Patrick Ford. 
 
 How often did he come ? — He- came only once that I 
 Raw. 
 
 You also said that two men remained faithful to 
 you after you were boycotted ?— Yes ; John Halloran 
 and Michael Hoarty. 
 
 Was anything done to Hoarty ?— Yes ; he was 
 moonlighted. I afterwards identified the men who 
 moonlighted him. They were afterwards tried and 
 convicted. 
 
 Were they members of the Land League ? — Two of 
 them were ; Michael Noonan and Michael Brannelly. 
 
 Were they members of the committee ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — Were you a member, 
 or how do you know they were members, of the com- 
 mittee ? — I saw them at the League room, and I read 
 in the local paper. 
 
 What were you at the League room for? — I was out« 
 side ; passing it by going to Mass or coming from it. 
 
 You say you got money from Meaney ? — I gave 
 money to Meaney. 
 
 You said yesterday Meaney collected money for you 
 in America ? — No, from me. 
 
 That was for firearms in the west of Clare ? — Yes. 
 
 Meaney was at that time in association with 
 O'Donovan Rossa ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you not know all through that O'Donovan 
 Rossa was an open advocate of dynamite ? — I did in 
 1885, not till then. 
 
 I thought you told Mr. Atkinson that the money 
 was given to Meaney when he was with O'Donovan 
 Rossa ?— That was in 1885. 
 
 You knew that he was a dynamiter when you gave 
 him money ? — I gave him the money in 1885. 
 
 For the purpose of being used for dynamite out« 
 rage ? — No. 
 
 For what ? — For the aid of distress in Ireland. 
 
 Now, listen to me ; you said yesterday that Meanly 
 collected money from you in America and that it was 
 for firearms ? — Yes. 
 
 Is that the relief of any distress ?— In 1879 it was 
 for firearms. » 
 
 Is that what you swear ? — I could not know what 
 was done with the money. 
 
 No ; and you did not care ? — No. 
 
 Would you have objected if it was to be applied 
 for dynamite ? — Yes, I would. 
 
 In 1885, when you came back to Ireland, you 
 brought over firearms ? — Yes, and I got three months' 
 imprisonment. 
 
 Are you a member of any secret society ? — No. I 
 was not sworn into any secret society in America. I 
 was never a Fenian ; I was only five or six years old 
 at the time of Fenianism. 
 
 Do you mean to say Fenianism did not exist in 
 1880 ? — I am not aware ; I know nothing about it. I 
 was a member of the Hibernians. That is not a secret 
 society ; there is no oath. 
 
 Now, when you came back, after being in prison, did 
 you give any information to the police or anybody 
 else ? — No, I did not. 
 
 Who asked you to come here ?— I was taken up on 
 board the vessel^ 
 
 Edward Flanagan. 
 
The Special Commission, November 14,-18^^, 
 
 £77 
 
 What was the date ? — I could not tell you ; it was 
 in the present year. I gave information to the police 
 when I was taken up. 
 
 In what month ? — Last May. 
 
 What were you taken up for ? — To give evidence 
 before the Court. 
 
 Were you arrested ? — I was. 
 
 What for ? You could not be arrested for the purpose 
 of giving evidence. — I was taken up at Cork. I 
 thought to emigrate to America. 
 
 And before that ? — I gave my evidence at a prelimi- 
 nary inquiry. 
 
 There was a moonlighting outrage, and you knew 
 who had done it ? How did you know that ? — Because 
 I was in the room. The armed party came into my 
 bedroom. 
 
 And you did not wish to give evidence ? — No. 
 
 You wanted to get away to America ? — Yes. 
 
 And you were arrested ? — Yes. 
 
 And then asked to give evidence ? — Yes. 
 
 When were you asked to give evidence in this 
 country ? — I told the sergeant in charge of me in Cork 
 that I brought firearms from America, and he asked „ 
 me some questions about firearms. That is all the in- 
 formation I gave. 
 
 When did you know yon were to come here ?— 
 About three weeks ago, when I got a subpeena. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — Where was this 
 meeting in Pittsburg ? — In the Fifth-avenue. 
 
 In the Fifth-avenue-hall ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it a public meeting ? — I could not tell. 
 
 Was the meeting reported in the papers ? — I do not 
 know. I did not look. 
 
 Who else was present besides Stephen Joseph 
 Meaney ? — My brother. 
 ■ Who besides your brother ? — A lot of " boys." 
 
 Tell me of one ? — Pat Farran, publican, in Pitts- 
 burg. His address was 54, Tunnel-street. His present 
 address I do not know. 
 
 Give me another name ? — Michael Healey, 224, 
 Grant-street. 
 
 How many people were present ? — About a hundred. 
 
 You say it was a Fenian meeting ?— I could not 
 say. 
 
 What was its object ? — To collect money for arms for 
 the west of Clare. 
 
 How were you admitted to the meeting ? — Through 
 the influence of my brother. 
 
 Was it a meeting of the Ancient Order of Hibernians ? 
 ■ — I expect it was. 
 
 You say you belong to the Ancient Order ? — I do. 
 
 What division ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 I am a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians ; 
 it is a benevolent society. It is known by divisions ; 
 to which did you belong ? — I do not know. 
 
 Where did you join, it ? — In Pittsburg. 
 
 What subscription did you pay ?— A dollar a week. 
 
 Have you got yqur subscription book ? — Not here. 
 
 Did you ever have one ? — Yes. I do not know where 
 it is. 
 
 You swear you gave money to Stephen Joseph 
 Meaney for arms ? — I do. 
 
 Where is he now ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you know that he is dead ? — No. 
 
 Have you not read an account in the Tuam News of a 
 demonstration at his funeral ? — No. 
 
 Then the one man out of the 16 millions of the Irish 
 race in America to whom you gave money for arms is 
 dead ? — I do not know. 
 
 You say you attended a meeting" in New York. Can 
 you give me the date ? — In 1885. I do not know the 
 time. I could not tell whether it was the end of 
 1885. 
 
 Was it a public meeting ? — No. 
 
 Was the meeting long before you came home ?— • 
 No. 
 
 When did you come home ? — I left New York for 
 Ireland in June. 
 
 How long before did the meeting take place ?— ■ 
 About a month. 
 
 Then the meeting was in the beginning of May, 
 18«5 ?— Yes. 
 
 Where was the meeting held in New York ? — In 
 42d-street. It is Sullivan's corner publichouse. I met 
 there Stephen Joseph Meaney, Patrick Ford, and 
 O'Donovan Eossa. 
 
 Was it a meeting of the Ancient Order of Hiber» 
 nians, or a Fenian meeting ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you know how many members there are in New 
 York — you were a member of the order in New 
 York, yon know ? — I could not tell how many there 
 were. 
 
 Did you ever hear ? — No. 
 
 Do you know anything at all about the organiza- 
 tion ? — No, I do not. 
 
 You joined it without knowing anything about it, 
 and you do not know the number of members of the 
 Ancient Order in New York ? — I will tell you. There 
 are over 40,000. 
 
 How many were present at this meeting ? — I could 
 not say exactly. 
 
 You are not mistaken about Patrick Ford and 
 O'Donovan Eossa being present at that meeting ? — No. 
 
 Would you know Patrick Ford if I showed you his 
 photograph ? — I might know him if I saw his person, 
 but I cannot say that I should know his photograph. 
 
 Don't you know that photographs do not lie ? Will 
 you describe the kind of man Patrick Ford is ? What 
 is his height ?— About 5ft. 6in. or 7in. 
 
 What age is he ? — He is an old man, about 53 or 54. 
 He is a spare man, dark, not fair. He did not wear 
 any spectacles when I saw him. 
 
 Was there money subscribed at these meetings ?— » 
 There was. 
 
 Did you subscribe ? — I did. 
 
 What for ? — For the distress. 
 
 Where was the distress ? — In Ireland. 
 
 What part of Ireland ? — I cannot tell yon. 
 
 Did they tell you what part of Ireland the distress- 
 was in ? — They did not. 
 
 Edward Flanagan. 
 
278 
 
 The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 I want to ask you again, did you know when you 
 went into that witness-box that Stephen Joseph 
 Meaney was dead ? — I did not. 
 
 Did you not read of his death in the Tuam News ? — 
 No, I did not. I swear that positively. 
 
 Do you read United Ireland or the Irish Times or any 
 other paper ? — No, I do not read the papers much. 
 
 Where did Meaney give you the revolvers ? — In New 
 York, in Sullivan's publichouse. This was in 1885, 
 after the meeting at which Ford and Rossa were pre- 
 sent. Sullivan was also present and saw Meaney give 
 me the revolvers. I brought one to Ireland. 
 
 What did you do with it ? — It was taken off me. I 
 did not get it back again. 
 
 Did you write to any one in Ireland that you were 
 coming with revolvers ? — Nc. 
 
 Are you in communication with your brother in 
 America ? — No. 
 
 Have you written to Mr. Sullivan ? — No. 
 
 To Patrick Ford or O'Donovsin 'Rossa ?— No. 
 
 You swear again that this was a meeting of the 
 Ancient Order of Hibernians which was held at Sulli- 
 van's house ? — I do. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Atkinson. — I was examined at 
 Wicklow at the trial of the four men who were tried 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then read an extract from a speech 
 by Father Walsh in reference to the Widow Walsh 
 Fund. It was delivered at the Philadelphia Conven- 
 tion, and was reported in United Ireland on May 12, 
 1883. The extract ran as follows : — 
 
 " Father Walsh went on to show that he sent to 
 Ireland for Land League purposes during the year 
 $62,754-06, and for relief, $23,652-02, and there was 
 a balance in hand of §4,915-50. Referring to the 
 3376-09 sent to the mother of the boy Walsh, who was 
 hanged for a crime he did not commit, he stated that 
 he had been informed that the poor woman knew who 
 had committed the murder, but, like the noble Irish 
 mother that she was, she would rather sacrifice her 
 son than turn informer." 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Is that a report taken from an American 
 paper or does it purport to be an original report ? 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — It purports to be an original report. 
 
 Michael Hoarty, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — 
 I live in the county Galway. I was living there in 
 1879 and 1880. I remember joining the Land League 
 at Shanaglish. I was on the committee, Dr. Geoghe- 
 gan was the secretary, and another man named Geo- 
 ghegan was the treasurer. Father Cassidy acted as 
 president or chairman. I cannot exactly say when the 
 League was regularly constituted in the neighbour- 
 hood. It was started all over the country before we 
 started. I do not think there were any speeches made 
 in the neighbourhood on the land question before the 
 League was started. As nearly as I can give the 
 date, the League was started in the latter part of 
 1881. Dr. Geoghegan, the secretary, remained there 
 during the time the League remained. He afterwards 
 left and went, I think, to Dublin to finish his studies. 
 
 He cams back 17 or 18 months after, I think. I could 
 not remember exactly what the date of that was. I 
 remember the passing of Mr. Forster's Coercion Act. 
 It was about the same time as that. 
 
 How long before that had the branch been organized ? 
 — He was two years on it, I think, before he went to 
 Dublin. 
 
 While he was there, what was the sort of business 
 done at committee meetings ? — We wanted a reduction 
 from the landlords, and to get the rents down to 
 Griffith's valuation. 
 
 What was to be done to people who paid more than 
 Griffith's valuation ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I must object, my Loids, to such 
 a question as that. 
 
 The President. — The witness's attention must be 
 directed to it in 6ome way. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — No doubt, my Lord, but not in a 
 way that will' suggest the answer. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Well, what business, if any, was 
 done at committee meetings ? — What I have told you. 
 
 How was that to be done ? How were you to get the 
 ^reductions ? — We passed resolutions among ourselves, 
 and endeavoured to get thp. people to act together. 
 
 If people did pay more than what was considered a 
 fair rent, what was to happen to them ? — They did pay 
 " like a shot." They were paying their rents behind 
 our backs. 
 
 When people paid their rents secretly like that, did 
 the committee pass any resolutions about that ? — No, 
 not the Land League. 
 
 What did they say or do ? — They wanted the people 
 to boycott them, but still they were not boycotted. 
 
 Did they pass resolutions that they ought to be boy- 
 cotted ?— I do not think they did. 
 
 Was there any talk about evicted farms ? — No man' 
 dare take a farm from which a tenant had been 
 evicted. 
 
 Was there any resolution of the committee about 
 that ? — I do not think there was. 
 
 What was to happen to anybody who took an evicted 
 farm ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell objected to the question in that 
 form. 
 
 The President. — Was anything said on the subject ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Was anything said at these meetings 
 on the subject of what was to happen to people who 
 took evicted farms ?— They were to be boycotted, Sir. 
 That was all. 
 
 Give me the names of some of the men who used to 
 attend these committee meetings ? — There were Pat 
 Ford, Michael Dempsey, James Fogerty, James Burke, 
 Pat Holmes, John Geoghegan, and Dr. Geoghegan. 
 The meetings took place in the house of Michael 
 Lachlan. 
 
 In addition to these meetings were there public 
 meetings of the League ? — I was at no public meet- 
 ings of the League. Stephen J. Meaney was at one of 
 the meetings. He made a speech. Moroney, the 
 station-master from Gort, was there also. 
 
 Edward Flanagan. 
 
 Michael Hoarty. 
 
The Special Commission, November 14) 1888. 
 
 279 
 
 Do you remember anything about Mr. Lattey being 
 boycotted ? — Yes, there was something. There was a 
 notice on the chapel gate one Sunday boycotting his 
 meadows and the meadows of another man named 
 Sheehy. 
 
 Was this notice marked with anything ? — I do not 
 know, Sir. I did not see it. I was not at mass the 
 Sunday it appeared. I remember something happen- 
 ing at Mr. Lattey's after this notice. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— Were you there ?— No, I was not 
 there, but I heard of something happening there after 
 this notice. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Did all this happen before or after 
 Dr. Geoghegan went away ? — The notice was put on 
 the chapel gate when he was there. 
 
 Were you a Fenian ? — I think I was for a little 
 while. (Laughter.) 
 
 Were there many others of the members of the Land 
 League Fenians or not ? — I do not think any of them 
 were. They were all old men on the committee of the 
 League. 
 
 In July, 1887, was Was your house attacked on 
 
 the l£th of October ? — It was. 
 
 Sir G. Russell (to Mr. Murphy). — You said just 
 now July, 1887. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Yes, I forgot. Was there in July 
 anything done to your turf ? — Yes, it was burnt. 
 
 In October was your house attacked by the moon- 
 lighters ?— It was. 
 
 Was there any one in your house at that time ? — There 
 was ; the last witness, Edward Flanagan. 
 
 Had you done anything that you know of to call for 
 a visit from the moonlighters ? — No, nothing in the 
 world. 
 
 Did you know Edward Flanagan's brother — Michael ? 
 -Yes. 
 
 Was he a boycotted man ? — He was. 
 
 Were you friendly with him ? — Yes. 
 
 You told me that you joined the old Land League. Did 
 you join the National League ? — No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I will just 
 begin at the last part of the story. Did you hear it 
 suggested that that last witness had to do with that 
 visit of the moonlighters ? — Sir, I did not catch the 
 meaning of your words. 
 
 What is the name of the last witness ?— Edward 
 Flanagan. 
 
 Did you hear it suggested that he had anything tu do 
 with that moonlight visit of yours ? — No, I never did. 
 
 Or that he had anything to do with the police in 
 relation to it ? Just think. — I do not catch the pur- 
 port of your words. 
 
 Well, I will try again. What did the moonlighters 
 4o ? — They fired several shots in at the back door of 
 the house, first, before they came in. I suppose they 
 thought that I was inside at the time, and that I 
 might empty my gun, and they could come in and take 
 it from me. But I happened to be out at the time. 
 
 *Then you do not know that of yourself ? — I found 
 marks of the shots. Edward Flanagan and my mother. 
 
 an old woman over 86 years of age, were in the house 
 at the time. 
 
 Was Flanagan a friend of yours ?— He was a neigh- 
 bour of mine. 
 
 And a friend ? — He acted in the capaoity of friend 
 to me. 
 
 Did you know of his being backward and forward to 
 America ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it he who swore you in a Fenian ?— No. 
 
 When were you sworn in a Fenian ?— In 1879 01 
 1880. 
 
 You knew there were a good many Fenians about 
 your neighbourhood ? — I was of opinion that there 
 were. 
 
 Any Ribbonmen about your neighbourhood ? — Oh, no ; 
 I think there were not. 
 
 Or any other secret society ? — I think not. 
 
 Whereabouts do you live ? — I live in the townland 
 of Loughisle. 
 
 What is your nearest village or town ? — Gort. 
 
 And how far from Gort ? — About three Irish miles. 
 
 Where was the Land League branch established in 
 your neighbourhood ? — In onr parish, Sir, in Shana- 
 glish. There is a chapel in the parish. Father Caspidy 
 was the president and Dr. Geoghegan was the seicre- 
 tary, and John Geoghegan was the treasurer. Father 
 Cassidy was the curate. John Geoghegan was a farmer; 
 Dr. Geoghegan was his brother. 
 
 Was Dr. Geoghegan learning his profession of 
 doctor ? — He was. 
 
 And went up to Dublin to finish his studies ? — Yes. 
 
 Was that the reason ? — I do not know. I beard that 
 was the reason. 
 
 Where is he now ? Is he practising his profession ! 
 — He is setting up in business in the town of Gort, I 
 think, three miles from his brother's place. His 
 father lived there before him. 
 
 In addition to these three whom you have mentioned 
 as being the president, the treasurer, and the secretary 
 of the League, how many did the committee consist 
 of ? — I think nine more. 
 
 Wore these respectable farming men about the 
 neighbourhood ? — They were all, I think. 
 
 Were they old men ? — Yes. I was the youngest ol 
 them. I was myself one of the committee. 
 
 You say the League was established in order to gel 
 a fair redaction of rent ? — Yes. 
 
 And to Griffith's valuation, if possible ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there in 1879 and 1878 a great deal of distresi 
 in your neighbourhood, among the small people 
 particularly ? — Indeed there was. 
 
 I am reading from an official account, but I would 
 like to ask whether this would be a correct descrip- 
 tion of the neighbourhood s—-" Gort, county of Gal- 
 way. Sufferings of people intense ; small farmers, 
 tradesmen, and labourers ; failure of crops ; no em- 
 ployment ; some actually starving." 
 
 The Attorney-General (to Sir C. Russell). ~-Whj 
 do you state that that is an official report ? 
 
 Michael Hoarty. 
 
280 
 
 The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — It is the official report of the 
 Mansion-house Committee. 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal.— You stated that this was 
 an official account. I teg to reply that that is not an 
 official statement, but a quotation from a report 
 made. 
 
 SlK 0. Rttsrell. — Certainly you may object ; and I 
 will not read further. It is a statement we shall for- 
 tify, that is all. (To witness.) Is that a fair account of 
 the condition of tho people about Gort ? — It is, very 
 fair. 
 
 Up to the time the Land League was started, had the 
 landlords made any move whatever to relieve the 
 people ? — Yes, one or two of them had. 
 ' Who ? — I know that Captain Shaw Taylor had. 
 
 lie was mentioned as a good landlord before.Any one 
 else ? — I think Mr. Lattey gave some reduction to the 
 tenants. 
 
 Now, attend to me,Hoarty. Could the people live and 
 pay the rents they were then under ? — Could they not 
 pay the rents ? 
 
 Could they live and support themselves on the rents 
 that they were then under ? — No, they could not 
 possibly. 
 
 You say that the committee passed a resolution to 
 keep the people in unity with one another ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there a minute-book kept in which the proceed- 
 ings of the Land League were put down ? — Yes ; I 
 think there was. 
 
 Who kept the books ?— Dr. Geoghegan. 
 
 You have said that there was a talk among the 
 people that nobody would take or should take an 
 evicted farm ?— Yes ; that was the feeling of the 
 whole neighbourhood. Nobody was to take a holding 
 from which a poor man had been evicted because he 
 could not pay his rent. 
 
 Not take it from the landlord ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there a strong feeling against taking such a 
 farm ? — 1<~> such, farm was taken— nor will be. 
 
 And has that feeling, rightly or wrongly, existed as 
 long as you remember ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, I must put this plainly to you — is there any 
 truth in the statement that the committee or the mem- 
 bers of your branch of the Land League did anything to 
 encourage outrages in your neighbourhood ? — No, cer- 
 tainly not. 
 
 Whatever outsiders or moonlighters did, did the 
 League know anything about it ?— The Land League 
 had nothing to do with any outrages. Certainly not. 
 
 I should like you to give me the names of your Land 
 League committee ? (The witness gave several names.) 
 
 I want to know about this outrage upon your own 
 house when the moonlighters came . S ome person or persons 
 were punished for it, I believe f— Yes, they were. 
 
 Some of them were members of the Land League P — 
 No ; I do not say that they were members of the Land 
 League. They were young fellows, and the parents of 
 two of them were members of the Land League. 
 
 Then, as far as you are able to say, the only con- 
 nexion between the moonlighters and the Land Leagua 
 
 was that two of the former were the sons of members of 
 the Land League ? — Yes, of the Land League — of the 
 old Land League. 
 
 And, except that, as far as you know, were they in 
 any way connected with the Land League ? — Not that 
 I know of. I do hot know whether they themselves 
 were members of the Land League. I could not say. 
 
 You have been asked about the notice that was put 
 up near the chapel ? — Yes ; it was put up on the 
 chapel wall or gates. 
 
 It was something about Lattey's meadows, was it 
 not ? — Yes ; they were to be boycotted. 
 
 Were you still a member of the Land League commit- 
 tee at that time ? — Yes. 
 
 As far as you know, had the Land League committee 
 anything to do with that notice ? — It is quite true that 
 they had nothing to do with it. It was some indivi- 
 dual spite. 
 
 You were only a Fenian for about four months ? — For 
 about that time. 
 
 When did you cease to be a Fenian ? — About four 
 months after I joined. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did you attend to your duties ? — Yes. • ~ 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — You say that you 
 were a Fenian ? — Yes. 
 
 And a Land Leaguer ? — Yes. 
 
 And that your house was attacked by moonlighters ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attoeney-Geneeal.— Why was 
 your house attacked ? — Because Flanagan was boy- 
 cotted, and I waB friendly with him. 
 
 Why was he boycotted ? — For taking a farm. 
 
 And your offence was that you were intimate with 
 him ? — Yes ; and I am intimate with him yet. 
 
 And that is the only cause you can give us for the 
 outrage done upon your house ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you joined the National League at that time ?— 
 No ; I did not join them. 
 
 Why not ? — I did not like the way in which they 
 were going on — they were not going on fair principles. 
 The old Land League was fair and honest. They 
 worked on their own hooks in our part of the country. 
 
 You say that nobody will take a farm from which a 
 person has been evicted ? — No. 
 
 Why ? — Because they want to see a poor man back 
 again in his holding. 
 
 What happens if a man takes an evicted farm ? — I 
 suppose, if they get a chance at him, he would get 
 the boycott. 
 
 Do you recollect what resolutions of the committee 
 were passed at the meetings of the Land League ? — I 
 do not. 
 
 Do you remember who kept the minute-book ? — I 
 think it was the secretary — either John or Dr. 
 Geoghegan. 
 
 When did you last see the book ? — I have not seen it 
 for four or five years. 
 
 Who had it then ?^Dr. Geoghegan. 
 
 You have said that the members of the League did 
 nothing to encourage outrages — did they say anything 
 
 Michael Hoarty. 
 
The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 281 
 
 at these meetings about boycotting a man who took an 
 evicted farm ? — Yes ; but nobody did take an evicted 
 farm, so there was nobody that could be boycotted. 
 
 But what did they say about boycotting a man who 
 should take an evicted farm ? — Not to use any freedom 
 with him ; not to buy or sell from him. 
 
 What did they say about any person who should 
 pay his rent behind the back of the other tenantB ? 
 — That they would boycott him if they could 
 find him out. But people would pay their rent 
 so that nobody would know that they did pay. 
 
 Do you know what boycotting meant ? — I think it 
 meant as I said before — not to have any communication 
 or dealing with him, or buy or sell from him — to starve 
 him out in any case. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I do not see any reason 
 for laughing at all. 
 
 Re-examination continued. — Just try and remember ; 
 were any persons mentioned by name as having paid 
 their rent ? — No, I do not think there were. 
 
 Nor of anybody who tried to take an evicted farm ? 
 —I did not hear of any "in onr part of the country. 
 
 You have been asked about this notice relating to 
 Lattey's meadows — what was it ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell objected to the matter being gone 
 into. 
 
 The Attorney-Genera!. — Pardon me ; you have 
 cross-examined as to this notice which was put up at a 
 time when the witness was a member of the Land 
 League and you have got a statement from him that 
 the Land League had nothing to do with it. However, 
 I will put it in another way. When did you first hear 
 of the notice ? — On the Sunday evening. 
 
 Where ? — At home. 
 
 Who from ? — From some one in the neighbourhpod of 
 the farm. I cannot exactly say. 
 
 Had you been attending the committee meeting of 
 the Land League shortly before that ? — Yes, on the 
 Sunday before. 
 
 Now, then, answer carefully— had Lattey's name 
 been mentioned at that meeting ? — No. 
 
 You are positive as to that ?— Yes. 
 
 Was Sheenan's name mentioned ? — No. 
 
 Do you know what Sheenan was supposed to have 
 done ? — I know that he took a farm that was np for 
 sale. The man who had it before " skedaddled " off 
 to America some months before, leaving four or five 
 years in arrear. 
 
 What was it that Sheenan had done wrong ? — He had 
 done nothing wrong. 
 
 Then why should anything have been done to 
 Sheenan ?— I do not know. There was no right that 
 anything should be done to Sheenan. 
 
 Or to Lattey ?— No. 
 
 Do you know wnat happened ? — I heard that shots 
 were fired into Lattey's house. 
 
 .You have mentioned Michael Brannelly and Michael 
 Nponan — were they members of the committee of the 
 National League ?— No, Sir. 
 
 Will you swear that ? — They were not members of 
 
 the Land League ; but they were on the committee of 
 the National League. They were not members of the 
 Land League in my time. They were auxiliary members 
 of the National League. 
 
 Do you know whether anything happened to those 
 men ? — Yes ; they had six months in Tullamore Gaol. 
 
 What for ? — For paying a moonlight visit to my 
 house. 
 
 Then these men who were convicted of paying you a 
 visit by moonlight were members of the committee of 
 the National League ? — They were. 
 
 SIR C. RUS3ELL. — I should wish, with the permission 
 of your Lordships, to ask this witness whether he is 
 aware that after certain actions of the members of this 
 branch of the National League became known the 
 branch was suppressed by order of the central office. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Forgive me ; how can he 
 know that ? 
 
 The President. — A great many questions have been 
 put upon both sides in general terms without objection. 
 I shall certainly permit the question to be put. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Do you know that the branch was 
 suppressed by the authority of the central body in 
 Dublin ? — I do not know. 
 
 Was it suppressed ? — It was. 
 
 Mr. Biggar rose to put a question to the witness, 
 when 
 
 The President said, — I must ask you to state what 
 your question is. 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — I wish to ask the witness whether ho 
 knows whether the jury who convicted these men was 
 a packed jury. (Laughter.) 
 
 The President. — Oh no, you cannot put such a 
 question as that. I cannot allow it to be put. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— When was the branch 
 suppressed ? — I think it was when the moonlighters 
 came. It was not in being when the moonlighters 
 came to me. 
 
 Police-Sergeant James Creagh, examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson. — Did you arrest four men for visiting the 
 house of the last witness ? — I arrested one of the 
 four. 
 
 What was his name ? — Michael Brannelly. 
 
 Was he subsequently convicted ? — He was. 
 
 Did you search him when you arrested him P — Yes. 
 
 Did you find any card upon him ? — Not upon him. I 
 found a card in the house where he lived. 
 
 Have you that card with yoti ? — Yes. 
 
 Then produce it. When did you find it ?— On the 25th 
 of last May. 
 
 The witness then handed in the card, which was as 
 follows : — 
 
 " The Irish National League. 
 
 " Michael Brannelly was admitted a member of the 
 Michael Davitt branoh this 2d day of August, 1885. 
 " James Datvley, hon. sec, pro tern." 
 
 Was there a branch of the National League at 
 Shanaglish ? — There was. 
 
 When did it cease to exist P— About 18 months ago. 
 
 Michael Hoarty. 
 
 Sergeant James Creagh. 
 
282 
 
 The Special Commission, November 14, 18S8. 
 
 Was it suppressed or did the members quarrel among 
 themselves ? — I heard that there was some dispute 
 among the members and it broke up. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— How long have 
 you been in the police force ? — About 14 years. 
 
 How long have you been stationed in Galway ? — 
 About six years. 
 
 Is it a part of the duty of the police to collect 
 returns of the various crimes committed in the dis- 
 trict and to forward those returns to tho authorities ? 
 >— I am not aware of that. 
 
 If you hear of crimes in your district you have to 
 report them ? — I am not aware of that. Each man 
 makes a report in writing of the case he has charge 
 of to his superiors. 
 
 And from those reports what are called tho criminal 
 statistics are compiled ? — I believe so. 
 
 When do you say that the Land League was first esta- 
 blished in Galway ? — It was established there long 
 before I went there. 
 
 We know that the first meeting in which it was esta- 
 blished in any part of the country was in October, 
 1879. Where were you in 1879 ?— I was stationed at 
 Mayo. 
 
 Was it not established in Mayo in 1879 ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there any branch in Mayo or in any part of tho 
 county that you are aware of before October, 1879 ? — 
 Not that I am aware of. I believe that the League 
 was first established in Irishtown. 
 
 Now, I must ask you this : — Do you not know that 
 the fact of sending threatening notices to tenants for 
 paying rent without getting a reduction is an offence 
 which has been committed in Ireland for years before 
 1879 ? — I cannot say that I have heard of it. The fact 
 never came to my knowledge. 
 
 But have you never heard of it ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— With great deference, I 
 submit that the witness having stated that he never 
 heard of it before 1879, my learned friend is not justi- 
 fied at present in pressing the witness further. 
 
 The President. — I assume, Sir Charles, that you are 
 going to test his general knowledge. I should not 
 take that as evidence, of course. The witness says 
 that he knows nothing about the matter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Very well, my Lord. Have you 
 not heard of intimidation by threatening notices to 
 tenants who paid their rent before October, 1879 ? — I 
 have no recollection of it. 
 
 Have you not heard of outrages to cattle and crops 
 committed against persons who had taken evicted 
 farms before October, 1879 ? — I have no recollection. 
 
 Are you quite sure you have not made a return of 
 them yourself ? — Quite sure. 
 
 You say that you were in Mayo in 1879 ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you know a Miss Knox there ? — I have heard the 
 name. 
 
 Where did Bhe live ? — About 15 miles away from 
 where I was stationed. 
 
 Did you not hear of threatening notices being sent 
 
 in May, 1879, against persons who had taken Miss 
 Knox's farms ? — I have no recollection of that. 
 
 Where were you stationed ? — At Castlebar. 
 
 Will you tell me the names of the principal landlords 
 about Castlebar ? — Lord Lucan, Mr. Kenney, and Sir 
 Roger Palmer. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— With re- 
 gard to your own personal experience, you do not 
 remember, at any rate, any number of cases of this 
 kind before the end of 1879 or beginning of 1880 ?— 
 No. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I object unless the return is read. 
 
 The President. — I hoped they were going to read 
 it. . 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — With your Lordships' permission 
 I will endeavour to revive this gentleman's recollec- 
 tion. The Blue-book from which I am reading is a 
 " Return of Agrarian Outrages reported by the Royal 
 Irish Constabulary from the 1st of January, 1879, to 
 the 31st of January, 1880." I want to know whether 
 the witness remembers anything of them. Taking first 
 the East Riding of Galway, there was a threatening 
 letter to Mr. Madden on the 13th of March, 1879, 
 telling him he would share the fate of Lord Lei trim 
 if he were not indulgent to the tenantry on an estate 
 of which he was agent. Then there was the case of 
 Michael and Patrick Crehan, whose lives were 
 threatened. On March 25 Carter was threatened with 
 death if he Eerved processes for the non-payment of 
 rent ; he was afterwards assaulted. John Canning on 
 March 28 received a threatening letter. On July 5 
 Mr. Glancy received a letter telling him he would 
 meet his doom if he interfered with Mr. Gairdner or 
 his agency. Mr. Dolphin also received a letter warn- 
 ing him not to pay rent till he got an abatement. 
 Then on October 21 a notice was found posted by the 
 police in Portumna threatening with death any man 
 who paid rent on the Clanricarde estate. There were 
 other threatening letters. In the West Riding crime 
 was much more prevalent. To select a few : — On 
 January 29 Martin Cummins was threatened in conse- 
 quence of evictions. On February 6 the house of George 
 Lynch was maliciously set on fire, supposed in conse- 
 quence of having served a tenant with notice to quit. 
 On April 12 an attempt was made to kill cattle on 
 land from which a tenant was evicted. On July 13 
 there was a notice threatening to put a bullet through 
 the head of any tenant who paid rent without reduc- 
 tion on the estate of Mr. St. George. There were 
 numbers of other threatening notices to and outrages 
 on persons who had taken evicted farms or paid rent 
 without abatement. 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — With your Lordships' permission I 
 will ask the witness this question — How far were you 
 stationed from Irishtown ? — From 20 to 25 Irisb 
 miles. 
 
 Were you in the neighbourhood in 1879 ? — I do no 
 know the Irishtown district. I have never been there 
 but once. 
 
 Do you know what police regulations were in force 
 
 Sergeant James Oreagh. 
 
The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 283 
 
 there in 1879 ? Were any police huts erected in the 
 neighbourhood of Irishtown as early as July, 1879 ? — I 
 cannot say. I do not know. 
 
 You were not acquainted with the neighbourhood ? — 
 No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — I only ask him one 
 question, my Lord. In your experience as a policeman 
 in Mayo and Galway have you had anything to do with 
 crimes like burglary ? — Very little. 
 
 With pickpookets ? — The same answer applies to 
 that. 
 
 Wife-beatiDg ? — I think not, 
 
 You have had very little to do with crime of that 
 kind ?— Very little. 
 
 Most of the crimes and offences in these counties 
 arose out of the land ? — Yes ; a good portion of the 
 offences, but not all. 
 
 All the serious offences arose out of disputes about 
 land ?— Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — How 
 long have you been in the service altogether ? — About 
 14 years. 
 
 Do you remember the actual dates in 1879 when the 
 speeches began in Mayo ? — No, I do not. 
 
 How early in 1879 were speeches made by Mr. 
 Davitt or anybody connected with the Land League ? 
 — I do not think I can give the date within a year. 
 
 Do you know whether in your district speeches made 
 were reported in the newspapers ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you first hear, as far as you recollect, the 
 expression " land-grabber " ?— About seven years ago. 
 
 During the first five Or six years when you were in 
 the police service was that word constantly used at 
 my time ? — No ; I do not think I ever heard it till 
 after 1879 or 1880. 
 
 There had been during the earlier years some 
 agrarian disputes ?— Till 1879 and 1880 the Castlebar 
 district was very quiet. There was very little crime. 
 
 In the early years of your service was there any 
 agrarian crime ?— ^Very little. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I will not, of course, 
 refer to the entries now, my Lord. We are going to 
 refer to the whole. I am obliged to go back to the 
 case of Hughes, the postmaster at Ardrahan. He did 
 not see the notices, and therefore we are obliged to 
 prove them. 
 
 Sergeant Charlton, Royal Irish Constabulary, 
 examined by the Attorney-General, said : — In 1885 
 and 1886 I was stationed at Ardrahan, county Galway, 
 about six miles from Gort. I remember the case of 
 the boycotting of Hughes. I took down three notices 
 relating to him from the walls. I put the dates on the 
 back of two when I took them down. The first is the 
 16th of November, 1884, and the second the 16th of 
 January, 1886. The printed one was taken down in 
 October, 1886. The notice of November 16 was in 
 these terms : — 
 
 " Will you allow that hypocrite, that two-faced 
 scoundrel Hughes, the land-grabber, in your midst ? 
 
 Will the teachings of the past be set at defiance by 
 that vile wretch who tries to trample upon the poor 
 and homeless ? Boycott Hughes if he persists in his 
 vile work. Let him accept this notice as final." 
 The notice dated January 16 called upon the people to 
 boycott Hughes for supplying the emergency men and 
 the policemen with cars when attending evictions on 
 Lord Clanricarde's estate. The printed notice was 
 addressed to " Brother Nationalists in South Galway," 
 and said that " in the terrible struggle against landlord 
 tyranny our people have only one remedy — boycotting 
 — which has been approved by our leader, C. S. Par- 
 nell, and by that pure soul, Michael Davitt." The 
 notice went on to urge every one to boycott Hughes, 
 if not for the sake of his suffering fellow-men, for 
 the fear of consequences. 
 
 Cross-examined l» Sir C. Russell. — I do not attend 
 the Roman Catholic Chapel at Ardrahan, not being of 
 that communion. Some of my men do. They have 
 never reported to me that Father Considine in 
 his church has again and again denounced outrage. 
 Once I asked him to do so. In October, 1886, 
 when Hughes and Kelly were boycotted, I saw Father 
 Considine at his own house in company with Boyd, 
 another constable, and asked him to prevent the 
 boycotting of Hughes and Kelly as they had not done 
 anything very wrong. He refused to interfere. I 
 remember three dwelling-houses being burnt. I do 
 not recollect hearing that Father Considine had 
 denounced those outrages, but I did not ask him to do so. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt, — Have you ever 
 heard it mentioned among your comrades that bogus 
 threatening notices are sometimes put up p — I never 
 heard of them ; all I saw were genuine. 
 
 Did you ever hear in Galway of local correspondents 
 of English press agencies writing them out and posting 
 them up in order to send news to England ? — No. 
 
 You have no knowledge of bogus notices being put 
 up anywhere ? — No. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — What were 
 Hughes and Kelly suffering from when you went to 
 Father Considine ?— They were shopkeepers, and only 
 a few — a very few — would go to their shop. The boy- 
 cotting went on from September 5 till the middle of 
 December. It was in October I asked Father Considine 
 to interfere, and he declined. 
 
 James Ford, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I am 
 a native of Galway and have been in the Army. I 
 live at Tubber, and work for Mr. Lattey. He kept a 
 large part of the land in his own hands. For some 
 years he had had this, but subsequently he took more 
 land into his own hands. In the first year he toot it 
 over he was boycotted, and notices were put up. I 
 took an acre of grass from him in August, 1881. When 
 I came back from the Army I found Mr. Lattey on 
 good terrn* with his tenants ; he was a good and kind 
 landlord to them. When I went "to cut the acre of 
 grass I had taken I had to take my gun with me. I 
 remember Mrs. Lattey dying, and on the day of the 
 funeral a boycotting notice was put up on the entrance 
 
 'Sergeant Charlton. 
 
 James Ford. 
 
284 
 
 The Special Commission, November 14, 1888.- 
 
 gato. I took down the notice and gave it to Constable 
 Welsh. On November 7 Mr. Lattey's house was fired 
 into. I did not see it as I lived about a quarter of a 
 mile off, but I saw the marks of the bullets. There 
 were bullet marks above the servant's bedroom win- 
 dow and one bullet was taken out by a constable sis 
 inches from the drawing-room window. I never 
 joined the Land League, but I was asked to do so by 
 Father Doherty, the parish priest. On the night of 
 the 20th of May, 1882, I was in bed when I heard 
 a knock at the door. When the knock had been 
 repeated twice, I got up and went down. The 
 person outside said he was a friend, and I opened 
 the door. Immediately a rifle was thrust in my face. 
 At first I thought it was a joke by some one of my 
 neighbours, but when I saw the man's face was 
 masked I pushed the door back. He pushed the door 
 open again and presented the rifle at my face. I 
 seized the rifle by the top band and pushed it away. 
 I knew it was a rifle, as I was accustomed to them. 
 As I lowered the rifle the man pulled the trigger, and 
 the bullet grazed me on the abdomen and the flame 
 set my shirt on fire. I got the door closed then, and 
 having put out the flames reached down my loaded gun 
 and ran out after the moonlighters. They ran away, 
 but I gave one of them my shot between his shoulders. 
 The man was arrested, tried, and convicted of the 
 offence. His name was Tubridy. 
 
 What had you committed to bring upon yourself this 
 outrage ? — I did my duty to my master faithfully. I 
 cannot say there was anything else. It was dangerous 
 for a man to do anything for a landlord at that time. 
 I never heard land-grabbing spoken of before 1879 to 
 1880. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Eichard Donohoe, examined by Mr. RosrAN. — In the 
 year 1886 were you herding for Mr. Lewis, of Bally- 
 gowan ? — Yes. 
 
 What did the people do to you P — They hooted and 
 groaned and shouted at me when I was counting the 
 stock, and I was afraid I should not come home with 
 my life. 
 
 Did they come to your house ? — Yes. 
 
 What did they do ? — They came outside my house at 
 night and groaned at me. 
 
 What else ? — One day I had been to the fair at Por- 
 tumna,and as I was coming back I was knocked down, 
 and when I got up I did not know whether it was day 
 or night. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did they beat you ?— They knocked me into the 
 road. 
 
 How many people were there ?— About 200 
 
 Do you remember February, 1887 ? — Yes. 
 
 Did some one come to you ? — Yes. 
 
 What was his name ?— Michael Abberton. 
 
 He came to your house ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he a member of the committee of the League ? 
 -Yes. 
 
 Wlat did he Bay to you ?— He told me that my name 
 
 would be called at the League meeting to resign my 
 situation with Mr. Lewis. 
 
 Did he say what would happen to you if you did not 
 go to the meeting ?— No. 
 
 Did you go to the meeting ? — Yes, I went. 
 
 About how many people were there ? — I could not 
 say how many ; there were crowds in every direction. 
 
 Was there a band ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you go up to the platform ? — No, I was afraid ; 
 I stood at the back for fear I should be knocked down. 
 I heard my name called, and they asked would I resign. 
 I shouted as loud as I could I would not resign, I had 
 nothing to support me. 
 
 Was anything done to you ? — I was knocked down, 
 and Sergeant Murphy came to my assistance and I got 
 away. 
 
 Was John Kelly at the meeting ? — I heard he was 
 at the meeting ; I did not hear him say anything. I 
 heard a voice say, " It would be a slack village that 
 would leave him in the place. " 
 
 Was John Boche there ? — I cannot 6ay. I only 
 heard the voice. I do not know whose voice it was. 
 
 When you got home that night what did you do to 
 your house ? — I suspected that I might be fired into 
 that night so I secured my house. 
 
 Did you afterwards give up your employment for 
 Mr. Lewis ? — Yes. 
 
 After that did you see a strange woman in the 
 village ?— I did, Sir. 
 
 Mr. Keid. — I really must object to this. 
 
 Mr. Eonan. — Did she say something to you ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you go to a place in the village in consequence i 
 —Yes. 
 
 What did you get ? — I got a note with £1 in it. 
 
 Did you go back to Mr. Lewis's employment ? — I 
 did. 
 
 And when you went back to his employment were 
 you again boycotted ? — I was. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. EuSSKLL. — Was it Michael 
 Abberton who was a member of the League you saw ? — 
 I am on my oath ; I do not know whether he was a 
 member of the League or not. 
 
 Did you hold any land from Lewis, or were you 
 merely a herd ? — I do not understand. 
 
 Is Lewis's property close to Clanricarde's property ? 
 — It is a part of it. 
 
 Had there been a number of evictions by Lewis ?— 
 Yes, there was a good deal of evictions by Lewis. 
 
 How many up to the time Abberton came to talk 
 to you ?— I know of five. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Eeid. — I do not know the 
 names of any of those who spoke at the meeting at 
 which I was present. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — How long have you 
 been a herd ? — For the last 25 years. 
 
 For Mr. Lewis all that time ? — No, only for five years 
 and nine months. 
 
 Do you know many of the herds in Gal way? — No. 
 
 Did you ever hear of any society among the herds ?— 
 No. 
 
 James Ford. 
 
 Richard Donohoe. 
 
The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 285 
 
 Do you know of any herding league or association 
 among the herds in Galway ?— No, not in Galway. 
 
 Or elsewhere ? — I never heard of any association 
 among the herds in any other district. 
 
 How old are you ? — 60 years of age. 
 
 Do you remember the great famine ? — Yes, I do. 
 
 Do you remember the secret organization called the 
 " Steel Boys " at that time ? — I did not know of any. 
 
 Did you ever hear your father talk about aDy secret 
 society among the labourers or herds ? — No. 
 
 Who asked you to come over here ? — Mr. Lewis. 
 
 Did he give you anything ?— Yes ; he gave me £5. 
 
 Did he buy that coat for you ? — Yes. 
 
 Anything else ? — Yes, coat and trousers and all. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Did he promise you anything on your return ? — No. 
 Nobody else promised me anything on my return. 
 ■ Re-examined by the Attokney-Genekal. — You say 
 that yon got £4 a year for herding, and that your 
 family looked after your work ? — Yes. 
 
 And you went away and earned daily wages as 
 well ?— Yes. 
 
 What were those wages ? — A shilling a day. 
 
 You had also the run of the grass for a heifer ? — Yes ; 
 and if she was anything of a heifer she would double 
 the money in 12 months. 
 
 Now you remember going to this meeting where they 
 called upon you to resign ? — Yes, well. 
 
 Did you seem to recognize the voices at that time 
 when people spoke in the dark ? — Oh, no, Sir, I did 
 not. The terror was in my heart and I did not know 
 the voices. 
 
 You have herded on the same farm for 20 years '< — 
 For 25 years, I cannot say further. 
 
 Before Mr. Lewis came ? — Yes ; it belonged to a 
 Mr. Darby ; he had a good property of his own, and 
 the farm was a good way from it ; he said it was too 
 far, and then Mr. Lewis took it and I continued herd- 
 ing in the same way. 
 
 Sergeant Murphy, of the Koyal Irish Constabulary, 
 examined by Mr. RoifAN. 
 
 Were you at the meeting in February, 1887, referred 
 to by the last witness ? — Yes. 
 
 Can you tell me any one who was present at the 
 meeting ? — There were John Roche, of Woodford, 
 Father Fahy, John Derwin, John Kelly, T. Finn, 
 Michael Larkin, and Lawrence Egan. 
 
 What position did John Roche fill in the League ? — 
 I do not know, but he made a speech. I did not take 
 a shorthand note of it. 
 
 Can you tell me anything that was said ? — Yes, I 
 have my notes, but it is only a longhand note. Father 
 ]?ahy presided. 
 
 What, did he say ? — I have not got his speech more 
 than what he said about the herds. 
 
 Witness then read his notes of the meeting as 
 follows: — " Michael Larkin referred to herds first. 
 Larkin spoke of the herding of the farms in the 
 locality, and asked those who had situations to give 
 
 them up. The people knew how to treat these 
 people. If they did not do so, and if there were any 
 present let them come forward ; if not, they would 
 smell hell." 
 
 That is Michael Larkin ? — Yes. (Continuing to 
 read.) " And a voice behind the platform said four 
 herds were present. Larkin asked if any of them 
 were willing to give up. Michael Coen's wife said 
 they were herding a farm, and she would give it up 
 if they promised her any support. Father Fahy called 
 order and there was a row and she had to leave. John 
 Moran, Wells-park, and Michael Heally, Moyglass, 
 herds of John Glass, came forward and promised to 
 give up and they were taken on the platform amid 
 cheers — John Moran and Michael Heally. Richard 
 Donohoe, herd to Mr. Lewis " 
 
 That is the last witness ? — Yes. (Continuing.) 
 " They said he would give up if they would sup« 
 port them." 
 
 What occurred then ? — A row occurred about the 
 platform, and he was knocked down. Pat Madden, 
 herd of Mr. Lewis, said he was willing to give it up, 
 but he had nine children, and if they would give him 
 any support he did nob want to work for Mr. Lewis. 
 Father Fahy said they would not give him any 
 guarantee, and he was crushed against the platform. 
 I heard it at a distance. 
 
 What else was said at the meeting of which you 
 have any note there ? — Michael Larkin proposed 
 resolutions at the meeting. He was secretary of the 
 Dunran branch of the National League. The first reso- 
 lution proposed was — "That we place every confidence 
 in C. S. Parnell and the Irish party, and that we will 
 not be content until we have our own Parliament in 
 College-green." Secondly, " That we condemn the 
 action of Mrs. Hannah Lewis in issuing ejectment 
 processes and writs on the unfortunate tenants on her 
 estates who were not able to pay their rent owing to 
 the depression in the sale of agricultural produce and 
 stock ; " and, thirdly, " That we condemn any person 
 who assists the landlord in carrying on this dirty 
 work." John Roche said if the tenants on Lewis's 
 estate wished to fight the battle out with Lewis 
 they need not be depending on the men of Woodford, 
 if tbey themselves did not stand in the gap, and if 
 they did so they would be sure to have the support of 
 the men of Woodford, and ho advised them as men to 
 offer some resistance ; and in case evictions took 
 place, that some sacrifice should be made, as was the 
 case in Woodford, and all communication with the 
 under-strappers or any person doing business with the 
 " dark house " should be at onee stopped. 
 
 Was there any other speech ? — Yes, a speech of John 
 Derwin. John Derwin, Tynagh, said the Woodford men 
 ought not to supply or herd the grass farms for the land- 
 lords. He should say that any grass farms that were given 
 up by any person, no matter who the landlord was, 
 remain derelict, and the landlord then would be too lazy> 
 or have no opportunity to herd it, and would let it to a 
 tenant. 
 
 Richard Donohoe. 
 
 Sergeant Murphy. 
 
2S6 
 
 The Special Commission, November 14, 1888-. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — That meeting 
 was held, you say, in February, 1887 ? — Yes, at Abbey, 
 about four miles from Woodford. 
 
 How loDg have you been stationed at Woodford ? — 
 Since July, 1884. 
 
 Now, do you not know that in consequence of the 
 Woodford branch of the League complaining of the 
 central branch not standing by them they dissolved as 
 a branch League and formed a fresh association ? — I 
 do not know. 
 
 A Tenants' Defence Association ? — There was no 
 Tenants' Defence Association then — oh, yes, there was. 
 
 Now, be careful. Do you not know t that in con- 
 sequence of the League not supporting the local 
 branch as they thought they ought to be supported 
 they dissolved connexion and formed that association ? 
 —There was such an association. 
 
 Was it not formed before this meeting of 1887 ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 How long before ?— In October, 1886. 
 
 Was not John Roche president of that association ? 
 —I cannot say. 
 
 Did you understand that he was president of the 
 association ? — No. 
 
 What did you think he was in it ?— He had nothing 
 to do with the Tenants' Defence Association on Mr. 
 Lewis's estate 
 
 I am not talking of Mr. Lewis's estate ; I am talk- 
 ing of the Woodford Tenants' Defence Association. — I 
 know nothing about that. 
 
 Who was president of the Tenants' Defence Associa- 
 tion ? — There were six presidents. Among them were 
 J. Kelly, T. Finn, J. Egan, and P. Macdonagh. 
 
 Those are the names of members of the committee of 
 that association ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, were some of these herds, whose names were 
 called at the meeting, herding evicted farms ? — No. 
 
 Or farms alleged to be evicted farms ? — No. 
 
 Grass farms ? — Yes, but not evicted farms. 
 
 Farms from which people had been evicted and 
 which had been turned into grass lands ? — I cannot 
 say ; they were grass farms. 
 
 Now, did you write these notes at the time ? — No ; 
 about half an hour afterwards, when I got to 
 barracks. I wrote down what had taken place from 
 memory. 
 
 You say Father Fahy was in the chair ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he moved into the chair, or did he take it 
 himself ? — I cannot say. I was there when he took 
 the chair. He made a speech, but I have no note of it. 
 I have only a short note. 
 
 You say Father Fahy presided ; now look at your 
 book. (The note-book was handed to the witness.) What 
 was written where now " Father Fahy " is written ? 
 It was not " Father Fahy " originally ?— I could not 
 say. 
 
 Was there not some other name there first ? — No ; it 
 looks as if I was going to put in another name first, and 
 then put Father Fahy. 
 
 I am putting it to you that when you wrote this note 
 
 you had forgotten who presided ? — No, certainly not. 
 I do not know how I came to make that mistake at 
 the beginning. 
 
 Who was the next person who spoke ? — Michael 
 Larkin ; he read the resolutions. 
 
 Did he make a speech ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The witness read it. 
 
 Witness. — He made a speech after reading out the 
 resolutions. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Did those men whose 
 names were called out all express their willingness to 
 resign if they were supported ? — Yes. 
 
 And it was resolved to give them no guarantee? — 
 Yes. Some of them did give up ; John Heally, 
 Michael Heally, and John Moran. The " dark house " 
 is Mr, Lewis's. 
 
 Who spoke after Roche ? — Lawrence Egan, I 
 believe. 
 
 You have got Derwin next in order. What did Law- 
 rence Egan say ? — He advised them to stand firm and 
 not to yield. 
 
 Did you take any notes at all at the meeting ? — No. 
 
 How long did it last ? — About an hour or an hour and 
 a half. 
 
 If it lasted that time this is a very short report of 
 it. I suppose these are the plums which you have 
 picked out ? — I picked out the sentences I could 
 remember. 
 
 You have no note, as far as I can make out, of what 
 Father Fahy said ?— No, except what he said with 
 reference to the herds. 
 
 No, you have a reference co Coen's wife. — He called 
 " Order," and she had to leave. 
 
 Now, as regards Mr. Lewis ; you know his tenants 
 put him into Court ? — I believe so ; I have heard it. 
 
 Do you know what reductions they got .'—No, I do 
 not. 
 
 By Mr. Harrington. — Are there any leaves torn out 
 of that book, at the end ? — Yes ; it does not belong to 
 that report. 
 
 When was that leaf torn out ? — Before the report was 
 written. 
 
 Tell me, why did you so select the book that the 
 report comes exactly to the end of it ; did you know 
 how long the report was to be ? — I had to guess. I 
 did not take a single note at the meeting. 
 
 Did any one see you writing at all ? — No, I do not 
 think so. 
 
 You were examined at Dublin in the trial " Blunt 
 v. Byrne " ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you ever produce that note-book ? — Yes ; it was 
 handed in as evidence, and I was examined upon it, 
 but that meeting was not touched. 
 
 Was that report written at that time in that book ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Why did you not use pen and ink ; is it not 
 customary ? — No, not in a note-book. 
 
 Have you ever given a copy of that report to any- 
 body ?— I daresay I have. 
 
 Sergeant Murphy. 
 
The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 287 
 
 Before the trial of " Blunt v. Byrne " ?— I cannot say. 
 I sent a copy on the following day to the authorities. 
 
 Can you got it ? — I do not know who has got it.' I 
 forwarded an exact copy. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — How did you learn about this 
 meeting being held ? — There was no public announce- 
 ment about it ; I only saw a report of it. I read the 
 Freeman's Journal generally, and the Irish Times.. I 
 never saw it there. It was not a herds' meeting. 
 There were some herds present, three or four,. There 
 might have been more. I have been in Galway since 
 October, 1883. 
 
 Did you hear of the existence of a Herds' League in 
 Galway ? — I heard of it, but I did not know of it of 
 my own knowledge. I heard of it through the paper, 
 not officially. I heard nothing about its ramifications. 
 
 Did yo:i hear that such a league existed in Ros- 
 common ? — I may have, but I cannot say that I did for 
 eertain. 
 
 Who knocked down Donohoe ? — I could not say ; 
 people in the crowd. There were no herds on the plat- 
 form. 
 
 Did you hear that the herds' association was a secret 
 one ? — No . 
 
 Did you hear that it was an open combination ? — As 
 far as I know from reading about it, it was something 
 in the nature of the National League. I cannot say 
 that I ever read that it was associated with the 
 National League. 
 
 Upon what ground did you form the opinion that it 
 was connected with the National League ? — From the 
 nature of the meetings. 
 
 Did you ever hear of a herds' meeting in Galway ? 
 — I believe I heard of one near Kilreekill. 
 
 Was it exclusively a herds' meeting ? — I could not say. 
 
 Will you swear that you never heard that the herds' 
 association was a secret one ? — No, I never heard it. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— J was a 
 witness at the Blunt trial, and gave evidence as to 
 some speeches. I produced cither this note-book or 
 one like it. I was cross-examined at considerable 
 length by The MacDermofc and by Mr. Harrington, 
 whose cross-examination was short. Nobody was 
 called to contradict my account of the meeting. I 
 made my statement as to the occurrences at the meet- 
 ing, and no witnesses were called to rebut it. 
 
 Take that note-book in your hand, and refer to the 
 last page but one and to the top of the following page. 
 Read the words at the bottom of the former page and 
 those at the top of the latter. — Yes. " And in case 
 evictions took place he thought there should be some 
 sacrifices made." 
 
 It is a continuous sentence ? — Yes. 
 
 Is there any ground for the imputation that you 
 wrote the report here and then tore it out ? — No. 
 
 It has been suggested to you that the Woodford 
 National League had come to an end before February 
 6, 1887, and that there had been formed at Woodford 
 a Tenants' Defence Association of some sort ?— Yes. 
 
 At the Blunt trial were National League meetings 
 proved ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell objected. 
 
 The President. — Why ? I do not know what is the 
 point of it. The question was, " Was any evidence 
 given of that kind ? " 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Pardon me. The question now is, 
 was something proved at the Blunt trial ? That, in 
 other words, is asking this witness to form his judg- 
 ment as to what was and what was not proved. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My learned friend inter- 
 rupted me before my question was complete. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes, but the witness was begin- 
 ning to answer. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The suggestion made in 
 cross-examination was that the National League at 
 Woodford had ceased to exist and that a Tenants' 
 Association had been formed, and I desire to elicit in 
 re-examination that in this witness's hearing evidence 
 was given on oath as to Mr. William O'Brien — one of 
 the gentlemen charged — addressing a National League 
 meeting at Woodford as late as October, 1887, that no 
 rebutting evidence was called, and no suggestion made 
 that there had been any cessation of the National 
 League at Woodford. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — May I point out as an additional 
 objection that Mr. William O'Brien was no party to 
 that litigation ? I object to this question. It is tanta- 
 mount to asking the witness whether or not a certain 
 fact was in his judgment established. 
 
 The President. — In any case, I think you must pre- 
 vail on the point as to the absence of Mr. O'Brien 
 from this litigation. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I wish to guard against all mis- 
 understanding. I am not going to suggest that 
 National League meetings were not held. What I 
 said was that the local branch of the National League 
 had ceased to exist. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Well, we shall see. (To 
 witness.) Until the question was put to you by Sir C. 
 Russell had you ever heard it suggested that the 
 National League at Woodford had ceased to exist ? — 
 No. 
 
 And that a Tenants' Association had taken its place ? 
 — It is the same thing. The committee of both associa- 
 tions was the same. 
 
 Now, as to the way in which you took your note. 
 You do not write shorthand ?— No. 
 
 You wrote down the same evening what you remem- 
 bered and considered of importance in the speeches 
 that had been made ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you done the same thing on previous occasions ? 
 -Yes. 
 
 Thomas Noonan, examined by Mr. ATKINSON, said, 
 — I am a process-server for the division of Loughrea 
 and a summons-server for the Petty Sessions district 
 of Woodford. I was appointed process-server on 
 October 25, 1886. Patrick Finlay, who was shot, 
 was my predecessor. In March, 1887, I posted some 
 
 ■Sergeant Murphy. 
 
 Thomas Noonan. 
 
288 
 
 The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 ejectment notices for Sir Henry Burke. I attended 
 the Quarter Sessions for the purpose of proving 
 the posting of the notices. The point was raised 
 for the defence that Woodford was a market town 
 and that the notices were posted in the wrong place. 
 After I gave evidence there I wa3 boycotted. The 
 boycott lasted about three weeks. At the end of the 
 three weeks I went before the committee of the 
 League at Woodford. The meeting was held in a big 
 room on April 21, 1887. At that meeting there were 
 present Father Coen, Father Egan, John Roche, Pat 
 Keary, Donelly, Pat Boland, Tim Clarke, Michael 
 Shiel, John Reilly, Pat M'Dermott, Burke, and 
 O'Farrell. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Coen — what was he at the League ? — 
 I cannot say. John Roche was presiding. I do not 
 know what position Pat Keary held. 
 
 What took place at the meeting when you attended ? 
 —I was told to make a statement that I would not 
 serve any more ejectment writs, or do any work for 
 the landlords. I made that statement. I then left the 
 meeting. I remember that Father Coen said to me as 
 I was leaving, " Anything that is done in this house 
 cannot be undone outside. This is the bone and sinew 
 of the parish." I then retired from the room. I was 
 called into the room a second time. No decision was 
 come to on the first occasion. The decision was 
 announced when I was called back. I was to do no 
 more work for the landlords. The boycotting was then 
 removed. John Roche told me to go to the police and 
 get the protection removed. I had been protected by 
 the police up to that time. I went to the police and 
 communicated that to them, and the protection was re- 
 moved. Some time afterwards I began to serve sum- 
 monses again. That was in July of the same year. I 
 was ooycotted again ; but I did not go before the 
 League. The boycotting is still going on. No one will 
 speak to me, and I cannot get provisions in the place. 
 I have police protection again, and have had it from 
 that time to this. I was fired at on July \i of this 
 year. 
 
 Cross-examined by SlE C. Russell. — When that hap- 
 pened I was on my way from my house to the town to 
 serve ordinary summonses for trespass. I had been 
 serving them for Lord Clanricarde and Mr. Lewis. 
 They are both very unpopular ? — Yes. 
 After you promised in April not to serve writs, you 
 broke out again in July ? — I did, Sir, for Lord Clanri- 
 carde and Mr. Lewis. I began to serve ordinary sum- 
 monses for trespass, not ejectment writs. 
 
 Were the summonses for trespass against tenants who 
 came back to their holdings ? — Yes ; some had taken 
 possession. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — I am a native pf Galway, and about 
 BO years of age. 
 
 I suppose you know that process-servers and sheriff's 
 officers are unpopular there ? — Yes. I have never 
 heard my father speak of the Galway men making the 
 sheriff's officers eat the writs. I have never heard of 
 Mr, Richard Martin, of Connemara. and do not 
 
 know that he once compelled a sheriff's officer to cat 
 the writ. I know they have always been unpopular. 
 
 By SIR C. Russell.— Where did you say these meet- 
 ings were held ? — In the League room. In a. room in 
 the house of a woman named Egan. 
 
 Does she lot out her rooms for public purposes ? Did 
 the relief committees meet there ? — I am not aware of 
 that. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— I want 
 to understand your position. Are you an officer 
 of the sessions ? — I am process-server and sum- 
 mons-server. I was appointed by Mr. Henn, the 
 County Court Judge, and by the magistrates as sessions 
 summons-server. I am paid a salary, and am paid for 
 my work as well. I had nothing more to do with' Mr. 
 Lewis or the Marquis of Clanricarde except that I had 
 served summonses for them as the Judge's officer. I 
 was doing my work for the sessions, or under the 
 order of the County Court Judge. I had nothing to 
 do personally with Mr. Lewis or Lord Clanricarde. I 
 have a pension from the Army, and in addition to that 
 I get pay in this way. 
 
 The Attorney-General then said,— In the few 
 minutes that remain before luncheon, my Lords, I am 
 requested to apply to your Lordships on behalf of the 
 two witnesses, Mannion and Flaherty, who gave evi- 
 dence yesterday, for certificates under the Act. Your 
 Lordships are aware of the clause which gives you this 
 power. I need scarcely say that to these men, who 
 have given their evidence, it is a matter of consider- 
 able importance to know that they are entitled to 
 their certificates at the present time ; and I submit to 
 your Lordships that there is no ground why they should 
 not have their certificates if your Lordships are satis- 
 fied that they have made a full disclosure. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have only to say, my Lords, as 
 regards this application, that I think it is somewhat 
 premature. Your Lordships cannot possibly as yet 
 judge of the fact whether these witnesses have made a 
 full disclosure or not. 
 
 The President. — I think that is reasonable. There 
 cannot be any necessity for acting at once, as the 
 question will arise with reference to other witnesses. 
 Therefore I think we had better let the matter stand 
 over. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— That course is always 
 pursued in the case of election petitions. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If your Lordships please. 
 Then the matter will stand over to a later stage of 
 the inquiry. 
 
 The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On re« 
 suming, 
 
 ( The Attorney-General said,— I am afraid I can- 
 not go on with any other separate case in Galway, 
 but I hope to be able now, my Lords, to produce evi- 
 dence with reference to Galway that will enable me 
 to shorten and summarize the testimony relating to 
 that district. It will be of the same character as the 
 
 Thomas Noonan. 
 
The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 289 
 
 evidence given by a previous witness, Police Inspector 
 Bell. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — My learned friend Sir Charles 
 Russell had a printed list given to him of all the 
 charges that were included in the evidence. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — And I am going to give 
 one to you as well. 
 
 The President. — Is it the same witness ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— No, my Lord, it is James 
 Murphy. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — My recollection is that the evi- 
 dence of Mr. Bell was treated not as evidence of cer- 
 tain outrages, but as evidence that certain outrages 
 were reported to the witness. 
 
 The President. — The man's examination was this 
 —what was his knowledge as to the state of the 
 county, and then he handed in the report. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — He stated that these 
 things were reported to him in the course of his duty, 
 and thereupon Sir Charles Kussell said, " As this 
 gentleman says these things were reported to him I do 
 not object." 
 
 Sir C. Kussell. — It is quite true I did say so, aDd 
 I did not object, because I took it for granted that 
 there would be some evidence, more or less, as regards 
 the offences enumerated in the list, connecting the 
 outrages with some of the persons incriminated ; but 
 having heard the evidence, which as regards Galway 
 is apparently now coming to a close, Ihave to point out 
 that only in an exceedingly small number of cases is 
 there any approach to any evidence connecting the 
 incriminated persons as being members of the Land 
 League. Therefore, seeing that my learned friend 
 has not and does not propose to give further evi- 
 dence, I certainly do not feel disposed — unless your 
 Lordships express an opinion, to which I should cer- 
 tainly defer — unless your Lordships express a contrary 
 opinion, I do not feel inclined to admit any more 
 wholesale evidence. My reason is that I have to dis- 
 count its effect upon your Lordships' minds hereafter. 
 I say it has a very bad effect to have paraded and 
 focussed in this way, by the production of the kind of 
 evidence that I have adverted to, an account of the 
 crime committed, as matter to be attributed to the 
 action of the Land League ; and unless your Lordships 
 express a contrary opinion I shall not make the same 
 admission again. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I do not agree with my 
 learned friend as to the amount of connexion between 
 the actual outrages which we have proved in the 
 cases spoken to by Mr. Bell and the persons incrimi- 
 nated. But your Lordships are aware that by arrange- 
 ment between Sir Henry James and Sir Charles 
 Bussell the speeches, which are exceedingly numerous, 
 bearing upon these particular outrages have not as yet 
 been brought before your Lordships. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Then let this evidence be deferred 
 until the speeches shall have been read. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I have to point out that 
 this is evidence as to the state of a district. It may 
 
 be that your Lordships will think that everybody who 
 has reported to the police inspector should be called ; 
 but I am entitled to prove, as was done when Mr. 
 Bell was examined, that a police officer who person- 
 ally investigated cases reported in the course of his 
 duty the results of his investigations. I will read 
 some passages from the examination of Mr. Bell. 
 He was asked — 
 
 " Do you keep a record of all the agrarian outrages 
 which occur in your district ? — Yes, there is always a 
 record kept of every outrage. 
 
 " I believe you have got a list there that you can 
 hand in 'I — No, I have got no list. Those that you 
 have there were only reported to me. I mean they 
 were taken out of the books of my district. I know 
 officially about them. 
 
 " These are outrages reported to you in your official 
 capacity ? — Yes.' 
 
 ' ' Do you remember them yourself ? — I cannot repeat 
 them all ; there are so many of them. I do not re- 
 member the exact dates. I remember the circum- 
 stances. 
 
 " Sir C. Russell. — This gentleman says they were 
 reported to him. I do not object to that." 
 
 I submit that if this evidence is not admissible the 
 Parliamentary returns must be shut out, for these are 
 the sources from which the Parliamentary returns must 
 have been compiled. It is necessary to refer to this 
 evidence for the purpose of supplementing the returns. 
 Sir C. Russell has cross-examined a large number of 
 witnesses with reference to their opinion as to the 
 cause of outrages, general or particular outrages, and 
 that being so, and having regard to the duty which 
 your Lordships are called upon to perform — namely, to 
 obtain information that may lead to the discovery of 
 the truth — I submit that, apart from my learned 
 friend's admissions, this evidence would be admissible. 
 If it is not to be admitted I shall be compelled to 
 call, in connexion with every one of these Galway 
 outrages, witnesses to prove the facts. Exactly the 
 same reports and returns arc available for my learned 
 friend's use and can be used by him. When Mr. Bell's 
 evidence was heard your Lordships agreed to acaept 
 the view that the position taken up by us was a 
 reasonable one, and I submit that everything that has 
 occurred since shows it to have been reasonable. No 
 objection ought to be taken because, in certain parts of a 
 return, crimes might be mentioned which could not be 
 brought home to the Land League. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — It is true that I admitted the 
 catalogue of crime deposed to by Mr. Bell, and I 
 admitted it because my learned friend undertook ro" 
 peatedly to produce evidouco connecting tho persons 
 charged in this inquiry with those outrages. A great 
 deal of evidence was admitted on that assurance. It 
 your Lordships think that, putting aside all questions 
 of legal right, it would bo convenient that this evidouco 
 should be admitted I will dofor to that opinion. I do 
 not object to the fact of a report ; that is admissible, 
 but I say that tho report is not logal evidence and 
 
 Admissibility of Certain Evidence. 
 
 JD 
 
290 
 
 The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 never was held to be legal evidence of the details con- 
 tained in it. It cannot be evidence of the fact 
 reported. 
 
 The President.— Let me say at once that there need 
 not be the slightest apprehension of our forming an 
 opinion on that which is the main point of the case — 
 namely, whether or not persons against whcm charges 
 and allegations are made can be connected with these 
 outrages ; that there need be no apprehension that our 
 minds would be affected by the mere proof of these 
 outrages. Of course, we should be unworthy of the 
 position in which we are placed if we were not able to 
 maintain our minds in a state of equilibrium on that 
 point. But we are now dealing with the mode in 
 which proof of the condition of a district should be 
 given. Certainly, Sir Charles Russell cannot be bound 
 by what he did at an earlier stage of the inquiry. He 
 may, for reasons, be disinclined to mate the same 
 concessions now which he made at an earlier stage. 
 I am bound to say that it occurred to me, and, I 
 believe, to my colleagues, that Sir Charles Russell was 
 acting in a manner which recommended itself exceed- 
 ingly to us when he abstained from talcing any objec- 
 tion, which he might have taken, to the admission of 
 that list. If an objection to an admission of that kind 
 were sustained the effect would be to extend this in- 
 quiry to a period which it is fearful to contemplate. 
 It would last any number of years. Therefore, I io 
 hope — I have not yet consulted my colleagues, and I 
 am speaking for myself — I do hope that it will be 
 found practicable to take evidence of this kind in a 
 general way, with the remembrance of what I have 
 said at the outset — that our minds are carefully guarded 
 agaiust it being supposed that there is any connexion 
 between the persons charged and the list of outrages. 
 I do not understand that we are at this moment called 
 upon to give an absolute decision, and I have said this 
 in answer to the observations that have been made on 
 the one side and on the other. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — After what your Lordship has said 
 I shall not make any objection. But will your Lord- 
 ships look at this document (the list of outrages) ? 
 Ought the matter which appears in the last column but 
 one to be read out as if it were part of the evidence ? 
 
 The President (after looking at the document). — I 
 see. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Will your Lordship 
 pardon me for a moment ? It will be found, in the 
 first place, that those entries are from the police 
 reports, and exactly the same as were brought before 
 the Court when Mr. Bell was examined. They are 
 of exactly the same character as the entries which Sir 
 Charles Russell was reading out this morning from the 
 Parliamentary returns. There were any number of state- 
 ments in these returns as to the reasons assigned by the 
 witnesses for outrages committed. I attach more value 
 to cause than to what has been called motive — the cause 
 as described by these witnesses in their reports — and 
 here in these returns we have no more than confirma- 
 tion of the reports of the police. 
 
 The President. — I do not see what would be the 
 use of the return unless the substance of this column 
 were admitted. 
 
 District-Inspector Murphy was then called and 
 examined by the Attorney-General. He said, — I 
 have been in the constabulary force for 22 years, and 
 I have been district inspector for two years. Since 
 August 11, 1886, I have been stationed at Woodford. 
 Before that I was in Kildare. I had no knowledge of 
 Woodford before August, 1886. The sub-districts were 
 Woodford, Mountshannon, Whitegate, Ballinagar, &c. 
 I was present at the evictions at Saunders's Fort on 
 August 27, 1886. It was the house of a tenant-farmer 
 on Lord Clanricarde's estate. It was fortified to 
 resist eviction. The order for eviction had come, I 
 think, from the superior Courts. There had been legal- 
 process, I presume, for giving the landlord possession 
 of the house. The sub-sheriff of the county was exe- 
 cuting the order. The windows and door of the house 
 were blocked up with stones inside, and holes had 
 been made in the roof. When possession was taken I 
 think 21 persons were arrested inside. On the first 
 occasion the sheriff did not execute the decree. The 
 police accompanied the sheriff. There may have been 
 200. There were no soldiers. I do not think that 
 the police attempted to take possession. The 
 sheriff's assistants did. They attempted to force an 
 entrance. Slates were pushed off the roof of 
 the house on to them. I think something was 
 done with water. A number of people had 
 assembled to see what was going on. They were 
 peasants from the neighbourhood. I heard people 
 shouting and cheering the men inside the house. I do 
 not know their names. On the last occasion the house 
 was barricaded, hot water and lime were thrown 
 through the holes in the roof, and swarms of bees were 
 let loose. Sticks were thrust out. I endeavoured to 
 force an entrance myself and was pushed off the roof 
 by long poles. 
 
 The President.— Is it necessary to give these 
 details ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Your Lordships will find 
 that this is referred to as a model method of resisting 
 eviction. I wish your Lordships to have a general 
 idea of what was going on. We shall produce evi- 
 dence tracing the connexion between this occurrence 
 and members of Parliament who are charged. 
 
 The President.— I only thought that the details of 
 the resistance to law were not necessary. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I quite follow your Lord- 
 ship. (To witness.) After you went to Woodford was 
 there a meeting of the National League held there ? — 
 Meetings were held weekly, on Sunday. They used to 
 be held in the back yard of the League hall. I know 
 the names of the peoplp whom I saw going to the 
 meetings. They were Father Coen, John Roche, Pat 
 Keary, Michael Sheehy, Francis Tully, Patrick 
 M'Dermott, Father Egan, and Timothy Clark. 
 
 Do vou remember an eviction on October 20, 1887, 
 
 District-Inspector Murphy. 
 
The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 291 
 
 at Faby's house ? — Yes. The sheriff was assisted by 
 the police and military, and there was the same kind 
 of resistance as I saw at Saunders's Fort. 
 
 At Fahy's did you see any of the men whom you have 
 mentioned as attending the meetings ? Did you see 
 any of them encouraging the people ? — I saw Francis 
 Tully and John Roche. 
 
 Did you 6ee Father Egan there ? — I am not certain. 
 
 Had Pat Keary a house at Woodford ? — He has. I 
 am not aware that National League meetings took 
 place at his house, but one meeting was held there 
 on October 15, 1887. I heard that Keary was secre 
 tary to the League. I remember two occasions when 
 the word " boycott " was painted on houses. This 
 was done in 1886 on the do»r posts of Miss Mullally 
 and Mrs. Connolly. 
 
 Do you remember any boycotting notices being 
 served the next year ? — Yes, on the estate of Sir Henry 
 Burke. The notice called upon the people to boycott 
 Marble-hill. I think Sir H. Burke was called a 
 " tyrant," and that the notice said that the servants 
 and workmen were to leave. I remember something 
 about " traitors," but not what it was exactly. I re- 
 member a man called Tuohy, and that his turf was 
 burnt. 
 
 Were you boycotted yourself at any time ? — I was, 
 from the time of the evictions in 1886 until about 
 April, 1867. 
 
 What form did it take ? — It took the form of de- 
 priving me of everything. 
 
 Do you mean bread and milk ? — Both. I had the 
 greatest difficulty in getting milk and sometimes the 
 greatest difficulty in getting bread. I remember on 
 one occasion my child crying for bread and I could 
 not get any until the next day. I had to send for milk 
 to a place four or five miles away, and it was brought 
 concealed in a despatch-box. 
 
 I believe you investigated the outrages committed 
 after August 11, 1886, and that reports were made to 
 you by your officers of what they discovered ? — Yes, 
 by the officers in charge of sub-districts. 
 
 The Attorney-General (referring to the list of 
 outrages). — Do you remember anything being clone to 
 Pat Corlon and Pat O'Brien on August 13 ? — I 
 remember their windows being broken. 
 
 Do you remember what was reported to you as the 
 cause ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I object. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My Lords, I am quite 
 ready, if necessary, to call all these witnesses. 
 
 Me. Justice A. L. Smith (to Sir C. Russell).— You 
 are going to refer to a Blue-book hereafter. If you 
 object to this the Attorney-General will object to yoiis 
 Blue-book. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am not objecting to the state- 
 ment of any fact. It is the motive assigned that I 
 object to. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith.— The reason assigned for 
 an alleged outrage will appear in your Blue-book. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Here are two persons whose names 
 
 are given and whose windows are said to have been 
 broken. Why ? And then the constable puts down 
 what he calls the motive. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— No, what is reported to 
 him as the motive. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — No, the constable reports to this 
 gentleman, but where did the constable get it ? 
 
 The Attorney-General (to witness). — Did you 
 khow Corlon's case and O'Brien's ? Did yon visit the 
 people ? — I did ; in most of these cases these are the 
 results of my own inquiries. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— You ascertained the 
 cause of the outrages ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The cause they suggested. 
 
 The President.— That is all you can get. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — That is all I wish. (To 
 witness.) Do you remember, without reference, in 
 what case it was in which the windows were broken ? 
 — It was reported to me that the windows were broken 
 and shots fired into O'Brien's house because they had 
 paid, or were suspected of having paid, their rent. I 
 remember a bog-ranger named Eody Whelan having his 
 hay overthrown. Mr. Farren summoned some of the 
 members of the National League for poaching ; he was 
 assaulted. Pat Gorvey's case was reported to Eeynolds 
 and not to me. Mr. J. M. Lewis had his crops cut 
 and carried away by 150 men. A person had recently 
 been evicted from his farm. Anne Moran, Christy 
 Duffy, John Derwan (Peter), John Derwan (Hugh) had 
 their crops interfered with and their haycocks thrown 
 down for refusing to join the National League. On 
 the 9th of October, 1886, John M'Namara had his win- 
 dows maliciously broken because his daughter worked 
 one day for a partially boycotted man. 
 
 The President (to the Attorney-General). — With 
 regard to that, will you follow that up, please — how 
 he gets, or imagines he gets, that. 
 
 Witness. — It was reported to me by the sergeant of 
 the district. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Did you yourself investi- 
 gate it ?— I did. 
 
 What did you do ? — I visited all the places and saw 
 the injured crops. I visited the people, but I do not 
 distinctly remember what conversation passed between 
 us. 
 
 Did you ascertain anything else that these people 
 were alleged to have done except having refused to 
 join the National League ? — I do not remember now. 
 
 Did you try to get to the bottom of the case in 
 every instance ? — I did, in discharge of my duty. 
 
 Now, Mr. Murphy, " John M'Namara, windows 
 broken, daughter worked one day for a partially boy- 
 cotted man." How did yon get that information ? — I 
 got that information from the parties themselves. In 
 the case of John Whelan, who was assaulted and had 
 15cwt. of coal taken from him, I ascertained 
 that the man was attacked by a number of people at 
 Rossmore, where there were constabulary barracks, as 
 he was bringing home the coal. He was assaulted, 
 and the coal taken from him and destroyed. William 
 
 District-Inspector Murphy. 
 
 10-2 
 
292 
 
 The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 Mullally and Mrs. Anne Connolly had their houses 
 damaged with paint for supplying drink and provisions 
 to the police. On the 4th of March, 1887, Sir Henry 
 Burke's turf and farming implements were destroyed 
 for not giving reduction of rents. On the 24th of 
 November, 1886, Hubert Donohoe was struck a severe 
 blow with a stone on the head because he remained in 
 Mr. Lewis's employment. That case was reported to 
 me by the head constable. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— I do not think he said he was 
 struck a blow on the head. 
 
 The AttoEney-Geneeal. — Pardon me, on the occa- 
 sion before the meeting,as he was going home,Dou0hoe 
 said that he was attacked and ■ 
 
 Sib C. Russell. —He has not said he was struck a 
 severe blow with a stone on the head. 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal.— I agree. (Examinatian 
 continued.) Michael Murray was attacked for being 
 on good terms with Mr. Lewis's steward. Winifred 
 Spaine had a threatening notice posted on the door of 
 the dwellinghouse for acting as servant to the police. 
 On the 24th of January, 1887, Pat Mitchell had a 
 threatening notice posted on the door of his dwelling- 
 house for acting as servant to a boycotted person. 
 On the 18th of March, 1887, Michael M'Hugo had 
 his side car maliciously stolen and destroyed. On 
 the 10th of April, 1887, Mr. Lewis had his furze 
 burned for refusing to give reduction of rent 
 demanded by tenants. 
 
 Do you remember what you ascertained or what was 
 reported to you as to the cause of Lewis's furze being 
 burnt ? — I am not sure about that. I think it was on 
 account of the feeling among his tenants. On the 7th 
 of May, 1887, Michael Tuohy, of Ballinagar, had his 
 turf burnt for working for Sir Henry Burke. On the 
 28th of July, 1887, Thomas Noonan received a 
 threatening notice for acting as a process-server. On 
 August 27, 1887, Pat Regan's hay and oats were thrown 
 down because his sons flushed for Sir H. Burke. 
 
 What does that mean ? — Beating covers. Mrs. 
 Jennings on the same day suffered a similar injury to 
 her hay and oats. The hay and crops belonging to 
 Regan I saw, but I did not see the injury done to 
 Jennings. On the same day Pat Brown had three 
 cocks of hay maliciously thrown down for being on 
 good terms with Regan. On the 10th of September, 
 1887, Dr. Sampson bad five cocks of hay thrown down 
 for serving notices of ejectment. On the 7th of 
 October, 1887, Pat Regan's horse's mane and tail were 
 cut off because his sons had flushed for Sir Henry 
 Burke. The same injury was done to the horse of 
 Anthony Minoque because his son attended the wake 
 of an uncle who had been a boycotted man. On the 
 20th of October, 1887, the sheriff's assistants were 
 assaulted at an eviction. On the 18th of October, 
 13S7, Mrs. Clear, Mrs. Cunningham, and John Burke had 
 their windows broken because their relations flushed 
 for Sir H. Burke, and in the case of Burke a shot was 
 fired through the kitchen window. On the 26th of 
 March, 1888. the roads were impeded by which the 
 
 sheriff and his officers were returning from an eviction. 
 There are a number of instances in which hot water 
 and hot water and lime were thrown over bailiffs. 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal.— Did you prepare a list of 
 persons who took part in meetings at the Woodford 
 district ? 
 
 Sie C. Russell (to the Attorney-General).— Have 
 you read the case at the top of the page in that list ? 
 
 The Attorney-Genebal. — I will, if you please. Pat 
 Glynn had a revolver-shot fired through the kitchen 
 window. He borrowed a horse from a man suspected of 
 having paid his rent. 
 
 How did you find that out ? — That was the assigned 
 motive of the constable. Pat M'Queeny had a clump 
 of turf burnt for being on good terms with Thomas 
 Noonan, process-server. 
 
 Have you prepared a list of meetings that were held 
 in the Woodford district, with the names of the 
 numerous speakers who took part in them ? — Yes. I 
 cannot speak to the meetings of the 5th and 6th of 
 December, 1885. 
 
 The Attoeney-Genebal.— I must get that from 
 some one else. Perhaps you do not mind my reading 
 that, Sir Charles ? 
 
 Sie C. Russell.— Certainly not. 
 
 The Attoeney-Genebal.— On the 6th of December, 
 1885, there was a meeting at Ballinagar at which 
 speeches were delivered by Father Callagy, Father 
 Bgan, Martin Egan, John Sweeney, and Pat Keary. 
 I will read the whole thing now if yon wish it. I 
 only want to get now the names of the speakers — the 
 list of the meetings, and the speakers ; the actual 
 speeches will be put in presently. Our summary 
 would only be, in short, our view of what the speeches 
 themselves contained. 
 
 The Pbesident. — The summary would be more 
 valuable than the speeches. 
 
 The ATTOBNEY-GENEBAL.^-Very well, my Lords, I 
 will read the whole of it : — On December 6, 1885, a 
 meeting was held at Ballinagar at which Father 
 Callagy, Father Egah, Martin Egan, John Sweeney, 
 and Pat Keary spoke. General outline of speeches- 
 protesting against the action of Mrs. H. Lewis in 
 refusing to give a reduction of rent to her tenants, 
 and for refusing to allow the tenants to go in a body 
 into Ballinagar-house. Outrage that followed — 
 attempt to blow up Ballinagar-house on December 13, 
 1885. April 11, 1886, meeting at Ballinakill, Martin 
 Egan, speaker. Resolution passed by Ballinakill branch 
 of National League not to take grass farms from Sir 
 H. Burke ; speech made in support of resolution. Out- 
 rages that followed — notioes posted on May 1, 1886, 
 threatening any person who would take grass farms 
 with the fate of Finlay. Notice also posted on door of 
 Thomas Dewan's house May 9, 1886, threatening him 
 with death for having taken one of the grass farms. 
 February 25, 1886, meeting at Woodford, speakers 
 Father Egan, John Roche, Tim Clarke, Outrage that 
 followed — Patrick Finlay, process-server, murdered, 
 March 3. 1886. May 9, 1886, meeting at Ballinakill, 
 
 District-Inspector Murphy. 
 
The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 293 
 
 Martin Egan, speaker. Resolution passed by Ballinakill 
 branch of National League not to cut turf for Sir H. 
 Burke. Outrage that followed — out-offices of William 
 Conway, Parkqurran, maliciously burned, May 15, 
 1886 (Conway cut the turf for Sir Henry notwith- 
 standing the resolution). October 17, 188G, meeting 
 at Woodford, speakers, John Dillon, William O'Brien, 
 Mat Harris, David Sheehy, M.P. Inauguration of 
 Plan of Campaign. Speeches made in support of it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Now, my Lords, we come to a 
 different point of view altogether. Now we come to 
 a meeting which is here described as being for the 
 inauguration of the Plan of Campaign. I ask what 
 part of the allegations against certain persons is 
 named in this case, which relates to the inauguration 
 of the Plan of Campaign. My learned friend said that 
 he could justify it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I did actually justify it 
 at the time. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — No, indeed, you did not. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — As a matter of fact the 
 Plan of Campaign is specifically referred to in " Par- 
 nellism and Crime." In addition to that there are 
 repeated paragraphs to which previous objection has 
 been taken as to there being meetings and speeches 
 made for the purpose of an organized resistance by te\i- 
 ants to the carrying out of their legal obligations. The 
 Plan of Campaign is only a name, and, further than 
 that, the resistance to the carrying out of the process 
 of the law and the paying of rent — that is to say, as 
 I explained to your Lordships on a prnvious occasion, 
 the Plan of Campaign is one of the devices suggested 
 whereby, unless all the tenants agreed, no single tenant 
 could pay his rent, and it is only part of the matter to 
 which I have previously called your Lordships' 
 attention, and I think if my learned friend is going 
 to raise this point again 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Again ! I raised it distinctly 
 again and my learned friend 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — I think, Mr. Attorney, 
 you said you had not the papers in Court at the time 
 and you would get them if they were wanted. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Certainly, my Lord 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am going to call 
 attention to the matter later on. (The .Attorney- 
 General then continued reading.) William Mullally's 
 window-shutters and signboard over shop daubed 
 with paint, and " Boycott " printed on front of 
 house. Same injury to Mrs. Connolly's house, October 
 31, 1886. October 19, 1886, meeting at Cappacon. 
 Speakers, D. Sheehy, M.P., Francis Tully (doctor), 
 Martin Egan, Law. Egan. Speeches condemned Mr. 
 Lewis for not giving a reduction of rents. Outrage that 
 followed — Hubert Donohoe, servant to Mr. Lewis, 
 geriously assaulted. 24th of November, 1886, " Dr. " 
 Tally was sentenced to three months' imprisonment 
 for language used towards Mr. Lewis at this meeting. 
 December 10, 1886, meeting at Woodford. Speakers, 
 V. Sheehy, M.P., Mat Harris, M.P., and John Roche. 
 
 Speech made by John Roche in condemnation of action 
 of Mr. Lewis. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I would really ask whether in; 
 that case 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Very well, then, I will 
 not read it. January 21, 1887, meeting at Woodford. 
 Members of committee of Tenants' Defence Association 
 in League-hall. February 13, 1887, meeting at Wood- 
 ford. Speakers, William O'Brien, M.P., David 
 Sheehy, M.P., and Michael Davitt ; speeches relative 
 to a dispute between Lord Clanrioarde and his 
 tenants. Outrage that followed, telegraph wire cut, 
 short distance outside Woodford. March 6, 1887, 
 meeting at Ballinakill. Speakers, Martin Egan, Law. 
 Egan. Resolution passed calling on Sir Henry Burke's 
 Servants to leave his employment. Outrages which 
 followed, threatening notices calling on people not to 
 cat turf for Sir H. Burke and boycotting Marble-hill. 
 Servants called upon to leave. April 4, 1887, meet- 
 ing at Whitegate. Speakers, D. Sheehy, M.P., and 
 Father Hogan. Speeches relative to dispute between 
 Mrs. Blake, Mulick, and Dr. Sampson, Borrisokane, 
 and their tenants. October 15, 1887, meeting at 
 Woodford. Speakers, Messrs. William O'Brien, M.P., 
 Gill, M.P., D. Sheehy, M.P., Rowlands, M.P., Cox, 
 M.P., Blunt, and J. Roche. Mr. O'Brien in his 
 speech urged the tenants to resist eviction. Outrage 
 that followed, sheriff resisted at evictions at 
 Rostullas, near Woodford. October 20, 1887, 
 telegraph wire cut between Woodford and Portumna. 
 December 16, 1887, meeting at Woodford ; meet- 
 ing held for boycotting purposes ; shot fired into 
 house of John Burke, Cappagh, 18th of December, 
 1887. March 20, 1888, meeting at Cloncoe. 
 Speakers, John Roche, Francis Tully, and Father 
 Coen. The speeches condemned a tenant on Lord 
 Clanricarde's property, who had to act as caretaker on 
 his holding. On April 14, 1888, a revolver shot was 
 fired into the house of a small farmer named Pat Glynn 
 for borrowing a horse from Thomas Canning, whose 
 action was condemned at meeting. 
 • Is Loughrea in your district? — No. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (to the Attorney-General). — Will it 
 be convenient for you now to justify your reference ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, I cannot do it 
 at the present moment. If my learned friend will say 
 what he desires me to do, I will undertake to do it by 
 repeated references to " Parnellism and Crime," show- 
 ing incitement to resistance to payment of rent. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My proposition is that there has 
 not been by the defendants, in the course of the pro- 
 ceedings in " O'Donnell v. Walter and another," any 
 charge or allegation relating to the Plan of Cam- 
 paign. 
 
 The President. — I have one reference here. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Are you going to repeat it or 
 not ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am going to answer yon, 
 
 District-Inspector Murphy. 
 
294 
 
 The Special Commission, November 14, 18SS. 
 
 Sir Charles. I am allowed sometimes to make an 
 observation. 
 
 SIR C. Russell. — I repeat what I say — that there is 
 not a single allegation in the proceedings in " O'Don- 
 nell v. Walter and another " founded upon 01 relating 
 to the Plan of Campaign. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— We will see. (Reading.) 
 " Finally, as the Irish World shows, the proceedings 
 which led up to the Chicago Convention, and at which 
 the Plan of Campaign was hatched, brought together, 
 both in a secret conclave and on a public platform, 
 Ford and Bgan, Mr. Redmond and Mr. Deasy, Brennan, 
 Davitt and Mr. O'Brien, Sullivan, Kerwin, Feely, and 
 Devoy, of the Clan-na-Gael murder club, and Finerty, 
 described by Mr. Parnell himself as a ' dynamiter.' " 
 
 The President. — That which you have referred to 
 is out of one of the articles in " Parnellism and 
 Crime." I suppose the point taken is that that was 
 not referred to in your speeches. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I did read it, my Lords, 
 at length. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I say that this is the only refer- 
 ence to the Plan of Campaign. 
 
 The Attorney-General.-— My Lords, it is beyond all 
 reason. I have done my best. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, I affirm that as far as 
 we can examine that is the sole reference to the Plan 
 of Campaign. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, in terms it may 
 be, but I assert that there are a large number of refer- 
 ences. 
 
 The President.— Will you allow me to suggest that 
 this should stand over and you should collect the 
 passages ? Of course, it is not necessary for the Plan 
 of Campaign to be mentioned ; the thing itself is im- 
 portant. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— That is what I suggest ; and then 
 bring all your artillery to bear. 
 
 Sir C. Russell then proceeded to cross-examine the 
 witness, who said, — I was in Kildare before August, 
 1886 ; I was there early in 1880. I remained there all 
 the time until I removed to Galway, except when I 
 might be temporarily away on duty. I was stationed 
 at Newbridge. 
 
 Is it a fact that there were altogether some 37 to 40 
 branches of the National League in Kildare ? — I could 
 not say the exact number. I would not know. 
 
 You know that John Condon was secretary of the 
 branch at Newbridge ? — I believe so, from recollec- 
 tion. 
 
 Was he a decent sort of man ? — I never heard any- 
 thine agajnst him. 
 
 Who was the president ot the Newbridge orancn of 
 the League ? — I believe Father Coen ; I was informed 
 so. Kildare town is about five miles from Newbridge. 
 I think Dr. Kavanagh was the president there. 
 
 Now, with reference to Woodford, was that your 
 headquarters ? — Of my district ; I lived in the village. 
 
 Is Mr. John Roche a man of some position in the 
 village ? — Yes, in a town of that class. He is a farmer 
 
 and miller. Keary is also a man of some position ; I 
 do not know that there are any people in a better 
 position in the village. 
 
 Your first experience of the Clanricarde evictions 
 was, I think, on the 27th of August, 188S ? — No ; tbat 
 was Saunders's Fort ; they began on the 18th or 19th. 
 At first there was nothing but police, finally about 200 
 soldiers ; I do not think there were more. 
 
 How many constabulary were there ? — I think about 
 300, perhaps 400 or 500 ; I am not sure. 
 
 Give us the names of the tenants at whose evictions 
 you were yourself present. — There were J. Conroy, 
 Fahy, Brodrick, and Saunders. 
 
 Were some of Lord Clanricarde's evictions what a^e 
 called evictions on title ? — I think most of them were. 
 
 I may explain to your Lordships that this means 
 that the landlord would sue for arrears of rent 
 in the superior Court, and then under the writ 
 of fi. fa. would call an auction and sell the 
 tenant's interest, nobody bidding, and then he 
 would buy the interest for a nominal sum from the 
 sheriff, and then evict the tenant on the title. (To 
 witness.) The result of that course would be that the 
 tenants would have no claim whatever for improve- 
 ments on their holdings ? — I could not swear ; I believe 
 it is so. 
 
 And have no six months in which to redeem ? — No, I 
 believe not. 
 
 In every case, as far as you know, were not these 
 ejectments under the superior Court ? — I could not 
 positively swear ; my belief is that that is so, but 
 it is only a matter of belief. 
 
 In one case — I cannot put. my hand on the name — 
 was not the rent for which the ejectment was being 
 put in force £12 and the costs £18 ? — I oould not tell 
 you without reference to documents which I have 
 not got here. I think the case you refer to is Brod- 
 rick 's. 
 
 Do you know that your men were so moved by the hard- 
 ship of the case that they themselves subscribed to 
 make up the costs ? — I do not know by what they 
 were moved ; it was not reported to me. 
 
 Did they in fact subscribe ? — I was informed they 
 were anxious to do so. 
 
 You gave them no authority to do so ? — It was 
 against the police regulations to do so. 
 
 You know of no instance of police and soldiers 
 subscribing ?— No, this is the only instance I know of. 
 
 Do you know that the officers in charge of the 
 men offered themselves to subscribe ? — Well, I sub- 
 scribed myself. 
 
 What moved you ? — I preferred not to have evic- 
 tions. 
 
 Your experience showed you that it was the principal 
 cause of trouble and disturbance ?— Well, a good cause. 
 
 Rather a bad cause ? — Well, a great cause. 
 
 Had it come to your knowledge that before 
 any disturbance at all took place at Woodford 
 the tenants had petitioned for a reduction of 
 
 District-Inspector Murphy. 
 
The Special- Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 295 
 
 rent, and that the Bishop signed the petition ?— No, I 
 have no knowledge of it. 
 
 And that Lord Clanricarde did not even answer or 
 acknowledge the petition ? — I have no knowledge, but 
 I have heard that Lord Clanricarde did not answer a 
 letter from the Bishop of Portumna. 
 
 That is Dr. Heaty ?— Yes. 
 
 He is not supposed to be a very great friend of the 
 Land League, is he ? — I do not know ; he did not take 
 a prominent part in it. 
 
 Do you know who was the agent at that time ? — 
 Yes ; Mr. Joyce. 
 
 Mk. Justice A. L. Sinra.-I thought that Mr. 
 Blake was the agent. 
 
 Sir ("!. Eussell.— This is in 1886, my Lord. (To 
 witness.) Did you learn that Mr. Joyce, the new 
 agent, advised the reduction which the tenants called 
 for ? — No, I knew nothing about it at the time. I did 
 not hear of it, except what I saw in the papers at the 
 time of the action against Lord Clanricarde. 
 
 Did you not see something more in the papers ? Did 
 you not see the correspondence between Sir Michael 
 Hicks-Beach and Lord Clanricarde ? — I did. 
 
 Did you not learn from that correspondence — < — 
 
 Sir H. James. — I must ask your Lordships whether 
 the witness can be asked as to what he may have 
 gathered from having seen what appeared in the news- 
 papers. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — It is said that what has happened 
 is owing to certain speeches which were made. It is 
 of importance to us to show what the circumstances 
 really wme. 
 
 The President. — I quite followed from questions put 
 to oLher witnesses that you suggested that there were 
 other causes than the Land League or National 
 League. The only question is as to how it is to be 
 brought before us. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The publication of the corre- 
 spondence is a matter so notorious that I am surely 
 entitled to ask the witness whether he did not know 
 that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach remonstrated with Lord 
 Clanricarde as to these wholesale evictions. 
 
 Witness. — In a general way I may have gathered it. 
 
 The President. — What was Sir Michael Hicks- 
 Beach's position at that time ? 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— He was Chief Secretary for Ire- 
 land. 
 
 The President. — Such a correspondence might be a 
 matter of sufficient notoriety for us to receive it. 
 
 Sir H. James. — If your Lordships think it right we 
 will not object further. 
 
 The President. — It may be taken as a suggestion to 
 '.he witness, the line that is being taken, but I do not 
 -Jiink it ought to be dealt with further than that. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — I do not propose to go further 
 than to ask this question. Do you know that the reduc- 
 tions which the tenants asked were less in fact than 
 the reductions which the Commissioners were making 
 in the neighbourhood ? — I am not aware : I cannot 
 swear to it. 
 
 Do you know generally that that was so ? — No, I 
 cannot swear ; whatever demands were made were 
 ^mado before I went to the district. 
 
 Were you examined before the Cowper Commis- 
 sion ? — I have no knowledge of it. 
 
 You are in charge of a large district, and do you 
 mean to say you did not know the Commission was 
 sitting ? — I read about it in the papers. I do not know 
 that Mr. Joyce was called before that Commission. I 
 do not remember even having read of it. 
 
 Lord Clanricarde has a great demesne and house at 
 Portumna, has he not 'i — Yes ; I cannot say how mafly 
 acres he has. His property is not in my district. I 
 have never seen Lord Clanricarde in connexion with his 
 property. I have no knowledge of his having sub- 
 scribed to the relief of people in distress. 
 
 Are you aware from knowledge you have gained since 
 you were there, or has it been reported to you, that 
 Lord Clanricarde has ever helped any local object ? — I ' 
 have no knowledge that he has. I remember the 
 Clanricarde trial in Dublin — the action brought for libel 
 by Mr. Joyce — but I was not present at it. 
 
 Now with reference to this return, did you prepare it 
 in the form it now is ?■ — As far as I remember that is 
 the form in which I sent it in. 
 
 Is it sent in in print in this way to the authorities or 
 was it printed for the purposes of this case ? — I sent it 
 to the county inspector, and I know nothing more 
 about it. 
 
 Take the return in your hand and tell me in what 
 form was your return made to the authorities ? — That 
 is the exact form as well as I can remember. 
 
 Try and remember. — That is the form in which it 
 was sent in. 
 
 Did you send in anything clso ? — A list of the meet- 
 ings. 
 
 Bat that is there also.— Nothing more. 
 
 I would ask you to look at this return (Mr. Bell's). 
 Was it not in that form you made your return '/ — Cer- 
 tainly not. 
 
 Do you say that in making your return to the 
 authorities you stated the motive for each outrage r 1 — 
 I did. 
 
 After putting one general question I will 
 take the first case. In this list you exclude alto- 
 gether any crime or outrage as being the result 
 of private malice, I think 1 — I think so. 
 
 You attribute all these offences to agrarian causes f 
 — Yes, I think so. 
 
 Now, I take the first case — " Pat Corlon, windows 
 maliciously broken in dwelling-house." Did he make 
 a claim for compensation ? — No- 
 
 You went to see him ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, let us see what sort of conversation you had 
 with him. Did you question him ? — I did not. 
 
 He told you his windows were broken. You asked 
 him, " Who did it?" and he said, " Begorrah, I don't 
 know." (Laughter.) You said, " Well, is there anybody 
 has a spite against you ? " He said, " I don't know." 
 
 District-Inspector Murphy. 
 
296 
 
 The Special Commission, November 14, 1888. 
 
 Then, perhaps, you went on, " Have you paid your 
 rent ?" — I may have talked to him in that way. 
 
 You said, " Is that the reason ? " He says, " Well, 
 maybe it is." Is that the style of conversation ? — It 
 may be so. I do not remember. I know Pat Corlon 
 was very reticent about the matter. 
 
 I am rather struck by the case of Pat Mitchell. 
 You went to see him ? — I think I did. I remember 
 going down to his house. I do not remember that I 
 asked him anything. I suspected the motive myself. 
 
 Then, may I take it that these motives you put down 
 fdr the offences are not the motives suggested by the 
 persons upon whom the outrages were committed ? — 
 Very often the people would not suggest any motive at 
 all. The motives were generally given to me by the 
 Bergeant of the local police. 
 
 Out of his own head ? — Well, I do not know that. I 
 should say from his own local knowledge. 
 
 Your experience then is that in the great majority 
 of the cases the people themselves do not in fact 
 assign a motive ? — In the great majority of cases they 
 were reluctant to assign an agrarian motive. 
 
 And accordingly your head constable and yourself 
 applied your own observation to the state of the case, 
 and set down a motive ? — Yes ; I gauged it by the 
 circumstances of the case, and by the local knowledge 
 of the sergeant of the district. 
 
 Take Pat Glynn's case — " revolver shot fired through 
 kitchen window." Did you ask Pat Glynn what was the 
 motive in his case ? — Yes ; he believed himself that 
 the motive I have set down was the motive. 
 
 What motive ?— That he had borrowed a horse from a 
 man suspected of having paid his rent. 
 
 And that was the only motive for firing a revolver shot 
 through his kitchen window — that he had for his own 
 convenience borrowed a horse from a man suspected of 
 having paid his rent ? Is that really what Pat told 
 you ? — I am satisfied that that was his impression. 
 
 Do you tell me that,because for his own convenience 
 Toe had borrowed a horse from a man to whom it could 
 he of no benefit ? Who was this man ? — Keary. He 
 was very obnoxious in the neighbourhood. 
 
 Do you know whether he had paid his rent ? — My 
 belief is he had not. (Laughter.) 
 
 Then the motive for firing through this man's 
 windows was that he had borrowed a horse from a man 
 who had not paid his rent ? — The sheriff came to evict 
 Keary, and ho was allowed to remain in as a care- 
 taker, and the inference was drawn that he had settled 
 with the agent of Lord Clanricarde. 
 
 Have you given us all the circumstances from 
 which you arrive at the motive in these cases ? — Yes. 
 
 And if I went through many of the other cases it 
 would be much the same- kind of thing ? — There was 
 generally something in the nature of an agrarian 
 cause. You do find that the causes of a great number 
 of the outrages in Ireland are agrarian. 
 
 Yes, I quite agree with you. There is one other 
 case I should ask you about. I should like- to chal- 
 lenge the statement, so that if it can be proved we 
 
 shall have further evidence about it from my learned 
 friends. You have bracketed here five persons — Anne 
 Moran, Christy Duffy, John Derwan (Peter), John 
 Derwan (Hugh), and Thomas Dervin — and you put 
 opposite to their names, as a motive for the outrage 
 upon them, " refusing to join the National League " ? 
 —Yes, Sir. 
 
 I wish you now to think before you answer the ques- 
 tion. Did you see Anne Moran ? — I did not see her. I 
 saw her sons. 
 
 She did not tell you she refused to join the National 
 League ? — The objection was to her sons. 
 
 There is no reference to the sons at all in this state- 
 ment. Did you see her sons ? Did either of them say 
 they had refused to join the League P — I do not re- 
 member that they did. . 
 
 Now as to Christy Duffy — " oats thrown down." 
 Did you see him, and did he say that he had refused 
 to join the League ? — I do not remember that he did. 
 
 John Derwan (Peter) ; did you see him ? Did he say 
 that he had refused to join the League ? — I do not 
 remember that he did. 
 
 John Derwan (Hugh) ; did you see him ? — I am sure I 
 did. I do not remember that he said he had refused 
 to join the League. 
 
 Then, Sir, I must ask you,in any one of these cases, 
 upon any statement made by any one of these people, 
 were you justified in putting this down as the motive ? 
 — I was, I am sure. I gathered the motive from con- 
 versation and from the experience of the local 
 sergeant. 
 
 Will you undertake to swear that any one of those 
 persons in any form of words told you that they had 
 refused to join the National League ? — I cannot swear 
 positively. 
 
 Do you say that the local sergeant,Sergeant Murphy, 
 told you that any one of these persons had refused to 
 join the League ? — Yes ; I took that from him. 
 
 Has there in your district been one single instance 
 of a charge of intimidation for refusing to join the 
 League ? — I do not remember any case of that sort. 
 
 Will you swear that any one has told you that he has 
 been intimidated with a view of his joining tho 
 National League ? — I do not remember. People have 
 complained to mo of the existing state of things—not, 
 perhaps, of -that particular thing. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — I remember a 
 branch of the Land League at Newbridge, in Kililare, 
 in 1880. Doubtless there were branches elsewhere in 
 the county. I have never attended a meeting at whiuh 
 you spoke. I was engaged once in eviction proceed- 
 ings in Kildare, but the eviction was not carried out. 
 I have no recollection of evictions being actually 
 carried out in Kildare in my time. There was one 
 agrarian outrage in my district. There may also have 
 been a few burnings. I went to Kildare in April, 
 1880, and left in 1885. 
 
 Did you send official details of the outrages to which 
 you have referred to your superiors ?— Yes. 
 
 Were they of a serious character ?— In oiie case a 
 
 District-Inspector Murphy. 
 
The Special Commission, November 14 and 16, 1888. 
 
 297 
 
 man's dwelling-house was burnt. That was the most 
 serious case. The house was a substantial dwelling, 
 two and a-half miles from Newbridge. I do not believe 
 it was insured. 
 
 You have a record as to my having attended a meet- 
 ing in Galway on February 13, 1887 ? — I was informed 
 that you were in the town, but I was not near enough 
 to you to identity you. 
 
 Did you send any one to take a report of my speech ? 
 —No. Mr. William O'Brien had attended a meeting 
 just before, and I had only a sergeant and two men 
 with me. I therefore could not send anybody. I do 
 not remember seeing any report of your speech. To 
 my knowledge there is no official record of it. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — I was in Kildare 
 from 1880 to 1886, and then I went to Galway. 
 
 Apart from these agrarian crimes, have you found 
 the people peaceable ? Were they in the habit of 
 committing outrages upon one another ? — No. I found 
 them peaceable. They were not in the habit of taking 
 one another's property or of attacking one another. 
 
 You said to Sir Charles Kussell that the people have 
 complained of the " state of things." What complaint 
 did they make to you ? 
 
 Mr. Reid objected to the form of the question. 
 
 Sie H. James. — Well, of what character were these 
 complaints ? — Complaints of what I may almost call the 
 coercion of the League— that people were very much 
 hampered in their actions by the action of the League. 
 
 Were these outrages investigated after those com- 
 plaints had been made to you ? — Some of them. I 
 found it very hard to get information from the people. 
 They were very reticent about telling me the causes of 
 the outrages. They were apprehensive of the state of 
 things existing in the neighbourhood. 
 
 You received these reports from your sub-officers. 
 Would the motive be given in the report ? — Yes. 
 
 Then you went and saw the persons ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you in any instance learn from them anything 
 which caused you to believe that the report was 
 incorrect ? — Oh, no. 
 
 The people may have been reticent ; but you never 
 heard anything to lead you to suppose that the reports 
 were incorrect ? — No. 
 
 The examination of the witness having been con- 
 cluded, and the hour being a quarter to 4 o'clock, 
 
 The President asked whether the examination of the 
 next witness would occupy any length of time. 
 
 Mr. Murphy replied that he could not undertake to 
 finish the examination by 4 o'clock. 
 
 The Commissioners thereupon rose to adjourn, 
 
 The President saying, — We shall not be able to sit 
 to-morrow. 
 
 FBI DAY, NOVEMBER 16. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 15th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Boyal Courts of Justice. 
 On the Commissioners taking their seats, 
 Patrick Keaveney was called and examined by Mr. 
 
 Murphy. He said, — I am a farmer at Escragh, in the 
 north-west of Galway. In 1886 I took a grass farm at 
 Clooninda. It was vacant at the time. 
 
 What had become of the previous tenant ? — He had 
 sold his title to the landlord, and then he had gone to 
 live on a farm about half a mile away. I took the 
 farm from the landlord 12 months afterwards. I agreed 
 to give £150 for the interest in the farm, and I paid 
 £100 on account. It was then on the landlord's hands. 
 
 Now, up to that time on what terms were you with 
 your neighbours ? — On friendly terms. I had lived 
 there since I was born. 
 
 After you took this farm did you find any alteration 
 in the conduct of the people towards you ? — Yes, they 
 looked strange upon me. After a time two men called 
 on me — Pat Glynn and P. Rafferty. 
 
 Were they, to your knowledge, connected with the 
 branch of the Land League or National League in 
 that district ? — I believe so. 
 
 In consequence of what they said to you did you go 
 before the Laud League branch ? — Yes. 
 
 What branch was that ? — The Glenamaddy branch, 
 believe the Rev. Father Walsh was president of the 
 branch, and the treasurer was one Mitchell. There 
 were several other members of the League present. 
 
 What occurred when you went there ? — I said that 
 if I had known that it was anything against the rules 
 of the League to take the farm I would not have 
 thought of doing it, and I would surrender it if I could 
 only get the money back I had paid for it. I was told 
 to get the money back from the landlord. I could not 
 distinctly swear who told me that. It was some mem- 
 ber of the committee. 
 
 What did you say to that ? — I said I would write to 
 the landlord, but if he refused what would become of 
 me ? I was told I should fight my own battle, or 
 something similar to that. The Rev. Father Walsh 
 and the secretary were both present. 
 
 What further took place .'—Nothing else took place 
 until the 13th of May. On that day a band of about 
 30 or 40 people assembled on my farm and drove my 
 cattle off it. I was sent for when that happened, and 
 when I arrived I sent for the police at Glenamaddy. 
 When they arrived I attempted to put the cattle back 
 on the farm in the presence of the sergeant and one of 
 his men, but people with sticks stood in the gaps and 
 prevented me putting them back, and I had to put 
 them on another man's land for a time. 
 
 Can you give me the names of any of the men who 
 were taking part in the proceedings ? — Yes. 
 
 Had any of them been at the meeting the day you 
 were before the League ? — I do not know. 
 
 Any of the members of the committee ? — Not one of 
 them. 
 
 What happened then ? — My brother and I went out 
 about 2 o'clock in the morning. I did not get the 
 cattle back ; there were three men on the road, and 
 as soon as we were seen they began to whistle, and in 
 some minutes there was a band of about 30 men. We 
 turned back. 
 
 District-Inspector Murphy. 
 
 Patrick Keaveney. 
 
298 
 
 The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 Was anything done to your farm as soon as it was 
 left vacant ? — Yes ; on the 3d of June they broke down 
 the fences and put their own cattle in, on to 20 acres 
 of meadow land which I had closed, and kept them 
 there till the 23d of July, on which day I was assisted 
 by a force of police to get possession again. 
 
 During this time were you boycotted at all ? — I 
 could not exactly say I was boycotted, because I was 
 not actually refused anything, but I did not ask for 
 things, thinking I might be refused. 
 
 Where did you get your horses shod ? — I was in the 
 habit of getting them shod at the next forge, but the 
 smith told me to get a few sets of shoes quietly as 
 soon as I could. He did not altogether refuse me. 
 
 That was a slight hint ? — Yes. In consequence of 
 that I went to a distance of from 10 to 18 miles ever 
 since. 
 
 Did you prosecute some of the men who put their 
 cattle on your farm ? — Yes. 
 
 On the morning that your cattle were turned off your 
 land did you meet the treasurer of the Land League 
 anywhere ? — I saw him about a mile from my place, 
 but I could not say what his business was. His name 
 Was Martin Eiley. His landlord lived between the 
 place where I met him and my farm. 
 
 By Sib C. Kussell. — I had no reason to suppose he 
 was not going to his landlord's. Of the 30 men who 
 trespassed on my land and whom I prosecuted, I had 
 not seen one at auy National League meetings. The 
 name of the tenant who had previously been in 
 possession of grass land I took was Malachi Keaveney. 
 He was a friend of my own. I know he was bought 
 out because I heard the landlord swear at the assizes 
 at Galway that he had given him £110 for his interest 
 in the farm. I gave the landlord £150. Malachi 
 Keaveney was not evicted at all. I pay a rent of £31, 
 but I cannot say what Malachi Keaveney paid. I have 
 reason to believe that he never asked for a reduction 
 of his rent. I have heard that he sold his interest to 
 a cousin provided the landlord would be satisfied with 
 him as a tenant. His landlord was William Alexander, sub- 
 sheriff of Sligo. No doubt the landlord thought he could 
 get more money from some one else and bought out 
 Keaveney's interest. I did not hear that Malachi 
 Keaveney complained because he was not allowed to 
 sell his interest to his cousin. Seven men and one 
 woman were prosecuted for trespassing on my land. 
 They were all convicted and sentenced, the men to six 
 months' imprisonment with hard labour, and the woman 
 was let off on her own recognizances. The men were 
 farmers or farmers' sons living in the neighbourhood. 
 The tenant was always a member of the League. 
 My mother was tenant, and she paid the subscription 
 to the League. 
 
 He-examined by Mr. Murphy. — Do you know auy 
 reason why the landlord should not have had £150 if 
 that was the value of the farm ? — No. The names of 
 tho men prosecuted were Michael Curran, Michael 
 Rafferty, John Mannion, John Mannion, senior, Thomas 
 Kelly, and Micliael Coveney. I do not think any of 
 
 the Manuions were members of the Land League com- 
 mittee, but there are those of that name upon it. The 
 fact of my going before the League was known and 
 talked about in the country. 
 
 Lady Mountmorres was the next witness. In 
 reply to Sir Henky James she said, — I am the 
 widow of Lord Mountmorres. In 1864 I took up 
 my residence at Ebor-hall, near Cong, county Galway. 
 The estate consisted of some 350 Irish acres, or, in 
 round numbers, about 500 English acres. My husband 
 was the principal occupier of the land himself, but 
 there were some tenants, about 11 in all. I remember, 
 meetings being held in our neighbourhood in 1879. Up 
 to that time the most friendly relations existed between 
 my husband and his tenants. So far as I know there 
 had been no disputes of any kind. In July, 1880, my 
 husband obtained an ejectment order against a tenant 
 of the name of Pat Sweeney. A short time before 
 that there had been a change in the relations between 
 my husband and his tenants— that is to say, after the 
 meetings were held. After this change I observed many 
 things that had not happened before. The men did 
 not touch their hats, and were disrespectful in their 
 manner. There were obstacles placed in the road. A 
 sort of wall was placed across the road, leaving room 
 for the horse to pass, but not for the car. My husband 
 was a magistrate, and attended the sessions at Maam. 
 I have been with him to the sessions. On one occasion 
 the people looked so threateningly at us that I was 
 afraid. That was at Maam, about nine miles, I think, 
 from Ebor. I remember a meeting being held at Clonbur 
 on September 25, 1880, about an Irish mile and a half 
 from Ebor. In August, 1880, I went to Scotland to 
 stay with my brother. Lord Mountmorres stayed at 
 home to protect the house. On September 26, 1880, 
 I had a communication by telegraph to the effect 
 that he was murdered. There were several shot wounds 
 in his body. I was not present at the funeral, but I 
 was in the house at the time. The men refused to 
 put the coffin in the hearse. I did not see that myself, 
 but my brother was present at the time, and made a 
 statement to me. Colonel Brodrick was my brother's 
 name. I remained at Ebor some three weeks after my 
 husband's funeral. I had to take the steamer to go away. 
 On the way to the steamer the people passing by the 
 car hooted and laughed. My children were with me 
 tvt the time. On one occasion a stone was thrown at 
 niy liltlo boy, about eight years old. He was on the 
 lawn at the time. That was after the death of my 
 husband. I did not see the occurrence myself . My 
 little boy told me of it. In August, 1879, my husband 
 and I were under police protection. 
 
 What should you say as to your husband's popularity 
 with the tenants up to the time of these meetings 'I— 
 He waB extremely popular, not only with the tenants, 
 but with all about him. 
 
 You had no cause for police protection before 
 that ?— Certainly not. 
 
 Up to the time of these meetings do you recollect 
 
 Patrick Keavoney. 
 
 Lady Mountmorres. 
 
The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 299 
 
 your husband ever being asked to make a reduction in 
 rents ? — No ; up to that time we had always been 
 treated with courtesy and kindness by the people. 
 Afterwards stones were thrown at my pony carriage. 
 I cannot remember the date of that, but it would be 
 before the meetings and the police protection. 
 
 After 1880 could you keep a man-servant in your 
 house 1 — No ; all the servants I had left my service. 
 The reason they gave was that they were frightened. 
 Three men-servants left me in 18S0 . The first gave the 
 reason that stones were thrown at him when he went 
 to the post, and he was afraid. The next ran away on 
 a Sunday. No one knew of his leaving except myself, 
 lie said he was so afraid that he could not stay. I 
 was afterwards able to get a retired sergeant from 
 Dublin. He stayed three weeks. He then left me 
 also, and gave me the reason that he must leave 
 because he was afraid. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— My late 
 husband's property was not a considerable one. There 
 were 11 tenants, representing a total rental of about 
 £50. They were small holdings in the mountains. 
 
 Were you living at Ebor-hall during the whole of 
 1878?— I think so ; I am not quite sure. We often 
 went to England. I was there during the whole of 1880 
 up to the month of August, when I went to Scotland. 
 
 You returned from Scotland on the sad occasion of 
 your husband's murder ? — Yes. 
 
 The petty sessions court your husband attended was 
 held at Maam ? — Yes. 
 
 You have said that you noticed the threatening 
 demeanour of the people on your way to the Court- 
 house. Had that anything at all to do with any ques- 
 tijn of landlord and tenant, so far as you know ? — 1 
 do not know ; I did not inquire. 
 
 When did you say the first meeting to which you 
 attribute the change in the demeanour of your neigh- 
 bours took place ? — I do not know. I do not know 
 the dates of the meeting. 
 
 Well, I must put it to you, if you will be good 
 enough to try and recollect, did any meeting you can 
 specify take place in 1879 ? — I do not remember tbo 
 jlato, but I remember a meeting at Clonbur. It was 
 since these meetings took place that the people were 
 disrespectful when I went through Clonbur. 
 
 But it is very important that you should remember. 
 Wan you say where the meetings were held ? — There 
 wero various meetings. One was held at Oughterard. 
 
 Are there any other meetings to which you can 
 make reference ? — I heard of several ; I heard of one 
 at Clonbur. 
 
 When ? — I do not remember the date. 
 
 Will you say it was in 1879 ? — It was since the 
 meetings began. 
 
 I am afraid that is rather too vague. You have 
 suggested one at Oughterard, 30 miles off. Cannot 
 you say when that was ?— No ; I cannot mention any 
 other meeting. What I noticed was that people were 
 very threatening and disrespectful in their demeanour. 
 
 Did you hear complaints rightly or wrongly made of 
 your husband's action as a magistrate ? — No. 
 
 Did you hear of any disputes in reference to his inter- 
 fering with rights of way that were claimed by people 
 in the neighbourhood ? — I did not hear him spoken of 
 in that way. 
 
 Do you know he had disputes about rights of way 
 over his own property ? — I cannot recollect that. It 
 must have been something very slight, because I 
 cannot recollect it. I never heard anything like it 
 suggested until now. I observed the change in the 
 demeanour- of the people when I accompanied my 
 husband to the sessions at Maam. 
 
 You have not told us, but is it not the fact that Lord 
 Mountmorres received a threatening notice before any 
 meeting was held to which you have made reference ? 
 — The first threatening notice was in consequence of 
 these meetings. 
 
 Do you affirm that the threatening notice was sent 
 after one of the meetings ? — I do not remember what 
 meeting, but it was since the meetings began. 
 
 Will you tell me what meeting ? — I cannot tell you. 
 I think the meeting at Clonbur. 
 
 That is close to you. Will you undertake to say 
 there was a meeting there before your husband received 
 a threatening notice ? — No, I will not say that, 
 because I do not remember the date. 
 
 Will you undertake to say that there was a meeting 
 at Oughterard before the threatening notice was 
 received ? — I cannot say that. 
 
 Will you undertake to say that any meeting was held 
 in the neighbourhood before your husband got the 
 threatening notice ? — I have heard frequently of meet- 
 ings all round. 
 
 I am asking you any meeting that you can describe 
 as being in your own neighbourhood. The only one 
 you have mentioned is Oughterard, 30 miles off? — I 
 can say no more except that till these meetings 
 happened the relations of Lord Mountmorres with 
 every one were most friendly, and he did not get 
 threatening letters. 
 
 I must press you again, Lady Mountmorres. Can 
 you specify any meetings, and, if so, where held, 
 before your husband received threateningnotices? — No; 
 I was not told the places. 
 
 Then you are not able to tell where any meeting 
 was held to which you attribute 
 
 At this point Lady Mountmorres was seized with a 
 sudden faintness, and was assisted by the usher to a 
 chair. Sir C. Russell did not continue his cross- 
 examination of the witness, and 
 
 SlE H. James said,— My Lords, I will not ask 
 anything in re-examination, as I can get everything I 
 want from other persons. 
 
 Lady Mountmorres was then assisted out of court. 
 
 Head Constable Rudden, of Kellenaule, Tipperary, 
 was the next witness, and was examined by Sir H. 
 James. Witness said, — I am a head constable in the 
 Irish Constabulary. I was stationed near Cong, in 
 
 Lady Mountmorres. 
 
 Head Constable Rudden. 
 
300 
 
 The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 Galway, from the beginning of September, 1879. I 
 was then stationed at Clonbur. I know Bbor-hall, 
 where Lord Mountmorres lived ; it was about two 
 miles from where I was. The Land League was esta- 
 blished in Clonbur in October, 1879. Before I went 
 to Clonbur I had been stationed in different parts of 
 Galway. After the establishment of the Land League 
 at Clonbur the district became more disturbed. 
 Threatening notices were issued against persons who 
 worked for the local landlord, Mr. Lynch, and the 
 house of a tenant of his was fired into. That would be 
 about three miles from Ebor, a mile from Clonbur in 
 the opposite direction. I saw the bullet-hole in the 
 door, and the mark of it on the wall opposite. The house 
 was. that of a small tenant who was on friendly terms 
 with Mr. Lynch. The tenant's name was George Hopkins. 
 
 Did other tenants on Mr. Lynch's estate make com- 
 plaints to you as being the constable there ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, I object to that. 
 
 The President. — This very question may be found 
 in the books, and, if necessary 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — If it goes no further than a state- 
 ment made. 
 
 The President. — The point has arisen and it has 
 been held that complaints that are made to constables 
 may be given in evidence. That is a fact, and con- 
 stables are the proper persons to make complaints to. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I am not objecting to. the fact 
 that complaints were made to constables, and I have 
 said so again and again. My objection is to the ad- 
 missibility of the details of the complaints that were 
 made to the constable. 
 
 The President. —The details must be given suffi- 
 ciently to let us know what it was about. There must 
 be sufficient details for identification. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes, my Lords, for the purposes of 
 identification as regards the subject of the complaint ; 
 but I respectfully submit that the details will not be 
 admissible evidence. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I only want to ascertain the nature 
 of the complaint. 
 
 Did the tenants on Mr. Lynch's property make com- 
 plaints to you ? — Yes, some three or four complained 
 to me that they had been visited at night and cautioned 
 not to work for Mr. Lynch. 
 
 Did you become personally acquainted with Lord 
 Mountmorres ? — Yes. 
 
 Do not tell me what he said, but have you heard 
 him speaking about the Land League after it was esta- 
 blished in his neighbourhood ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you an opportunity of knowing whether Lord 
 Mountmorres was popular among his neighbours until 
 after the Land League was established ? — Yes, ho 
 was. 
 
 After the Land League was established did you 
 notice that the manner of the people changed towards 
 Lord Mountmorres ? — Yes, and towards other land- 
 lords. 
 
 We have the data of Lord Mountmorres's murder ; 
 it is the 26th of September, 1880. Now* before that 
 
 date had there been Land League meetings in the 
 neighbourhood of Ebor-hall ? — Yes, there had been a 
 large meeting at Ballinrobe and Cong some months 
 before his murder. 
 
 Where is Ballinrobe ; how far is it from Ebor-hall ? 
 — It is about eight or ten miles from Ebor-hall . 
 
 Was a meeting held at Clonbur on the day after 
 Lord Mountmorres's death 'i — Yes, on the 26th of 
 September. 
 
 You saw the body of Lord Mountmorres on the 
 morning after the murder ? — Yes. 
 
 Did it bear marks of bullet wounds ? — Yes, there 
 were marks of six bullet wounds— two in the chest 
 and stomach, two in the throat, one in the forehead, 
 and one just over the right eyebrow. 
 
 Was it your duty to endeavour to discover the 
 murderers ? — Yes. 
 
 Could you obtain the slightest information relative 
 to the matter from any one in the neighbourhood where 
 it took place ? — Very little at all. 
 
 Were you watched when you were making your 
 inquiries — were you followed ? — I was. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Where were yon 
 stationed before you came to Galway ?— At various 
 places in the counties of Meath and Down and in the 
 dep&t in Dublin. 
 
 ■ Were there Land League branches established in 
 those other places while you were stationed there ?— 
 No ; I went to Galway before the Land League was 
 ever heard of. 
 
 Then you have been stationed in Galway ever since 
 1879 ? — I have been stationed there since 1875. 
 
 Well, then, will you tell me this, please, forming your 
 judgmentfromyour experience and observation as a police 
 officer stationed in Galway during that period— was the 
 unpopularity of Lord Mountmorres, which has been 
 referred to, due to his conduct as a landlord or to 
 his oonduct as a magistrate ?— I daresay to both. 
 
 To which would you attribute the greater part of 
 his unpopularity ? — Well, I think that his unpopularity 
 arose from this — that he made it no secret that he was 
 very much opposed to the Land League, and he even 
 openly spoke of bringing the military to the neighbour- 
 hood for the purpose of suppressing meetings. I think 
 that his unpopularity was largely due to that fact. 
 
 When was the first meeting of the Land League 
 held within a radius of ten miles ? — I think that there 
 was a meeting held at Clonbur at the beginning of 
 October, 1879. 
 
 Do you know that Lord Mountmorres was under 
 police protection from August, 3879 ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you become aware that he had been threatened ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 At that time when he was so threatened, and was 
 under police protection, as far as you know had that 
 anything to do with his conduct as a landlord ?— I 
 think it had to do with his conduct both as a land- 
 lord and as a magistrate ; I could not separate the two 
 things. 
 
 Head Constable Eudden. 
 
The Special Commissi 6n, November 16, lggfe. 
 
 301 
 
 Had he not caused a notice of ejectment to bo served 
 on one of his tenants ? — Yes. 
 
 When ?— Some months before he was murdered. 
 
 Is it not a fact that the first thing he did in his 
 character as a landlord was to take ejectment proceed- 
 ings against Sweeney in July, 1880 ? — I know that 
 Sweeney had the ejectment proceedings taken against 
 him in July, 1880; or thereabouts. 
 
 Then that could have had nothing to do with Lord 
 Mountmbrres getting police protection in August, 
 1879 ? — No, I cannot say that it would. (A laugh.) 
 
 Do you know of any circumstance in his character as 
 a landlord which had anything to do with his unpopu- 
 larity up to July, 1880 ?— No, I do not. 
 
 Have you heard any other cause assigned for the sad 
 attack upon his life than that which has been sug- 
 gested here to-day ? — No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — Are you aware 
 tha,t there was an official Inquiry into this murder of 
 Lord Mountmorres ? — There was. 
 
 Do you know Major Wilde ? — Yes, he is a resident 
 magistrate. 
 
 Did Major Wilde conduct that inquiry f — I never 
 heard that he did. 
 
 Were you stationed at Cloiibur at the time ? — I was. 
 
 And you, being a superior police officer, never heard 
 that Major Wilde conducted the inquiry ? — I never 
 heard of it. 
 
 Where is Major Wilde's district ? — At Castlebar. 
 
 How far is that from Ebor-house ? — About 30 miles. 
 
 Who was the resident magistrate of the district in 
 which Bbor-hCuse is situated ? — Mr. Kennedy. 
 
 Did he conduct the inquiry ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he assisted by the county inspector ? — There 
 were a great many police officers present. 
 
 Do you know anything of the nature of the report 
 sent by these officials to Dublin Castle ? — No, I know 
 nothing about it. 
 
 You always heard that Lord Mountmorres was a kind 
 landlord ? — I never heard anything against him except 
 in connexion with Sweeney. 
 
 Do you know that he presided at the petty sessions 
 almost constantly ? — Yes. 
 
 He had frequently to send men to prison for Small 
 offences ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you hear that there was a belief in the locality 
 that he was in constant communication with Dublin 
 Castle ? — He allowed the people to believe that. 
 
 In other words.that he was sending secret information 
 to Dublin Castle ? — That he was sending in communi- 
 cations to Dublin Castle. 
 
 Did you ever hear that that belief in the locality 
 had anything to do with this unfortunate murder ?— It 
 did not make the people more friendly. It made 
 him unpopular in the district. 
 
 Then his unpopularity was due more to that than to 
 his conduct as a landlord ? — Yes. 
 
 You say that the Land League was established in 
 Clonbur in 1879 ?— Yes. 
 
 How did you know that it was established then ?<™ 
 
 Men were Walking about with sashes, which I was told 
 were badges of the League. 
 
 Does every man belonging to the Land League wear 
 a sash ? — I saw them wearing sashes. 
 
 Did you see the' words '' Land League " oh the 
 sash ? — No. 
 
 At what time in October did you see them ? — At the 
 beginning of October, 1879. 
 
 Do you know that the Land League was not esta- 
 blished at Dublin until the 22d of October, 1879 ?— I 
 do not know that. 
 
 Did the people tell you that they wore sashes be- 
 cause they were members of the Land League f — Yes. 
 
 Can you give me the name of any one who wore the 
 sash ? — No, I cannot give you a name. . 
 
 Is it due to your ignorance of the locality that you 
 say that the wearing of sashes is a badge of the 
 League or are you surmising ? — I was only a short time 
 in the locality, not long enough to learn the names of 
 the people. 
 
 are you absolutely certain that the Land League was 
 established at Clonbur as early as October, 1879 ? — I 
 was told so. 
 
 Excuse me , but are you a Catholic ? — I am. 
 
 Did you know the priest there ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he ever tell you that the Land League was esta« 
 blished there at that time ? — I do not recollect. 
 
 Did you ever see a Land League card worn by any 
 one early in October, 1879, in Clonbur ? — I could not 
 say. I have seen Land' League cards worn there, but 
 I could hot say in what month. 
 
 Have you ever seen any placards put up calling upon 
 the people to attend Land League meetings ? — Yes. I 
 know that it was called a Land League meeting by 
 the people. 
 
 Did you attend that meeting ? — No. 
 
 Did you hear that I attended that meeting ? — I do 
 not recollect. 
 
 Did you hear from any police officer that I spoke at 
 tho meeting ? — I may have heard of it. 
 
 As a matter of fact, I did. Did you hear from any 
 police officer that I warned the people against outrages 
 of all kinds ?— I do not recollect that. 
 
 You say that you heard that threatening notices were 
 sent in connexion with the tenants of Lynch ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you hear of any landlords getting threatening 
 notices in 1878 or 1879 ?— I never heard of any 
 threatening notices in Galway up to 1879. 
 
 Do you not know as a police officer that they were of 
 common occurrence in Ireland before that time ? — I 
 never had any report of it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. LocKWOofp.— I wish to put a 
 question to you with reference to Mr. Lynch'a 
 tenants. You have referred to threatening notices 
 being sent to them. Do you know that threatening 
 notices were sent to them ? — Yes. 
 
 When was it that you say his tenants received 
 threatening notices ?— Parties came to their houses atl 
 night , 
 
 Head Constable Sudden. 
 
302 
 
 The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 When ?— In February, 1880, I believe, but I kept no 
 record. 
 
 Tell me the names of any of the tenants who were 
 subjected to these visits. — One was George Hopkins, 
 another was named Lowry, and the Burkes also com- 
 plained. 
 
 Have you given me all the names you remember ? — I 
 only recollect those three. 
 
 Where do they live ? — At Ballynoona. 
 
 You mentioned that at one of the places of 
 the tenants you visited you saw the marks of 
 bullets ? — Yes. It was George Hopkins's place. 
 
 You said that you saw persons in October, 1879, 
 wearing sashes indicating that they were members of 
 the League. Give me the names of some of them ? — I 
 am unable to give you any names. I had only been in 
 the neighbourhood for three weeks. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington rose for the purpose of cross- 
 examining the witness, whereupon 
 
 Sir H. James said, — I understand that my learned 
 friend appears with Sir Charles Russell, and therefore 
 I do not see how he can cross-examine a witness who 
 has already been cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is not so. My learned friend 
 is here independently, as junior to my friend Mr. Reid. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. T. Harrington.— Did Hop- 
 kins occupy a house belonging to his landlord ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he occupy the landlord's residence ? — No. 
 
 Was he not a gamekeeper ? — No ; he was a tailor, 
 having a small farm. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — I was in Galway 
 from 1875, but from that time until 1879 I hafl 
 not heard of attacks being made upon tenants, 
 either on account of payment of rent or from other 
 causes. I know that Lord Mountmorres had been 
 a magistrate for years before 1879. He was against 
 the League, and he made no secret about his 
 opinion ; he talked openly about it. When he spoke 
 of his communication with Dublin Castle it was in 
 connexion with the League. Newspapers were circu- 
 lated in the district. 
 
 Sergeant O'Connor, examined by Sir H. James. — I 
 am a sergeant in the Irish Constabulary. I was called 
 to Clonbur on the 2Gth of September, 1880, the day 
 after Lord Mountmorres's murder, to attend a Land 
 League meeting. The meeting took place in the chapel 
 yard. I was near enough to the platform to hear what 
 was said. I was within about 20 yards of the plat- 
 form. 
 
 During that meeting was the name of Lord Mount- 
 morres mentioned ? — It was. 
 
 What took place ?— Some one in the crowd shouted, 
 " Down with Lord Mountmorres." Lord Mountmorres 
 was dead at the lime. Some one on the platform 
 said, " He is gone now ; we have no more to say to 
 him. None of you would care to be where he is at 
 present." 
 
 Was there any groaning when his name was 
 
 mentioned ?— Yes, there were a few groans, but a man 
 shook his head at them. 
 
 Did you know who were attending the meeting ? — I 
 only knew one person, " Scrab " Nally, but there 
 were others on the platform. I was not a Clonbur 
 man. 
 
 After the meeting did you go to see the place where 
 Lord Mountmorres had been murdered ? — Yes. 
 
 Were there any marks of blood still on the ground ? 
 — Yes, there were marks of blood on the ground. 
 
 When you approached the spot did you see any 
 persons there ? — Yes, there were five persons— men — 
 there. 
 
 What were they doing ? — They were jumping and 
 shouting in a circle, with their hands joined. I did not 
 know it was the place of the murder until I got up to 
 it. 
 
 Were they jumping round the blood ? — Yes, the 
 dancing appeared to be round the blood. 
 
 At any rate, they were dancing round the spot with 
 their hands joined 1 — Yes. They ran away before I 
 got up to them. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Ritssell. — Was this meet- 
 ing at Clonbur advertised some time before ? — It must 
 have been, because we were ordered to attend the 
 place. 
 
 John Bermingham, examined by Mr. Murphy, Q.C.— 
 I am a farmer on Colonel Blake's estate at Kinvarra, 
 and was so in September, 1880. On the 7th of that 
 month I was in bed. About half-past 12 o'clock at 
 night I heard the window smash and the report of a 
 gun. I got up and looked out, and saw four men 
 running away. I picked up a bullet that appeared to 
 have been fired. I had not to my knowledge given any 
 offence to anybody before I took the farm. I had 
 previously been on good terms with my neighbours. I 
 was afterwards boycotted. The day after I had to get 
 police protection. My neighbours refused to work for 
 me after that. 1 was very badly treated by them from 
 that time. I was boycotted. On the 15th of May a 
 considerable portion of tho wall around my farm was 
 broken down, and on the 10th of December follow- 
 ing a portion of a wall on another of my farms 
 was knocked down. On the 4th of April, 1886, 
 the legs of two of my sheep were broken. 
 
 In February, 1886, was the tail of one of your cows 
 cut off ? — Yes. 
 
 How far had you to go from your house for provi- 
 sions ? — To Galway, about 12 miles. 
 
 Had you a boy named Pat Connolly in your employment? 
 — Yes. lie left me because his father had received a 
 threatening notice saying that he was to take him 
 from me. In November, 1886, I had a herd in my 
 employment ; his house was tumbled. On the 13th 
 of March, 18»7, I went to a place and left my horse 
 outside. When 1 came out I found that the traces had 
 been cut. 
 
 Were you at that time bailiff to a gentleman in tlio 
 neighbourhood ? — I was bailiff to Colonel Blake. At 
 
 Sergeant O'Connor. 
 
 John Bermingham. 
 
The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 303 
 
 that time he had no evictions on his property except 
 from the farm which I had taken. It had been vacant 
 from six to 12 months. There is a paper called the 
 Tuam News which circulates in my district. I do not 
 know whether the proprietor, Mr. MThelpin, is 
 connected with the Land League. 
 
 By Sib C. Russell. — The former tenant of the 
 evicted farm was Thomas Patrick Flanagan. I cannot 
 say how long he had occupied it, but for as long as I 
 recollect. I was bailiff to Colonel Blake when I took 
 the farm from him. I am not bailiff to the landlord 
 on that part of his property on which the farm was 
 situated. As bailiff I had to give notice to the 
 tenants to come in and pay their rent. I am- also 
 process-server for the locality. 
 
 Now, tell the Court straightforwardly you knew 
 that Flanagan had a grudge against you because you 
 took this land ?— I should say so. 
 
 You knew that it was in consequence of taking that 
 farm that you were unpopular in the neighbourhood ? — 
 I suppose so. 
 
 By Mr. T. Hakrington. — What was the rent paid by 
 Flanagan ? — Something about £15 5s. 
 
 For how much rent was he evicted ? — I cannot say. 
 
 What rent did you pay when you took possession ? — 
 The same — about £15 5s. 
 
 Did you pay any arrears ? — Yes, I had to pay a 
 year's arrears. 
 
 Did you serve the writ on which Flanagan was 
 evicted ? — Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Mrr.pny. — Is it usual for the 
 tenants who come into a farm from which a tenant 
 has been evicted to pay what is due as rent by the 
 old tenant ? — Yes. 
 
 Is that considered an offence in your county since 
 the Land League has been there ? — Yes. 
 
 Owen Morgan, examined by Mr. RoxAX, said, — In 
 1887 I was herd on John Bermingham's farm. One day 
 in Jane; 1887, when I was in bed I remember hearing 
 a shot. The bullet went through the door and hurt no 
 one. I hearl voices outside. After this happened I 
 tried to get provisions at Ann Mooney's shop, but 
 was refused. I also sent my little girl to get provi- 
 sions at Martin Hickey's, but she was refused. I am 
 not able to read, but I heard that notices about mo 
 were put in the town. My family and I had to go to 
 lied without supper for nine nights. I had money to 
 pay for provisions, but I could not get them. The 
 wall of the house in which I had beeu living in as 
 herd was pushed down. I had to get protection from 
 the police. Some of the men working for Bermingham 
 left him. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Do you know 
 Pat Connolly ? — I do not know. 
 
 Is Pat Connolly working for Bermingham still ? — I 
 cannot say. I do not know anything about anybody, 
 and only know about myself. (Laughter.) 
 
 When did you see him last ? — A good while. 
 
 Before*you left Ireland ? — I had nothing to do with 
 Pat Connolly. (Laughter.) 
 
 Is he working for Bermingham now ? — Not now. 
 
 When did he leave ? — I cannot say 
 
 Have you a gun ? — What is that, Sir ? (Laughter.) 
 
 Have you a gun ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Had you a gun ? — Had I a gun, Sir ? 
 
 That is my question. — I had not any such thing, 
 Sir. 
 
 Did you go yourself tor these provisions to Mooney's ? 
 — I went once. 
 
 What did you want ? — Some tobacco, and " tay," 
 and sugar. 
 
 Had you the money to pay for it ? — I had, Sir. 
 
 Did you offer it ?— I did. 
 
 What did Mrs. Mooney say ? — She said she had not 
 time for a moment. 
 
 Then you went out ? — Yes. 
 
 What is the name of the person you went to for pro- 
 visions ? — I did not go to any shopkeeper. 
 
 After you had been to Ann Mooney's, and after she 
 said she had not time to attend to you that moment, 
 you walked out and did not go to any other place ?— 
 That is so. 
 
 You sent your little girl ; when was that — the same 
 day ? — About two days after. 
 
 Where did you send her ? — To the town. 
 
 Did you tell her to go to any particular place ? — I 
 did not mention any place. 
 
 Did she tell you where she went ? — She did. She 
 said to Martin Hickey's, but she could not get it. 
 
 Did you give her any money ? — I did ; I wanted 
 some bread. 
 
 Not tobacco ? Where did you get your tobacco 
 meanwhile ? — I did not care much about the tobacco. 
 
 Did the little girl get the bread ? — She did not. 
 
 Did she get it at all that day ? — No. 
 
 How many bakers are there in Moy ? — Three. 
 
 Did she say she went to all of them ? — She did not ; 
 she only went to one. 
 
 Have you any land ? — I have, Sir. 
 
 When was this that you could not get the tobacco ? 
 — It was 12 months last June. 
 
 Who was your landlord ?— Major Lattey.of Athenry. 
 
 Had you any potatoes in the house ? — Not at that 
 tinio. 
 
 Or moal ? — I had meal. 
 
 You had meal, but not bread ? — I had meal a few 
 days afterwards. 
 
 How long after was it that you went without 
 supper for several days ? — It was in June, 1887. 
 
 Had you meal in the house ? — Yes. 
 
 Why did you go without supper when you had meal 
 in the house 1—1 had no meal in the house. (Laughter.) 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt.— How many years 
 have you been a herd ? — About three years. 
 
 What were you before ? — A labourer. 
 
 Did you ever go to bed without supper when you 
 were a labourer ? — I did not. 
 
 Owen Morgan. 
 
304 
 
 The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 I am glad to hear it. What wages did y»u get ? — 
 Eighteen shillings a week. 
 
 As a labourer in Galway ? — That was in Limerick. 
 
 What man in Limerick gave you 18s. a week as a 
 labourer ? — I do not remember ; it is 20 years ago. 
 
 Where were you working seven years ago ? — In 
 Limerick. 
 
 Are you a native of Limerick ? — No ; I went there in 
 the harvest. 
 
 Oh, the high wages were in the harvest time ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 What did you get in the winter ? — I had a little 
 land. 
 
 Did you ever hear in Galway or Limerick of any one 
 who went without supper ? — I never did. 
 
 The people were well-to-do, then ? — I do not know 
 anything about it. 
 
 Were you visited by any policeman the day before 
 you sent for these provisions ? — I was. 
 
 Did he tell you to send a messenger to this particular 
 house ? — No. 
 
 Who asked you to come here and give evidence ?— I 
 cannot say. 
 
 Did you come of your own accord ? — No. 
 
 Who asked you to come ? — The man who served me. 
 
 Whom do you work for ? — Bermingham. 
 
 Did ho ask you to come ? — Bermingham did not. 
 
 What did you get ?— £5. 
 
 Who gave it you ? — The man who served me. 
 
 Did he live in your neighbourhood ? — No answer. 
 
 Is he a stranger ? — I cannot say. * 
 
 Did he give you anything else ? — Sorra a bit, yer 
 honour. 
 
 Did he promise you anything else besides the £5 ? — 
 He did not mention it to me. 
 
 Did he mention it to your wife ?— I cannot say. 
 
 Do you hope to get anything more ?— I do not care 
 whether I do or not. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — Have you ever 
 been told before in the shop that she had not time to 
 serve you ? — If she did I cannot remember. 
 
 What was she doing ? — She was doing nothing, but 
 wanted to go upstairs. 
 
 What was it — a baker's shbp ? — It was Mrs. 
 Mooney's. 
 
 What does she sell ?— Tea, sugar, and tobacco. 
 
 You have been asked as to the little girl. That is 
 Bridget, is it ? — Yes. 
 
 What did she tell you ? — She told me she could not 
 get it. 
 
 Did she tell you where she went ? — She said she 
 went to Martin Hickey's. 
 
 Had you bought bread there before ?— Yes. 
 
 And never been refused ? — Never. 
 
 James Burke, examined by Mr. Muefhy, said, — I 
 live at Kinvarra, county Galway, and am a blacksmith. 
 Prior to November, 1886, John Bermingham had been 
 in the habit of sending his horses to me to be shod ; In 
 November, 1886, ho sent a cart horse to me to be 
 
 shod. I shod it. John Bermingham was boycotted at 
 the time. Shortly after that there was a falling off in 
 the number of my customers. Previously to that I had 
 received a letter which threatened my life if I shod 
 Bermingham's horses. I gave the letter to the police. 
 I went before the League at Kinvarra. 
 
 What for ?— I went to look for mercy ; I was suffer- 
 ing from boycotting. 
 
 Who was there ? — Dr. Nally, Thomas Green, Michael 
 Shaughnessy, and Michael Huban. The clergyman 
 was not there the day I went. I said that I was 
 suffering from boycotting, and asked for mercy. They 
 told me it was not from there I was boycotted — 
 it was not from the League. Afterwards I subscribed 
 to the League, and paid Is. Customers returned again, 
 and I have had no trouble since. 
 
 Cross-examined by SIR C. Russell. — I had been a 
 member of the Land League before. I joined the first 
 time it started, about 1880. I had a subscriber's card. 
 I am not sure when the meeting of the League took 
 place to which I went to get mercy. It was about 
 November, 1887. After I got the letter I waited a 
 year before I went. When they told me that it was 
 not the League that was boycotting me I believed 
 them. The shilling I paid was the ordinary subscrip- 
 tion. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt.— Was there another blacksmith at 
 Kinvarra ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you on good terms ?-— Yes. 
 
 It was not the League who boycotted you ? — No. 
 
 Do you know who it was ?— Some blackguards, I 
 think. (Laughter.) 
 
 There were no blackguards in the League, I hope ? 
 —Not that I know of. 
 
 All respectable people ?— Yes, I believe so. 
 
 Who asked you to go to the League ? Did the police- 
 man to whom you gave the letter advise you to go ?— 
 Oh no, Sir. My brother-in-law and myself made it up 
 that I should go. 
 
 Re-examined by Sin H. James.— After talking to 
 your brother-in-law you thought it right to go to the 
 League and ask for mercy ? — Yes. 
 
 What branch of the League did you join in 1880 ?— 
 The Kinvarra branch. 
 
 You paid a second shilling in November, 1887 1— 
 Yes. 
 
 And you have had no trouble since ? — No. 
 
 Pat Gannon, examined by Mr. RoNAN, said, — I live 
 on the property of Mrs. Blake, of Ryndvale, county 
 Galway. I paid my rent as well as I could, and always 
 got on well with her. I was in the Crimea, and was 
 shot through the jaw bone and through the arm. I 
 have a pension, which was paid on the 1st of April, 
 1881. On that night I was asleep in my bed, when my 
 wife heard a noise and awoke me, saying the cows 
 wero loose. I did not stir, but my wife went down- 
 stairs and shouted out that the house was full 
 of men. I got out of bed with nothing on but 
 my shirt. I was standing at the door of my bedroom 
 
 James Burke. 
 
 Fat Gannon. 
 
The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 305 
 
 when some one caught me by the sleeve of my shirt 
 and pulled it off. I returned and hid myself on the 
 top of the bed, which was a wooden box bed. 
 Then they made a great noise and searched all about. 
 They threw all the things about out of a large chest, and 
 trampled them on the carpet on the floor. They heard 
 me overhead on the top of the bed. They were a 
 quarter or half an hour looking for me. They drew 
 mo down to the kitchen from the bedroom door. One 
 of the men put his hand on my body, and I oried 
 " Mercy." Then a shot was fired at my knee, and one 
 person spoke and said, " You have paid your rent." 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Do you suppose 
 they were searching your house for money, or firearms, 
 or both ? — I do not know whether it was money, but 
 that is what they told me. 
 
 Did you know any of them ? — No. 
 
 Were they in any way disguised ; were their faces 
 blackened ? — I could not tell in what way ; I could 
 not take my oath whether they were black or white. 
 
 The President.— Was it dark at the time ?— Dark 
 as anything. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — You had lately 
 received your pension ? — Yes ; a week before. It 
 was about £5. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — Did they take any 
 of your money out of the house ? — No. They said, 
 " You have paid your rent." 
 
 Sir H. James. — Wo shall now proceed to call 
 evidence connected with outrages in the county of 
 Kerry. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I think your Lordships will agree 
 with me that the course proposed by my learned friend 
 is a very inconvenient one — to go into the cases con- 
 nected with another county without completing the 
 case with regard to Galway. Surely we are entitled 
 to have the case in some order and not in this piece- 
 meal fashion. 
 
 The President. — I need hardly say that I agree 
 that it would be far more convenient if we could get 
 the Galway cases together. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — How is the human intellect — how 
 are your Lordships — capable of following any specific 
 connexion between the facts unless one case is com- 
 pleted before we go on to another ? 
 
 The President.— With enormous difficulty. 
 
 Sir H. James. — It is impossible to take the course 
 suggested by my learned friend, for this reason — there 
 will be evidence of a general character in connexion, 
 it may be, with several counties, and we cannot 
 separate the application of that evidence to this 
 county or to that. We are proceeding to prove out- 
 rages, and when we have proved the facts, then we 
 shall proceed to prove the application of speeches, 
 which will prove applicable not more to Galway than 
 to Kerry. We will take whatever course we can to 
 shorten the inquiry, but I submit we can take no other 
 course than to prove outrages, and then seek to prove 
 
 the connexion of the speeches applicable not only to 
 one county but to others. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — There is anallegation made by 
 the Attorney-General in his opening that in addition 
 to the general argument, from which your Lord- 
 ships are to be asked to draw certain inferences, he 
 would prove the connexion between the outrages and 
 persons alleged to be incriminated. My learned friend 
 has again and again reiterated that he could show a 
 special connexion between the acts of persons in- 
 criminated here and outrages. I do not seek to shut 
 out my learned friend from any general argument, but 
 I submit that, if there is any evidence having special 
 reference to Galway, there is no reason why it should 
 not now be given. 
 
 The President.— All that we can possibly do is to 
 let the case stand over until the rest of the evidence 
 relating to Galway is ready, although I have expressed 
 the opinion that it would be more convenient to have 
 the cases relating to Galway all together ; yet as we 
 are assured on the responsibility of counsel that they 
 are endeavouring to shorten the case as much as 
 possible, we can do nothing more in the matter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I can only protest against this 
 course as highly inconvenient and not conducive 
 to the ends of justice. 
 
 John Conway was then called and examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson. He said, — I am a faimer at Ardfert, in 
 the county of Kerry. I hold some bog lands from Lord 
 Listowel. There was a dispute some years ago among 
 the people of the district with regard to these lands. 
 I got a portion of them about six years ago. Nothing 
 was done to me at that time. I remember five or six 
 men coming to my house by night about July three 
 years ago. They wore masks. They came about 11 
 o'clock at night. One of them fired a revolver at me, 
 and I was wounded in the leg. I asked them what 
 brought them and what I was fired at for, but they 
 answered never a word. Shortly before that I 
 had cut some turf on the bog. The turf was 
 thrown back into the water where it had been 
 cut. The day after these men visited me a man 
 came to my house and made a communication to me. 
 He was a newspaper reporter from Cork. I had some 
 conversation with him, and in consequence of that 
 conversation I went before the Land League. 
 
 What branch were you asked to go before ? — The 
 O'Dorney branch. I couldnot go the following Sunday. 
 It was one of the usual fortnightly meetings. It was 
 held in a house. 
 
 Were any members of the League present ? — Yes, 
 James Doolan, a farmer, and, I think, treasurer of the 
 branch, Dan Doolan, and Dan Connor. I saw the 
 reporter who came to me afterwards in the chapel 
 yard. It was for his sake I had gone to the meeting. 
 
 Did any of the members present ask you any ques- 
 tions ? — No. Some person, I cannot say who, asked 
 me to give up the bog. 
 
 What did you say ?— I said if I had committed 
 
 Fat Gannon. 
 
 John Conway, 
 
306 
 
 The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 myself or made any mistake about the bog I would 
 give it up — that I had plenty of bog elsewhere, and 
 did not care much about it. 
 
 What did he say ? — He said it was satisfaction 
 enough. 
 
 Was anything said about your being shot ? — No ; but 
 something was said about my being punished enough. 
 
 Were you a member of the League before that ? — 
 Yes ; for a small time ; I did not attend meetings 
 since I was shot. 
 
 When you attended the League what business did 
 they do ? — It was about people getting conacre from 
 farmers, or score-land. 
 
 Did you ever hear discussions about persons being 
 boycotted ? — No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. EtTSSELL. — You say that 
 the League exerted themselves to get score-land — what 
 we call allotments — for the labourers f — Yes ; the 
 labourers sometimes applied to the farmers and some- 
 times to the League to help them. 
 
 What used the League to do ? Used they to write to 
 the farmers asking them to give allotments, or 
 what ? — The poor people and farmers were generally at 
 the meetings. 
 
 Was the consequence of this that a good many of 
 these poor people got allotments ? — Yes ; generally 
 they got them. They had not got them before. 
 
 Now, give me dates. First of all, when were you 
 asked by the Pressman to attend the League ? — About 
 the 17th of July— I oannot say whether it was 1885 or 
 1886 ; I think it was 1886. I did not know who he 
 was ; I do not know whether he was a reporter of the 
 Cork Examiner ; he did not tell me. 
 
 You were not able to go the following Sunday ; 
 when did you go ? — At the end of July. I think the 
 Pressman called upon me the day after I was shot. 
 
 Had you ever been summoned to attend at the 
 League, or requested to do so, until this Pressman 
 asked you to go ? — No. 
 
 Had you ever attended a meeting ? — Yes. 
 
 As a member ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you ever summoned and declined to go ? — No. 
 
 Your Lordships will see the object of this. The 
 Attornoy-tieneral in his speech said, " Your Lordships 
 will find that gentleman was summoned first ; did not 
 appear ; then he was shot, and then he did appear." 
 
 The A'rroENEY-GENERAl,.--You have not heard the 
 whole case yet. 
 
 SIR C. Russi£Ll,(to witness). — I want to be quite clear 
 about this ; wasanycpmplaint made of you, or were you 
 ever as k ed to attend till this Pressman asked you ? — 
 No, I am quite sure of that. 
 
 Now I want to know a little more about this busi- 
 ness. What is this bog called ? — Ardraban bog ; a 
 good deal of it is spent bog, on which grass is grow- 
 ing. The tenants whose lands join that bog claim the 
 right to cut turf and in addition the right of grazing 
 cattle in common on the bog. There were no fences 
 on it. Lord Listowel drained the bog some time ago. 
 
 Could you get at this bog except through the land 
 of the tenants about it ? — Not from my place. 
 
 What do you say the complaint was made about ? — 
 I could not tell you that. 
 
 Had not you a quarrel with a man called Doolan ? — 
 I remember him. I had no quarrel with him. I was 
 never in Court with him. 
 
 Was not there a dispute about the bog ? — Yes, some 
 of the tenants wanted to get it as grazing land and 
 some objected that it was too poor, and then Lord 
 Listowel wished to deal with it as a bog, to cut turf 
 in it. Lord Listowel appointed a bog-ranger name*? 
 John Murphy. 
 
 At the meeting which you attended after you were 
 shot was O'Connor, the secretary, present ? — Yes. 
 
 Was the Rev. T. H. Brosnan present ? — Yes, in the 
 chair. A man named Barrett was also present. I 
 waited until the end of the proceedings. I said I 
 would give up the bog if there was any objection to 
 my keeping it. 
 
 In answer to the demand of the people to have the 
 land as grazing land, you said you would not take the 
 bog ?— Yes. 
 
 Was this resolution passed and read out : — " We 
 reiterate our condemnation of outrage in all its 
 phases, and with particular emphasis the one that has 
 been recently perpetrated on John Conway, of Kilgul- 
 bin, who has been made the victim of a cowardly 
 midnight attack " ? — Yes. ' 
 
 Was it published in the newspapers ? — I heard it 
 was. I cannot read. 
 
 Did you hear that it was published in the Freeman's 
 Journal, the Kerry Sentinel, and the Kerry Reporter ? — 
 I did not see them. The witness added something 
 which was not audible in the body of the court. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — He said that this did not occur at 
 the League meeting. 
 
 The President. — He said that the resolution which 
 has been read was pa&sed. That is what I understood 
 him to say, and that is all I have got. 
 
 Sir 0. Russkix. — That is what I understood, but my 
 learned friend throws some doubt upon it. (To the 
 witness.) J. want to know whether you wero present 
 when this resolution was passed ? — I was present in 
 the League. room until the meeting broke up. 
 
 Did you hear anything said in condemnation of the 
 attack made upon you ? — No ; except from one man, 
 who asked mo whether I would give up the beg. I 
 do not know who he was. 
 
 Was any resolution passed condemning the attack 
 upon you ? — Not a man in the house said a word for or 
 against me, excopt the man who asked whether I 
 would give up the bog, and he said that would be 
 satisfaction enough. 
 
 You were understood to tell me just now that you 
 heard this resolution read — that, then, was a mis- 
 take ? — I think it was. 
 
 Did you hear that it was in the papers ? — I did. 
 
 This trouble about the bog was not the first trouble 
 you had had with your neighbours ? — Indeed it was. 
 
 John Conway. 
 
The Special Commission, November 16," 1888. 
 
 307 
 
 You made a complaint about the destruction of some 
 of your turf and £8 was awarded to you ? — No ; £25. 
 
 What became of the money ? — I got it. 
 
 What did you do with it? — I used it. 
 
 Are you sure you got the money ? — Yes, I gave some 
 to the landlord — £10 — and kept some myself. 
 
 Was this saved turf ? — Some of it. 
 
 That was a good deal of money for saved turf, was 
 it not ? — It was. 
 
 The President.— Saved turf I understand to be 
 turf cut, but not fully dried. 
 
 Sik C. Russell.— Yes, my Lord, turf cut and 
 stacked, but not completely dried. (To witness.) 
 When was it that this incident in connexion with your 
 tmf occurred ? — About three weeks before I was shot. 
 
 What was the branch of the League that you 
 attended called 1 — The Abbeydorney branch. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— Now, I will read from the 
 Attorney-General's speech a passage which he quoted : 
 — " It appears Conway cut turf in a bog at Ardrahan 
 to which he had no especial right." 
 
 SIk. Justice A. L. Smith.— The passage quoted 
 begins at the top of the page of the shorthand writer's 
 transcript. 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — I see, my Lord. " John Con- 
 way appeared before the meeting, on being com- 
 municated with by the secretary, to answer the 
 charge preferred against him a month since. It 
 appears Conway cut turf in a bog at Ardrahan to 
 which he had no especial right ; that the farmers 
 whose farms surrounded this bog had the privilege of 
 grazing their cattle thereon, which privilege has become 
 a right through lapse of time ; that any of these 
 farmers have not cut turf in the bog on this year, but 
 their right might have been weakened thereby, but 
 ' Conway cut the turf against the expressed wish of all 
 his surrounding neighbours, who were of opinion that 
 Conway's action amounted to an invasion of their 
 right. As Conway had been fired at recently, the 
 decision come to was that the League, in order to 
 show Its abhorrence of outrage, would exculpate Con- 
 way, but requested of him to forego any interference 
 in the future with the Ardrahan side of the bog, and 
 also with the Baltovin side, until his father's right 
 would devolve on him, to which Conway assented. 
 The greatest sympathy was manifested by those present 
 towards the unfortunate man, as he was scarcely able 
 to move with the aid of a walking stick, on account 
 of the bullet which he received in the leg from the 
 party that visited him." I will make it quite clear. 
 Have you been requested or summoned or asked to go to 
 the League in respect of this conduct of yours until 
 you were asked by this mau, who said he was a 
 reporter on a newspaper ?— No. 
 
 By Mr. Harbington,— I was awarded £25 compensa- 
 tion by the grand jury. That was the whole amount 
 of my claim. 
 
 Who was the chairman of the Presentment Sessions 
 at which you made your claim ? — Mr. Crosby. 
 
 Is he your landlord ?— No. 
 
 Who is ?— Lord Listowel. 
 
 Did you ever get into your hands the money awarded 
 by the grand jury ?— With the exception of £10, which 
 was deducted, I got it. I got the balance. 
 
 You never got the whole of the money 't — It is all 
 the same, I got the balance. 
 
 Answer my question. Did you ever get the whole 
 of the money into your hands ?— I did not. I got £15 
 of it. 
 
 What became of the rest ? Did you get the £25 
 from the secretary to the grand jury ?— No, £10 of it 
 was handed to the land agent. 
 
 Was it taken for your own rent ?— Yes. 
 
 Was your land agent any relative of the chairman of 
 the grand jury ? — Yes, his brother. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Was Lord Listowel's land agent 
 on the Presentment Sessions ? — He was. 
 
 And this compensation money is levied on the cess- 
 payers or occupiers and not upon the landowners ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — I wanted part of the turf for my 
 own use and part of it to sell. Lord Listowel allowed 
 me to sell turf from the bog. I should have sold the 
 turf at Tralee, which is about five Irish miles from the 
 bog. 
 
 And you got from the grand jury as compensation for 
 turf on the bog a sum of money equal to what it was 
 worth when carted into Tralee ? — Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — I had a 
 horse and cart of my own and had been working to 
 get this turf. I meant to carry it in my own cart into 
 Tralee to sell. 
 
 How long after you were shot at was it that you got 
 this money ? — About 12 months. It was about three 
 weeks before I was shot at that the turf was de- 
 stroyed. The turf was thrown back into the place 
 from where I got it. 
 
 What was the name of the secretary of the League ? 
 — Dan Connor. 
 
 Was this man from Cork who spoke to you a 
 stranger to you ? — He was, Sir. 
 
 Had you seen the secretary a few weeks before 
 that ?— No, Sir. 
 
 Did you have any message from him ? — No, Sir. I 
 had seen nobody. 
 
 Who was it made the charge, and asked you to give 
 up the bog at the League meeting ? — I do not know, 
 Sir. Somebody at the meeting asked me whether I 
 would give it up. I do not remember anything that 
 passed at the meeting except that. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— My Lords, there is some little 
 confusion about dates. (To witness.) Are you accurate 
 when you say that the day on which you were shot at 
 was July 10 ? — It was about July 16 or 17. 
 
 The President. — The Attorney-General in his 
 speech appears to quote from something :— " John Con- 
 way appeared before the meeting, on being com- 
 municated with by the secretary, to answer the charge 
 preferred against him." I do not know what that 
 purports to be quoted from. 
 
 John Conway. 
 
SOS 
 
 TEe Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 I. The Attorney-General. — From a newspaper report 
 of the meeting, my Lord, which will be put in evi- 
 dence before your Lordships. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— It was that that I had in my 
 mind when I asked the question as to whether any 
 complaint had been made before. 
 
 The President.— Quite so. That has been followed 
 out as far as it can be at present. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I wish now to make an applica- 
 tion, my Lords, with regard to certain letters which 
 have been examined by your Lordships and ordered to 
 be disclosed — namely, seven letters, alleged to be 
 letters of Bgan ; seven, alleged to be letters of Mr. 
 Parnell ; one, alleged to be Mr. Davitt's, and two, 
 which I am told are genuine letters of Mr. Davitt's, 
 making altogether 17 letters. My application is that 
 these letters, which 1 understand have been handed to 
 Mr. Soames, should be lodged with the Secretary to 
 the Commission. 
 
 The President. — Having been delivered into Court, 
 they are in the custody of the Court. They have only 
 been handed out for use. Of course they must be 
 delivered out for use. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am told they are quite 
 safe, my Lord. Mr. Soames only applies for them 
 when necessary to communicate with a witness in 
 reference to them or for the purposes of the case. He 
 always delivers them back again to the Court. 
 
 The President. — I am sure you will be satisfied, Sir 
 Charles, with the statement that they are pnly handed 
 out to Mr. Soames for his use. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — 1 am satisfied with the statement, 
 but I was told that possession of them had been given 
 to Mr. Soames. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— It has been the practice 
 hitherto to hand documents back to each side. 
 
 The President. — What mischief do you surmise may 
 arise from Mr. Soames having had possession of 
 them? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — None in the least, my Lord, but 
 we desire that they should be in the possession of the 
 Court. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— A schedule of them has 
 been made. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have not yet seen these docu- 
 ments, and, of course, I shall want to. 
 
 The Court, then adjourned for luncheon. 
 
 On resuming, 
 
 Pat Sullivan was called. Examined by the At- 
 torney-General, he said,— I am a State bailiff at 
 Ballinorig Causeway. I am also steward and bog- 
 ranger to John Leahy at Killarney. I remember Mrs. 
 Connor. She was a tenant on one of the properties — 
 On the property of Mr. Leahy. She died, I think, 
 about the end of the year 1881 or early in 1882. After 
 her death I was told by the landlord to demand pos- 
 session from her daughter and son-in-law. I demanded 
 possession on two or three occasions. 
 
 Do you remember one day in 1882 something happen- 
 ing to you ?— On the night of June 24, 1881 or 1882, 
 I cannot exactly say which year, I had been to Tralee, 
 and after I got home in the evening a man came to 
 the door of my house and called me out. I went out 
 and found two men there. One of the men caught 
 me by the arm and said, " You demanded possession 
 from a man named Reilly." I replied that I did hot 
 demand possession from Reilly but from Connor, for 
 the purpose of making a tenant of him. The man 
 then pulled a revolver from his pocket and fired. 
 Altogether about eight shots were fired. Four shots 
 Struck me. 
 
 Who was Connor ? — He was the man who wanted to 
 have the place in succession to his mother-in-law. 
 
 Had you any difficulty with your neighbours to cause 
 your being shot ? — I do not know that there was. 
 
 Except that you had asked for possession in this case 
 had you done anything to give offence to anybody ? — I 
 cannot remember having done so. About a month after 
 I was shot I went to Connor and then he made terms 
 with the agent. 
 
 Do you remember some time after you were shot 
 being called upon to attend a meeting ? — Yes ; the 
 meeting was held at the Causeway. It was a Land 
 League meeting and I got word to attend. As far as I 
 recollect it was my sister-in-law who brought me 
 word. A tenant of mine named Joy had complained 
 that I had too much rent from him. Father Enright, 
 the parish priest, was present, and Conrior. 
 
 What did the League tell you to do ? — They asked 
 me to reduce the rent. 
 
 How used Joy to pay his rent ? — By doing 20 days' 
 work a year for me. The League asked whether I 
 would be content with 15 days, and I said I would. 
 
 Did they say anything as to what would happen to 
 you if you were to refuse ? — No. 
 
 Were you called before the League again ? — No ; 
 that was the only time. 
 
 Had you attended any other League meetings ? — No. 
 
 How long had this branch of the League been 
 established ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Did you ever find out who was the man who shot 
 you ? — I did not. 
 
 He was never tried or brought to justice ? — I could 
 not recognize him because he was disguised. There wer8 
 two men, and I have not discovered either of hem. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — One of the men 
 was not disguised, but I could not observe him. He 
 was holding me by the arm. I could not tell exactly 
 how many tenants Mr. Leahy had. I was bailiff. 
 There had been no evictions on Mr. Leahy's property 
 Up to the time about which I have been speaking. 
 Mrs. Connor was the tenant of a farm under Mr. 
 Leahy. She died. Her husband had been the tenant 
 before her. I could not tell you whether his fatheJ 
 was there before him.' I rather think he had soma 
 place close by. Mrs. Connor had a daughter who had 
 married a man of the same n^me and he lived with his 
 mother-in-law in her lifetime and worked the farm. 1 
 
 Pat Sullivan, 
 
.The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 309 
 
 could not say for how many years he lived with Mrs. 
 Connor, bat at the time of her death his children were 
 growing up. They are now 17 and 18 years of age. 
 He lived with his mother-in-law from the time of 
 Ins marriage. 
 
 Did he pay the rent ? — The name of the mother-in- 
 law appeared on the landlord's books, bnt the son 
 worked the farm. Sometimes the mother-in-law brought 
 the rent and sometimes the daughter. 
 
 After Mrs. Connor's death her son-in-law continued to 
 life at the house and work the farm ? — He did. 
 
 And the landlord wanted to turn him out ? — He said 
 that the mother-in-law was the tenant. 
 
 But the mother-in-law was dead. Did Connor go 
 with his rent and ask to be allowed to continue as 
 tenant ? — I think he did, Sir, but I cannot say. 
 
 And the landlord would not agree to that arrange- 
 ment ? — The landlord said he could not receive the 
 money from him until he had been made a tenant. 
 
 After that the landlord and Connor came to terms ? — 
 Yes, about a month after I was shot. My mother 
 begged me to go to Connor. (The rest of the answer 
 was given- with great volubility and was only intelli- 
 gible to those who were close to the witness.) 
 
 The President. — I am trying to follow this, Sir 
 Charles, but it is hard to do so. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — He said that his mother begged 
 him to go to Connor, and that at first he did not want 
 to go. (To witness.) Did you suspect that Connor had 
 something to do with the shooting ? — (The answer was 
 not intelligible.) 
 
 You had a suspicion in your mind that he had some- 
 thing to do with it ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — He has said nothing of 
 the kind. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am cross-examining, Mr. 
 Attorney. (To witness.) Why were you unwilling to 
 go when your mother begged you to go ? You had a 
 suspicion in your mind that Connor had something to 
 do with the shooting ? — Well, many things come into 
 a man's head to which he would not swear. 
 
 Ultimately your mother prevailed upon you, and you 
 went, and Connor was accepted as a tenant ? — He was. 
 
 And you are on friendly terms now, I hope ? — Yes. 
 
 Now tell me about this meeting at the Causeway.— 
 Some man told my sister-in-law to give me word. As 
 far as I understand Father Enright told one of the 
 men to write to me. 
 
 There was a man called Joy who was a tenant of 
 yours ? — Yes. He held about half an acre from me, 
 and he used to pay me by 20 days' work. He did 
 not pay me any money. 
 
 He complained that the terms were too hard ? — He 
 asked me to grant a reduction, and said that if I 
 refused he would carry the matter before the League, 
 and I said that I did not care. 
 
 What was the redaction he asked for ? Was it ten 
 days ? — I cannot exactly say. 
 ', Did he want to get off doing the work and to pay 
 
 for the half acre at the same rate as you were paying 
 the landlord for the farm ? — Yes; by his labour. 
 
 You went before the League ? — I did, and they said 
 that Joy had belied me. 
 
 Thsn the people at the meeting took your side of 
 the question ? — That is so. 
 
 They said that he was asking an unreasonable re- 
 duction ? — Yes. 
 
 And then they asked you whether you would be 
 satisfied with 15 days' work ?— Yes. 
 
 And you said you would be and agreed ? — Yes, but I 
 was so disgusted with him that I did not ask him to 
 work for some time. 
 
 Was there any attempt on the part of the League to 
 treat you unfairly or bully you ? — No ; as far as I 
 could understand some people connected with the farm 
 wanted me to be boycotted, but Mr. Harrington put 
 it in the Press that I should not be interfered with. 
 
 And you were not boycotted ? — I was not. 
 
 Is there any ground for saying that any one con> 
 nected with the League had anything to do with the 
 attack upon you ? — It is my opinion that they had 
 not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — Do you own your 
 land ? — I have it from the landlord ; I am a tenant. 
 
 Do you intend to buy your land under Lord Ash- 
 bourne's Act if you have the chance ? — I had a chance 
 of buying once, but the figure was too high. 
 
 You charged Joy 20 days' labour for half an acre . 
 What would the labour be worth ? — A shilling a day. 
 
 That would be £2 an acre per year ? — Yes. 
 
 How much do you pay per acre for your farm ? — £1 
 per acre. 
 
 Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.— When you 
 went to Connor's house, after you were shot, were you 
 under police protection ? — I was. 
 
 After you had been shot you went under police pro« 
 tection, and took the farm and fastened the door ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Was that after Connor came to you and showed you 
 a letter from the landlord ? — The same day. 
 
 Had you anything to do with Connor being made a 
 tenant ?— No. 
 
 Did you do anything with the agent with the view of 
 haviug Connor made a tenant ? — I did not. 
 
 Had you any suspicion that it was Connor who shot 
 you ? — I had not. 
 
 Until this suggestion, made to-day by Sir Charles 
 Russell, did you ever suspect Connor of having shot 
 you ? — No. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I did not suggest that Connor shot 
 him, but that he had something to do with it. 
 
 The Attorney-GeneraI/. — Did you ever think before 
 that Connor shot you, or had anything to do with it ?"" 
 I did not. 
 
 Have you been talking to anybody to-day, Sullivan ? 
 —No, Sir. 
 
 Sure ? — I was talking to a good many. 
 
 To whom have you been talking to-day, tell me ':••«■ 
 To Conway, the last witness. 
 
 Fat Sullivan. 
 
310 
 
 The Special Commission, November 16, 1888.' 
 
 To whom else ?— A policeman. 
 
 Any one else ?— No, Sir, not that I remember. 
 
 Sure ? — (The witness was understood to mention 
 another name.) 
 
 . You were called just before the Court adjourned ; 
 did you during the adjournment, when their Lordships 
 were away, talk to anybody ? — I spoke to a police- 
 man and to Mr. Soames's manager outside. 
 
 You spoke to no other gentleman ?— I do not think 
 I did. 
 
 Did anybody else speak to you ? — The man in charge 
 of the court-house told me I should wait until I was 
 called- 
 
 I ask again, since you came here this morning have 
 you spoken to anybody else ? — I do not think I did. 
 
 Are you quite sure ? — I cannot remember. 
 
 Have you spoken to either of the Mr. Harringtons ? 
 -No. 
 
 Do you know either of the Mr. Harringtons ? 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington.— Perhaps I maybe allowed to 
 say that I can just guess the direction of this examina- 
 tion, and that I do not remember ever seeing this man 
 before in my life. I have no knowledge whatever of 
 him. 
 
 The President. — No, no ; you cannot interpose 
 now. 
 
 Mr. Edward Harrington (who stood up in the well of 
 the court). — I think it an unfair and impudent sugges- 
 tion, my Lord. I have never seen this man before to- 
 day. It is very hard to have our names brought in by 
 the Attorney-General, who during the time he was 
 asking these questions was looking at me. 
 
 The President (warmly). — This is quite irregular. 
 You, at least (addressing Mr. T. Harrington), must 
 know as counsel that it is most irregular. You cannot 
 take part in these proceedings both as counsel and wit- 
 ness. You must not interfere in this way. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington. — I am not appearing as a wit- 
 ness, my Lord. I am 
 
 The President (sternly). — You must not interfere 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington. — My name has been mentioned, 
 and perhaps I may claim your indulgence 
 
 The President. — That is no reason for you to inter- 
 fere now, and I must desire that you will cease at 
 once. It is no justification for your appearing both as 
 counsel and witness. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— The Attorney-General has put a 
 question to the witness, mentioning Mr. Harrington's 
 name. 
 
 The President. — That is no excuse for this irregu- 
 larity. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington (while the President was still 
 Bpeaking). — I am not appearing as a witness. I 
 appear as a professional man, and I think I 
 have a right to be heard when my name has been 
 mentioned by the Attorney-General. I have a right to 
 protest against these base insinuations. 
 
 The President (rising). — Letthe Court be adjourned. 
 
 Mr. Harrington again rose to speak, but was inter- 
 rupted by 
 
 The President, who again said, — Let the Court be 
 adjourned. 
 
 The Commissioners then left the bench. 
 
 There was considerable doubt in Court whether the 
 Judges would sit any more during the day. However, 
 after an absence of eight or nine minutes their Lord- 
 ships returned. 
 
 The Attorney-General rose to continue the re-ex- 
 amination of the witness, but 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington, interrupting, said :— Mr. 
 Attorney-General, — Will you allow me to say a word ? 
 I did not mean any disrespect to the Court, nor did I 
 mean to annoy your Lordships to auy extent whatever. 
 Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say that your 
 observation to me, saying that I could not be counsel 
 and witness at the same time, seemed to cast some 
 doubt upon the declaration that I had no communica- 
 tion with the witness. That is the reason lor tne neat 
 I exhibited, and for which, I think, I ought to express 
 my regret. . 
 
 The President. — I found myself unable to preserve 
 what I considered to be decorum in the Court, since it 
 is usual for all persons alike to obey the directions of 
 the Court. I therefore adjourned in order that the 
 heat might subside, and that we might continue to 
 do things in a more orderly manner. I am very glad 
 to receive Mr. Harrington's statement that he did uot 
 intend to offer any offence to the Court ; but I must 
 repeat, and I hope it will be remembered, that a per- 
 son has no right, while an examination of a witness is 
 going on, to rise and challenge his statement. The 
 opportunity must be waited for until the person who 
 denies the assertion can be put into the box to contra- 
 dict it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, it was not a statement 
 of the witness's. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Nor was it a statement 
 of mine. I repeat my question. (To witness.) Do 
 you know either of the Mr. Harringtons ? — No, I do 
 not, Sir. 
 
 You said that Mr. Harrington said you should not 
 be interfered with ? — I heard he had put it in the 
 public Press. I do not know which Mr. Harrington 
 that was. I may have seen him. 
 
 Did you soe him ? — As far as I can remember I saw 
 one ; but I cannot say which. 
 
 Do you know Mr. Harrington when you seo him or 
 not ? — I would not know him. 
 
 Are you quite sure ? — I am, Sir. 
 
 What was it you had done which was brought before 
 Mr. Harrington ? — They wanted to get me boycotted, 
 and Mr. Harrington put it in the public Press that I 
 should not be interfered with. 
 
 Who was it who wanted to get you boycotted ?— 
 Neighbours of mine, Sir, who wanted to get the farm 
 themselves. 
 
 You stated Joy wanted to take you before the 
 League, and you said you would not go — you did not 
 care about it ? — I said I did not care, I think that 
 is all I said. 
 
 Fat Sullivan. 
 
The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 311 
 
 Giles Raie was the next witness, and was examined 
 by Mr. Atkinson. Witness said, — 1 live at Killiney, 
 Castle Gregory, county Kerry. I was 74 years of age 
 last August. About the end of 1885 I had some writs 
 to serve on people living about Castle Gregory, I 
 had to serve them on Michael Leary, Michael O'Donnell, 
 and John Dean, on behalf of Mr.Arthur Blennerhassett; 
 they were his tenants. Up to the time of serving these 
 writs 1 was ou good terms with my neighbours. I had 
 no difficulty in getting provisions until after the service 
 of the writs. After the writs were served I was able 
 to get no provisions but bread. The people from 
 whom I had been accustomed to get these things 
 before refused to supply me, and I could not get a 
 horse or a cart or anything else. In January, 1886, 
 very few of the people would speak to me. 
 
 For instance, when you went to mass upon a Sunday, 
 would the people speak to you in the chapel yard ? — 
 I never go to mass at all. (Laughter.) 
 
 Are you a Protestant ? — Yes. In January, 1886, I 
 served a writ on a man named James Connor. He is a 
 member of the League. I know bis brother-in-law, a 
 man named Cokeley. Some few days after the service 
 of the last writ on Connor, a number of men came to 
 my house at 8 o'clock at night. They were disguised. 
 I and my family were at supper at the time. They 
 blindfolded my wife, and four of them got me, one to 
 the right and one to the left, one behind and one 
 before, and they held me down and cut off my right 
 ear. Not a word did they speak. 
 
 They did not say why they did it ? — They did not 
 speak a word. Not a syllable did they speak. I did 
 not know any of them. Except the service of the 
 writs I do not see that I have done anything to anybody 
 to cause enmity towards me. 
 
 After your ear was cut off were you able to get 
 provisions ? — Well, Sir, I had some potatoes. 
 
 Do you know what being boycotted is ? — I do, well ; 
 I was boycotted after the writs were served, and I am 
 still boycotted and am under police protection. I was 
 first put under police protection directly after they cut 
 off my ear. 
 
 Cross-examined by SlE C. Russell. — Were they 
 disguised in any way, the people who perpetrated this 
 gross outrage upon you ? — Yes, with masks, and they 
 had blackened (heir faces. I cannot tell where they 
 camo from. 
 
 Do you know the treasurer of the League ?-^-I do 
 not, Sir. 1 do not know anything about the League. 
 
 I think you do ? — I do not, Sir ; if I did I would tell 
 you. 
 
 Who is tho man you deal with for goods at Castle 
 Gregory ? — His name is O'Donnell. 
 
 Is he a member of the Land League 1 — I think he is. 
 
 Do you know whether he is the treasurer ? — I do not 
 know anything about it, Sir. 
 
 You knew he was a Land Leaguer ; but did not know 
 that he was the treasurer ? — I knew nothing about it, 
 Sir. 
 
 Did you, the morning after this outrage on you, call 
 at his house ? — No, I did not. 
 
 Do you not remember taking a little cheque 
 to him the next morning, to ask him to 
 bank it at Tralee for you ? — No, Sir, I did not ; not 
 at that time. 
 
 Do you recollect the transaction I refer to when 
 you asked O'Donnell to bank a little cheque for you 
 at Tralee ? — I do not know whether I had a cheque at 
 the time at all. I do not think I had. 
 
 Do you recollect calling on him? — On the doctor ? 
 
 On O'Donnell ? — He often used to change my 
 cheques. 
 
 I am asking you, Mr. Raie, whether, after this out- 
 rage was committed — a few days after, if not the next 
 day — you did not call on the Land League treasurer, 
 or a man you knew was a member of the Land League, 
 and ask him to bank a little cheque for you ? — I was 
 laid up for a month ; I was laid up for a long tim'e. 
 
 So you were not out ? — No. 
 
 Do you read the papers, Raie ? — Yes. 
 
 What papers do you read ? — The police had a news- 
 paper every week, and I read it. 
 
 What papers did you read ? — The Times, Sir. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 That is no.t the Printing-house-square Times ? — Tho 
 Irish Times. 
 
 Any other papers ? — The Chronicle. 
 
 The Sporting Chronicle ? — No, the Limerick Chronicle. 
 
 Did you see the resolutions of the Land League 
 branch of Castle Gregory which they passed after 
 the outrage on you ? — I know nothing about the 
 League. 
 
 I acquit you of all part with them ; I am not 
 accusing you, Mr. Raie. — You cannot, Sir. 
 
 I am asking you, did you see the resolutions published 
 in the newspapers after the outrage committed on you ? 
 — I cannot say. 
 
 Did you see a resolution condemning in the strongest 
 possible manner the disgraceful and cowardly outrages 
 that had recently taken place ? — I cannot say whether 
 I did, Sir, or not. 
 
 You forget it if you did ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you not know that the Land League condemned as 
 strongly as they could the outrage ? — I do not know, 
 Sir ; I know nothing at all about the League. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 I see you are afraid of being brought Did you ever 
 
 charge the Land League with the attack on you? — No. 
 
 Did you ever suggest that ? — No, I did not. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — I see that, like myself, yoti have 
 the misfortune of having lost an arm. — I have. 
 
 How raviy police have you at Castle Gregory ?— 
 There are five. 
 
 And, I think, a number in the surrounding localities? 
 — I do not know how many. 
 
 Did they seriously try to find the scoundrels who 
 perpetrated this outrage on you ? — They started to try 
 to do so. 
 
 Giles Raie. 
 
312 
 
 The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 And they failed to bring any one to justice ?— They 
 did. 
 
 Be-examined by the Attorney-General. — I was 
 never able to find out who committed the outrage. I 
 was laid up a full month. 
 
 It is a mistake that you went out the next day and 
 saw the treasurer of the Land League ? — I did no such 
 thing. ?i , 
 
 The next witness was Alexander Bennett, who was 
 examined by Mr. Eonan. The witness said, — I am 
 land steward to Mr. Arthur Blennerhassett, of Bally- 
 seedy, Tralee. I remember attending a LaDd League 
 meeting at Ahane, county Kerry. Mr. Timothy 
 Harrington made a speech at that meeting. I think 
 it was in 1880. The meeting was about three- 
 quarters of a mile from a farm held by a man named 
 Poff. Poff was evicted in 1881. That farm is on 
 Mr. Blennerhassett's property. A man named Fitz- 
 gerald was the first man put in charge. When he left 
 a man named Keefe was put in. I remember Keefe coming 
 to me and reporting that he was fired at coming home, 
 and I went to the police with him and reported the 
 matter. Keefe then gave up the care of the farm. J 
 then put John and Thomas Clifford in the farm. On 
 the morning of November 7 John Clifford told me that 
 his brother had been visited by the moonlighters and 
 that he had been shot in the leg. I went to the 
 house and found the man sitting on a chair by the 
 side of the fire, with a coat thrown over his 
 shoulders. Four bullets had passed through his thigh 
 and one had lodged in his back. The Cliffords then 
 gave up the care of the farm. The next man was 
 Patrick Cahill. He reported to mo on June 15 that 
 he was fired at. He obtained police protection. On 
 June 27 I saw Cahill's body and counted four bullet- 
 marks on him. He was dead. The place where I 
 found him was between PofE's farm and his own 
 house. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Eussell.— Mr. S. M. 
 Hussey was agent at that time. I think Poff was 
 evicted from bis farm in 1881, in the month of May ; 
 but I would not be sure. I think the ejectment decree 
 was obtained against him some 12 months before that, 
 about May, 1880. Very few of Mr. Blennerhassett's 
 tenants have been in the Land Court. He has several 
 hundred tenants. I could not tell you how many 
 exactly. Very few of them in proportion have been 
 in the Land Court ; a good many of them have settled 
 before going into Court. Before giving notice the 
 reduction of the rents was from 15 to 25 per cent. 
 
 Was it from 20 to 30 per cent ? — Reduction ? 
 
 Ay.— No, Sir. 
 
 Where was Poff 's farm ? — In the townland of Mount 
 Nicholas, Sir, about three and a half or four miles 
 from Tralee. I live about two and three-quarter miles 
 from Tralee. 
 
 Now, I understand you to say that John Clifford 
 reported that his brother had been visited by moon- 
 lighters and was shot in the leg. That is not the first 
 
 time you have heard of these moonlight visits ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 How many years have you lived in Kerry ? — Twenty 
 years on the 11th of January next. 
 
 What are the names of the secret societies in Kerry '{ 
 — I do not know, Sir. I do not know anything at all 
 about them. 
 
 What are the names they go by ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 Eockites, Moonlighters, Ribbonmen ? — I know the 
 moonlighters. 
 
 Though you are not, of course, friends with them 
 yourself, you know there are many members of secret 
 societies in Kerry ? — No doubt about it. 
 
 Do you know how many evictions have taken plact 
 in Kerry from 1879 to 1881 ?— I could not tell you. 
 
 By Mr. HARRINGTON.— This meeting you spoke oi 
 was held how long before the eviction of Poff ? — 1 
 think in the November before it. 
 
 Do you remember what that meeting Was about ? — > 
 Yes, it was with reference to Sheehy's eviction. 
 
 Do you know anything about his holding ?— Yes. 
 
 What was the Government valuation ? — £1. 
 
 And the yearly rent ? — £6. 
 
 Are you quite sure it was not £10, ten times the 
 valuation. Did you hear that referred to at the meet- 
 ing ? — I did not hear that. It is not £6 now ; the 
 man has never paid a farthing since you made that 
 speech. (Laughter.) 
 
 How long before that was he evicted ? — A month or 
 two before. 
 
 Are you aware that I paid half the arrears for which 
 he was evicted ? — I do not know that. 
 
 Do you know anything about an arrangement which 
 Mr. Hussey and I made in court ? — I did not hear you 
 paid any money. I heard he was to get back by pay- 
 ing £6. I did not hear anything about arrears, but I 
 believe they were to be wiped out. 
 
 Had that man been evicted some time previously by 
 Mr. Hussey ? — I do not think he was evicted. 
 
 Evicted and restored as caretaker ? — Yes. 
 F> Do you remember when Mr. Hussey was standing as 
 candidate for Tralee he allowed this man to till his 
 farm after he was evicted ? — There was not much till- 
 ing upon it ; there was a little bit. 
 
 Did you take part in tearing down that unfortu- 
 nate man's house ? — No, I was not present ; my men 
 were there ; they took the roof off the house. 
 
 He was warned to leave the place and summoned as 
 a trespasser by Mr. Hussey ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hussey did not succeed ? — Mr. Hussey did not 
 press the charge. 
 
 Were you in Court as a witness ? — No, I was not in 
 Court at all. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Poff was afterwards executed ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 The trial, I think, was at Cork. Do you know 
 whether the jury was packed or not ? — I could not tell 
 you. 
 
 Do not you happen to know what the general opinion 
 of the neighbourhood was ? 
 
 Alexander Bennett. 
 
The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 yi3 
 
 The President. — Mr. Biggar, I am very unwilling 
 to interfere with a gentleman who is acting on his 
 own hehalf, but you should not put that question, 
 which you put to a witness previously, as to a jury 
 being packed, because no witness is in a position to 
 answer that. 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — I submit that one of the charges made 
 in the Attorney-General's speech was that I said at a 
 meeting in this county that it was desirable that 
 prisoners should have a fair trial, and it is notorious 
 that in political and agrarian trials ]ury packing is 
 taking place. Therefore, I submit it is competent for 
 me to prove that there is jury packing. In fact the 
 Attorney-General for Ireland is known as " Peter the 
 Packer." (Laughter.) 
 
 The witness was then re-examined by Mr. Murphy. 
 — Prior to 1879 did you ever know of outrages against 
 individuals for paying rent ? — No. 
 
 What was the position of the peasantry as to paying 
 rents in 1879 ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That question does not in any way 
 arise out of my cross-examination. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — You asked about reduction of rent 
 and so on. 
 
 Witness. — They were very quiet, and paid rent up 
 to 1879. I never heard of moonlighters before 1879. 
 Land League meetings were first held in my county 
 in that year. I never heard the word " land-grabber" 
 before 1879. 
 
 In what capacity did Mr. Hussey attend the Land 
 Court ? — For the purpose of assisting Sheehy. 
 
 Edward Herbert, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I 
 am a publican at Ballyduff ; I succeeded to my father's 
 business in 1874. After that the County Court Judge 
 appointed me bailiff. Up to 1881 I was on very good 
 terms with my neighbours. In the beginning of 1881 
 a communication was made to ma about serving pro- 
 cesses, and in a conversation I was warned that I 
 would get into trouble. One of the men who came 
 was Martin Sullivan, who was secretary of the Land 
 League at the time. I promised not to serve writs 
 for rent, bat said I would serve writs from the bar- 
 rister, and would not give up my position. 
 
 After this did you find any alteration in customers 
 coming to your house ? — Yes. At the end of 1881 I 
 returned some writs to the landlord of the property. 
 Immediately after that I got from him several eject- 
 ment writs, one of them against my own father. I 
 served all these, and also writs from other landlords. 
 The Sunday after I returned from Listowel Sessions I 
 was informed that there was a notice on the chapel 
 gate. I went and saw it. It called on thepeopleto 
 boycott me severely, and said that as I was doing land- 
 lords' business I should live by the landlords, or words 
 to that effect. After that I was boycotted. 
 
 Had you difficulty then in getting work done for you ? 
 — Yes, I had to bring strangers from Tralee. I had also 
 to get provisions from Tralee, 12 miles off. If I ran 
 short some of my neighbours might steal them to me 
 
 after nightfall. When I walked about I was hooted and 
 hissed. 
 
 Were stones thrown at you ? — Yes, and at members 
 of my family. Eventually I got police protection, which 
 lasted about eight or nine months. 
 
 How long did this state of things continue?— 
 Till the Land League was suppressed ; then a 
 change came over the demeanour of the people. 
 Less than two years afterwards the National League 
 was established in Ballyduff . I was then again boy- 
 cotted, and could get nothing in the village. 
 
 Had you done anything in the meantime to call for 
 the interference of the National League ? — About a, 
 month after I was first boycotted in May, 1881, I ap- 
 plied for and got an appointment as rent-Warner to Mr. 
 J. Stoughton. I had a licence as a publican for 
 about two years, and then I had to give up The busi- 
 ness, because I could get no business. I previously 
 had a good basiness, as my father before me had. 
 
 You have told me that the boycott began again 
 when the National League was established at Bally- 
 duff. Had you before that time taken some land P — I 
 had taken the grazing of a farm in May, 1883, from 
 which the tenant had been evicted — Brassle. 
 
 When was it that the National League was 
 established ? — It was early in 1886, somewhere 
 about March, 188C. The boycotting came on 
 again at that time. I was not present at any meeting 
 of the League. I saw paragraphs referring to me ia 
 speeches reported in the local paper. 
 
 I do not know whether you were present when 
 anything happened to your daughter ? — I was present 
 when she returned. She was going to my sister's, and 
 on the way some women turned her back and chased 
 her. She was very much terrified. She was only ten 
 years old. 
 
 Do you remember anything happening to your 
 father ? — Yes. He was over 70 years of age, and on 
 one occasion he returned home bleeding. 
 
 What had happened to him ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood objected. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — You only heard what happened to 
 your father ? — That is all, Sir, but I saw him bleeding. 
 
 Do you remember in June, 1886, coming home from 
 the sessions from Tralee ? — Yes, it was at 11 o'clock 
 at night, I think. About half-way between Tralee 
 and my house I was fired at. I was driving alone, and 
 three or four men, I cannot exactly say how many of 
 them, fired eight or ten shots at me, I should think, 
 I was hit on the right arm. There were six bullet 
 holes in my overcoat and another struck the car. The 
 bullet was extracted from my arm. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — This took place 
 on my way home from Tralee, about six Irish milos 
 from the place where I live. There was nobody with 
 me. There were six bullet holes in my coat. One 
 bullet Btruck the loose part of my coat over my 
 knees, another struck a button, and the others were 
 in the tails of my coat. One was in my arm. 
 
 Yes. wo know about that. Tlhit was the only one 
 
 Edward Herbert. 
 
314 
 
 The Special Commission, November 16, 1S88. 
 
 that succeeded in getting through your coat. What 
 was the name of the medical man who attended you ? — 
 Dr. Fitzmaurice, of the infirmary at Tralee. I believe 
 I stayed about six weeks in the infirmary. 
 
 With regard to the little girl who was brought back 
 frightened. What time had the gone out ? — It was in 
 the afternoon, about 3 or 4 o'clock. She was brought 
 back by some of the neighbours. 
 
 You read the Kerry Sentinel, I believe ? — Some- 
 times. 
 
 Did you see in that paper from, time to time that 
 outrages were denounced by the Ballyduff branch of 
 the League ? — I saw one ; I remember reading of one 
 man named Conway. 
 
 You do not seem to understand the question. Did 
 you, when reading the Ktrry Sentinel, see from time 
 to time denouncements of outrage by the League ? — I 
 do not remember seeing that on more than one occa- 
 sion ; on the contrary, they made little of every out- 
 rage. 
 
 You became bailiff on the estate of Mr. Stough- 
 ton ?— Yes. 
 
 Had there been a great number of evictions there ? — 
 There were four or five in th« year I became bailiff. I 
 am not aware that there were any before I became rent- 
 warner. I was not appointed with the special object of 
 carrying out these evictions. I believe they were not 
 contemplated before I was appointed. 
 
 Have you any knowledge of the amount of reductions 
 that were made upon that estate on the applications 
 that were made to the Land Court ? — I was present 
 when mo3t of them were heard. 
 
 Just listen to the names I am going to read, and 
 tell me whether they are tenants on Mr. Stoughton's 
 estate — Mary Costelloe, Horgan, James Kelly, Patrick 
 Casay, Timothy Shee, Dennis Dowling, John Sullivan, 
 Daniel Tracey, Denni3 Ryan, Patrick Sullivan, 
 Richard Connel, Daniel O'Donoghue, Patrick Fitz- 
 gerald ? — Kelly, Casey, Shee, Dowling, Connel, 
 O'Donoghue, and Fitzgerald were none of them tenants. 
 Well, I will take the Dames of persons who, you 
 say, were tenants on that property. Do you remember 
 the case of Dennis Ryan ?— Yes, I remember his going 
 into Court. 
 
 Was his former rent £35 ?— Well, that was the rent 
 on the books. 
 
 Do you know that the rent was reduced to £16 ? — I 
 do. 
 
 Then Mary Costelloe's rent was reduced from £44 
 to £36, another tenant's from £96 to £90, John 
 Sullivan's from £37 4s. to £32, Daniel Tracey's from 
 £46 to £40, and John Costelloe's from £24 to £16 10s. 
 Are these figures correct ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biggar. — Who supplied the 
 horses for the policemen's car when they were protect- 
 ing you 1 — John William O'Connor drove the car up to 
 the time of my father's funeral. 
 
 Did you ever supply the horses yourself ? — The 
 witness was understood to reply that he did supply 
 the horses after he had been fired at. 
 
 Do you know whether the summer of 1879 was a 
 good season for crops ? — I know there was great de- 
 pression. In some cases the landlords endeavoured to 
 levy the full rents, but on the property with which I 
 was connected that was not the rule. 
 
 Do you happen to have heard whether any secret 
 societies existed in Kerry ? — I never heard of one till 
 the Land League was established. I had read of it, 
 but I do not believe there was anything of that nature 
 in our part of the country. 
 
 Do you suggest that the National League was a 
 secret society ? — I could not say what it was. I 
 never attended it. But of one thirg I have no doubt — 
 that it encouraged the outrages. 
 
 That is your opinion ; you have no knowledge, have 
 you ? — No. I have read of Ribbonmen and White- 
 boyism. 
 
 You read of these before 1S79 ? — Oh ! yes, hundreds 
 of years ago. (Laughter.) 
 
 Re-examined by SiR H. JAME3. — Did you have any 
 Ribbonmen or Whiteboys in Kerry? — Not to my re- 
 collection. I never heard of their moonlighting in 
 my neighbourhood. 
 
 Until the Land League interfered did you ever hear 
 the term " land-grabber " ? — No. 
 
 When did you become bailiff ?— In May, 1S81. I 
 had lived on the property previously. 
 
 What had been the terms existing between the land- 
 lord and tenants before 1881 ? 
 
 Mr. LoCKWOOD. — This does not arise out of the 
 cross-examination. 
 
 Sir H. Jambs. — The witness has been examined as 
 to alleged excessive rents, and a list of reduced rents 
 has been produced. I thought it was intended to show 
 that there was discontent due to the high rents, and I 
 wish to prove that there was do discontent. (To the 
 witness.) On- what terms were the landlord and the 
 tenants before the Land League came into existence ? 
 — There was some little murmuring at the end of 
 
 1879. Some reductions were asked for, and the agent 
 did not see his way to grant them." 
 
 You have told us of one man who did not pay his 
 rent ?— Yes. He owed £100, and I think it has never 
 been demanded. His rental was £30 or £35, and it 
 was reduced to £16. The explanation was that tho 
 river broke loose, and flowed over his land. 
 
 Sergeant William Flynn, examined by Mr. MuRpny, 
 said, — I was stationed in Ballyduff at the beginning of 
 
 1880, and remained there four years. The Land League 
 was just beginning when I went there. I knew 
 Herbert, the last witness. He was boycotted after tho 
 Land League was started. He was hooted by the 
 people when he appeared abroad. I saw the notice 
 that was posted up of which he has told us, and I re- 
 member his being fired at in 1886. He came into my 
 hut shortly afterwards, four miles from the scene of 
 the outrage. The bullet was still in his arm, and in 
 his coat there were several holes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood.— In 1880 had 
 
 Edward Herbert. 
 
 Sergeant William Flynn. 
 
The Special Commission, November 16, 1888. 
 
 315 
 
 you any knowledge of the existence of secret societies 
 in 'this district ? — No. 
 
 At Ballyduff , I .mean ?— No. 
 
 When was this hut erected for police purposes ? — 
 We came in 1880. The barrack was newly formed. 
 There had been a barrack there some time before 
 which was broken up, and in 1880 it was re-formed. I 
 believe a barrack was. there some seven or eight years 
 before, but I cannot say. The barrack was established 
 for the preservation of the peace in that part of the 
 country. 
 
 There had been disturbances there ? — Once, I 
 believe. 
 
 Whether those disturbances were caused by secret 
 societies or not you do not know ? — No. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Did you meet General Gordon in 
 Kerry in 1880 ? — No. I may have read about his visit 
 in the papers. 
 
 Did you read that he offered £1,000 to a landlord or 
 his agent if he would live for one week in one of his 
 tenant's houses ? — No. 
 
 What papers do you read 1 Do not tell us you read 
 United Ireland, or you will get into trouble. (Laughter.) 
 Do you read the London Times ? — No. 
 
 Then you do not know that General Gordon wrote a 
 letter to The Times in which he made this offer ? — No. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. Jame3. — I do not know of 
 any secret societies in Kerry. 
 
 You do not know whether there was police protec- 
 tion before 1880 in Kerry ?— No. 
 
 Thomas Clifford was next examined by Mr. Atkin- 
 son. The witness said, — I live three miles from 
 Tralee, in county Kerry. I knew a man named Pat 
 Driscoll, a tenant of Mr. Blennerhassett. He was 
 evicted some time in 1882. After he was evicted I was 
 employed to take care of the evicted farm. At that time 
 I was living at my father's bouse, about two miles from 
 the evicted farm. I was in the habit of going to the 
 farm every morning and returning every night. 
 
 Some time in the winter, after your going to herd that 
 farm, did any people come to your father's house ? — 
 Yes ; I was in the house at the time, it was during 
 the night, and I heard a knock at the door. I heard 
 them say " Open the door." My brother then opened 
 the door and a number of people came into the 
 house. They were disguised and had arms with 
 them. I heard them asking my brother where 
 he was working, and my brother said he was 
 working for Mr. Blennerhassett, of Ballyseedy. They 
 asked him what he was doing, and he said, " Working 
 about the demesne." 
 
 When your brother made that answer did you hear 
 these people say anything ? — Yes ; they called on me to 
 come out. 
 
 Did you then come out of the room in which you were 
 sleeping ?— Yes, I did, Sir. 
 
 What room in the house were these people in ? — In 
 the kitchen. 
 
 When you came out, did any of them do anything to 
 
 you ?— One caught me by the shoulder and took me 
 into the kitchen ; the others were standing in the 
 kitchen. 
 
 Before he did anything, did he say anything to you ? 
 — He asked me if I was in work, and I said I was at 
 work at Ballyseedy for Mr. Blennerhassett. They 
 asked me what I was doing and why did I go* on this 
 place. They ordered me on my knees, and one of them 
 put the muzzle of the gun on my breast and said he 
 would send what was in it through my heart. 
 
 After he said that, did another member of the band 
 say something ? — Yes. He said not to fire. 
 
 When he said not to fire, what next happened ? — I 
 got up, and another man with a mask on his face 
 made of hareskin fired at me with a revolver. 
 
 Fired at you with a revolver ; and did you cry out ? 
 — I did ; I said my leg was broken. 
 
 Were you hit ? — No. 
 
 And you thought you would put them off by saying 
 that ?— Yes. 
 
 Now, what happened then ? — Then one of the men 
 came and pulled up my trouser to see whether my 
 leg was broken. He went back to the other man, who 
 had the revolver, and told him the bullet had not 
 succeeded. The man with the revblver then fired 
 three shots successively, and I was hit in the thigh on 
 the second occasion. 
 
 Did you cry out on that occasion P — No. 
 
 Did they then leave you ? — Yes. 
 
 Did one of the men remain behind the rest ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he say anything to you ?— Yes. He raised the 
 stock of his gun over my head and said that the next 
 time I went to such places as that they would cut off 
 my head. I reported all this to the police, and was 
 in the county infirmary for six weeks and three days. 
 After I came out of the infirmary I gave up the care of 
 the farm. Before this I had been on good terms with 
 the people round. I did not know who these men 
 were, and I was never able to ascertain. No person 
 was brought to justice for it. I should not have been 
 able to recognize the men even if I had been 
 acquainted with them, as they were disguised. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — This was on the 
 night of the 6th of November, 1882. 
 
 Do you suggest that there were any branches of the Land 
 League in that neighbourhood ? — Yes, there were, Sir, 
 in Tralee and Ballymaekellott. 
 
 In November, 1882, were there branches of the Land 
 League in those places ? — I cannot exactly say. I do 
 not know. 
 
 Have you any land in your own hands now ?— Yes ; 
 since my father's death I have taken his land on. I 
 paid five guineas rent. I did not go into the Court, and 
 I did not give the notice. Others went into the Court ; 
 after the others had gone into the Court and got reduc- 
 tions, I got a reduction to £2. I get 9s. wages a 
 week. That is for my labour. I have no family. 
 
 I suppose yuu know what can be made oat of the 
 
 Sergeant William Flynn. 
 
 Thomas Clifford. 
 
316 
 
 The Special Commission, November 16 and 20, 1888. 
 
 land in that part of the country. Could any man make 
 a living out of that land paying five guineas a year for 
 it ?— No, Sir. 
 
 I daresay it is hard enough to make anything out of 
 it paying £2 ? — Yes, Sir. I do not know whether the 
 Land League existed in November, 1882. I do not 
 know any of the men who were associated with the 
 Land League in niy district. I do not know whether 
 they had any grudge against me. I never suspected the 
 Land League of interfering with me. I never con- 
 sidered the Land League had anything whatever to do 
 with this ill-treatment Of me. 
 
 Re-examined by SiB H. James. — I am living in this 
 place now. I cannot tell if there is a Land League 
 in my neighbourhood now. I cannot tell you whether 
 they have ceased as Land Leagues or not. I do not 
 talk much about them. The land I occupy is five 
 acres in extent. 
 
 If you got the land for nothing could you make a 
 living out of the five acres ? — I could not. (Laughter.) 
 
 Have you. ever paid Mr. Blennerhassett £2 in- 
 stead of five guineas ? — No, Sir. I got notice to 
 pay it two months ago, but I have not yet paid it. 
 
 Have you had any contract to purohase 1 — Yes. 
 
 So that £2 instead of five guineas is the sum you 
 pay under the Purchase Act ? — YeS. 
 
 The President. — Did you pay the five guineas ? — 
 Yes ; at least my father did. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Court then adjourned until Tuesday morning. 
 
 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 
 
 The Special Commission held their ] 6th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On their Lordships taking their seats, 
 
 The Attobney-Genebal said,— My Lords, we have 
 endeavoured to the best of our ability to arrange the 
 witnesses so that they really may be as far as possible 
 connected and so as to make the evidence of each out- 
 rage complete. But in the county of Kerry we have 
 the greatest difficulty, in consequence of acts to which 
 I regret I shall probably have to call your attention 
 later on. I regret to say that I now have to ask your 
 Lordships to call, if necessary, upon Mr. Edward Harring- 
 ton, who is in Court, in order that some steps may be 
 taken with reference to an article in the Kerry Sentinel, 
 which is owned by Mr. Edward Harrington, on Novem- 
 ber 14 in the present year, 1888. I propose to read this 
 article. Mr. Harrington is in Court and the paper was 
 only handed to me this morning. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Are you going to take this now ? 
 It would have been well to have given notice. 
 
 The Attobney-Genebal.— Mr. Harrington is in 
 Court, and it is most important in connexion with what 
 is happening with the Kerry witnesses that this matter, 
 
 should be dealt with by your Lordships at once. The 
 article is as follows : — 
 
 " The Judges are showing the measles now, though 
 at the beginning of the inquiry they seemed spotless. 
 The open row between them and Sir Charles Eussell 
 a few days ago threatens to be only the beginning of 
 a series if they do not make some attempt to veil 
 their manifest prejudice. A Galway peasant named 
 Connaire was browbeaten and" given into custody on 
 Thursday last for incoherency of evidence, and 
 openly treated by Judges Hannen and Smith as a 
 perjurer on account of an inconsistency in swearing 
 which has yet to be proved. Next day a sergeant of 
 police, named Clancy, perpetrated the most astounding 
 feats in swearing, without one word, hint, or shrug of 
 reproof from the Judges. Hannen is a decided and 
 determined class of man, and even the papers friendly 
 to the Irish members are not in a hurry to come into the 
 conflict with him. The result is that necessary com- 
 ment is often avoided, and there have been cases of 
 where the very reports are watered down, both in 
 English and Irish papers affecting to be friendly to 
 Mr. Parnell, lest, it is presumed, they should risk the 
 ire of the President of the Commission. But this will 
 not do, for the least the Irish members may claim is 
 that the public shall have ample, exhaustive, and 
 unculled materials for judging the acts and the motives 
 attributed to them. The Commission is the creature 
 of the Government and Times conspirators, and 
 there must be no blinking the fact that Irish members 
 never had and never got the chance of having any 
 confidence in its fairness. A committal or two for 
 contempt will fix this fact in the public mind when 
 Irish and Radical newspapers are forced to draw 
 public attention to the evident bias of the Judges." 
 
 I ask your Lordships to note in connexion with this 
 paper, which is the Kerry Sentinel, of which Mr. 
 Edward Harrington is the registered proprietor, and 
 the same copy of which says " cheques and post-office 
 orders are to be made payable to Mr. Edward Harring- 
 ton," that he states, with reference to the 
 tribunal, that it is prejudiced, that the Judges are 
 unable to veil their manifest prejudice, that a 
 Galway peasant " was browbeaten and given into 
 custody on Thursday last for incoherency of 
 evidence, and openly treated by Judges Hannen 
 and Smith as a perjurer on account of an inconsistency 
 in swearing which has yet to be proved ; " that 
 the sergeant of police " perpetrated the most 
 astounding feats in swearing without one word, hint, 
 or shrug of reproof from the Judges ;" and, finally, that 
 " the Commission is the creature of the Government 
 and Times conspirators, and there must be no 
 blinking the fact that Irish members never had and 
 never got the chance of having any confidence in its 
 fairness." I do submit to your Lordships that for 
 such an article to be published at the very time the 
 Commission is sitting, by one of the gentlemen who 
 are implicated in the charges under investigation, 
 appearing here through counsel,though there is another 
 gentleman of the same name connected with the 
 
 paper, appearing here as counsel 
 
 Mr. T. Habkington.— No, I have no connexion with 
 the paper. 
 
 Contempt of Court (Mr. E. Harrington). 
 
The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 317 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I beg your pardon, and 
 will confine my remarks to Mr. E. Harrington. For 
 such an article to be published is not only calculated 
 to defeat the ends -of justice, but is a matter of very 
 gross contempt. This, at any rate, is a matter which 
 the moment it was brought before our attention we 
 said could not be passed over, and seeing its connexion 
 with the Kerry case, I do ask your Lordships to take 
 such steps as you may deem advisable, Mr. Harrington 
 being before the Court at this time. My learned friend 
 Sir C. Russell tells me that I ought to have given 
 some notice of this application. My Lords, knowing 
 that Mr. Harrington was here in Court, he being a 
 defendant in the case, and being represented by 
 counsel, not, of course, by Sir C. Russell, it did not 
 appear to me that any notice was necessary. If the 
 ownership of the Kerry Sentinel is disputed, of course 
 I have the certificate of the ownership. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My Lords, I appear for Mr. Harrington 
 in this inquiry. 
 
 The President. — One moment, please, one moment. 
 
 Their Lordships here consulted, after which 
 
 Mr. Reid said, — I appear in this matter for Mr. E. 
 Harrington. Mr. T. Harrington who appears here as 
 counsel is not concerned in this matter at all, and it 
 entirely rests upon the other Mr. Harrington, whom I 
 represent. In the first place, I would ask your Lord- 
 ships, and I am sure I shall not do so in vain, to 
 dismiss entirely allusions to other matters and other 
 cases without referring to them. It is a practice which 
 the Attorney-General has certainly indulged in more 
 than once in this inquiry. If there are any other cases 
 let them be brought forward. With regard to the 
 articles that have been handed up to your Lordships 
 I came into Court three or four minutes ago and I 
 found the Attorney-General actually in the act of 
 making a representation against the gentleman I 
 represent, without having given any notice whatever, 
 or having had any communication with Mr. Harrington 
 upon the matter, or any opportunity for explanation 
 by affidavit or otherwise, and I do think, notwith- 
 standing what the Attorney-General says — that Mr. Har- 
 rington is here represented by counsel, which is per- 
 fectly true — that the ordinary rule, especially when it 
 relates to such a matter as committals or the exercise 
 of discipline by the Court — the ordinary rule of giving 
 notice, Which is a salutary and just rule, ought not to be 
 disregarded under any circumstances. Nor has the 
 Attorney-General offered the slightest explanation of 
 why he should not have given notice — no reason what- 
 ever, no reason why he should not have given mo or my 
 client notice of the serious matter which he has 
 placed before your Lordships. Under these circum- 
 stances I am absolutely not in a position to deal with 
 this matter, and I would ask your Lordships that the 
 further consideration of this matter should be deferred 
 until to-morrow morning, to give me an opportunity of 
 conferring at some sort of decent interval with the 
 gentleman I represent. I only ask for 24 hours. 
 
 The President.— I think that is perfectly reason- 
 able. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I would not only ask that 
 your Lordships should accede to the suggestion of my 
 learned friend, but I would point out that the paper 
 was only put into my hands ten minutes ago, having just 
 come over from Ireland. I have, therefore, had no 
 means whatever of making any communication to my 
 learned friends, or of doing more than intimate, as I 
 did to my learned friend Sir C. Russell, the nature 
 of the application I was about to make. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Then, my Lords, the matter stands fo( 
 to-morrow morning. 
 
 The President.— Yes. 
 
 The examination of witnesses called on behalf of 
 The Times was resumed. 
 
 John Oulloty, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — I 
 live at Ballaghantouragh, near Castleisland, county 
 Kerry. Up to some time ago I lived at Carker, near 
 Castleisland. I am a farmer, and I was rent-warner 
 on the estate of the Misses Busteed and two other 
 estates. The Misses Busteed's estate was situate near 
 where I live, and was about five or six miles from 
 Castleisland. I was on good terms with my neigh- 
 bours up to the end of 1879. A branch of the Land 
 League was established at Castleisland about 1880. As 
 soon as- it waB established I observed a change in the 
 conduct of my neighbours towards me. I did not notice 
 much change in the demeanour of my neighbours till 
 October, 1881. In that month I accompanied the 
 bailiff to point out the houses of tenants upon 
 whom he had to serve writs. On June 11, 1881, I 
 attended a meeting of the Land League. I did not 
 see who the speakers were. I heard my name 
 mentioned, and some one asked whether I was there. 
 After this I did not stay in my house at night. I saw 
 crimes and people murdering, and I got afraid. 
 
 Do yon mean that you saw these things yourself 
 being done or heard of them ? — I heard of them. 
 
 And then you got afraid ? — Oh, I did. 
 
 Where used you to pass the night ? — In the cow 
 houses and by the ditches, for fear I would be. shot. 
 That continued some months. After that I made a hiding- 
 place in my house in case anybody came to look for 
 me. On March 12, 1882, 1 remember being in my house 
 at night, about 1 or 2 o'clock, when a party of men 
 came to my house. They knocked at the door. When 
 I heard them knocking I went into my hiding place ; 
 it was in the bedroom ; the bed was pulled out some 
 distance from the wall, and I got inside. 
 
 Were you able to see the men ? — No ; but I heard 
 what they said. When they knocked at the door and 
 my wife asked who Was there they said they were 
 police. They asked where I was, and my wife said 
 I was down at my mother's place. One of them cried 
 out that I was not, as I was at home late in the even- 
 ing. They searched the whole house for me, even 
 over my head. They said to my wife that I had 
 
 Contempt of Court (Mr. E. Harrington). 
 
 John Culloty. 
 
318 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 served writs and if I did so again they would take my 
 life. She said I did not, and one of the men said I 
 accompanied the bailiffs and that was as bad. Another 
 man, I do not know who, said he would take my life 
 before a fortnight. They then went away. After that 
 I got police protection. I was not protected during 
 the day, but I had protection at night. 
 
 On April 12, 1887, do you remember being in your 
 house about 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening ? — Yes, I 
 was in the kitchen with my eight children round me. 
 The. police had not arrived at that time. 
 
 Had you served any writs or accompanied a bailiff 
 between this and the visit in March ? — No, but there 
 was an eviction pending, one of the four writs which 
 had been served. On this evening of the 17th of April 
 two men came to my house. They were disguised. 
 
 Were any people in the house except yourself and 
 yoar children ? — There was a National school 
 teacher, James Fleming, there. 
 
 When these men got into your house did either of 
 them do anything to you ? — One of the men took mo 
 by the collar and said " Come out." He held a spade 
 in his hand. I said nothing, but I took him by the 
 waist and knocked him down. When he was down he 
 pulled out a revolver. I seized hold of it and turned 
 the muzzle towards himself. I did this with my left 
 hand. With my right hand I was defending my head 
 from blows which the second man was making at me 
 with a stick. I pulled the mask off his face. As soon 
 as I did that he struck me twice on the head with the 
 spade. I was unconscious for a moment. When I 
 recovered I was shot in the left leg. A second shot 
 shattered the bone of my right leg. It had to be 
 amputated. One of the men, David Fleming, was 
 convicted. 
 
 What was he ? — He was a farmer's son. 
 
 Did you ever see him attending any League meet- 
 ings ? — Oh, no. 
 
 After that incident you were a long time in the 
 infirmary ? — Yes. When I came out of the infirmary I 
 was still boycotted. Notices were posted. I saw one 
 of them. I did not read it. I gave it to a policeman — 
 to the head constable at Castleisland. The people boy- 
 cotted me before I was wounded at all, and they still 
 continue to boycott me. 
 
 Since the National League was established has the 
 boycotting ceased ? — I cannot see any improvement as 
 regards myself. I am still under police protection. 
 If I were not I should not be here. I cannot get my 
 horse shod nearer than Tralee, 20 miles away. One of 
 my children died in 1886. I was not able to get a 
 coffin for her, but a coffin was eventually obtained by 
 the polico. 
 
 Did any or your servants leave you ? — I had only 
 one boy, called Patrick Glynn, and he left me. My 
 pew in Scartaglin chapel, too, was taken away. I 
 know Father O'Callaghan. He was president of the 
 National League at Scartaglin. I have kept the farm 
 notwithstanding the boycotting. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I was living a( 
 Scartaglin in 1880. I have the farm still, but I dc 
 not live there. I left Scartaglin about August, 1883. 
 I now live at Ballaghantouragh. I went there in August, 
 1883. I took an evicted farm there. 
 
 You did not go there, therefore, until after you 
 were boycotted and until after you were shot ? — No. 
 
 Let me just see that I follow you clearly. Up to 
 the time that you were shot, on April 17, 1882, you 
 had done nothing whatever except to point out to the 
 bailiff some places he wanted to know when serving 
 writs ? — I was serving noticesfor rent up to the time I 
 was shot, and after up to 1883. I assisted a bailiff 
 who was acting for my landlord, and I was also serving 
 notices myself, ordinary notices to come in and pay 
 rent — not ejectments. 
 
 Then, up to the time you were visited in March or 
 April, 1882, you had done nothing in the way of 
 assisting at evictions ? — Nothing at all. 
 
 What was the branch of the League nearest to you ? 
 — Castleisland. That was about six miles away. 
 
 Was there any branch nearer than that up to April, 
 1882 ?— No. 
 
 Up to the time you were shot in April, 1882, there 
 was no League branch nearer than Castleisland ? — No. 
 
 Now, you have said something about some meetings. 
 I want to understand. You said that in 1880 the 
 people considered — I am not sure I have got your right 
 words, but you will tell me if I am wrong — you said 
 that in 1880 the people considered the rents were 
 very high according to the speeches ? — Yes, but I 
 believe the speeches were the cause of their disturb- 
 ance. 
 
 I was not asking you that, Sir. If you wish to be 
 believed you should not volunteer answers. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, I must submit 
 that the witness has said nothing to justify that 
 remark. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The answer he gave was not an 
 answer to any question I asked. 
 
 The President. — The witness did not appear to be 
 fencing with you. The man had something stronger in 
 his mind, and he blurted it out. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (to witness). — You said the rents 
 were very high according to the speeches ? — Yes 
 
 The President.— I did not catch those words. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes, my Lord ; those are the 
 words he used. (To witness.) To what speeches did 
 you refer ? — There was a meeting at Castleisland in 
 October, 1880. 
 
 Wore you at that meeting ? — No. „ 
 
 Who was there ? — I cannot tell you anybody who 
 was there. 
 
 Did you read any account of that meeting in the 
 papers ? — No. 
 
 Did you have an account read to you ? — Yes. 
 
 By whom ? — It was publicly going around. , 
 
 Did you hear the names of any persons who spoke at 
 that meeting ? — Yes, Sir ; I heard the names of Mr, 
 O'Connor and Mr. Biggar. 
 
 JohiiCulloty. 
 
The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 319 
 
 Very good. Did you think the rents were too high ? 
 — It is my belief that they were too high in Castle- 
 island, considering the heavy police tax. 
 
 And if too high in Castleisland, do you think they 
 were too high all over Kerry ? — Well.that is my belief. 
 
 You referred to some tax just now ? — Do you mean 
 the compensation tax and extra police tax ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 That is since 1880 ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you think apart from that the rents were too high ? 
 — I think they were too high according to this ta?. 
 
 But, supposing there was no tax at all, do you think 
 the rents were too high in 1880 or not ? — My own 
 opinion is that they were. 
 
 The next meeting you referred to was a meeting 
 held on June 11, 1881 ? — Yes, that was about the time. 
 
 Where was that meeting held ? — At Knocknabull. 
 
 Were you there ? — Yes. 
 
 Will you tell me some of the speakers there ? — I 
 only saw a farmer I knew there. 
 
 Can you tell us the names of any other persons ? — 
 That is all I can give you. 
 
 What took place at that meeting ? — What I under- 
 stood was that there was some talk about an evicted 
 farm and that it was to be left idle. 
 
 Whose farm was it ? — I believe the farm belonged 
 to a Mr. Home. It was said, I think, .that they were to 
 punish him, but not to touch a hair of his head. 
 
 They did say that ? — Yes. It may be they said more. 
 
 Of course they may have said more, but who made 
 that remark ? — I cannot say. It was from the stage. 
 
 When was the meeting at Scartaglinheld ? — Some 
 time at the end of 1881. 
 
 What took place there ? — I cannot tell you what they 
 said. A person in the crowd asked if I was there; and 
 I left. That is all I know. 
 
 Now, tell me, Mr. Culloty, and be careful'how you 
 answer. What was your character in the neighbour- 
 hood ? — Well, I think it was a very good character, 
 Sir. I do not care about any man standing before me. 
 
 Had you living in your house a servant named 
 Bridget ? — I had a long time ago. 
 
 Was her name Bridget Cullochy? — I had two servants 
 of that name. 
 
 I mean the one you seduced ? — The like never 
 happened. 
 
 You swear that ? — I swear it. 
 
 I warn you, Culloty. Were you sued by the girl's 
 father for seduction ? — I take my oath I never was. 
 
 Did yon settle a claim by that girl's father against 
 you for seduction ? — On my oath I never did. 
 
 Is that girl now in Australia ? — I do not know any- 
 thing at all about her. 
 
 When did she come to live with you first ? — It was 
 about 14 years ago. She lived with me for two terms 
 of about 12 months each. 
 
 When did she last live with you ? — About ten years ago. 
 
 Do you say that there was a case with each of 
 these Bridget Callochvs ? — I say that I know nothing 
 about them. 
 
 When was the last of these Bridget Cullochys with 
 you ? — Thirteen years ago. 
 
 Had you also servants of the name of Fleming and 
 Casey ? — Yos. 
 
 Were you charged with the seduction of these girls ? 
 — On my oath I never was. 
 
 Is Fleming in London ? — Yes, and you can get at 
 her. (Excitedly.) I am surprised at you. I am ashamed 
 at a man like you going on like this. 
 
 The President.— Stop, stop. 
 
 Witness.- — It is a terrible thing to take away a man's 
 character in this way. 
 
 SlK C. ErjssBLL.— It is, indeed, a terrible thing, Mr. 
 Culloty. 
 
 The President (to witness). — You do not gain any- 
 thing by the manner in which you give your answers. 
 You must answer the questions quietly and temperately. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— How long did Fleming live in 
 your house ? — She was two months in my house. 
 
 How long was Casey with you ? — Two or three years. 
 
 Was one of the men who attacked you on the night 
 of April 17 a man of the name of Fleming ? — David 
 Fleming was transported. 
 
 Was he any relation of this girl Fleming who lived 
 with you ? — I heard he was none at all. 
 
 Do you say that you believe that Fleming was not a 
 relation of the girl ? — I cannot say whether he was or 
 not. 
 
 Was this story about the alleged seduction brought 
 up at the trial ?— Not one word. 
 
 How did it come to be a question whether thert was 
 any relationship between the man David Fleming, who 
 was charged with shooting you, and the girl Fleming, 
 who had been your servant ? — The girl Fleming came 
 up and swore that she had nothing to do with the man 
 Fleming. 
 
 Did the witness come to give evidence as to cha- 
 racter or not ? — He came to prove that David Fleming 
 was not at my house at the time. 
 
 Oh, he came to prove an alibi. Now tell me this. 
 At the time that you were attacked in April, 1882, 
 how many of Bridget Cullcchy's relatives were living in 
 the neighbourhood ? — Three or four brothers, I think. 
 
 How many brothers had she ? — I could not swear ; 
 several I believe. 
 
 On your oath, were not those brothers of hers sus' 
 pected of having made the attack upon you or of 
 being parties to it ? — Not that I know of. Some other , 
 man was present when I was attacked besides Fleming. 
 
 I am going to ask you the name of that man. You 
 swear that it was not suggested that the brothers of 
 this girl, Bridget Cullochy, had to do with this attack 
 upon you ? — I can only say what I know myself. I 
 cannot say what may have been said behind my back. 
 
 Have you never heard that that statement was 
 made ? — People may have said it among themselves ; 
 but I never suspected them myself. I have no doubt 
 who did it. 
 
 Have you never heard it stated that the brothers of 
 
 John Culloty. 
 
320 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 Bridget Cullocliy were parties; tothe attack upon you? — 
 Never, 
 i Not from any one ? — No. 
 
 Nor anywhere ? — No. 
 
 Did they leave for America after the attack upon 
 you ? — Yes. Their passage was paid. 
 
 How long after ? — I could not say. I was in the 
 infirmary for seven months. 
 
 Is her father still living in the country ? — I do not 
 know. I do not think he is. 
 
 Did he go to America ? — I believe he did. 
 
 Did you help him to go out P — Indeed, I never did. 
 
 You have said that upon the 17th of April there were 
 two men disguised ? — There were. 
 
 You pulled the mask off one ? — Yes. 
 
 Who was that man ? — David Fleming. 
 
 Who ,was the other man ? — I think it is very unfair 
 to ask that question. 
 
 Come, who was the other man who attacked you ? — I 
 consider the question unfair. 
 
 Who wasthe other man ? — I take my oath that if I had 
 got him here I would let him know. I will not answer. 
 
 Sie C. Russell.— My Lord, I submit that I am 
 entitled to an answer to this question. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— With very great defer- 
 ence, my Lord, I would submit that he should not be 
 compelled to answer. 
 
 The President.— Of course, Sir Claries, if you 
 attach importance to the matter you may ask the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do, my Lord, because, accord- 
 ing to my instructions, as your Lordships have doubtless 
 gathered from the course of my cross-examination, this 
 man is utterly unworthy of credit. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I do not think that that 
 statement should have been made, even if it is made 
 upon instructions. If Sir Charles presses the question 
 perhaps the answer might be written down and handed 
 to your Lordship. There can be no necessity for the 
 man to be forced to state whom he suspects in a public 
 Court. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Why not, may I ask ? 
 
 The President.— You had better pursue that, Sir 
 Charles. Ask why he objects. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (to the witness).— Why do you 
 object ? — Because it is my intention to put him on his 
 trial if I can get him. 
 
 You do not want to warn him, I suppose you mean ? 
 —That is it. 
 
 The President.— That is not a sufficient reason for 
 concealing the name. What is his name ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — What is the name of the man you 
 spoke of ? — I cannot remember. 
 
 You have sworn that you know. I wish to test your 
 credit. Who was he ? 
 
 The witness, after some hesitation, said,— To the 
 best of my belief he was a man named Walsh. 
 
 What other name had he ? What was his Christian 
 name ? — Either Pat or Thomas, I do not know which. 
 
 Where did he live ? — At Castloisland, some six or 
 seven miles away. 
 
 What was he ? — A farmer's son. 
 
 What was his age ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Was he young or old ? — He was a young man. 
 
 Was he 17 or 18 years of age ? — Yes, oi 25 years oZ 
 age ; I could not exactly say. 
 
 What was his father's name ? — His father was a man 
 named Walsh. 
 
 So I should have guessed. (A laugh.) But what 
 other name had his father ? — I could not say. 
 
 Do you mean to tell his Lordship that you do not know 
 his father's name ? — No, there are so many of them 
 that I cannot say his name. 
 
 Did you give any information to the police at the 
 time that you suspected that this man Walsh was one 
 of the men who shot you ? — Yes, I did. 
 
 To whom ? — To the police. 
 
 To which policeman ? — To the officer. 
 
 Was there an officer there ? — Yes. 
 
 What was his name ? — Inspector Daly. 
 
 Was he the district inspector ? — He was. 
 R You say that you mentioned Walsh's name to him, on 
 the night of the outrage on the 17th of April or on the 
 morning of the 18th ? — On the night of the outrage. 
 
 You have already told me that no action or claim for 
 seduction was ever made against you ? — No, never 
 against me. Never in my life by any one. 
 
 Had the girl Cullochy a child f — I swear I do not 
 know. I never saw her child. 
 
 Did you hear it said that she had a child ? — It was 
 said by the people that she had had a child. 
 
 Did the people say that you were the father of her 
 child ? — I heard it so said at the investigation at 
 Tralee, but I was never charged any more than you 
 yourself now. 
 
 When Was that ?— In 1882. 
 
 Was that said at the investigation of the outrage 
 upon you of the 17th of April ?— Yes. 
 
 What was the name of the magistrate who was in- 
 quiring into the matter ? — Judge Lynch. 
 
 That was in relation to your claim for compensation 
 for the physical injury you had suffered ?— Yes. That 
 was some time at the latter end of 1882. I was then 
 cross-examined by a Poor Law guardian named 
 Timothy [Brosnan. He is a neighbour of mine. 
 
 ■Did he state that you were charged with being the 
 father of this girl's child by your neighbours ?— He 
 asked me whether it was true ; the same as you are 
 doing. I do not think that any one living can state 
 anything affecting my character. 
 
 At that time was the girl and her family in 
 Australia ? — I could not say. I believe her father 
 was. 
 
 Was not she in Australia at that time to your know- 
 ledge ? — I could not say. 
 
 Did you know of her relations being in the country 
 at that time ? — I do not know whether they were or 
 not. She may have had cousins in the country. I 
 do not know. 
 
 John Culloty. 
 
The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 321 
 
 I am not speaking of relations of that kind. I am 
 asking you whether her father, or her brothers, or she 
 herself were in the country at the time ? — I cannot 
 say. I was in the infirmary for more than six months, 
 and I knew nothing about her or her relations. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You say you went to Tralee for a 
 coffin for your dead child ? — I did not say anything of 
 the kind. I only knew where it came from ; but I 
 did not go there myself. 
 
 Ee-examined by the Attorney-General. — How many 
 years is it since the last Bridget Cullochy was in your 
 service ? — Thirteen years. 
 
 You said that the first stayed with yon two terms. 
 How long is a term ? — Eleven or 12 months. That 
 would be some time in 1875. 
 
 Now, until this question was asked you by the Poor 
 Law guardian when you were making a claim for 
 compensation, had any suggestion ever been made 
 against your character to your knowledge ? — Not the 
 slightest word. 
 
 Who was this Poor Law guardian ? Had he anything 
 to do with the Land League ? — Yes, he was a member 
 of the Land League at Castleisland. 
 
 A man was tried for this outrage upon you and was 
 sent to penal servitude for 20 years ? — For 30 years. 
 
 Well, was any suggestion made against your character 
 at that man's trial ? — Not a word. 
 
 About how many people visited you when you were 
 in your hiding-place ? — A great many ; 50, I should 
 think. 
 
 You said something in your examination-in-chief 
 about your having been showing some lands before you 
 were shot. What had you done ? — I had pointed out a 
 house to a bailiff who was going to serve a writ. 
 
 When was that ?— In October, 1881. 
 
 You were asked whether you swore that you heard 
 something about some speeches at Castleisland in 
 1880. What did you hear in the speeches ?— Well, I 
 heard about ejectments and writs being torn up, and in 
 Castleisland I heard landlords denounced. I also 
 heard something about " night boys." 
 
 You say that after 1880 the rents were high because 
 of the increased cess you had to pay ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there an increased tax for the police and for 
 malicious injuries ? — Yes. 
 
 And that fell upon the occupiers ? — Yes. 
 
 District- Inspector David Huggins, examined by Mr. 
 iTKENSON. — Where were you stationed in the years 
 1881-82 ? — I was head constable at Castleisland. 
 
 Do you know Culloty ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he placed under police protection some time in 
 April, 1882 ? — Yes ; after his house was visited by an 
 armed party he had the protection of a police patrol. 
 
 Did you see yourself a threatening notice posted 
 up ? Was it given to you ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you searched for it and cannot find it ? — Yes. 
 
 Tell me its terms as far as you can recollect them ? 
 —It offered £100 reward to any one who would give 
 
 information as to any person who had worked for 
 Culloty. 
 
 Do you remember the night of the outrage com- 
 mitted upon Culloty ? — I do. 
 
 Were you there with a police force soon after ? — I 
 was, with the inspector. We arrived about two hours or 
 two hours and a half after the occurrence. 
 
 Did Culloty then make any statement to you as to 
 the persons who had done this to him ? — He mentioned 
 a man named Walsh. 
 
 Did he identify the other man ? — His daughter 
 recognized Fleming because in the struggle her father 
 had pulled the mask off his face. 
 
 Then it was through the identification of his daughter, 
 and not through that of Culloty himself, that Fleming 
 was convicted ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by SlE C. Kr/SSELL. — Did Culloty 
 mention Fleming's name ? — No. 
 
 Did he mention Walsh's name ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you go to Castleisland ? — On the 4th of De- 
 cember, 1880, and I remained there until the 15th of 
 July, 1886. 
 
 Where have you been stationed since July, 1886 ?— « 
 At Clonbur. 
 
 Have you been back at Castleisland since July, 
 1886 ?— Yes, I went back there just before the 
 O'Donnell trial. 
 
 Did yon go there for the purpose of assisting in 
 getting up evidence for the O'Donnell trial ? — I went 
 there to get notes and particulars of outrages that had 
 occurred in- case I should be examined with regard to 
 them. 
 
 How long were you there for that purpose ? — I went 
 there on the Sunday night and I left on the Tuesday 
 morning. 
 
 Is that the only visit you have paid to Castleisland 
 since you left it in July, 1886 ? — Yes. 
 
 Who gave you permission to go to Castleisland 1 — My 
 district inspector. 
 
 You have been promoted since then ? — Yes. 
 
 How did you obtain authority to go down to Castle" 
 island for the purpose of getting up this evidence ? — I 
 applied for leave. 
 
 To whom 'i — To the county inspector, Mr. Wilson. 
 
 Did you state your object in asking for leave 'I — I 
 did. 
 
 Did you get permission ? — I did. 
 
 Did yon attend the O'Donnell trial ? — I did. 
 
 How long were you here ? — I was here for about a 
 fortnight. 
 
 How long havo you been here on the present 
 occasion ? — Since the 1st of the month. 
 
 Since you have been here have you seen any of the 
 witnesses from Castleisland and its neighbourhood ?— 
 Yes, I have seen them. 
 
 Have you spoken to them ? — To some I have. 
 
 The Attorney-General (in re-examination). — Were 
 you served with a subpoena to attend here ?— Ye6, I was 
 in both instances. 
 
 After being served with the subposna in the O'Dona 
 
 John Culloty. 
 
 District-Inspector David Huggins. 
 
 11 
 
S'SZ 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 nell trial did you go to the Castleisland district to see 
 the notes arid particulars of the outrages ? — I did. 
 
 Are those notes and particulars kept in the Castle- 
 island district ? — They are. 
 
 Had you to produce them for the purposes of the 
 action of " O'Donnell v. Walter " ?— No, I was not 
 examined at all. 
 
 Had you them with you for production' if required ?■ — 
 I had. 
 
 Have you been served with a subfoana in this 
 particular ease ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you taken or assisted in taking the statements 
 of witnesses in this particular case ? — No. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then read from the Kerry 
 Sentinel a resolution of the Scartaglen branch of the 
 Land League, dated January 2;!, 1S86, in which John 
 Culloty and David Casey were voted to be land-grabbers 
 of the worst type, and were to be left to their own 
 resources, a copy of the resolution being ordered to 
 be sent to the adjoining Leagues. 
 
 Mr. Muki'HY said that in reference to 
 the examination of Edward Herbert, who was 
 examined last Friday, he had to draw the attention of 
 their Lordships to a resolution of the Land League. 
 On the 21st of May, 1886, the following appears in 
 the Kerry Sentinel : — 
 
 " Ballyduff Branch of the National League. — The fol- 
 lowing resolution was unanimously adopted :— ' That 
 no member hold any communication with the notorious 
 Edward Herbert, Ballyduff, who is going all over the 
 country doing the dirty work that the other bailiffs 
 or process-servers would not do, and who, in addition, 
 holds two evicted farms from which the families had 
 to fly to America. One of them returned and claimed 
 his farm, but Herbert would not give it up, and there- 
 fore had to go back again to America.' " 
 
 Mrs. Johanna Leahy, examined by Mr. Murphy, 
 said, — I am the widow of Daniel Leahy. He was a 
 farmer and a tenant of Lord Keumare. Some time 
 before his death he took some grazing land in our 
 neighbourhood. Up to that time he had been on very 
 good terms with his neighbours. He was 67 years of 
 age when he was murdered. I remember one night in 
 August, 1882,1 and my husband were in bed. We ei» 
 pected our son to come home. I had not locked the 
 door, only hasped it. It was about 12 o'clock, and 
 dark, when a man came in. 
 
 What did he say ? — He asked if we were in bed. I 
 said, " Yes, I am," and he said, " It's time for you 
 to get up." We had a man who came each week to 
 work for us and I thought it was he. 
 
 What followed ? — I said, " I will get up," and I 
 did. 
 
 Where was your husband ? — He got up, too, and the 
 man met us at the door. He caught my husband and 
 pulled him on to the kitchen floor. There was a little 
 light by the kitchen fire, and the man caught him by 
 ;he shoulder and told him to kneel down there, and he 
 lid so. 
 
 What did you do ? — 1 knelt down beside him and put 
 my arms round his neck. 
 
 Did they ask you any questions ? — The man asked 
 whether my husband had any arms in the house, and 
 he answered " No." 
 
 Did they ask him anything else 'I — Yes, if he had 
 paid his rent, but I did not hear the answer he made. 
 They also asked me whether we had any whisky in 
 the house, and I said "No." I said, " I will give 
 you anything I have inside the house or Outside if you 
 will spare my husband's life." My husband said, 
 " Lord have mercy on my soul ! — cannot you spare my 
 life ? What did I ever do out of the way ?" 
 
 What happened next ? — The man called another maD 
 by a number and told him to take me away. 
 
 What did he say? — He said, "Catch this woman 
 and throw her down." 
 
 Did he do so ? — He caught me by the shoulder and 
 pulled me away from my husband's neck and threw me 
 down against the stairs on my side. He caught me 
 again and gave me a second throw below the bedroom 
 door. I got a rug and came downstairs and put it 
 round my husband's shoulders, as he had only his night- 
 clothes on, and knelt down beside him as before. My 
 husband was shot while he was on his knees. I could 
 not say whether I heard a shot. My daughter called 
 out from her bed to the men not to kill her father. 
 One of the men said, "If you don't hold your tongue 
 I will give you the same." My husband was quite dead 
 when the men left. He was still kneeling at the fire, 
 and I was holding up his body. I called out to the 
 men to turn back and do the same to me. 
 
 Had you any servant boys in the house at the time ? 
 — Yes, I had four servant boys in the house. I called 
 them by name to come down, but they would not. 
 They were young men from 20 to 25. 
 
 Did you after the murder ask them to go for the 
 priest ?— Yes ; they would not go. 
 
 Did you know a man called Jeremiah Leahy ? — Yes ; 
 he was a friend of my husband's, but I cannot say 
 whether he was connected with the local Land 
 League. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Jeremiah 
 I,e».h.y was a cousin of my poor husband's. 
 
 After this shocking murder of your husband, is it not 
 the fact, Mrs. Leahy, that all the neighbours showed 
 great sympathy with you ?— They did. 
 
 Did not the whole neighbourhood condemn this 
 atrocious murder of your husband ? — They did, Sir. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Perhaps your Lordships will think 
 it just, as the Kerry Sentinel has been quoted, that I 
 should read you an article which appeared in that 
 newspaper on the 22d of August, 1882, with reference 
 to this very murder. It is as follows : — 
 
 " Another shocking murder has been contributed to 
 the roll of crime which records our national disgrace, 
 and this latest bloody deed of assassination is con- 
 tributed by Kerry. Following close upon the appalling 
 murder committed at Cong, before public feeling had 
 time to recover from the shock which the horrible 
 
 9113. Johanna Leahy. 
 
The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 >23 
 
 tragedy produced, Ireland is again plunged in disgrace 
 by a murder which for cold-blooded barbarity is not 
 less revolting than the awful tragedy in Mayo. The 
 details of the fearful crime committed at Scarteen, 
 near Killarney, on Sunday night, are given in full by 
 our special reporter, who visited the scene. They 
 require no explanation at our hands. Our duty as pub- 
 lic journalists is simply to raise our voice in protest 
 . against the bloody deeds that are fast bringing dis- 
 grace upon our land, and to caution our people that as 
 they value life or liberty they must unite in stopping 
 the progress of this fearful demon of blood that seems 
 to have taken possession of a section of our people. 
 Where is the boasted chivalry of Irishmen gone ? 
 Where are the Catholic instincts for which they were 
 distinguished the world over ? Is it by dark deeds of 
 blood that any section of them can hope to advance the 
 interests of their country ? Can the blessing of 
 Heaven remain with a cause that enlists the 
 support of the demon of assassination ? It is 
 difficult to believe that any section of our fellow- 
 countrymen would be so blind to reason and 
 common sense as to believe that their interests 
 could be advanced by the commission of so heinous 
 a crime as that which we record to-day. And yet 
 all the circumstances of the cruel deed force upon 
 us the conclusion that it wad inspired less by private 
 malice than by a misguided, wicked belief that it 
 could advance a public principle. It is sad to reflect 
 for a moment that such a feeling could obtain in Ire- 
 land, and it is particularly discouraging at a time 
 when hold efforts are being made to teach the people 
 the virtue of self-reliance and point out to them the 
 road to liberty by means which Heaven can approve 
 of. It has been very clearly demonstrated that 
 coercive legislation is no remedy to cope with the 
 evil of assassination and outrage. It is only by com- 
 bination among the people themselves that such a 
 remedy can be applied, and as it ultimately 
 affect:) the best interests of our country, our 
 social and political welfare, and that character 
 which as a people we should be ambitious to win 
 and preserve, we would earnestly impress upon 
 all sections of our fellow-countrymen to unite 
 in stamping out this abominable disposition 
 which seems to be fast taking root among us, and 
 bringing Ireland day by day into deeper disgrace." 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — My hus- 
 band was not a member of the Land League. 
 
 Head Constable Cornelius M'Carthy, Royal Irish 
 Constabulary, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — I 
 was stationed at Farranfore, near Firies. A branch 
 of the Land League was established at Firies in 
 November, 1S80. Jeremiah Leahy was secretary, and 
 Jeremiah M'Mahon was treasurer. I remember the 
 murder of Daniel Leahy. Subsequently I searched the 
 house of Jeremiah M'Mahon, who had succeeded 
 Jeremiah Leahy as secretary to the League. I 
 searched M'Mahon's house in August, 1884. I found 
 the letter (produced) among the papers of Jeremiah 
 M'Mahon. I do not know Jeremiah Leahy's hand- 
 writing. I never saw him write. No one was ever 
 brought to justice for the murder of Daniel Leahy. 
 Jeremiah Leahy had left the country at the time the 
 search was made. I believe he left in 1883, but I am 
 not quite positive. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson was about to read the letter, when 
 objection was taken by Sir C. Russell that the hand- 
 writing had not been proved. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We will prove the hand- 
 writing subsequently. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— It may not be proved, my Lord. 
 (To the Attorney-General.) Let me see it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am prepared with 
 evidence of the handwriting, but if your Lordships 
 think we had better wait I submit. 
 
 The President. — Perhaps you had better wait if you 
 are going to prove it presently. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— When was this 
 search made ? — In August, 1884. 
 
 The President. — Jeremiah M'Mahon was an official 
 of the branch at that time ? — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — You. say there was a branch of the 
 Land League established at Firies in November, 
 1880 ?— Yes. 
 
 You know the Land League was suppressed in 
 October, 1881 ?— Yes. 
 
 And that the National League was not established 
 until after an interval 'I — The Firies branch was 
 established in December, 1881. 
 
 Had M'Mahon, secretary of the National League, 
 anything to do with the Land League ? — I can't 
 say. 
 
 Was Jeremiah Leahy secretary to the National 
 League '! — No. 
 
 How could M'Mahon succeed him, then, as secretary 
 of the National League when Leahy was secretary of 
 the Land League ? — I look upon the Land League and 
 the National League as one and the same thing, one 
 succeeding the other after an interval. 
 
 Is it not a fact that Leahy is in Ireland now ? — He 
 went to America, but he has returned. 
 
 How long was he away ?— He might have been away 
 a year. 
 
 Does he hold a licenoe now in Tralee ? — I believe 
 he does. 
 
 Was his licence opposed ? — No. 
 
 He is there now ? — I believe he is. 
 
 The Attorney-General was about to hand the letter 
 previously mentioned to the witness, when 
 
 Sir C. Russell interposed and said, — I ask to see it. 
 I a*i entitled to see a document on its way to a witness. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I do not think my friend 
 is entitled to see the document until it is tendered in 
 evidence. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — As I understand, I am entitled to 
 see a document on its way to a witness. My learned 
 friend has no right to hand a document to a witness un- 
 less the other counsel see it. 
 
 The President.— It is usual to allow counsel 
 to see a document, in order to say whether they 
 object to it or not. That is my experience in the pro- 
 fession. 
 
 Head Constable Cornelius M'Carthy. 
 
 11-2 
 
324 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I respectfully submit that 
 if counsel on the opposite side see a document, that 
 entitles counsel producing it to put it in. I have no 
 objection to my friend seeing it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Why should there be so much fuss, 
 about me and my friends seeing it ? , 
 
 The President. — I have told you my impression as 
 to the practice ; I have not considered the question. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — There are reasons why I 
 cannot allow my friend Sir C. Russell to see this 
 document until it goes in as evidence. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I want to know why this case 
 should be different to the rule. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It is not different. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I am fortified by the opinion of 
 the President. 
 
 The President. — My colleagues are of opinion it is 
 not a matter of right. It is only, I suppose, of 
 courtesy. 
 
 Sir C. ■ Russell. — Then I am not to see it as a 
 matter of courtesy ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My friend knows very 
 well he has no right to say that. 
 
 The President. — We cannot have a discussion on 
 that. It stands over until the handwriting is proved. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed by Sir C. Russell. — As 
 I am not to see this document, I should like to know 
 more about it. When did you get it ? — In August, 1884. 
 
 What did you do with it ? — Handed it over to 
 another officer — Mr. Crane. 
 
 Do you know when Mr. Soames got it ? — No. 
 
 Where are you stationed now ? — In Donegal. 
 
 When were you last in this district ? — A couple of 
 years ago. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — Do you 
 know that after the proclamation of the Government 
 suppressing the Land League they continued to hold 
 meetings ?— No ; they stopped. 
 
 With reference to the National League and the Land 
 League, are the people the same ? — They are the same. 
 
 Only different in name ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — You say they are the same 
 people f — Yes. 
 
 So far as you know, nearly all the people — nearly all 
 the respectable people — were members of the League ? 
 —Nearly all the people, with exceptions. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then read the following extract from 
 United Ireland of August 26, 1882, referring to the 
 murder of Daniel Leahy : — 
 
 " Fearful Murder near Killarney. 
 
 " Mr. Daniel Leahy, an extensive farmer living at 
 Scarteen, within a few miles of Killarney, was mur- 
 dered on Monday morning. He was a well-to-do 
 farmer, about 60 years of age, and lived close by the 
 old Tralee road. He had been for many years driver 
 or rent warner on the Kenmare estate, but this posi- 
 tion he resigned about nine months agp. One circum- 
 stance which is alleged as the main cause of the ill- 
 feeling which some say existed against him is related 
 as follows : — Some weeks ago a farm of abont 60 
 
 acres, at a place called Lacabane, held by Lord Head- 
 ley from Lord Kenmare, was put up for auction at a 
 sheriff's sale, and was purchased hy a man named 
 Daniel Cronin, of Gortalea. After he was declared the 
 purchaser, the sale was for some reason or other 
 annulled, and the farm given to a man named John 
 Cronin. The latter is a son-in-law of Leahy, who was 
 believed to be the prime mover in the transaction, and 
 this tended to render him unpopular. Leahy and his 
 family were sleeping in their beds in their own house, ' 
 when about 1 o'clock on Monday morning the house 
 was surrounded by a band, disguised and armed, who 
 broke into the house, dragged the unhappy man out of 
 his bed, and deliberately murdered him. Some arrests 
 have teen made." 
 
 District-Inspector Charles Crane, Royal Irish Con- 
 stabulary, examined by the Attorney-General, said, 
 — I searched the house of Jeremiah M'Mahon in con- 
 junction with the last witness. I found the letter 
 which has been produced. The letter was found by 
 me on the 9th of August, 1884, and has been in my 
 possession until to-day. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Under what 
 authority did you make the search ? — It was under the 
 authority given in the Protection of Person and 
 Property Act passed in 1882 — the Crimes Act. 
 
 On what grounds ? — Suspecting this man M'Mahon 
 of being concerned in various outrages in the neigh- 
 bourhood and writing various threatening letters. 
 
 Are you able to state the grounds of the charge 
 against M'Mahon except the fact that he was con- 
 nected with the National League ? — There were strong 
 suspicions that he was concerned in outrages in the 
 neighbourhood. 
 
 M'Mahon is a man who is now living ? — Yes, I 
 believe so. 
 
 You say there were strong suspicions against him ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Did they ever take the form of information ? — Not 
 in my time. V do not remember any information being 
 made against him. 
 
 I ask you whether, and, if so, to state what were 
 the grounds of suspicion against M'Mahon except the 
 fact that he was connected with the League ? — We had 
 a great deal of private information against people in 
 the neighbourhood, among others M'Mahon. 
 
 You have said you searched the house to see whether 
 there were any documents relating to secret societies ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 How long were you on duty in the county Kerry ?— I 
 went there in January, 1880. 
 
 And remained there until when ? — Up to the present 
 time. 
 
 Were you there during the time Sir Redvers Buller 
 was there ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you agree that secret societies have a strong hold 
 in county Kerry ?— I know that there are a good many 
 secret societies in Kerry. 
 
 What were the names by which they were known ?— 
 
 Head Constable Cornelius M'Carthy. 
 
 District-Inspector Crane. 
 
The Special Commission, November 20, 18 S8. 
 
 325 
 
 I used to know them by the names of the different 
 parishes. 
 
 I should like you to tell us the names by which 
 they were publicly known. — The moonlighters were 
 the only ones of which I have heard by name. There 
 were also the Red Road Boys in a certain section to 
 the north of Killarney. 
 
 Did you know anything about Kerry before 1880 ?— 
 No ; that was my first station. 
 
 Are you an Irishman ? — No, an Englishman. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — The Attorney-General has drawn atten- 
 tion to a passage in United Ireland, and has commented 
 upon it in the sense that there was no further com- 
 ment upon this fearful murder than what he read. But 
 it appears among the news and where comment would 
 be out of place. And it is beaded " Fearful murder 
 near Killarney." It is not an article at all. 
 
 Fat Sullivan, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — I 
 am a labourer. Two sans of mine were in May, 1881, 
 in the employment of John Connor, at Farranpierce, 
 near Ballybunion. At that time I remember two men 
 coming to my house at night. Before that I had seen 
 no notice about boycotting Connor. When the people 
 came to the door I asked them what they wanted. 
 They fired a shot which hit the door, and the 
 spent shot hit my lip. I then shut the door. 
 The next morning I found a threatening notice on 
 the door. It was to withdraw my boys from Connor. 
 The boys continued to work for him. I was at 
 Mass the following Sunday. I do not know whether 
 a meeting was held. I did not know Connor was boy- 
 cotted at the time. The president of the Land League 
 at Ballybunion was the parish priesb, the Eev. Father 
 O'Connor. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood.— Have you lived long in this 
 neighbourhood ? — I was born there. 
 
 Have you known anything of the secret societies of 
 the neighbourhood ? — I have never heard of any. 
 
 Do you know the Red Road Boys ? — I know nothing 
 about them. 
 
 Pat Walsh, examined by Mr. Atkinson, - said,— I 
 live at Ballybunion, in the county of Kerry. I am 
 in the employment of Mr. John Connor. Five or six 
 years ago I remember finding a notice stuck on my 
 door. After this a goat belonging to Connor was 
 injured. 
 
 Did you attend any meeting of the League on the 
 Sunday following the day you saw that notice ? — No. 
 
 On any other day ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know what boycotting is ? — Yes. 
 
 Was Connor boycotted at the time the notice was 
 6tuck on your door S— No, he cleared himself. 
 
 How did he clear himself ? — He did not pay his rent. 
 He had his receipt. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I cannot hear a word that the wit- 
 ness says, but I must ask my learned friend not to put 
 every material point to the witness in the form of his 
 question. 
 
 The President. — The two answers I have heard were 
 
 Pat Sullivan. 
 Pat Walsh. 
 
 that Connor cleared himself, and that he did not pay 
 his rent. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Do you know 
 anything of your own knowledge about whether Connor 
 paid his rent or not ? — Yes ; he had paid it. I was not at 
 the agent's office ; I only know what I was told. 
 
 By Mr. LOCKWOOD. — I knew a man named Martin 
 Costelloe, who lived at Eeragh. I remember his being 
 shot at ; I cannot tell you when it was. 
 
 He was a Fenian informer, was he not ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Just think ; was not that what was said at the 
 time ? — Yes. He was hanged ; he hanged himself. 
 (Laughter.) Before he put an end to his life he was 
 shot at. I cannot say how he came to be shot at. 
 
 Did you not hear he was connected with the Fenians? 
 — It was said. 
 
 There were a good many men connected with that 
 body about Beragh and Ballybunion ? — Well, Sir, I 
 am a labouring man with a long family, and they did 
 not trouble me. 
 
 Answer the question. Were there a great number of 
 men connected with the Fenian Society? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you not know it ? — There are not, Sir. 
 
 Do you know any other secret societies existing in 
 that neighbourhood ? I will not ask you the names 
 of any persons, but only the names of the societies.— 
 I have not heard of any there. 
 
 Are there societies in the neighbourhood of which 
 you have heard ? — I do not know. 
 
 You would rather not say ? Tell me if you mean 
 that. — I do not know anything about it. 
 
 You would rather not be asked questions about their 
 existence ? — I do not know anything about them. 
 
 Never heard of them ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 But you would rather not talk about them ? — I do not 
 know anything about them. 
 
 Do you remember hearing of a man named Walsh 
 being charged with importing arms into that district ? 
 — Yes. I could not remember the year. 
 
 Was it for informing as to that that Costelloe was shot 
 at ? — I cannot say that. • 
 
 Is that what you heard ? — I heard it, Sir. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney- General. — You say 
 Connor cleared himself ; before whom ? — The Land 
 League. 
 
 How did he clear himself ? Was it at a meeting, or 
 how ? — I do not know. 
 
 How do you know he cleared himself ? — They said he 
 paid his rent. He did npt pay it. 
 
 Do you know what he did to get rid of the boy- 
 cotting ? — He was not boycotted. 
 
 Why was he not boycotted ? (Laughter.) — He showed 
 his books. 
 
 How do you know ; were you present at the meet- 
 ing ? — I was not. 
 
 The President.— He began by saying, " I attended 
 a meeting of the Land League." 
 
 Re-examination continued. — Did you see him going 
 to or coming frpm the meeting ?— Yes, he came to me 
 after the meeting. 
 
326 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 Did he say anything about what he had done there ? 
 
 Mr. Keid.— I submit, my Lord, that that is not 
 evidence. 
 
 The President. — No ; I think not. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Very well, my Lord, I do 
 not press it. 
 
 John Connor was then called, and examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson. He said, — I am a farmer at Farranpierce, 
 Ballybunion. My landlord is Mr. M. C. Dennis. 
 About six years ago the last witness was in my employ- 
 ment, and also the sons of Pat Sullivan. 
 
 Who was the president of the Land League in Bally- 
 bunion? — The parish priest, Father O'Connor. I had 
 some difference with the League about paying rent. In 
 1881 a couple of notices were posted on my door, in 
 consequence of which I wrote a letter to the Cork Ex- 
 aminer. 
 
 Had you paid your rent ? — I had. 
 
 At the time ? — I had, and got an abatement. 
 
 What became of the notices ; did you show them to 
 the police ? — No. 
 
 Did you read them? — They said not to pay rent 
 without a sufficient reduction. 
 
 Nothing else ? — No. They were posted on my door 
 after I had paid my rent. The morning after these 
 notices were posted on my door I went to the presi- 
 dent of the Land League, Father O'Connor. I had the 
 notices with me, and I showed them and my receipts 
 to him. 
 
 Did your receipts show the abatement you had got ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Father O'Connor was the president of the League, 
 you say,and you went to show him these notices ; for what 
 purpose ? — To show to the radish priest that the notices 
 were wronging me ; that I had got an abatement. 
 
 Did they contain nothing more ? — Nothing harder. 
 
 Harder or softer, was there anything else ?— No. 
 There was not a word about boycotting. 
 
 What did Father O'Connor say ? — I forget it. 
 
 What was the purport ? — He did not make much 
 about it. He said if they had been strong enough he 
 would make a reply. 
 
 Did he subsequently tell you that your explanation 
 was satisfactory to the League ? — Certainly, Sir. 
 
 Were you at any meeting of the League after your 
 visit to Father O'Connor ? — Yes, it was after Mass. 
 Father O'Connor was in the chair. 
 
 Was any reference made to your paying rent ?— 
 He spoke of it at Mass ; he did not speak 
 about it at the meeting after Mass. He spoke 
 a bit of the outrage. 
 
 What did he eay about it ? — He said it had no right 
 to be done. 
 
 Did he say why ? — He said it was not necessary. 
 
 Did he say why it was not necessary ? — It was because 
 of ths receipts. 
 
 Because they showed you had got an abatement ?— 
 That is so. 
 
 Did you get any message from the Loague as to their 
 determination about your case ? — No. 
 
 Are you a member of the League yourself ? — Yes, at 
 this time. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — You were a 
 member of the League from the beginning ?— Yes, and 
 continued a member alj through. The greater part of 
 my neighbours were members ; all the householders. 
 
 All your respectable neighbours in fact ? — Yes, the 
 parish priest, Father O'Connor, was the chairman, and 
 the secretary and treasurer were Eobert Slack and Mul- 
 veney, both farmers. 
 
 Now, I want to exhaust this matter. Were you 
 ever boycotted at all ? — No. 
 
 Or threatened ? — No. 
 
 I understand you to say that a notice was put up in 
 which it was said that rents ought not to be paid 
 without sufficient abatement. Was that general, or 
 was it to you ? — I think it was to me by name. 
 
 You went to your parish priest and showed him that 
 you had got an abatement ? — Yes. He denounced the 
 notice and said it had no right to be done, at Mass 
 on the following Sunday. 
 
 Now, about this rent ; what was it ? — £176 16s. 
 
 That is a big rent? — Yes, very big. 
 
 Did you think you ought to get a reduction ? — I did. 
 
 Was it afterwards reduced to some £87 ? — Yes ; but 
 the landlord put on £3 more, and made it £90. When 
 I paid my rent I got a reduction of 20 per cent. The 
 reduction to £90 was afterwards. I did not go into 
 the Land Court. I appointed a valuer and the land- 
 lord appointed another. The landlord's agent valued 
 at £87 and mine at £70 all but 4s. It was finally 
 fixed at £90. 
 
 When was that ?— In 1886 ; I think in March. 
 
 Now, I ask you to tell me this. Had the Lsague 
 anything to do, as far as you know, with any threaten- 
 ing of you or anybody else, or with any outrage in 
 your neighbourhood ? — No. 
 
 By Mr. Reid. — You told us your rent was reduced ; 
 now were you living in Kerry in 1879 and 1880 ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 In your opinion, were the rents generally at that 
 time such that the people could not pay them and 
 live ? — I know they were, because I made an applica- 
 tion for an abatement in 1879, and the landlord gave 
 me no hearing. 
 
 About other rents ; in your opinion, as a practical 
 farmer, were' the rents in 1879 and 1880 such as the 
 tenants could not pay ? — I believe it. 
 That is speaking generally ? — Yes. 
 In tho6e years there was great distress ? — Very 
 great. 
 
 You said your landlord had declined to make an 
 abatement ? — He did, frequently. 
 
 Is it not a fact that in your neighbourhood the land- 
 lords were generally refusing to make abatements ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 And did not that cause a very strong feeling P— 
 Yes. 
 And were not people very apprehensive of very grave 
 
 John Connor. 
 
The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 327 
 
 consequences from rents not being reduced ? — They 
 were. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — I suppose, as a ratepayer, you have 
 taken notice of claims for malicious injury which are 
 settled by the Grand Jury ? — I have. 
 
 In your experience are these awards honest and fair 
 awards, or are they usually excessive ? — I think they 
 are excessive enough. 
 
 In a general way ? — Yes. 
 
 Is it the case that the occupier pays the whole of 
 the award, and the landlord pays no part of it ? — It is 
 the case. 
 
 You live near the Harang estate ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Is it the case that the tenants on that property were 
 very much dissatisfied because Mr. I-Iussey bought the 
 land over their heads ? — I heard of it. 
 
 Is it your recollection before 1879 that a man who 
 took land over another man's head, or land from which 
 another person was evicted, was a popular character in 
 county Kerry ? — No, they did not like that. It was 
 always unpopular within my memory. 
 
 Was that long before the Land League ? — Every time. 
 
 The Attorney-Genekal, in re-examination. — Have 
 you made a statement since you came to London ? — 
 Yes, Sir. 
 
 Whom to ? — Mr. Soames. 
 
 Anybody else ? Just answer, please. Now come, do 
 you know where Sir C. Russell got the particulars of 
 your rent from ? 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — I can tell you that. 
 
 The Attosnev-Gemeral. — One moment, Sir Charles. 
 (To witness.) Do you know ? — No, I do not. 
 
 Have you made a statement to any gentleman besides 
 Mr. Soames ? — At some office. 
 
 Ely-place 'I Now come, just answer. — I cannot tell 
 where. 
 
 What was the office ? — I cannot give you the address. 
 
 Who took you there ? — Some boy. 
 
 What boy ? — I do not koow his name. 
 
 How did he find you out ? — I do not know. 
 
 Was he a stranger to you ? — He was, Sir. 
 
 How did this boy, this strange boy, how did he 
 come to take you to this office ? What did he say to 
 you ? — He said he would take me to an office that 
 would help me to give evidence. 
 
 Do you know the names of the gentlemen you saw at 
 the office ?— I do not, Sir. 
 
 Have you seen any of them ? How many people did 
 you see there ? — Two or three. 
 
 When was this ? — Two or three days ago. 
 
 What time of the day was it ? In the evening ? — In 
 the evening. 
 
 Who else was taken there ? Any other witnesses ? — 
 Another young man. 
 
 What is the name of the other young man ? — I forget 
 his name. 
 
 Just try and think what is the name of the other 
 witness who went to this office ?— (No answer.) 
 
 Just try and remember the office — was it not Ely- 
 
 place ? — I do not understand it, Sir. I do not know 
 the address now. 
 
 Do you not know at all where it was ? — I do not, Sir. 
 
 Do you know the number of the house ?— No. 
 
 How did you find it ? — This boy showed it to me. 
 
 Have you seen the boy in Court to-day ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Have you seen the boy outside ? — No. 
 
 Try and think of the name of the witness who had 
 been taken there with you ? — One Clifford. 
 
 Nobody else ? — No. 
 
 Do you know Father Maloney ? — Of where ? 
 
 Do you know Father Maloney ? — I do not, Sir. 
 
 Baforc you went to this office were you talking to a 
 priest ? — I do not know anything about it. 
 
 Come now, think ; before you went to this office 
 were you talking to a priest ? — No. 
 
 After you came back were you ? — No. 
 
 No time ? — No. 
 
 Was the statement taken down in writing ? — It was. 
 
 Any other statements taken down in writing ? — No, I 
 gave the very same in both places. 
 
 How long have 3'ou been a Land Leaguer ? — From the 
 start. 
 
 You stated to this gentleman that the Land League 
 had nothing to do with outrages ; did you say that to 
 the gentleman who took your statement in the even 
 ing ? — What is that you said ? 
 
 You said to Sir C. Russell that the Land League 
 had nothing to do with outrages ; * did you say that in 
 the statement you gave to the gentleman the other 
 night ? — I did, Sir. I do not remember that I gave 
 that in my statement at all. 
 
 Did you or did you not say that on the night you 
 were at this office that you were taken to by the boy ? 
 — I could not answer that. 
 
 Did anybody tell you when you were at this place 
 where the boy was, or where the boy took you ? — No. 
 
 Did anybody say anything about the Land League 
 having to do with outrages at this office ? — No, no. 
 
 Did you say anything of that kind to Mr. Soames's 
 clerk when he took the statement ? — I did not ; I did 
 not. Sir. 
 
 One moment, please ; were you not asked about the 
 notices that had been served upon you ? — I was, Sir. 
 
 Wore you not asked whether you thought they were ' 
 served by the Land League ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Posted up. 
 
 Did you say that you believed they were Land League 
 notices ? — I did not, Sir. 
 
 Why did you go to this parish priest about the 
 notices ? — I did not go to a priest. 
 
 I am speaking of Ireland. When you saw notices 
 posted up, why did you go to the parish priest about 
 it ? — Because he was always in the habit of denouncing 
 anything that he thought was not right. 
 
 Did you not know he was the president of the Land 
 League ? — I did. 
 
 Did you not go because he was the president of the 
 Land League ?— No ; because he was the parish priest. 
 
 John Connor. 
 
328 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 Then you went, not because he was the president of 
 the League, but because he was parish priest ? — Yes. 
 
 You did not go to the police ? — No. 
 
 And you thought it had nothing to do with the Land 
 League ? — I believed it. 
 
 Who did you think had put up these notices ?— The 
 witness's answer was unintelligible. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Is the parish priest the man who, 
 In any of their troubles and difficulties, the people are 
 in the habit of consulting ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Is he the man who would stand up against the land- 
 lord if he thought the people were being oppressed ? — 
 No, Sir ; he is not. (Laughter.) 
 
 If he thinks the tenants are being hardly used, does 
 he not stand up against the landlord ? — He would stand 
 np. 
 
 And have the people been in the habit of going in 
 that way to him as friend and adviser ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 What did you say about that lettep to the Cork 
 Examiner ? 
 
 The President. — This you had the opportunity of 
 asking about before ; I thought you wanted to cross- 
 examine upon a new matter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I did think that, as it was 
 mentioned, it was merely incidentally referred to 
 
 Witness. — I have a copy of the letter I wrote to the 
 papers — to the Cork Examiner. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Let me see the letter. (The wit- 
 ness was unable to find it.) 
 
 Well, I understand you to say that Witness. — The 
 
 purport of it was that I had been boycotted, and that I 
 thought the act was the work of a few foolish little 
 boys. 
 
 Did you make any statement to either of the persons 
 to whom you gave an account of your evidence except 
 what you believed to be true ? — I did not, Sir. 
 
 Have you seen the person who took you to the office 
 to give your evidence ?• — No, Sir. 
 
 What did you get when you got your subpoena to come 
 here ? — My expenses to come up. 
 
 How much ? — £5. 
 
 When you gave your second statement were you 
 promised any money or given any money ? — I would 
 not take money, not for £100, not a bit of money. I 
 wanted to give fair evidence. 
 
 You were offered none ? — I was not offered a farthing 
 at all. The boy said I could get money. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— Where did this boy 
 meet you ? — Down at my lodging-house, Sir, down in 
 Fetter-street. 
 
 Do you know how he came to you ? — He came to my 
 address and then took me off. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Will you give us the date 
 of that letter in the Cork Examiner ? — I have not got 
 it now. I thought I had it in my pocket ; but I sup- 
 pose I left it at the lodging-house. If I find it I will 
 give it to you. 
 
 John Connor. 
 
 Thomas Stratton was next called and examined by 
 Mr. Atkinson. Witness said, — I am a head constable, 
 and in 1881 was stationed at Listowel. On the 19th 
 of June, 1881, Sergeant M'Donald, who is now dead, 
 handed some threatening notices to me. I have got 
 the two originals. I was not present when these were 
 given to M'Donald. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I should not object, my Lords, on 
 that account. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — These purport to be the two originals 
 that were taken down from the houses of Sullivan and 
 Walsh. 
 
 Do you know what house this was taken down from ? 
 — This was taken from the house of Thomas Downey, 
 blacksmith. Two other documents purport to be copies 
 of notices that were taken off the houses of Sullivan 
 and Walsh. I never saw the originals of those. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not ask you anything. 
 
 Denis M'Carthy was next called and examined by 
 Mr. Murphy. Witness said, — I am a farmer, and live 
 in Kerry, outside Killarney. I am a tenant of Lord 
 Kenmare's. 
 
 In October, 1881, did you pay the whole or a portion 
 of your rent ? — I paid no rent. 
 
 Have you stated that you did ?— I have not, Sir. 
 
 To anybody ? — I forget now what statement. It is 
 so long ago. 
 
 Since you have been stopping here in London have 
 you stated to anybody that you paid your rent in 
 October, 1881. 
 
 Witness (emphatically). — No, Sir. 
 
 Did some men call at your house one night in 
 October, 1881 ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 About how many men ? — From five to six. (Laughter.) 
 
 Were their faces covered ? — They were soiled. 
 
 With what ? — With some dirt. 
 
 Was there a cloth over their faces ? — There was, 
 over two of them. 
 
 We are getting on. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Really, really ■ 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Where did you 
 
 The President. — He said their faces were soiled, 
 and he said two of them had a cloth upon their faces. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — What did they do when they came to 
 your door ?— They knocked, and when I opened the 
 door they came in and they asked me to show them 
 the pass-book. They asked me to give an acre of 
 land to a poor man who was a labourer of mine. I said 
 I would not, and they threw me down and put a few 
 grains of shot in my hip. They said what would I give; 
 would I give an acre of land to a neighbour of mine? 
 and I said, " Yes," and they went away, and I heard 
 no more about it, Sir. 
 
 What do you mean by the pass-book ? The rent-book ? 
 — I cannot tell you, Sir. 
 
 Did you understand what they meant when they 
 asked for the pass-book ? — I did not, Sir. 
 
 What did you think they meant when they asked foJ 
 the pass-book ? — The acre of land. 
 
 , Thomas Stratton. 
 Deris M'Carthy. 
 
The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 329 
 
 Was the acre oE land the pass-book ? — It was, Sir. 
 
 "What did you understand by the pass-book ? — I under- 
 stood that it was the acre of land. 
 
 Is it not the practice to enter the rent in the book ? 
 — It is always done. I always keep the book when the 
 rent is entered in it. I had no book except that in my 
 house. I had one book of that sort. 
 
 They asked you for the pass-book and you did not 
 know what they meant ? — I showed them the pass- 
 book. 
 
 The rent-book P — That was where they entered the 
 rent. 
 
 Now I think we understand. When you showed them 
 the rent-book what happened ? — They took a light and 
 said no more. 
 
 Did you tell the police about this outrage on you ? — I 
 did not, Sir. 
 
 Why not ? — They did not do any injury to me, Sir. 
 
 They shot you, as I understand, and knocked you 
 down ? — A few grains here in the hip, Sir, that was 
 all. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did you take the grains out yourself, or did you go 
 to a doctor ? — I did not, Sir, I took them out myself, 
 Sir. 
 
 Yon thought it better not to go to a doctor ? Why 
 did you not go to a doctor ?— I did not feel anywhere 
 sore. 
 
 Did they ask you whether you were a Land Leaguer ? 
 —They never did, Sir, nothing about it, Sir. 
 
 Who used to pay the rent, you or your wife ?—. 
 My wife paid it sometimes, Sir, and myself. 
 
 Then your wife may have paid it though you did not 
 know anything about it. Did your wife come down ? — 
 Yes, Sir, she is here. 
 
 Did they do'anything to her ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. R0SSELL. — How long have 
 you lived on the Kenmare property ? — All my life, and 
 my father before me. 
 
 Do you recollect when Mr. Galway was the agent 
 for the property ? — I do, well. 
 
 Things were very peaceable then ? — They were. 
 
 He was a kindly man, Mr. Galway ? — He was. 
 
 When was the agent changed ? — I forget now, Sir. 
 
 Was there a rise of rent immediately afterwards ? — 
 There was, Sir, straight. 
 
 Who was the agent ? — Mr. Hussey. 
 
 Had there been any trouble on the Kenmare property 
 up to the time of Hussey's appointment as agent ? — Not 
 a bit in the world. 
 
 Were you a member of the Land League ? — I was, 
 and all my neighbours round me were members. I 
 became a member of the National League when it was 
 started. 
 
 There were five or six of these men, you say ?— Yes, 
 Sir. 
 
 Some with soiled faces and some with some covering 
 on their faces ? — Two of them. 
 And they asked you for the pass-book ?— They did. 
 And then Hfiey asked you if you would give an acre 
 
 Denis M'Carthy. 
 
 of land to some poor man ?— That was a servant of 
 mine, a labouring man that used to work for me. 
 
 Who was the president of the Land League there ?— 
 I forget, Sir, now. 
 
 Do you recollect who was the secretary ? — I could 
 not tell you, Sir, anything about him; I could not tell 
 you who was the president or the secretary at the time. 
 
 The Court here adjourned for luncheon. On resuming, 
 
 Kate M'Carthy, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I 
 am the wife of Denis M'Carthy. I remember some 
 men coming to our house in October, 1881. They 
 were disguised. They asked who was living at the 
 farm. They asked for the pass-book. It was brought 
 out. I could not say whether they looked at it. 
 
 Had your husband paid some of his rent before that 
 to your knowledge ? — He had a long time before. 
 
 How long before ? — I cannot exactly tell you, Sir. 
 
 Was it a fortnight before ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — With your Lordships' permission, I 
 must put this question. (To witness). Did you tell Mr. 
 Soames's clerk that your husband had paid his rent a 
 fortnight or three weeks before ? — It was not my 
 husband. I had paid a share of his rent before that. 
 I cannot exactly say whether the men asked for the 
 pass-book when they first came in. I was also asked 
 about the acre of land they said they wanted for a 
 poor man. I said I would not interfere with mj 
 husband. They then fired a shot over my head. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Sergeant Drohan, examined by the Attorney- 
 General, said, — I was stationed at Kathmore in 1881. 
 There was a branch of the Land League at a village 
 about a mile from M'Carthy's house. There was a 
 notice posted in the neighbourhood. It was a general 
 notice, cautioning tenants not to pay rent. I could 
 not say whether the notice had any reference to the 
 Land League on it or not. I went to M'Carthy's house 
 and found he had been shot at. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I was stationed 
 in Kerry from November, 1879, to August, 1882. I was 
 previously stationed in the East Riding of Galway. 
 After August, 1882, I went to Castleisland. I am in 
 that distriot now. 
 
 Are there many secret societies in Kerry ? — I could 
 not say exactly. 
 
 Have you heard of any ? — I have heard of some 
 there. 
 
 What were their names ? — The only one I know is 
 the moonlighters. 
 
 Have you not heard of the Rockites ? — No, 
 
 Nor of the Ribbonmen ? — No. 
 
 According to your information, were these moon- 
 lighters principally young boys ?— They were prin- 
 cipally farmer's sons and small farmers themselves. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James.— Do you know these 
 men as being farmers and farmers' sons ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know as a fact that any of them belonged 
 to the Land League ?— I do 
 
 Kate M'Carthy. 
 Sergeant Drohan. 
 
330 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 Mary Hiokey, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — 
 My husband was minding a farm near Castleisland. 
 I remember about sis years ago, in 1882, some 
 people came to my husband's house at night. Ho 
 was not living upon the farm ; he was taking care 
 of it. .These men brokft the door and fired 
 two shots in. They did not say anything at all. 
 Shortly after that I was in the town with my husband. 
 We were returning home in the evening. It was in 
 the month of June. We were walking home, only the 
 two of us. I know a place called Cragg on the road 
 from Castleisland to the place whore we live. We 
 were returning home from the road sessions ; my 
 husband had been attending the Court on some case. 
 As we were going home two men came up to us in the 
 road and told my husband to stand. They did not say 
 anything more to him. He did stand, and they fired 
 and. hit him in one leg. 
 
 Did they say anything as to why they fired at him, 
 or give any reason for it ?— They asked him, " Would 
 he land-grab any more ?" Immediately after that he 
 was fired at. I heard no other question asked or re- 
 mark made. My husband was brought back to his 
 own house, and taken on the following day to Castleisland 
 to the house of a man named Hickey, a publican in 
 Castleisland. While my husband was there I was told 
 a notice was posted up in Hickey's house. On the 
 night before the notice was posted my husband was 
 attended, by the doctor at Hickey's house. On the 
 next day he was removed to the hospital. 
 
 Why was he removed to the hospital next day ? — 
 Hickey, the publican, was " noticed " not to have my 
 husband in his house. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. EUSSELL. — Were you not 
 in error, Mrs. Hickey, in saying that your husband 
 was caretaking an evicted farm ? That is not true, 
 is it ? Is it not the case that you and your husband 
 lived originally at Cahirciveen ? — No, Sir ; the owner 
 of the land lived at Cahirciveen. My husband had no 
 farm there. 
 
 Did he lend some money to his brother James ? — It 
 was to Michael he lent the money. 
 - What was the name of the man who lived at 
 Cahirciveen ?— James Hickey, my husband's brother. 
 
 Was your husband put in to take care of this land 
 for James ? — No, Sir, for Michael. 
 
 Was not James, your husband's brother, taken up 
 and sentenced to four months' imprisonment for 
 intimidation ? — It was Michael that was sentenced. 
 
 He was four months in gaol for threatening or 
 intimidating your husband, was he ? — It was for taking 
 forcible possession. 
 
 Your husband's brother was put in prison for four 
 months. That was for a dispute with your husband ? — 
 It was for taking forcible possession of the house. 
 
 Of tho house which your husband was claiming ? — 
 He was caretaker. 
 
 Which . your husband was claiming as caretaker for 
 James ? Was that it ? — Yes. 
 
 Alter this attack upon your husband, when he was 
 
 shot, was not Michael arrested on suspicion ? — No ; 
 Michael was in gaol when ho was hit. 
 
 Was he afterwards arrested on suspicion ? — No. 
 
 Was James arrested on suspicion 'I — No. 
 
 Was any brother of your husband arrested ? — No. 
 
 Was any son of either James or Michael arrested ?— 
 No. 
 
 Who was arrested ? — There were a good many. 
 
 Was somebody of the name of Hickey arrested ? — 
 No, Sir. There were many arrested, but there was no 
 proof. 
 
 Your husband was popular with his neighbours, was 
 he not '/ — Yes. 
 
 When does St. Stephen's Day come ? Is it near 
 Christmas ? — Yes. 
 
 SlE C. Russell.— I am told it is the day after 
 Christmas Day. I am not very conversant with these 
 days myself. (Laughter.) * 
 
 You had a dance at your house at Christmas '/ — I 
 suppose so. 
 
 And all your friends attended and were friendly ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Just tell me, was it not said in the country that this 
 brutal attack upon your husband was the result of the 
 dispute which he had had with his brothers about this 
 land ? — That was said, I believe. 
 
 Ee-examined by Mr. Atkinson. — Did you know that 
 your husband's case had been mentioned at the Land 
 League meeting '! 
 
 Sir C. Eussell objected to the form of the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Was it reported in the country that 
 his case had been before the Land League '/ 
 
 SlE C. Eussell. — As a matter of fact, there was no 
 Land League at that time. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson.— Not in 3882 ? (To witness.) Was it 
 reported in the country at the time ? 
 
 Mr. Reid submitted that the question could not be 
 put. 
 
 The President. — The question is admissible, having 
 regard to the fact that the witness has been 
 asked whether her husband was not a popular man. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Do you know whether or not it was 
 alleged that his case had been considered by the 
 Land League ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Was your brother-in-law, Michael, in gaol at the 
 time when your husband was shot ? — He was. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— I would ask your Lordships' 
 permission to refer to what appeared in the Kerry 
 Sentinel after this occurrence had been reported. On 
 June 9, 1882, this notice appeared : — 
 
 " Last evening a farmer named Cornelius Hickey, 
 living at Crumey, was proceeding home, accompanied 
 by his Wife, when two persons emerged from behind a 
 ditch and fired two shots, which took effect in the 
 right knee. Sub-Inspector Davis and Head Constable 
 Huggins were soon on the scene. The wounded man 
 said he could not identify any of the parties. Hickey 
 is the caretaker of a farm which belonged to his 
 brother Michael." 
 
 Mary Hickey. 
 
The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 331 
 
 Then on July 7, 1882, therB appeared this notice 
 
 The President. — Are you reading from the paper 
 itself ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — No, my Lord ; from a copy. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I suppose my learned friend has 
 taken steps to see that the copy is correct. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have taken no such steps myself. 
 The copy has been handed to me as part of my instruc- 
 tions. The learned counsel then read : — 
 
 Kerry Sentinel, July 7, 1882.—" This morning in- 
 telligence was conveyed to town that Hickey, who was 
 fired at near Oastleisland, succumbed to his wounds. It 
 appears that his leg had been amputated on Tuesday 
 last, and the poor man became a great deal weaker 
 after the operation, and died last evening. Six men 
 are at present in custody. We cannot refer to the 
 sad event without again raising our voice in protest 
 against the cowardly and bloodthirsty policy which 
 dooms to death or lifelong torture an unfortunate 
 fellow creature ; and we now call upon all righteous 
 men who love religion and peace and value the well- 
 being of our devoted land to do all in their power to 
 discourage and cry # down these diabolical deeds of 
 blood and vengeance which are so alien to the true 
 instincts of the Irish people." 
 
 I may as well also read the following extract : — 
 
 Kerry Sentinel, July 21, 1882. — " A private inquiry 
 was held at the county gaol iuto Cornelius Hickey's 
 death. The prisoners charged were remanded again, 
 the magistrate remarking that if the information con- 
 tained in the letter whicb Constable Gillooly said he 
 had got, and which he thought would implicate the 
 prisoners, turned out to be false, he would discharge 
 both prisoners." 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins, re-called, said, in answer 
 to Mr. ATKINSON, — I was in Castleisland in 1882. I 
 remember the perpetration of the outrage upon 
 Hickey. He was taken to the house of David Hickey, 
 a publican near Castleisland, in order that he might 
 here be attended by the doctor. A notice was posted 
 near the publican's house during the night after the 
 arrival of the wounded man. I have not got that 
 notice. I have searched for it but have not been able 
 to find it. I did not see it posted myself. It was 
 handed to me by James Hickey. It was a notice 
 threatening any person who should enter David Hickey's 
 house while Cornelius Hickey was there. The wounded 
 man was removed to the hospital in consequence of 
 this notice. He died in the hospital about a week 
 afterwards. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— No ; I think it was nearly a 
 month afterwards. ___ 
 
 ■William Williams, examined by Mr. Ronan, 
 deposad, — I live at Brewsterfield, Killarney, on the 
 property of Mr. Orpen. In 1884 he evicted a tenant 
 named Fitzgerald, and I worked on the evicted farm. 
 I remember some people coming to my house about 12 
 o'clock at night in November or December, 1885. I 
 heard a knocking, and they burst, in the kitchen door 
 with a huge stone. The bedroom door was also 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 William Williams. 
 
 knocked at with a stone. I shouted out, " Who is 
 breaking into the house '( " and they said, " Captain 
 Moonlight. Como out ; I want you." I said, " I can 
 hear what you have to say from where I am." They 
 then slipped out of the front door and fired. They 
 could not see me. Some little grains of shot touched 
 me near the hip. I think they were " dead " grains. 
 The iron bolt of the window was broken by the shot, 
 had r303iv3.i njticas before this through the post. 
 I gave them to Mr. Orpen, who gave them to the 
 police. 
 
 The learned counsel read the following notice (pro- 
 duced) :— " Take notice that any one who will shoot 
 Orpen, the Orange bastard, and his emergency bailiff, 
 William Williams, will receive the reward of £500 the 
 moment the deed is done. Now is the time for any one 
 who wants to take the money." 
 
 After these occurrences did you get police protection 
 and carry arms ? — Yes. Up to the time when I worked 
 on the evicted farm I had been on good terms with my 
 neighbours and had no enemies in the district. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lookwood. — Is it Henry 
 Orpen of whom you have spoken ? — Yes. I know a 
 man named Wheatley, a son-in-law of Mr. Orpen. I 
 believe there was some law between them at one 
 time, something about a breach of character ; some- 
 thing had happened to a granddaughter. 
 
 There was something of a delicate nature ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there a trial at the assizes ? — The ease did not 
 go to a trial, but I went to the assizes to give 
 evidence for Mr. Wheatley against Mr. Orpen. I do not 
 remember exactly when this was. 
 
 Was this a family dispute ?— Yes, a bitter one. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Atkinson. — The Christian name 
 of the evicted tenant Fitzgerald was Garrett. The 
 outrage against me occurred in November or Decem- 
 ber,1885. The time of the trial in which Mr. Wheatley 
 was concerned was two or three years ago. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I will now put in a file of United 
 Ireland. In the issue of January 16, 1886, there are 
 several columns under the heading " The Irish 
 National League," and under that heading there ia 
 the following paragraph : — 
 
 " Barraduff, Kerry.— Mr. Timothy Connihan, Poor 
 Law guardian, Vice-President, in the chair. The 
 following resolutions were passed unanimously : — 
 ' That we condemn in the strongest terms possible tha 
 action of those landlords who are evicting their 
 tenants in our locality for the non-payment of im- 
 possible rents in these depressed times, and we 
 earnestly call on the Government to protect Her 
 Majesty's subjects from their nefarious action.' 
 
 " ' That we also in emphatic terms condemn the 
 action of a farmer for working on Garrett Fitzgerald's 
 evicted farm ; and, furthermore, condemn those persons 
 who hold intercourse with him or aid him in his un« 
 manly action.' " 
 
 Henry Williams, examined by Mr. RONAN, said, — I 
 am the son of the last witness. I remember Garrett 
 
 Henry Williams. 
 
332 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 Fitzgerald's eviction. Afterwards we worked on the 
 farm for Mr. Orpen. I remember the night when the 
 house was fired into. I heard a shot. I could not tell 
 you how many people were outside in the road. I 
 heard some one say, " Halt." I afterwards saw marks 
 of shot on the window. No one was arrested. After 
 this we were boycotted in a sort of way. Some people 
 did not speak to us. I went to chapel and was pelted 
 with earth and stones. I used to go to school at that 
 time, and some of the other scholars did not speak to 
 me. I know Father Shanahan, and I believe he had 
 some connexion with the League. My father was a 
 member of the League at one time. I know men 
 named Eeardon and Buckley. They are Leaguers. On 
 one occasion they led a jennet on to the road so as to 
 make me drive into the ditch. 
 
 Do you know a woman named Kate Donahoe or 
 Donovan ? — No. 
 
 Do you know a girl, a friend of yours, who had 
 her hair cut off ? — No ; it was said her hair was cut off, 
 but it was not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. LOOKWOOD.— Are you a popular 
 character in the neighbourhood ? — No. 
 
 And you were not popular at school ? — No. 
 
 Do you ever remember being popular ? — Yes. 
 
 Before you went to school ? — Yes. 
 
 And not since ? — No. 
 
 By Mr. T. Harrington.— Was it you or your brother 
 who was accused of moonlighting ? Were you brought 
 to trial for moonlighting or was your brother ? — No, 
 neither myself nor my brother. 
 
 Whom, then, did Miss Wheatley swear for? Was it 
 your brother, George Williams ? — He was not accused 
 Df moonlighting, but of beating a man on the road. 
 
 Ee-examined. — Did the people ever treat you in 
 this way before the Land League was established ? — 
 No. 
 
 Charles Paston Crane, inspector in the Eoyal Irish 
 Constabulary, examined by Mr. Graham, said, — I re- 
 member Williams's house being fired into. A 
 number of threatening notices had been posted 
 in the district before that, and the conduct 
 of Mr. Orpen, for whom Williams had been 
 working, had been denounced at League meetings. 
 These notices (produced) were posted. They were 
 afterwards brought to my office. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — You do not know yourself whether 
 they were posted or not. 
 
 Mr. GRAHAM. — Did you receive them from your 
 officers in the ordinary discharge of their duty ? — Yes. 
 
 The learned counsel then read the following notice : — 
 
 " Capt. Moonlight. I do hereby caution, on- pain of 
 death, any person in this district not to have any com- 
 munication or dealings with those miserable hounds 
 and emergency wretches Bill Williams and Daniel 
 Culloty, who are betraying their country's cause by 
 working for that hellish evictor Orpen. I swear by 
 God's right hand that vengeance sure and sudden will 
 
 overtake any one who will not abide by this notice. 
 (Signed) Moonlight." 
 
 Then there is a drawing of a coffin. 
 
 The learned counsel also read a second notice which 
 was nearly identical in terms. It ended, " I ask my 
 faithful warriors to do their duty," and appended to it 
 
 was a rough sketch of death. 
 
 \ 
 
 Daniel Dowling, of Castleisland, examined by Mr. 
 Murphy. — I have paid my rent regularly. Shortly 
 before paying it in March, 1882,1 obtained a reduction. 
 At half-past 1 on the morning of March 6, when I was 
 in bed, I heard some people in my kitchen, and I was 
 called by name. They asked me whether I had paid 
 my rent, and I said that I had. I was ordered to go 
 outside the door, and they fired at me. I could not say 
 who it was that fired. They told me to keep my eyes 
 fixed on the ground, and I did so. The shot struck me 
 in the thigh. After that I got police protection, but I 
 did not see any change in the demeanour of the people 
 towards me. The people spoke to me and saluted me. 
 
 Why did you get police protection if that was so ?— 
 Well, the authorities thought that I wanted it, and I 
 did not object. 
 
 Did you ask for police protection ? — I cannot remem- 
 ber. 
 
 Think. Did you ask for police protection after this 
 event ? — It is likely I did. 
 
 I think you made a claim for compensation, which 
 was allowed ? — Yes. 
 
 Is it true that after this occurrence the neighbours 
 took no notice of you ? — I did not see any change. 
 There might be outside my knowledge some people who 
 had an ill-feeling against me. I was on good terms 
 with the people before this happened. 
 
 Have you said to any one that after this outrage the 
 neighbours took no notice of you ? 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — I submit that my learned friend is not 
 entitled to treat this witness as a hostile witness. 
 
 The President (to Mr. Murphy).— You appear to 
 assume too readily that the witness is hostile. There 
 is nothing in the man's manner to which you can 
 object. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Eeid. — You say that before 
 this outrage upon you the neighbours were on good 
 terms with you ? — Yes. m 
 
 And as far as you have observed they have been on 
 good terms with you since then also ? — Yes ; I found 
 no change. They would lend and borrow from me. . 
 
 Who was your landlord ? — Mr. William Blennerhas- 
 sett. 
 
 When this outrage took place was there any excite- 
 ment in the neighbourhood about paying rent ? — There 
 was ; the tenants were served with writs for ront. 
 
 And that aroused considerable excitement among 
 them ? — I think it did. 
 
 Were these tenants wanting abatements ? — Thny 
 were. I myself wanted an abatement. At one time I 
 paid £150, which has now been reduced to £105. 
 
 Is that a judicial rent ? — Yah. 
 
 Ulstrlct-Insnector Crane. 
 
 Daniel Dowling. 
 
The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 333 
 
 Were similar redactions made in other tenants' 
 cases ? — Yes. At the time to which I have been refer- 
 ring in the evidence which I have given, an abatement 
 was granted of 30 per cent. That was before I paid 
 my rent — at the time of the outrage. 
 
 Are you a member of the Land League ? — I was, 
 before this outrage. 
 
 Do you know whether, as far as the Land League 
 were concerned, they had expressed any dissatisfaction 
 with the reduction of 30 per cent. P — I cannot say, 
 because I did not go to the meetings afterwards. 
 
 Were most of your neighbours members of the 
 League ? — Most likely they were. 
 
 Most of the respectable people ? — Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You are a married man ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you receive a fortune with your wife ? — My 
 father got it. 
 
 Was it not that sum which enabled you to pay the 
 rent before the reduction ? — I had nothing to do with 
 that. 
 
 Did your father pay the rent for you ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it not paid out of this money ? — I left the 
 •management to my father. 
 
 You knew some of your neighbours to be Leaguers ; 
 did any of them give you any annoyance ? — None. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — This outrage was 
 in March, 1882 ?— Yes. 
 
 How long before that did you join the Land League ? 
 —I could not exactly tell you ; about a twelvemonth, 
 more or less. I had attended about 12 meetings. 
 
 How long before March, 1882, did you last attend a 
 meeting ? — I could not bring it to memory ; it might 
 be about a month. 
 
 Had this question of tenants paying rent been dis- 
 cussed at the meetings ? — I did not hear it mentioned 
 when I was present. I did not take . any part in the 
 discussions ; I really could not say what I heard dis- 
 cussed. 
 
 Can you give the Court any idea ; was it about the 
 weather ? — Likely not, Sir. 
 
 What was discussed ? — (The witness did not answer.) 
 
 You say nearly all your neighbours were Land 
 Leaguers P — Yes. 
 
 Did they complain of their rent being too high ? — 
 It may have been mentioned unknown to me. 
 
 Cannot you tell their Lordships one subject that w as 
 mentioned at the meetings ? — (Witness again hesitated 
 and gave no answer.) 
 
 You had received 30 per cent, reduction before you 
 were fired at ? — Yes, temporarily. 
 
 Did you let the Land League know that ? — Not my- 
 self. 
 
 Did you cause any one to tell it ?— No. 
 
 They may not have known it ? — The rest of the 
 tenants got the same reduction of 30 per cent. 
 
 Did you get any assistance in finding out who fired 
 at you ?— No, I have no idea. 
 
 Did you receive a threatening letter at any time P— 
 Yes, some time after I was fired at. I handed it to 
 Head Constable Huggins. I cannot tell the date of it. 
 
 Head Constable Huggins was then called and 
 examined by Mr. Murphy. He said, — I was in- 
 formed of the outrage on the last witness on March 6. 
 He gave me a threatening letter which he had re- 
 ceived on the 22d of October, 1883. I searched every- 
 where for it ; I left it at Castleisland when I 
 left, and have not been able to get it. 
 
 What was the substance of it ? — It threatened him 
 with the same fate as he had had before if he paid 
 his rent. 
 
 Did he ask for protection or not ? — Yes, he did. He 
 became awfully nervous after he was shot, and would 
 not stop in the house without protection. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. REID. — You say you got this 
 original letter ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you no idea of what has become of it ? — No, I 
 left it in Castleisland, in the office there. 
 
 Then it ought to be in the office there ? — I cannot 
 tell. 
 
 These things are recorded and kept, are they not ? 
 — They are. I telegraphed for it, and did all I could 
 to get it, but I got no reply. The district-inspector 
 got a reply, I believe. 
 
 Who is that ? — District-Inspector Rice. 
 
 What was the reply ? — That some letters had been 
 sent on by registered letter. I believe he never got 
 the letter at all. The letter was posted on the 13th, 
 and has not arrived up to this. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I should like to see the original letter, 
 if possible. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— We will get it if it can be done. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — You say the outrage 
 was on March 6, and the threatening letter on the 22d 
 of October, 1883 ; how have you got those dates ?— I 
 have a list of all the outrages committed in the 
 Castleisland district during the time I was there. 
 
 Did you yourself make an entry of the threatening 
 letter ? — No ; it was done by the district-inspector's 
 clerk. 
 
 By Mr. Asquith. — Who was your successor at 
 Castleisland ? — Head Constable Bsdington. I was head 
 constable. 
 
 To whom did you hand over the documents ? — I left 
 them behind me in the desk. They were in a large 
 envelope, in the office. I have not seen them since. 
 
 William Prenderville was then called and examined 
 by Mr. Murphy. He said,— I am a tenant of Mr. 
 Blennerhassett, and I live at Kilenshman. On the 6th 
 of March, 1882, I remember being visited by a number 
 of men. 
 
 About how many were there P — Well, there were 
 nearer 200 than 80 round about. They broke in the 
 kitchen door, and from that to my bedroom. 
 
 What then ? — They ordered me out of bed and took 
 me to the kitchen. 
 
 What did they say to you ?— They asked me why did 
 I pay rack-rent. 
 
 What did you say ? — I said I had a young family, 
 and if I did not pay it I would be evicted and thrown 
 
 Daniel Bowling. 
 
 Head Constable Huggins. 
 William Prenderville. 
 
334 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 out. They took me out into the yard and put me on 
 my knees and paraded round me. After that I was 
 allowed to go back. 
 
 Were they masked ? — To the best of my belief two 
 of them were. I saw one with a gun. My brother 
 was living with me then, and is still. He got a cut 
 on the head. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — Were you a member 
 of the Land League ? — I was, since its infancy. 
 
 Are you still ? — It does not exist. 
 
 Was Father Arthur Murphy a member ? — He was. 
 
 And Father M'Gillicuddy ?— He was. 
 
 And have you been to the meetings of the Land 
 League ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you heard those two reverend gentlemen 
 denounce outrages at meetings ? — Always. 
 i I will put this question to you on this outrage per- 
 petrated against you on the Cth of March, 1882— Do 
 you believe that the Land League had anything to do 
 with it ? — I swear on my oath that to the best of my 
 belief they never had. 
 
 In your neighbourhood are most of the neighbours 
 members of the Land League, or were they ? — They 
 were. 
 
 Were most of the respectable people in the neigh- 
 bourhood members of the League ? — They were. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — You say you belonged 
 to the Land League from its infancy ? — I did, Sir. 
 
 How long did its infancy continue ; how long did it 
 go on ? Did it grow np into a boy and on ?— It went 
 on until it was expelled or suppressed. I think it is 
 over 12 months since it was expelled. 
 
 Did you know all the people in the Land League ?— 
 I did in my own vicinity. 
 
 Did you attend the meetings ? — I did. 
 
 Have you any idea who the men were who came and 
 walked round the place and put you on your knees ? — 
 No. 
 
 Had they anything over their faces ? — To the best of 
 my belief they had. 
 
 Mr. Reid objected. 
 
 Sir II. James. — I was testing what knowledge he 
 had 
 
 The President. — Had they anything over their 
 faces ? — I think two of them had. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Do you know who they were ? — I 
 do not. 
 
 Did you know where they came from or who they 
 were ? — Indeed I did not, no more than the man in 
 the moon. (Laughter.) 
 
 You have no belief as to who these people were ? — 
 Not of any single one. 
 
 Not the slightest belief ?— Not the slightest belief. 
 
 No more than the gentleman of whom you spoke ? — 
 No. 
 
 Miss Lizzie Curtin was the next witness, and was 
 examined by Sir H. James. 
 
 Are you now the postmistress at Wicklow, Miss 
 Curtin ?— Yes. 
 
 In the autumn of 1885 where were you living ?— At 
 Castle Farm. 
 
 With whom were you living at that time ? — With my 
 father and mother. 
 
 And other members of the family ?— Yes, my 
 brothers and sister. There were two brothers, my 
 sister, and myself. 
 
 Who was your father's landlord ? — Lord Kenmare. 
 
 Do you recollect your father going with others to 
 Lord Kenmare with reference to getting an abatement 
 of rent ? — Yes, he was asked to go as spokesman, and 
 he went. 
 
 Do you know whether that application was suc- 
 cessful or not ? — I do not know. 
 
 You recollect the night of the sad occurrence, the 
 13th of November, 1885. Before that had your father 
 paid his rent ? — Yes. 
 
 And, I believe, he paid it without any abatement ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 On the night of the 13th of November were you in 
 the parlour with your father and mother ? — I was. 
 
 Did the servant come in to you and say — I will not 
 ask you what she said— something about moonlighters? 
 —Yes. 
 
 I believe you had no firearms downstairs where the 
 parlour was ? — No. 
 
 And did you go upstairs to get them ? — I did. 
 
 Did your father follow you ? — He did. 
 
 And did he take a gun and a revolver from you, 
 which you gave him ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he then leave you ? Did you go as far as the 
 foot of the stairs ? — Yes, we did. 
 
 Were you remaining upstairs, Miss Curtin ? — On the 
 stairs. 
 
 Did you hear your father say anything ? — Yes. 
 
 What did he say ?— He said, " Well now, boys ? " 
 
 Did you after that hear some shots fired— several ? — 
 A volley of shots passed my head as I stood on the 
 stairs. 
 
 Did you hear more shots than one, Miss Curtin ? — 
 Yes, several. 
 
 I believe the lamp on the stairs went out, and it 
 was dark ? — Yes. 
 
 I believe the next thing that happened was that 
 your sister, Miss Nora Curtin, came upstairs ? — Yes. 
 
 I believe one of your brothers was named Daniel ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did your sister come upstairs ajid say that your 
 brother Daniel was shot ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you then come downstairs ? — Yes. I went down 
 and stood at the parlour door where he had been shut 
 in. ^ , 
 
 Did you see any one about just then ?— No. 
 
 Did you know whero the men were, or where they 
 had gone to ? — No. 
 
 Was the door open or fastened ?— It was fastened at 
 first. 
 
 Were you able to get in ?— Not at first ; it was 
 fastened against me. 
 
 Did your brother George come downstairs ?— It was 
 
 William Freuderville, 
 
 Miss Lizzie Curtin, 
 
The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 335 
 
 fastened from the inside. In the meantime my brother 
 George and my sister came downstairs and the door 
 was pushed open. 
 
 When you got inside the room what did you see ? — 
 My brother. He was * caught by some men in the 
 room. He was standing up and struggling with the 
 men. 
 
 What room was this ?— The parlour which we had 
 been in first. 
 
 Did you take hold of the gun that was between 
 your brother and one of the other men ? — Yes. 
 
 Did your sister, Miss Nora Curtin, do anything ? — 
 She put her hands on one of the men and took some- 
 thing off his face. 
 
 Then did she say anything to your brother ? — Yes ; 
 she said, ',' Dan, do you know him ?" 
 
 Was there any reply to that ?— No, not that I re- 
 member. 
 
 What took place then ? Did the struggle go on ?— 
 The struggle continued. 
 
 How many men were there in this room with your 
 brother ? — There were three. 
 
 Did the struggle bring you into the hall, out of the 
 room ? — Yes. 
 
 I believe you kept a firm hold of the gun ? — Yes. 
 
 In the result was yojr brother overpowered ? — No ; 
 my brother overpowered the man he was struggling 
 with. 
 
 Did you hear anything said ? Did the man say any- 
 thing to your brother ?— Yes ; I heard him say " Mr. 
 Dan." I did not hear what else he said. 
 
 What became of the gun, Miss Curtin ?— I kept hold 
 of it until I had got it from the man. Then I put it 
 in the parlour, and hid it until the sergeant came. 
 
 Did you go upstairs into your father's bedroom ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 I believe in going upstairs you stumbled over a 
 second gun, which you took upstairs ? — Yes. 
 
 When you came into your father's bedroom I believe 
 you found him there ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he wounded ? — Yes. 
 
 A gun wound ? — Yes. 
 . Did you go downstairs and ask the servants to go to 
 the police ? — Yes. 
 
 Had they interfered up to this time ?— No. 
 
 Were they men-servants ? — Two of them. 
 
 Where were they ? — In the outer kitchen. 
 
 In the same house ? — Yes. 
 
 What did you ask the servants to do ? — I asked them 
 to go for the priests and the doctors and the police. 
 They went . for the priests and doctors, but would not 
 go for the police. 
 
 Did you ask them more than once to go for the 
 police ?— Yes. 
 
 Did they actually refuse ? — Yes. 
 
 I believe in the hall you found the man Timolny 
 Sullivan dying from a shot ? — Yes. 
 1 Did your father's funeral take place the next Sun- 
 day ?— Yes. 
 
 Did any of your neighbours attend the funeral ? — 
 Some, but very few. 
 
 Is it the custom of the country for neighbours to 
 attend a funeral ? — Yes. 
 
 About how many attended ? — I could not say how 
 many ; very few in comparison to what has usually 
 been the case. Our friends from a distance came, 
 and a few of the neighbouring farmers attended. 
 
 On the following Sunday did you goto chapel? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you hear Father Murphy mention the fact of the 
 murder ? — Yes. 
 
 What occurred ? — The people made a noise with their 
 feet. 
 
 Did any leave the chapel ? — I could not say ; I was 
 in the sacristy. 
 
 On your leaving the chapel was there any " booing " 
 in your presence ? — Not that day. 
 
 Did your workmen attend the funeral ?— I think 
 they did ; but I did not remark whether they came or 
 stayed away. 
 
 How long did you remain in the place where you had 
 been living with your father and mother ? — Till last 
 September twelvemonth — September, 1887. 
 
 Did you continue to live in the same place ? — Yes. 
 
 Before this murder happened where did you get your 
 supplies of food from ?— We always got our provisions 
 from Cork. 
 
 Did you get any supplies from the neighbourhood ? — 
 Yes ; small things generally. 
 
 Were you able to get supplies in the same way after 
 the murder? — No. 
 
 What was the difference ? What supplies were you 
 unable to get ?— We could not get eggs and butter, 
 and things of that sort. 
 
 Did you get them previously from the shops, or from 
 the farmers ?— From the farmers. 
 
 When you say you could not get them, do you 
 mean that they refused to supply you ?— Yes. We used 
 often to get them through others going for them and 
 pretending they were for themselves. Members 
 of a few families in the neighbourhood and some 
 of our labourers would go for them. Some of our 
 workmen left us. 
 
 Did your workmen give you any reason for going ? — 
 Some gave no reason, and others gave the reason that 
 they were afraid. A few stayed with us. 
 
 They used to pretend they wanted the provisions for 
 themselves ? — Yes. 
 
 Before the time of the murder, where did youi 
 father get his horses shod ? — In the village. 
 
 After your father's death, where did you send youi 
 horses to be shod ? — To Tralee or Killarney. 
 
 How far was that ? — About nine or ten miles. 
 
 Why did you send them there ? — Because the village 
 blacksmith refused to shoe them. 
 
 Had you at any time to get the constabulary farrier 
 to shoe your horses ? — Yes. 
 
 Have vou been shouted and hooted at on the road ?— 
 Yes, 
 
 Miss Lizzie Curtin. 
 
336 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20, 1888. 
 
 Was that when you were alone or with members of 
 your family ? — Both alone and with members of my 
 family. 
 
 Were you ever hooted in Killarney ? — Yes. 
 
 What occurred to you on the road to this place ? — 
 We were hooted at and stones were placed on the road. 
 We were hooted at and called murderers and informers. 
 
 Have you heard ballads sung about you and your 
 family ? — I have not heard them sung, but I have seen 
 them in print. 
 
 The ballads referred to your family ? — Yes. 
 
 After the murder did you continue the practice of 
 attending chapel ? — Yes. 
 
 Where did you generally sit when you went to 
 chapel P — Right at the top of the chapel. 
 
 Did you continue to occupy the same place ? — Only 
 on two Sundays, I think. After that they broke up 
 our pew. 
 
 Was the chapel closed by order of the Bishop ? — Yes. 
 
 For how long ? — Six weeks. 
 
 Was there any reason for that, that you know of, 
 except this occurrence about your family dispute ? — 
 No. 
 
 I think you said that on two occasions you did sit in 
 your pew ? — Yes. 
 
 But on going to and coming from chapel, how were 
 you treated ? — We were hooted and booed at. A rush 
 was made for the gate as we were leaving the chapel. 
 
 Have you been called offensive names ? — I have been 
 called murderer and informer. 
 
 You say your pew was broken up. Was an attempt 
 made to put a new pew in its place ? — Yes. 
 
 What happened to that ? — They beat the carrier and 
 broke the pew up at the chapel gate. 
 
 What sort of farm did your father occupy ? — A dairy 
 farm. 
 
 Was it a large or a small farm ? ' Perhaps you do not 
 know the acreage ? — It was 160 acres, I think." 
 
 Was your mother able to continue to carry on the 
 farm ? — No, she did not know how to manage a 
 dairy. 
 
 Could you get people to work for you ? — Three only, 
 and they were not sufficient. 
 
 Do you remember the date of the trial ? September, 
 1885, is that it ?— Yes. 
 
 There were two persons convicted, I think ? — Yes. 
 
 And they were each sentenced to 14 years' penal 
 servitude ? — Yes. 
 
 Did the manner of the people in any way change to 
 you after the trial ? — Yes. 
 
 How ? — After that the servants all left us and tho 
 hooting and booing got worse. 
 
 At that time had you a man of the namo of Michael 
 Sullivan, a herd on tho farm ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he occupy a cottago belonging to the farm ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did ho come to your houso and give up tho keys of 
 that cottage ?— Yes, on the very Sunday night when 
 the pow was broken up. 
 
 How long had that man been in your family ?— 
 Thirty-two years. 
 
 Did ho give any reason why he gave up the keys ? 
 — He said he was afraid to stay. 
 
 Did he leave ? — Yes. 
 
 Was the parish priest the Rev. Father O'Connor ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Was he connected with the Land League ?— Yes ; he 
 was president of the Firies branch of the League. 
 
 For 12 months after your father's death did he ever 
 visit your mother ? — Immediately after my father's 
 death he visited my mother, i- He paid one visit, but 
 after that for 12 months he never visited at all. 
 
 The Rev. Father Murphy was the curate of the 
 parish ?— Yes. 
 
 Did ho say something in the chapel condemning the 
 murder of your father ? — Yes. 
 
 He spoke kindly of your father ? — Yes. 
 
 How was he treated afterwards ? — He was partially 
 boycotted, I believe. 
 
 Do you know Mr. Alfred Webb, of 74, Abbey-street> 
 Dublin ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you know him as being a member of the Land 
 League ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — He is treasurer of the National 
 League. 
 
 Sir H. James. — After the murder did he go to your 
 houso ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he take a statement from you as to the way in 
 which you had been treated ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he afterwards show you a copy of a circular 
 which had been printed ? — He did. 
 
 Is that it ?— Yes. 
 , The learned counsel then read the circular :— 
 " To some of my Nationalist Friends. 
 
 " January 27, 1886. 
 
 " My dear Sir, — Can nothing be done to save Mrs. 
 Curtin and her family from further outrage ? Mr. John 
 O'Connor, M.P. (South Tip.), is their friend and can 
 explain the facts of the case if you do not already 
 know them. I spent last Sunday with the family. I 
 never will forget my experiences. Were I now to 
 relate them they might be used as arguments for 
 coercion. I can, however, see no impropriety in lay- 
 ing them before the League next Tuesday. Mean- 
 while, I am prepared, if absolutely desirable, to go 
 to London and talk the matter over. It is the duty of 
 all Nationalists openly, unequivooally, and effectually 
 to stand by the family. There is ample time before 
 next Sunday to do something. What makes me more 
 determined not to keep silence is the shameful and 
 horrible calumnies afloat in Dublin concerning the 
 Curtin family. " Very truly yours, 
 
 " Altbed Webb." 
 
 Was there the slightest difference in the way in 
 which you were treated after that circular was shown 
 to you ? — No. The boycotting aud booing continued. 
 
 Which was the nearest branch of the Land League ?— 
 That at Firies, about a mile off. I think that there 
 were others in the neighbourhood. 
 
 Did you know of either the branch League or the 
 central League taking any step to prevent your suffer- 
 ing from this treatment ? — No 
 
 Miss Lizzie Curtin. 
 
The Special Commission, NovemBer 20, 1888. 
 
 337 
 
 Do you recollect that Mr. Davitt went down to 
 your neighbourhood ? — Yes. 
 
 Did the man Sullivan, who was shot, live with his 
 father ? — He lived with his mother. His father was 
 dead, I think. 
 
 What were the names of the men who were tried ? — 
 Casey and Daly. 
 
 Did Mrs. Casey live in the neighbourhood ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know whether Mr. Davitt went and saw Mrs. 
 Sullivan and Mrs. Casey ? — I was told 
 
 Mr. Reid. — How can she tell us this ? 
 
 Sir H. James.— Did Mr. Davitt go near your 
 mother ? Did he see her ? — No. 
 
 When did you finally leave your father's house ? — I 
 left in September, 1887. when I got an appointment 
 in the Post Office. 
 
 How long did your family remain in the place ? — 
 Until last April. 
 
 They have all left now ? — Yes. 
 
 As far as you know, did this treatment of your family 
 continue until they all left ? — Yes. 
 
 I want now to go back to an earlier date. Do you 
 recollect, some time before the murder, a party of men 
 coming to your father's house in the night time ? — Yes. 
 It was in 1881, I think. 
 
 Did you hear what they said or did ? — Yes. 
 
 What was it they said or did ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Did you hear yourself ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir H. James. — She has already said so. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— I did not hear. 
 
 Sib H. James. — What did they say ?— Father spoke 
 to them from his bedroom window. He asked them 
 what they wanted, and they replied " Firearms." He 
 said that he could not give them any, and then they 
 said that they wanted to get in. He answered that 
 they should not, and that he would shoot the first man 
 who should come in. They asked him whether he had 
 paid his rent, and he said " Yes." They then asked 
 whether he was a Land Leaguer, and he said " No." 
 They asked whether he had paid according to Griffith's 
 valuation, and he said " No." They then asked him 
 what he was, and he replied " An Irishman." 
 
 After this conversation they made a rush at the door ? 
 .—Yes, I think so, but I would not be positive. 
 
 Then, I believe, your mother interfered, and a rusty 
 old gun was given to them ? — Yes ; they then went 
 away. 
 
 Do you know anything as to the farm being put up 
 to auction ? — Yes ; it was put up to auction in 
 February, 1887, but there were no bidders for it. 
 
 It was afterwards sold privately, I believe, for about 
 a quarter of its value ? — Yes. 
 
 Who purchased it ? — Someone in the neighbour- 
 hood. 
 
 The examination in chief of the witness having 
 ended, and it being now 4 o'clock, 
 
 The President asked whether the cross-examination 
 would occupy any considerable time. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — It will take about 20 minutes,; 
 
 The President intimated that in that case the Court 
 would adjourn. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My Lords, may I, with the concurrence 
 of Sir Charles Russell, make a suggestion? While there 
 may be cases of outrage which the Attorney-General 
 may desire to enter into in detail, I think we might 
 be furnished with a general list of outrages in regard 
 to these counties. This is my reason. The outrages 
 in the county of Galway alone have occupied some 
 three weeks, and there are some five other counties 
 to which my learned friend adverted in his opening, 
 and about which he was to give particulars. It is appal- 
 ling to consider how long this case will last if each 
 county has to be gone into at the same length, if the 
 county of Galway is to be taken as a precedent. I 
 submit respectfully that the defendants, the members 
 who are charged, are entitled to some consideration 
 in regard to the duration of this inquiry. That involves 
 a willingness to concede on our part, and we are willing 
 to do what is reasonable ; and I submit that, while the 
 other side may desire to give evidence of some out- 
 rages in detail, or to supplement the bare fact of an 
 outrage by further evidence for the purpose of con- 
 necting it with the Land League or the parties incrimi- 
 nated—I submit that, if your Lordships have the proof 
 given in the manner hitherto adopted, this inquiry 
 will practically be interminable as well as ruinous. 
 
 Sir Hi James. — I will accept the suggestion in the 
 spirit in which I am sure it has been offered. There 
 is no one more anxious to limit this inquiry in point 
 of time than those I represent. We will bear this 
 suggestion in mind, but it is absolutely necessary to 
 prove outrages to some extent. Where we can with 
 propriety we will take them generally and not in 
 detail. 
 
 The President. — It has been a subject of most 
 anxious consideration on my part, and no doubt on the 
 part of my colleagues ; and I do hope there will be an 
 earnest effort made to shorten the inquiry as much as 
 possible. I should have thought myself that now that 
 we have had an outline as it were, a type and example 
 of the case as to two counties, it would be possible 
 to avoid going into the other counties in such detail. 
 We then might proceed to the other branches of the 
 case. I hope that will be taken into account. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I undertake that what your Lordship 
 says shall be fully considered. An outrage mentioned 
 by itself is a mere fact. Unless proof is given as to 
 details the absence of some detail may make it very 
 difficult to show Hat the outrage was connected with 
 the Land League. .Bach case may require to be sifted 
 in order to show the cause of the outrage. We will, 
 however, bear fully in mind what your Lordship has 
 said. Nobody can feel more than we do that it is 
 very desirable to shorten the inquiry as far as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— As far as any evidence tending to con- 
 nect the committal of the outrages either with the 
 League or the persons charged is concerned, I do not 
 
 Miss Lizzie Curtin. 
 
338 
 
 The Special Commission, November 20 and 21, 1888. 
 
 and will not ask for any abbreviation whatever. What 
 I do ask for is an abbreviation in the piling up of what 
 I may call agonizing details which can have no 
 relevancy whatever. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I wish my friend would not use this 
 language, because it necessitates my replying. I object 
 to the words " piling up agonizing details." To prove 
 " agonizing details " is not our object, but we want 
 the facts to be known. v 
 
 The Commissioners then adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 17th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On their Lordships taking their seats, 
 
 Mr. Reid said, — My Lords, in reference to the matter 
 which was brought before your Lordships yesterday 
 morning, in regard to which I asked for an adjournment 
 until to-day, I have to say to your Lordships that I 
 have communicated my views on this subject to Mr. 
 Harrington, and that Mr. Harrington has not thought 
 fit to adopt my views ; and under these circumstances 
 I am not in a position to say anything to your Lord- 
 ships. ' 
 
 The President.— Mr. Harrington ? 
 
 Mr. B. Harrington. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — I was asking if you have anything 
 to say. 
 
 Mr. E. Harrington. — I have nothing to say, my 
 Lord. I accept the responsibility for what has 
 appeared in my paper. 
 
 Their Lordships thereupon retired from the Court. 
 
 On the return of the Commissioners to Court, after an 
 absence of about ten minutes, 
 
 The President said, — It is my painful duty to have 
 to pronounce the conclusion to which we have arrived. 
 As Mr. Harrington's interests were confided to Mr. 
 Reid, whose position at the Bar assured us that the 
 best possible advice would be given to his client, I 
 had hoped that I should be spared the duty which is 
 now imposed upon me. Inasmuch as Mr. Harrington 
 has not acted upon the advice he has received from his 
 counsel, but simply takes up the position of assuming 
 the responsibility for the article called to our notice, 
 I must proceed to state the decision to which we have 
 come. We see clearly that it would be a waste of words 
 to point out how serious is the contempt of Court which 
 has been committed. It assumes a form which would 
 induce me, if I could have seen my way to do it con- 
 sistently with the duties that belong to the office that 
 has been imposed upon me, to pass it over. I should 
 have been glad to see my way to pass it over, because 
 the contempt consists of personal insults addressed to 
 members of the Court. But it is necessary that the 
 authority of the Court should be maintained, and I 
 cannot but see that if tactics of this kind were 
 allowed to go on it would tend to shake the authority 
 of the Court in the eyes of the public generally, and 
 especially in the eyes of those whom we may havn 
 
 called before us. We must, therefore, mark our sense 
 of the serious character of the contempt which has 
 been committed by imposing a punishment upon Mr. 
 Harrington. This subject has been on several occasions 
 before a Court of law, and I have before me the case 
 of Onslow and Whalley ("The Queen v. Castro — 
 Onslow and Whalley's case," " L. R." 9, Q.B., 219), 
 in which the Cpurt of Queen's Bench have dealt with 
 a matter of this kind, and we propose to follow that 
 precedent. We therefore pass this sentence — that for 
 the contempt of which Mr. Harrington has been guilty 
 he be adjudged to pay a fine of £500 to the Queen. 
 
 The examination of witnesses called on behalf of The 
 Times was then resumed. 
 
 Miss Lizzie Curtin, whose examination in chief was 
 concluded at the rising of the Court yesterday, then 
 entered the box, and was cross-examined by Sir C. 
 Russell. 
 
 Your father was a considerable farmer, I believe ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 And greatly respected in the neighbourhood? — Yes. 
 
 Was he himself one of the vice-presidents of the 
 Firies branch of the National League ? — I do nob know. 
 I knew he subscribed to it, but I did not know he was 
 one of the vice-presidents. 
 
 Well, he subscribed and attended meetings? — No, 
 he was never in the League rooms. 
 
 Do you recollect when it was considered necessary 
 to make a representation of the Kenmare tenantry to 
 Lord Kenmare with reference to rent abatement ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you or do you not know that that was arranged 
 by the local National League ? — I do not know. 
 
 You know that your father was asked to be spokes- 
 man and that he took that part ? — Yes. 
 
 He had a lease of his farm had he not ; a beneficial 
 lease, on low terms, I mean i— I do not know whether 
 it was a beneficial lease or not. 
 
 I mean on low terms as compared with other rents ? 
 :— Up to this time he had not asked for a reduction. 
 
 Do you not know that on this account he was ex- 
 empted from joining with the rest in pressing for tho 
 abatement which the others were demanding ? — I do 
 not know ; I never heard it discussed. 
 
 Now there were two visits paid by the moonlighters 
 — or whoever they were — to your father's house ? — Yes. 
 
 The first was in April, 1885 ?— In 1881, I think. 
 
 How many men came to his house on that occasion ? 
 — I could not say how many. 
 
 I understand they asmed for arms, your father was 
 inclined to refuse, and your mother intervened and 
 gave them some old gun, and they then went away ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Nothing took place on that occasion except the 
 demand for arms ? — Yes ; they asked him if he had 
 paid his rent. 
 
 Was it on that occasion that the servant came and 
 reported that moonlighters were outside ? — No, that 
 was on the second occasion. 
 
 Contemnt- of Court (Mr. E. Harrington). 
 
 Miss Lizzie Curtin. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 339 
 
 That was the 13th of November, 1885 ?— Yes. 
 
 Could you say how many there were on that occa- 
 sion '/— No, I could not. 
 
 The servant reported that there was a party of moon- 
 lighters outside ? — Yes. 
 
 Your father then went to the door ? — No, he went 
 upstairs for his gun, and then he came down to the 
 foot of the stairs. 
 
 Where was the man who was shot by your father at 
 the timo he was shot ? — He was found jlead in the hall . 
 
 Your father had fired the shot from the stair ?— 
 Nobody knew who shot him. 
 
 There was more than one shot at that time '/ — I could 
 not say, there was a volley fired. My father only 
 fired one shot. 
 
 That was the first ? — Yes. Then there was a volley 
 ol shots fired. 
 
 In what time did Sullivan die P — He was dead when 
 I saw him. 
 
 It was almost instantaneous ? — I do not know. 
 
 What age was Sullivan 'I — I do not know ; he was a 
 young man, and the son of a farmer. 
 
 The two other men, who were sentenced to penal 
 servitude — Daly and Casey — were not they young men of 
 21 and 22 ? — I do not know ; at all events they were 
 young men, and also sons of farmers. 
 
 Now, up to this visit on the 13th of November, 
 1885, had there been any kind of complaint made 
 against your father, or any kind or shape of threat ?— 
 No. 
 
 Not in the least ? — No. 
 
 Is there, as far as you know, any ground for suggest- 
 ing that he was at enmity with the Land League or 
 National League, or had done anything against their 
 wishes ? — No ; not that I am aware of. 
 
 Now you have told us of the behaviour — the cruel 
 behaviour — of the people after your father's murder j 
 are the names of the servants, Daly and Casey, the 
 most common names in that neighbourhood ?— Sullivan 
 and Daly are. 
 
 Are those persons who bear those names largely con- 
 nected with one another ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you know Mr. Alfred Webb, whose circular has 
 been referred to ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know what position Mr. Alfred Webb held in 
 the National League ? — No. 
 
 You do not know that he was treasurer ? — No. 
 
 On the occasion of the funeral did the member for 
 the county, Mr. Sheehan, attend ? — Yes. 
 
 Did Mr. J. O'Connor, the member for an adjoining 
 constituency in Cork, attend the funeral ?— Yes. 
 
 Did not Mr. Webb come down specially from Dublin 
 to attend the meeting on the Sunday in the chapel 
 yard ? — Yes ; he came down on the Sunday morning 
 and addressed a meeting in the chapel yard. 
 
 And did he denounce the outrage, and endeavour as 
 far as he possibly could to remove the boycotting and 
 annoyance to which yoar family- were subjected ? — 
 He meant to do so. 
 
 How soon was it after the funeral he made that 
 speech ? — I do not know. 
 
 Was it after the circular ?— No'. 
 
 Then it was before the circular ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you also know that Mr. Michael Davitt had 
 come down for the same purpose P — I did hear he was 
 down. 
 
 You did not know him personally ? — No. 
 
 Did you learn that he also had, as strongly as man 
 could well, denounced the outrage and annoyance that 
 your family were being subjected to ? — No, he was in 
 the place. That is all I know. 
 
 Did you hear anything of what he said ? — No. 
 ,; On the day of the funeral and after the funeral did 
 not Mr. John O'Connor, the member for an adjoining 
 constituency, make a strong speech in denunciation of 
 the matter ? — No, not that I ever heard of. 
 
 Well, I am instructed that that is so. However, 
 you did not hear of that ?— No. 
 
 Was Mr. John O'Connor a friend of your family ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did he visit you afterwards ? — He left the day after 
 the funeral. He came down on Saturday and left on 
 the Monday. The funeral was on the Sunday. 
 
 Now, we have heard of the gross conduct in relation 
 to the pew on the part of a considerable number of 
 the congregation. Do you not know that Father 
 O'Connor, the parish priest, denounced the murder, 
 and spoke in the highest terms of your father ?— No. I 
 heard Father Murphy speak. 
 
 It is suggested to me that there are two chapels, 
 and that one clergyman would go to one chapel and 
 the other to the other, and I am instructed that at 
 each of these chapels denunciatory speeches were 
 made. — I heard one of them. I do not know about the 
 other. 
 
 You know also that in order to mark his disapproval 
 of the conduct of the people the Bishop ordered the 
 church to be closed ? — Yes. 
 
 And how long was it closed ? — Six weeks. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You have said that you heard I 
 visited the locality and called upon the Sullivans ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Did you hear that I called upon the Sullivans and 
 the Caseys to induce them to stop the boycotting of 
 your family ? — No. 
 
 Did you read the report of theCowper Commission ? 
 —No. 
 
 Did you hear of any evidence given by Inspector 
 Davis that I had gone down to Kerry and denounced 
 outrages ? — No. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — The outrage on 
 your father took place in November, 1885 ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you recollect the date of Mr. Davitt's visit ? — I 
 think it was in January, 1886. 
 
 Before he came had you been boycotted ? — Yes. 
 
 Did the boycotting grow more or less, or did it 
 remain stationary ? — It was worse a month afterwards 
 than it was at the beginning. 
 
 Miss Lizzie Curtin, 
 
340 
 
 The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 I believe Mr. O'Connor was known to mutual friends 
 of yours ? — Yes. 
 
 He attended) the funeral, and showed sympathy in 
 that way ? — Yes. 
 
 Was anything said during the visit in May in respect 
 of the rent your father paid ? — Yes. He was asked if 
 he had paid his rent, and he said " Yes." He was 
 then asked, " Did he pay Griffith's valuation," and he 
 said " No." 
 
 As far as you know, when did your father become a 
 Land Leaguer ? — He never joined the Land League. 
 
 When did he join the National League ? — I think 
 about a fortnight or three weeks before his death. 
 
 You told us yesterday that the ballets passed by you. 
 Can you form any estimate of the number of shots 
 fired ? — I saw seven or eight guns pointed. 
 
 Did you see these guns before your father fired or 
 after ?— Before. 
 
 And these seven or eight guns were pointed in the 
 direction of your father ? — Yes. 
 
 Was anybody with him at the time ? — He was alone, 
 except for my sister Norah. 
 
 Did your father fire before the guns were pointed at 
 him, or after P — After. They were pointed at him as 
 he came down stairs. 
 
 Can you form any estimate of the number of guns 
 discharged ? — No, I do not think I could. 
 
 Your brother Daniel is, I believe, in Australia now ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 And your sister Norah is married, and is not able to 
 attend ?— Yes. 
 
 Is Father O'Connor the principal Roman Catholic 
 clergyman in the place ? — Yes, 
 
 And Father Murphy is his curate ? — Yes. 
 
 It was Father Murphy you heard speak kindly of 
 your father ? — Yes. 
 
 On George Curtin being called, 
 
 Sib C. Russell rose and said, — I would suggest, 
 my Lords, that this is an occasion on which my 
 learned friend could, with advantage, give practical 
 effect to the suggestion thrown out last night. We 
 surely do not. want this sad story all over again. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My friend must allow me to be the 
 best judge of that. I am going to take this witness 
 very shortly, my Lords. The facts which are not dis- 
 puted I am not going into closely. 
 
 The President.— We should be glad, you know, to 
 be spared any details beyond what' are necessary for 
 the explanation of the case. 
 
 George Curtin was then examined by SlK H. JAMES. 
 He said : — I am the brother of the last witness, and I 
 lived with my father and mother and sisters. I was at 
 home on the evening of the murder. I recollect a 
 meeting of the National League being held in the 
 village of Firies shortly before that. About six months 
 before, I think. 
 
 Where were you when the men came to the house ? — 
 I was in the kitchen. 
 
 Did you attempt to leave the kitchen ? — Yes. 
 
 Was any gun pointed at ycu ? — Yes. 
 
 By one man or by two or more ? — By one man. 
 
 Did you see about how many men were armed that 
 night in the house ?— Five. 
 
 Were they armed with guns ? — Yes. 
 
 I will not again go over the circumstances inside 
 the house. On the Sunday after the murder did you 
 attend chapel? — Yes. I was in the sacristy of the 
 chapel. I recollect the officiating clergyman referring 
 to the murder. Some of the people in the chapel got 
 up and walked out. I think the greater number of 
 them walked out. 
 
 After that did your servants stay with you ? — Some 
 of them. All the male servants left except one. I do 
 not think they gave any reasons for leaving. If 
 they did I do not remember. Some of these men had 
 been with us for a long time. We had in our employ 
 four male servants and five female servants, I think. 
 
 Speaking from your own experience, how were you 
 treated when going along the road ?— The people 
 would shout and screech at us as we went along. I 
 think they called us murderers and informers. 
 
 Did you give evidence at the trial ? — Yes, with the 
 other members of my family, my two sisters and my 
 brother. 
 
 You stated that all the male servants left you except 
 one. Was that the coachman ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you recollect his going into the village of Firies 
 at any time after the murder ? — Not that boy. Another 
 boy. 
 
 Did one of your servants to your knowledge go into 
 the village ? — Yes. 
 
 When he came back did he complain of anything 
 happening to him ? — He said he had been assaulted and 
 beaten on the road. 
 
 Did you see any signs of assault ? — He was all cut 
 about. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — What was the occasion F 
 
 Sir H. James. — The occasion was his going to the 
 village of Firies ? — Yes. 
 
 What state was he in ? 
 
 The President. — He has already stated that the 
 man was all cut and bleeding. What is the use of 
 asking him to repeat his statement ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — I understood that my learned friend 
 had objected to the question. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I objected on the ground that he 
 had not stated the occasion he was referring to, and to 
 the mere statement that the man had come back cut 
 and bleeding. 
 
 Sir H. James.— I am showing the occasion. (To 
 the witness.) Was the man seriously hurt? — Yes, he 
 was. 
 
 How long ago was that ?— It was about six months 
 before we left. 
 
 When did you leave ?— Last May. 
 
 Then it occurred about a year ago 1 — Yes. The lad had 
 been a long time in our service. Some of our servants 
 received threatening ^letters, which I saw. We engaged 
 men to cut our hay, but before the hay was cut they 
 
 George Curtin. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 341 
 
 left us, stating that they had beeu threatened. Some 
 men were arrested for shouting at us ; one of them was 
 named Kennedy. I do not know whether that man 
 belonged to the Land League or not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Three of the 
 men-servants in our employ were named Sullivan, but 
 we had none named Casey or Daly. I was myself a 
 member of the National League. I had been a 
 member of the local branch of the National League 
 e^er siDce it was started. The local branch was 
 started about six months before' my father was 
 murdered. As far as I know, the greater number of 
 our respectable neighbours belonged to that branch. 
 My father joined the local branch at the same time 
 that I did. 
 
 It has been suggested that your father was the vice- 
 president of the local branch of the League ; is that 
 the fact ? — Yes, it is. I myself held no office in the 
 League. 
 
 Did you attend the meetings of the local branch ? — 
 Yes, I did. 
 
 Your family and yourself have suffered grievous 
 trouble ; I must ask you this — have you any grounds 
 for suggesting that the National League had anything 
 to do with this great crime committed against your 
 family ? — No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — I was present at 
 a meeting of the local branch of the League which 
 took place some time before my father's death. My 
 father was also present. The meeting was addressed 
 by Mr. Edward Harrington. 
 
 Do you know that your father on that occasion in- 
 vited Mr. Edward Harrington to partake of the 
 hospitality of his house during the continuance of the 
 meeting ? — Yes, he did. 
 
 And your father was in thorough sympathy with the 
 meeting and with its objects ? — Yes, he was. 
 
 After the murder of your father did you read the 
 resolutions that were passed by the branches of the 
 League at Firies and other places in your neighbour- 
 hood 1—1 did. 
 
 Am I right in saying that those resolutions 
 denounced the outrage that had been committed upon 
 your family ?~-Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — You say that you 
 were a member of the National League. Were you a 
 member of the general body of that association or 
 were you a member of the committee ? — I was a 
 member of the general body only. 
 
 How often did you attend the meetings of the local 
 branch ? — Occasionally. The meetings were held in 
 neighbouring villages. They were attended by large 
 numbers of people — perhaps there may have be*en 100 
 persons present. 
 
 Were those who attended these meetings of the 
 local branch people of the neighbourhood — shop- 
 keepers, farmers, and others ? — Yes. 
 
 What class of people was it who booed and 
 shouted at you after the trial ? — They were people of 
 the neighbourhood.. 
 
 Were they people who knew you well ? — Yes, they 
 were. 
 
 . Sergeant Francis Meehan, examined by Sir H. 
 James, said, — I am a sergeant in the Royal Irish Con- 
 stabulary. The Curtin family lived within my dis- 
 trict. The murder of Mr. Curtin was reported to me 
 by Mr. George Curtin on the night that it occurred. 
 I immediately proceeded to the house. I there found 
 the body of Timothy Sullivan lying in the hall with a 
 loaded rifle lying beside it. The rifle was handed to me. 
 
 I am not going into this matter at length, but was 
 any other firearm found there ? — Yes ; a double- 
 barrelled gun, which was also loaded. 
 
 Were you present on the day of the funeral of Mr. 
 Curtin ? — I was not exactly present, but I was con- 
 venient. That is to say, I saw the funeral and the pro- 
 cession. 
 
 You know the habits of persons attending funerals in 
 this district. Should you say that the funeral was 
 largely attended ? — It was not. 
 
 How should you describe the funeral procession ? 
 What sort of a funeral was it ? — It was small. I saw 
 the persons who came out of the churchyard, and they 
 were principally strangers — they were not the neigh- 
 bours. 
 
 Do you know a man named M'Mahon ? — I do. 
 
 Is he a somewhat prominent member of the local 
 Land League ?— He is. 
 
 Is he the son of the secretary of the League ? — He is 
 the father of . the secretary of the local branch of the 
 League. 
 
 On the day of the funeral did you say anything to 
 him about it ? 
 
 By Sir C. Russell.— Did you know of your own 
 knowledge that the man was a Land Leaguer ? — I saw 
 him enter the Land League room on the Sunday with 
 the secretary of the Land League. 
 
 By Sir H. James. — What was it that you said to him 
 about the funeral ?— I met him going along the road, 
 and I said to him, " It's a shame you were not at the 
 funeral," as I knew the two were intimate. He said 
 that he was sorry that he could not attend, but that 
 he was afraid to do so, or something to that effect. 
 
 Was it part of your duty to attempt to discover 
 those who had murdered Mr. Curtin ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you in the course of the discharge of your duty 
 in the matter receive any assistance from persons 
 living in the neighbourhood ? — None whatever. 
 
 Did you arrest Casey and Daly ? — I arrested Casey. 
 
 Had you known Casey before that ? — I had. 
 
 Do you know of your own knowledge whether he was 
 a member of the local branch of the Land League at 
 Firies ? — Yes, I saw him attend the meeting when the 
 Firies branch of the National League was established, 
 riding on horseback and wearing a green sash. 
 
 I believe that that man received a punishment of 14 
 years' penal servitude for taking part in the outrage 
 on Mr. Curtin ?— He did. 
 
 George Curtin. 
 
 Sergeant Francis Meehan, 
 
342 
 
 The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 How far off were you stationed from Mr. Curtin's 
 house ? — A few miles. 
 
 After the trial took place did you notice any 
 change in the feeling of the neighbourhood towards 
 the surviving members of the Curtin family ? — Yes. 
 
 What was it ? — I saw that there was a considerable 
 ill-feeling against them — especially so after the trial. 
 
 Had you to bring a large force of police to the 
 chapel when the family were attending Mass ? — I had. 
 What happened upon the first Sunday after the trial ? 
 — On the first Sunday after the trial, when the family 
 attended Divine service, I took as large a force as I 
 could to the church. As we neared the church I heard 
 a great shouting and booing. Nothing further took 
 place until Divine service was over. Then, when the 
 Curtin family left the church and were about to get up 
 into their conveyance, there was more shouting, and 
 the crowd rushed at them, booing and calling 
 them murderers and informers, whereupon I and the 
 rest of the police drew our swords and rushed between 
 the family and those who were pursuing them, and in 
 that way got them away. 
 
 Did the family consist of females as well as the 
 sons ? — Yes. 
 
 In consequence of what happened on that day did 
 you apply for a larger police force ? — I did. 
 
 I believe that on the next Sunday, in addition to an 
 increased force of police, the resident magistrate and 
 the district inspector attended ? — Yes. 
 
 What happened when the family were coming out of 
 church ? — After they went into the church I followed 
 them closely, and one person in the congregation, a 
 female, booed at them. 
 
 What happened when they were coming out ? — They 
 remained inside the church for a short time until 
 nearly all the congregation were out, but when 
 they came out and were going to get into their 
 wagonette to go home the crowd rushed towards 
 them shouting. The police were again drawn up 
 between the family and the crowd, whereupon a few 
 stones were thrown over the heads of the police in the 
 direction of the family, when the police got the order 
 to charge, which they did, and dispersed the crowd. 
 
 Were the people who formed the crowd people be- 
 longing to the neighbourhood ?— Yes, generally. 
 
 About how many persons were there in the crowd ? — 
 About 200, I should think. 
 
 Did any one person among that crowd endeavour in 
 any way to protect these young ladies ? — No ; no one 
 except the police. 
 
 Let me go back for about a month in point of date. 
 On the second Sunday after the murder, were you in 
 the chapel when Father O'Connor, the parish priest, 
 was there ? — I was. 
 
 I believe that Father O'Connor was president of the 
 local Land League ?— He was. 
 Did you hear him refer to the murder 1—1 did. 
 In what terms did he refer to it ?— He said, " It is a 
 shame, and, whatever any man may think, we all 
 
 deeply sympathize with the widow who has lost her 
 son." 
 
 Who did he refer to t — I believe to the man Sullivan, 
 who was shot. 
 Was his mother a widow ? — She was. 
 Did Mrs. Sullivan live in the neighbourhood ? — Yes. 
 We know that her son was shot on the occasion ?— 
 Yes ; he was. 
 
 Did Father O'Connor make any reference to Mrs. 
 Curtin ?— No. 
 Nor to her daughters ? — No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — How long 
 have you been in the district '/ — Nearly four years. 
 
 This M'Mahon,with whom you had this conversation, 
 what was he ? — A farmer ; a strong farmer in the 
 neighbourhood. 
 
 Did you think the conversation you had with him of 
 sufficient importance to make a report of it ? — Yes ; I 
 was asked to make one. 
 
 Did you make a report to your superiors ?— No ; I 
 did not. 
 Did you make a note of it ? — No ; I did not. 
 And this occurred in November, 1885 ? — Yes. 
 And we ar« now in November, 1888 ?— Yes. 
 Did you keep a distinct recollection of that con- 
 versation in your mind ? — Yes ; I did. 
 
 Did you make a report to any one of it ? — Yes ; 
 when I came to London. 
 Who subpcenaed you ? — Mr. Soames. 
 Where '{— At Mr. Soames's office. 
 Then you came to London without a subpoena ?— Yes. 
 Who told you to come ?— I got a telegram from my 
 district inspector, Mr. Rogers. 
 
 To give your evidence here ?— He did not say what 
 for. 
 
 And then, when you got to Mr. Soames's office, you 
 were served with a subpoena ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you know that M'Mahon was a relative of the 
 Tim Sullivan that had been shot '{— No ; X did not. 
 
 Have you not heard it stated that he was a cousin ?— 
 I never heard anything about it. 
 
 Is this man M'Mahon, who was so afraid, the very 
 man who has taken the Curtin farm ? — No ; he is not. 
 Who has taken it ? — Jeremiah M'Mahon. 
 Is he a relative of the other M'Mahon I— No. 
 Now, on the first Sunday after this murder, you say 
 the Curtin family were conducted to church under 
 police escort ?— I do not think that they attended 
 church on the first Sunday after the murder. They did 
 attend church on the first Sunday after the trial. 
 Did they then have police escort ?— Yes. 
 Had they asked for it ? — I cannot say that they did. 
 I presume they did. There was a permanent police hut 
 erected outside their house after the murder. 
 Had they asked for that ? — I cannot say. 
 Did the police escort them up the church ? — To the 
 door. 
 And not into the church ?— No ; not the whole escort. 
 Did some of the police follow them up the church ?— 
 I could not say. I followed them myself. 
 
 -Sergeant Francia Meehan. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 343 
 
 Who was the resident magistrate who accompanied 
 you the second Sunday after the trial ? — Mr. Mac- 
 Dermott. 
 
 And who was the district inspector ? — Mr. Crane. 
 
 Where were you ou the first Sunday after the 
 murder ? — At the chapel at Firies. 
 
 Who was the officiating minister ? — Father Murphy. 
 
 Did he make any reference to the murder ? — He did. 
 
 .Did he denounce it ? — He did. 
 
 Strongly ? — Strongly. 
 
 Where was Father O'Connor officiating on that day ? 
 —I cannot say, but I know that it was customary 
 for him to officiate in the other church every other 
 Sunday. 
 
 I must ask you, on the Sunday when you have said 
 some words were used by the parish priest in reference 
 to the murder, were the Curtins there ? — I think they 
 were not. 
 
 Will you undertake to say that they were not 
 present ? — I believe they were not. I won't go further 
 than that. 
 
 But I am testing your recollection. Will you under- 
 take to say whether they were there or not ? — I cannot 
 go further than I have done. To the best of my recol- 
 lection they were not there. 
 
 Were they in the sacristy ? — To the best of my belief 
 they were not. 
 
 Did you take any note of Father O'Connor's sermon 
 or of his observations ? — I did not. 
 
 Did you think his observations of sufficient import- 
 ance to make a report of them to your superiors ? — 
 No. 
 
 When were you first asked about what Father 
 O'Connor said ?— When I came here, at Mr. Soames's 
 office. 
 
 Had you no note or scrap of writing by which to 
 remind you of what was said in November or 
 December, 1885 ? — I had not. 
 
 Had you made any statement upon the subject to 
 any one before you made one in Mr. Soames's office ? 
 —No. 
 
 Now, tell my Lords again what you say Father 
 O'Connor said, and recollect yourself. — He said, " We 
 all deeply regret what has occurred, and whatever any 
 person may think, we all deeply sympathize with the 
 poor widow who has lost her son." 
 
 Do you represent to their Lordships, speaking upon 
 your oath, that that was all he said ? — I do not do so 
 for a moment. It was the last words that struck me 
 so forcibly that I recollected them. 
 
 Then it is the last words only that you remember ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 I put it to you plainly. Do you mean to say that 
 Father O'Connor did not on that occasion denounce the 
 murder ? — I do, beyond what I have told you. 
 
 Repeat it again ?— He said, " It must be regretted " 
 —or words to that effect — ' ' what had occurred ; but 
 whatever any person may think, we all deeply 
 sympathize with the poor widow who has lost her 
 son." 
 
 How long was he speaking ? — Not a minute. 
 
 Did you understand the first part " We must all 
 regret "or " It must be regretted " referred to the 
 Curtin murder ? — I understood it to apply to one as 
 well as to the other. 
 
 To the whole occurrence ? — To the whole moonlight- 
 ing raid. 
 
 Then it was a moonlighting raid ? — It was. 
 
 Do you think that the words also referred to the 
 annoyance given to the Cartin family ? — There was no 
 annoyance at that time. It had not commenced. 
 
 You had not commenced to escort them at the 
 time ? — We began to escort them at once. 
 
 Then there must have been already some special 
 reason for the escort being given them ? — There was. 
 
 How long have you been in this district ? — Three or 
 four years. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — I was not 
 examined before the Cowper Commission. Moonlight- 
 ing has existed in this district ever since I have known 
 it. 
 
 So far as you know, has the object of moonlighting 
 generally been the robbery of arms ? — For the robbery 
 of arms and other purposes. 
 
 So far as you know, has not the general cause of 
 these moonlight outrages been the robbery of arms ? — 
 Not the general cause. 
 
 The most prevalent ? — I would not say tho most 
 prevalent. 
 
 Is it not a very common cause of moonlight out 
 rages ? — It is frequently the cause. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — Do you know this 
 locality well ? — Yes. 
 
 And the people ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know that the Sullivans have a strong 
 faction in the country ? — I think they have. 
 
 They have a large number of relatives through 
 marriage ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know that the feeling against the Curtin 
 family was confined to the Sullivans and their con- 
 nexions ? — The feeling existed among many who were 
 outside them. 
 
 To what extent ? — To a very large extent. 
 
 Do you say that the respectable people of the 
 locality joined in it ?— On the day we were compelled 
 to charge them, yes. 
 
 Did you charge tha respectable people ? — The 
 whole congregation. 
 
 Were there many small boys there ? — Small and big, 
 too. 
 
 Did they take part in the booing ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you think they began it ?— No. 
 
 Do you think the respectable people began it ? — I do 
 not know ; but the whole congregation joined in it. 
 
 Do you say the respectable people began it ? — I say 
 that they assisted in it. 
 
 Did you know the greater part of the congregation ? 
 — I knew the greater portion. 
 
 Will you give me the name of any respectable 
 
 Sergeant Francis Meshan. 
 
344 
 
 The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 person whom you heard booing ? — I summoned 36 of 
 them, and had them bound over to keep the peace. 
 
 Were they respectable people ? — They were just the 
 same as the rest. 
 
 You say that you saw Casey at a Land League meet- 
 ing ; when was it held ? — On September 27, 1885. 
 I heard members of Parliament present say that they 
 had come to reorganize the branch of the National 
 League. When I say the Land League I mean the 
 National League, because I believe they are both the 
 same. I have not read the constitution of either, but 
 I believe them to be the same because I saw that 
 those who were members of one were also members of 
 the other. I know that Casey had a brother. I did 
 not attend a public meeting at Castleisland on Feb- 
 ruary 21, 1886. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biggar. — I have not been 
 present at any Home Rule meetings between 1872 and 
 1879. 
 
 Re-examined by Sib H. JAMES. — I have only been 
 about four years in the district, and I know nothing of 
 the state of the district before the establishment of 
 the Land League except from hearsay. 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — Might I be allowed to ask the witness 
 how it is that, seeing he was not at Firies at the time 
 the Land League was in existence, he is able to swear 
 that the same parties were members of the Land 
 League and the National League ? Give us your 
 reason ? — I saw the same parties taking part in both. 
 
 Do you not know that the Land League was dis- 
 solved ? — The Land League never ceased to exist, it 
 only became apathetic. 
 
 Sib H. Jambs. — I observe that Sir C. Russell has 
 cross-examined to show that police protection to the 
 Curtin family after the murder was tendered by the 
 authorities without being asked for. On that point I 
 wish to recall a witness. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My observation was directed only 
 to the escort to church. 
 
 District-Inspector Crane, Royal Irish Constabulary, 
 recalled, examined by SlB H. Jambs, said, — Imme- 
 diately after the murder of Curtin the Curtin family 
 asked for protection, and said they could not live in 
 the place unless protection were given them. The 
 day after the murder we had to place police in the 
 house, and whenever they went out to chapel they had 
 to be followed. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sib C. Russell. — Did they apply 
 to be escorted to and from church by the police ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Was it in writing ?— No ; it was made personally to 
 me. 
 
 Who by ?— Mrs. Curtin. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — My Lord, reference was made 
 yesterday to a threatening notice, for which Inspector 
 Huggins had sent to Castleisland. It was forwarded 
 in a registered letter some time ago, but was not 
 delivered. That letter has now arrived, and I pro- 
 duce the notice. It is to the effect that £100 reward 
 
 would be given to any one who would give information 
 as to any person who would work for Culloty. 
 
 Peter Brean, examined by Mr. Mubphy, said,— I 
 live at Loughmore, county Kerry. There is a farm 
 there which was formerly occupied by a man named 
 M'Mahon. He was evicted. I sold a heifer to Mr. 
 Hilleard, the agent for the estate, who turned it on to 
 the evicted farm to graze. That occurred about the 
 2d of July, 1881. On the 18th of July, 1884, five or 
 six men came to my house between 10 and 11 o'clock 
 at night. One of them said that I had taken the 
 grazing for a heifer on the evicted farm. I told them 
 that I had not sent the heifer to graze, but that I had 
 sold it to the agent. One of the men then said 
 " No. 21," or something like that, and a shot was 
 fired at me which struck me in the thigh. After this 
 I was under police protection for nine or ten months. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sib C. Russell. — The police had 
 a hut near my house. The shot could not be got out of 
 my leg, but I have been able to do my work since. 
 My landlord was Archdeacon Bland. My father was 
 bog-ranger for Archdeacon Bland. There were two 
 evicted farms, from one of which M'Mahon was evicted. 
 
 And was there a dispute between the tenants on the 
 Blennerhassett property and Archdeacon Bland about a 
 certain turbary ? — I do not think there was. They 
 always tried to get the bog. 
 
 These men came to you in July,1884. Was M'Mahon 
 evicted in March, 1884, or about that time ? — To the 
 best of my belief he was, but I cannot say the time. 
 
 Who was the agent ? — Mr. Hilleard, to whom my 
 father sold the heifer. 
 
 Do you recollect who the sheriff was ? — I do not. 
 
 Was the daughter of the evicted tenant dying of 
 consumption, and was she carried out of the house in 
 her bed, and did she die within an hour ? — She died 
 some time, but I cannot say in what time. 
 
 Did she die within an hour ? — I cannot say what 
 time. 
 
 Do you know it caused a great deal of feeling in the 
 country ? — There was some talk about it. 
 
 Were you at the eviction yourself ? — I do not re- 
 member whether I was at that eviction. To the best 
 of my belief I was not. 
 
 Try and recollect. Was it a snowy day ? — I cannot 
 say. 
 
 Tell me one way or the other ? — To the best of my 
 belief I was not. 
 
 But surely you can tell. You may have been there ? 
 — To the best of my belief I was not. 
 
 Did you see the girl oarried out ? — I did not. 
 
 When these men came how many were there ? — To 
 the best of my belief from four to six persons. 
 
 And they appeared to be known to one another by 
 numbers ? — One man said " No. 21," or something 
 like that. 
 
 Were they disguised 1 — I cannot say. There was no 
 light. 
 
 Norah Fitzmaurice, examined by Mr. Atkinson, 
 
 District-Inspector Crane. 
 
 Peter Brean. 
 
 Norah Fitzmaurice. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 345 
 
 said, — I live at Ahabeg, in the parish of Lixnaw, in 
 county Kerry. My father occupied a farm of 54 acres 
 jointly with his brother Edmund Fitzmaurice. In the 
 year 1886 a dispute arose between my father, James 
 Fitzmaurice, and his brother as to the payment of the 
 rent, and they were both ultimately evicted for non- 
 payment of rent. They were both put hack as care- 
 takers. The dispute continued up to the beginning of 
 the year 1888. The dispute arose because my uncle 
 Edmund would not pay his portion of the rent,although 
 my father was quite willing to pay his portion. The 
 landlord refused to take my father's portion of the 
 rent unless the entire rent was paid. My father was 
 evicted in consequence, and he and my uncle Edmund 
 were put back as caretakers. I remember, in March, 
 1887, Mr. Hussey, the landlord to the farm. I do not 
 know the exact date my father and my uncle were 
 evicted by the sheriff. I remember Mr. Hussey 
 coming to the farm in March, 1887, and my father 
 accompanying him over the land. About that time my 
 father was made teDant of the whole farm. My uncle 
 went to live at another farm close by. 
 
 Did you know a man named Dowling ? — Yes. 
 
 And Thomas Quilter ? — Yes. 
 
 What was Dowling ? — He was secretary of the Land 
 League. 
 
 And Quilter ? — He was assistant secretary. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson read the following extract from the 
 Kerry Sentinel of the 1st of February, 1887, relating to 
 the Lixnaw branch of the National League : — 
 
 " A meeting of this branch took place on the 23d of 
 January, the Rev. T. Nolan, president, in the chair. 
 Among those present were Messrs. T. Keane, vice- 
 president, T. Behane, hon. treasurer, T. Dowling, hon. 
 secretary, P. Sheehy, E. Costelloe, T. Bowler, John 
 J. O'Connell, J. Shea, E. Fitzmaurice, senior, E. Lem- 
 han, J. King, J. Fitzmaurice, Jeremiah O'Connell, and 
 T. Brosnan." 
 
 Examination resumed. — E. Fitzmaurice mentioned as 
 present was your uncle ? — Yes. 
 
 After the visit of Mr. Hussey to your land did you 
 see any notice posted up anywhere about your father's 
 house ? — No. 
 
 A short time after Mr. Hussey's visit did any person 
 bring a letter to your father ? — Yes. 
 
 "Who brought it ? — Thomas Barnett, servant to T. 
 Dowling. 
 
 Did you read the letter ? — Yes. 
 
 Is this the letter ? 
 
 " Irish National League, Lixnaw Branch. 
 " Sir. — I am directed by the Lixnaw branch of the 
 IrishNational League toask you to attend at its meeting 
 on Sunday next, the 10th inst. The meeting will be 
 held at the League rooms after last Mass. 
 
 " I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " Thomas Dowling, Hon. Sec. 
 " Mr. James Fitzmaurice, Ahabeg." 
 
 That is the letter. 
 
 Did your father go to the League rooms on that 
 day ?— No. 
 Did yon afterwards see any report in any of the 
 
 papers with reference to the proceedings of the League 
 on this day that your father did not appear ? — Yes. 
 
 In what papers ? — In the Kerry Weekly Reporter and 
 the Kerry Sentinel. 
 
 Sie H. James. — We will now take your Lordships' 
 opinion as to whether we are entitled to prove the 
 publication of this report in the Kerry Weekly Reporter. 
 I admit that no connexion can be shown between 
 any of the gentlemen whose names are in the report 
 as being present and the newspaper, and it may be 
 taken generally that the paper was free from inter- 
 ference by them. I submit that it is evidence to show 
 the publication of a fact — that the fact was known 
 generally in the neighbourhood. There is great differ- 
 ence between a matter which is secret and unknown 
 and a fact which is published and generally known. 
 We desire now to take your Lordships' opinion as to 
 whether we are not entitled to prove the fact of a 
 resolution being made generally known by means of 
 its publication in this paper. Then after that we pro- 
 pose to endeavour to show that circumstances took 
 place which were naturally induced by that resolu- 
 tion. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — It seems to be forgotten that this 
 is an inquiry into certain charges and allegations 
 against certain persons. What is now proposed to be 
 done ? It is not proposed to prove the fact that any 
 resolution or notification such as appeared in this 
 paper was, in fact, arrived at by any of the persons 
 against whom the charges and allegations are made, or 
 by any persons in complicity with them. What is 
 sought to be proved is that this paper, which my 
 learned friend will admit cannot be shown to have 
 any connexion with any of the persons incriminated, 
 is to be taken as evidence in a case where the matters 
 to be inquired into are not as to the general state of 
 the country, nor the feeling, nor the crime of the 
 country, but what are supposed to be specific allega- 
 tions against certain incriminated persons-. Those are 
 the grounds why I say this is clearly not admissible. 
 Further, I am instructed this paper is not even in 
 sympathy with the popular feeling in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — May I add one word to what Sir C. 
 Russell has said ? What proposition is it that my 
 learned friend, Sir H. James, is endeavouring to 
 support ? In support of what proposition does he pro- 
 pose to tender this evidence ? If it is that this resolu- 
 tion was passed at a branch of the League, and that 
 therefore we are responsible for it, then this is not a 
 proper link in the chain of proof. It is not evidence 
 that a resolution was in fact passed that a paper not 
 connected in any way with the League asserted in 
 their newspaper that it had been passed. It is not 
 evidence of the fact of its having been passed. I can 
 imagine my learned friend tendering evidence, as the 
 Kerry Sentinel has been tendered.to show that a paper, 
 published by the assistance of prominent local members 
 of the League, by giving publicity to these resolutions, 
 expressed approval or, at any rate, not disapproval of 
 them. But the evidence now tendered is not 
 
 Norari Fitzmaurice. 
 
346 
 
 The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 material, for it is admitted that the paper put in 
 evidence is not one carried on by members of the 
 League, but, as Sir C. Russell has said, was actually 
 hostile to them. May I point out that we ought not, 
 in an inquiry of this kind, to be made responsible for 
 publications in newspapers hostile to ourselves and 
 over which we have no control, which have every 
 possible motive for misrepresenting our acts, and 
 which may, from what appears, have invented the 
 very thing ? 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — What I submit to your Lordships is 
 this. We know, as a matter of fact, in Ireland a 
 great many of these local papers are only read by a 
 very small class. Unless it be shown that this Kerry 
 Reporter, which I never heard of before — unless it be 
 shown that it is generally read in the district it ought 
 not to be taken as evidence. 
 
 The President. — You are weakening Sir C. Russell's 
 argument, Mr. Biggar. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — It is notorious that some papers in Ire- 
 laud are only bogus papers. 
 
 Sik H. James. — I have not forgotten that this is an 
 inquiry into the conduct of certain persons, but I ask 
 your Lordships to bear in mind that it is also an inquiry 
 into the conduct of the Land League. I quite admit 
 that my friends have a right to say they protest 
 against the admissibility of this evidence by saying 
 this paper is hostile to them. I am simply asking 
 to be allowed to prove that in a certain district a 
 certain fact was made public. I put it no higher 
 than if there had been a notice fixed upon a gateway 
 informing the public that certain persons had been 
 guilty of certain offences. I admit that that would 
 not prove those persons to be guilty of those offences, 
 but it would show the publicity, it would prove that 
 persons in the district had a statement of certain 
 matters put before them. I cannot put the evidence 
 higher than that, and I tender it and ask your Lord- 
 ships that it may be received. 
 
 The Commissioners having consulted, 
 
 The President said,— We are of opinion that the 
 evidence proposed to be given is not admissible. I 
 cpincide entirely with the form of Sir C. Russell's 
 objection. We think that this is not a means by 
 which we should take evidence of the general condition 
 of the country. It seems to be admitted that the 
 Kerry Weekly Reporter is not in aDy way a repre- 
 sentative of the Land League or the National 
 League party, and it appears to me that merely 
 because statements are to be found in that paper 
 they cannot be admitted in evidence for the purpose 
 of this inquiry. I thought that it was going to be 
 shown tnat there was some such connexion as it 
 appears to be agreed there is in the case of the Kerry 
 Sentinel between the Kerry Weekly Reporter and the 
 National League party. In the absence of something 
 to connect that paper with the Land League or the 
 National League, we decide that the reports in that 
 paper are not admissible in evidence. 
 
 Examination resumed by Mr. Atkinson. — You say 
 
 your father accompanied Mr. Hussey over this 
 land ?— Yes. 
 
 Did he go with Mr. Hussey to Ahabeg bog ? — Yes, 
 my father had something to do with the cutting of 
 turf from that bog. 
 
 Was your father a member of the Land League ?— 
 No. 
 
 Do you remember whether there was any change in 
 the demeanour of the people shortly after the receipt 
 of that lettor ? — Yes, they would not work or do any- 
 thing for us. 
 
 Were you able to buy food when you wanted it ? — ■ 
 Yes. 
 
 Was anything done by the neighbours when they met 
 you on the road ? — People who had been accustomed 
 to speak to us would not speak to us at all. 
 
 In the month of July did Thomas Dowling, the 
 secretary to the local branch, come to your father's 
 land P — Yes, he came about 7 o'clock in the evening 
 with about 14 or 15 men, mostlv farmers' sons. They 
 went over the farm. 
 
 Did he then leave ? — Yes. 
 
 At that time was your father under police protec- 
 tion ? — Yes. 
 
 When was he put under police protection ; was it 
 after or before Mr. Hussey's visit ? — It was after, and 
 after the letter of the 10th of June. 
 
 Wore the police living in the house ? — They came at 
 night and remained until the morning and then left. 
 
 On the morning of the 18th of August, 1887, did 
 your father employ some man to work for him ? — Yes, 
 the man came and afterwards left. 
 
 Towards the end of 1887 did people do anything 
 to you as you were walking about the farm ?— Yes, 
 they were shouting and whistling when they saw me 
 passing. 
 
 Who were these people ? — Just the neighbours 
 round. 
 
 Who had previously been on friendly terms with 
 you ? — Yes, un the best terms. 
 
 Now do you remember on the morning of the 31st of 
 March, 1888, leaving your father's house in his com- 
 pany to go to the fair at Listowel ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — I now propose to read from the 
 Kerry Sentinel of the 28th of October, 1887. It is a 
 report of the meeting of the Lixnaw branch on the 
 23d, Mr. M. J. O'Connor, president, in the chair. A 
 number of resolutions were passed, and then it goes on 
 as follows : — 
 
 " The case of Mr. B. Costelloe, of Ahabeg, was 
 then taken up and evoked considerable interest. 
 
 " The following are the particulars as stated by Mr. 
 Costelloe :— 
 
 •' On the 1st of October he and others attended at Mr. 
 Hussey's office in compliance with notice for payment 
 of rent. He demanded a reduction of 25 per cent., 
 but Mr. Hussey would only give 15 per cent. Mr. 
 Costelloe declined to pay on these terms, and in the 
 course of an argument which ensued, Mr. Hussey said 
 he was a source of great annoyance to him by the way 
 in which he was harbouring and encouraging Edmund 
 
 Norah Fitzmaurice. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 347 
 
 Fitzmaurice, an evicted tenant. Fitzmaurioe was 
 evicted in May last, and Mr. Costelloe has ever 
 since shared his own roof with him and given him 
 every assistance in his power. He paid no rent on 
 that day, but in the coarse of a few days he was 
 served with a writ and thus put to considerable cost. 
 He is fully convinced that it is in revenge for the 
 kindness he has shown Edmund Fitzmaurice that this 
 writ was served on him. Fitzinaurice's land has been 
 grabbed by his brother, James Fitzmaurice, and Mr. 
 Hussey and James Fitzmaurice are anxious to have him 
 out of the way. 
 
 " Mr. Costelloe was highly applauded for his kindness 
 to E. Fitzmaurice, and the following resolution was 
 passed : — ' Resolved, that we hereby record our most 
 indignant protest against the despotic and basely 
 vindictive action of Mr. S. M. Hussey in serving a 
 writ on Mr. Eugene Costelloe for one gale of rent, 
 the sole cause for this infamous proceeding being that 
 Mr. Costelloe has kindly afforded shelter to an 
 evicted tenant (E. Fitzmaurice), and we again call on 
 the public to mark by every constitutional means 
 their disapprobation of the conduct of James Fitz- 
 maurice, who has been so base and inhuman as to grab 
 his brother's land.' " 
 
 Sib C. Russell (after looking at the volume of 
 newspapers). — This is the Kerry Post, not the Kerry 
 Sentinel. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — I think you will find that the two 
 papers are both bound up in the same book ; I think 
 I read correctly. 
 
 Sib C. Russell..— I see they are both together, and 
 very likely you read from the Sentinel. Yes, I see it 
 is all right. 
 
 Examination continued.— Do you remember on what 
 day it was that your father attended the fair at 
 Listowel ? — On the 21st of January. 
 
 In the present year ? — No, 1887. 
 
 The January after the notice was served to attend 
 the League ? — Yes. 
 
 That is last January ? — Yes. 
 
 The President. — There has been a reference to 
 March in connexion with the fair at Listowel. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Yes, my Lord, that was a mistake ; 
 I corrected it. 
 
 Examination continued. — About what hour of the 
 morning did you leave ? — About half -past 4. 
 
 How did you go ? — On a car. 
 
 Were you accompanied by any police ? — Yes, two. 
 
 Was it dark at this time ? — No. 
 
 After you had travelled some way did the police 
 escort return home ? — Yes. After the police had left 
 us for some time we met a man on the road. He passed 
 us by, and subsequently returned with another man. 
 
 When the two came back what happened to your 
 father ? — They shot him and killed him. 
 
 Do you know the names of those men who fired 
 at your father ? — Yes ; Daniel Hayes and Daniel 
 Moriarty. 
 
 They were subsequently convicted and executed ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Now, when your father was lying on the road did any 
 persons pass by ? — Yes ; there were four or five men 
 with carts. 
 
 Did they give you any assistance whatever ?•— No. 
 
 Did they even stop ? — One of them stopped and said, 
 " He is not dead yet.^ 
 
 Did he then pass on ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you able to get a coffin to bury your father ?— 
 Yes. We got it in the village of Lixnaw. 
 
 Did the police get it ? — We got it ourselves. 
 
 You went to Wicklow Assizes to give evidence about 
 the murder of your father ? — Yes. 
 
 After you returned home were you still under police 
 escort 'I — Yes. 
 
 Did the people still continue to treat you as they had 
 before your father's murder ? — Yes. 
 
 The date of the trial, I think, was March ? — Yes, 
 I think so. 
 
 On the second Sunday after the trial did you attend 
 the parish church at Lixnaw ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember when you entered the church 
 whether any persons left it ? — They did. 
 
 How many ? — Fifty or sixty. 
 
 Who was officiating ? — Father Sheehy. 
 
 Was there another clergyman there ? — Yes ; Father 
 Nolan. 
 
 Did you see Father Nolan endeavouring to induce 
 the people to return ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they return 1 — A few of them ; the rest went 
 away. 
 
 Between the murder and the trial did you go to 
 church at all ? — No. 
 
 Why did you abstain ? 
 
 Witness was understood to say that she was afraid. 
 
 Do you know Thomas Dowling, the secretary of the 
 League 'i — Yes. 
 
 After you returned from Wicklow did you have an 
 interview with him ? — No. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith. — When were the Wick- 
 low Assizes ? 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — On the 26th of March, my Lord. 
 
 Examination continued. — Did you see Dowling in- 
 terfere with the people in the chapel ? — Yes ; he 
 walked out before them. 
 
 Did you see him going about among them before 
 they left the church ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you hear what he was saying to them ? — No. 
 
 And when he left the chapel they followed him ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 As far as you can form an opinion, was he inducing 
 them to leave ?— Yes. 
 
 Has Dowling been subsequently convicted for in« 
 timidating you ? — Yes. 
 
 You have told us what occurred on the first occasion 
 when you went to chapel after the Wicklow Assizes ; 
 did you go there subsequently '/ — Yes. 
 
 How did the congregation behave to you then ?— > 
 Most of them stayed out, and those who did come in 
 
 Norah Fitzmaurice- 
 
348 
 
 The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 would not kneel near where I was kneeling. That 
 occurred upon another Sunday. 
 
 From that time to the time you left Kerry last did 
 the people still continue to behave to you in the same 
 way 'i — Yes ; there was no change whatever. 
 
 Are you still living in your father's house ? — Yes ; 
 with my mother and sister, I have no brothers. 
 
 You are still under police protection ? — Yes- 
 Cross-examined by Sik C. Russell.— Are you still 
 living at Lixnaw ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, I wish to understand this story of the farm. 
 Your father James and your uncle Edmund held the 
 farm together f — Yes. 
 
 It was a farm of Mr. Hussey's ? — Yes. 
 
 And they were both evicted ? — Yes. 
 
 Was your father then put in as caretaker 
 of the entire farm ? — He was put in as care- 
 taker of his own part ; my uncle was put in as 
 caretaker of his own part. 
 
 When was the eviction ? — I cannot remember. 
 
 As near as you can ? — I think it was in 1886. It 
 was in the spring. 
 
 I am told it was March ; may I take it that that 
 was the time ? — I do not know ; it was about that 
 time. 
 
 About a year before Mr. Hussey came to pay a visit 
 to the farm ? — Yes. 
 
 There was a dispute about a road to the bog ? — Yes, 
 there was. 
 
 Between whom was that dispute ? Was it about a 
 road that Mr. Hussey was seeking to stop up, to pre- 
 vent people using ? — It was a new road he was making 
 to the bog. 
 
 Was the old road closed, or what was the dispute 
 »bput ? — I do not know there was any dispute. 
 
 In March, 1887, your father agreed with Mr. Hussey 
 to take the whole of the farm ? — Yes. 
 
 Your uncle's and his own as well ? — Yes. 
 
 And the result was that your uncle Edmund was 
 turned out of his farm, and your father took possession 
 of all ?— Yes. 
 
 There were two farmhouses on it ? — Yes. 
 
 Edmund was turned out of the farmhouse he had 
 lived in ?— Yes. 
 
 How long had the family been there ? — Oh, hundreds 
 of years. 
 
 And I suppose they had built the houses that were 
 there ? — Yes. 
 
 You say Edmund declined to pay any share of the 
 rent ; were you there when he declined ? — No. 
 
 You do not know it of your own knowledge f — No ; 
 I have heard it said ; I do not of my own knowledge 
 know it to be true. 
 
 When Edmund was turned out did he go for shelter 
 to the house of a man called Costelloe ? — Yes. 
 
 Is Edmund a married man ? — Yes ; Costelloe took 
 his wife and children in as well. 
 
 Did you hear that Mr. Hussey complained of 
 Costelloe for sheltering Edmund Fitzmaurice and his 
 family ?— I did. 
 
 How long had Costelloe lived on this land ? — I could 
 not say. 
 
 . As long as you can recollect ? — I think not very 
 long. 
 
 Now, it is stated in the publication that has been 
 read that Mr. Hussey, to punish Costelloe for shelter- 
 ing your uncle Edmund and his family, served him 
 with a writ of ejectment. You heard that S — Yes. 
 
 And for a gale of rent ? — Yes: 
 
 That was a half-year's rent ? — Yes. 
 
 Is that a usual thing, to serve an eviction for half a 
 year's rent ? — I do not know. 
 
 Would not the writ that was served upon Costelloe 
 put costs upon him ? 
 
 SIR H. James. — Surely what the witness has heard of 
 the difference between one form of document and 
 another is not evidence. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Well, I do not care what the pro- 
 cess was. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Was there bad blood 
 — bad feeling — between your uncle and your father ? 
 —There was. 
 
 Your uncle complained — whether rightly or wrongly 
 — that your father had taken his farm over his head ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 And the neighbours took the side of your uncle ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 I think you said also that your father had something 
 to do with letting out bog ; was he bog-ranger, or 
 what had he to do with it ? — He only walked over the 
 bog with Mr. Hussey. 
 
 Now, I want to ask you with reference to the 
 murder ; kindly give me your attention. There were 
 two men convicted and hanged for this foul murder of 
 your father, Hayes was one and Moriarty the other ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Was Hayes a shoemaker in Tralee ? — YeS. 
 
 Was not Moriarty a man from Glenbeigh ? — Yes. 
 
 How far is Glenbeigh from Lixnaw ? — I could not 
 say ; a great many miles. 
 
 Thirty or forty ? — I daresay. 
 
 Well, I am told it is more. How long had Moriarty 
 been in Lixnaw ? — Two years. 
 
 What was his business ?■ — He was a labouring man. 
 
 Now, I do not know whether you know or not, but 
 is it not a fact that, so far from Hayes and Moriarty 
 being members of the League, Hayes tried to break 
 up the League in Tralee ; did you hear that ? — I do 
 not know anything about it. 
 
 Do you know that either one or the other of them 
 was a member of the League ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Very good. Now, one other word. Will you look at 
 that letter ; is that the handwriting of Dowling or 
 Quilter ? — The handwriting of Quilter. 
 
 Quiltor had been secretary ? — Assistant secretary. 
 
 I am yery sorry to ask you, but I must ask you, is 
 Quilter a relation of yours ? — Yea ; my first cousin. 
 
 He had no ill-feeling against your father personally ? 
 —He had. 
 
 What foe ?— He would not speak. 
 
 Norah Fitzmaurlce. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 349 
 
 When was that ? After he had taken over the farm ? 
 ■ — After taking it. 
 
 Up to that time there had been no ill-feeling ? — No. 
 
 He resented your father taking the whole of the farm ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 I think it has been said that that man Quilter is 
 dead ?— Yes. 
 
 Now, one other question. You said in reference to 
 the letter which you received on the 10th of June, 
 1887, which purports to be signed by Dowling, but 
 which you say was in Quilter's handwriting, that you 
 saw something about it in the Weekly Beporter and in 
 the Sentinel ?— Yes. 
 
 Are you sure about' the Sentinel ? — I am. I read it in 
 the Beporter. 
 
 But do you say that you saw that resolution in the 
 Sentinel ? — I saw other resolutions in it. 
 
 Yes, but I am asking about this one referring to your 
 father. I must ask you, would you like to say that 
 you saw it in the Sentinel ? Do you know what I am 
 referring to ? It is a resolution in 1887. After that 
 letter, your father not having attended in pursuance of 
 the letter, you were understood to say you saw some- 
 thing about it, after that letter, in the Beporter and 
 the Sentinel ? — I cannot remember. 
 
 I am putting it to you that it was not in the 
 Sentinel. You cannot say that that is not correct ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 You cannot. Very well. Now, in reference to this 
 scene in the church where Dowling behaved in the 
 manner you described, did I understand you to say 
 that Father Egan— Witness.— Father Nolan. 
 
 Father Nolan spoke strongly about it ? — Yes. 
 
 And remonstrated with the people ? — Yes. 
 
 And some came back ; but you think more went 
 away and did not come back ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, one' other fact I should like to read. You 
 know this brutal murder occurred in January, 1888, 
 Did you know that a proclamation had been issued by 
 the Lord Lieutenant proclaiming and suppressing the 
 National League in the whole of Kerry ? — Yes. 
 
 That was in the autumn of 1887 — the year before the 
 year in which your father was murdered. There were 
 meetings continued to be held after that, were there 
 not, notwithstanding that ? — I do not know. 
 
 My Lords, I believe there were not. I thought 
 there were. This murder having occurred, there is an 
 article in the Kerry Sentinel on the evening of the 
 31st of January. (To Mr. Asquith.) Will you kindly 
 read it for me ? 
 
 Mr. Asquith thereupon read the article, which was 
 as follows : — 
 
 " Another Deed op Blood. 
 
 " The news we have received of the brutal and fatal 
 outrage committed neaV Ahabeg this morning is very 
 discouraging to those of us who had hoped that a 
 better feeling was beginning to animate the parties 
 who hitherto favoured crime in this county. In fact, 
 it is doubtful after all if the elements of crime and 
 disorder do not exist still as strongly as ever, though 
 
 it would not be fair to judge of this fact from an 
 isolated case. One circumstance more disheartening 
 and depressing than another to those who wish to see 
 Kerry as free from crime as it once was is the fact 
 that the open and legitimate organization of the 
 people, which is permitted elsewhere, has been totally 
 suppressed in this county ; and, though there may be 
 furtive gatherings of such organization in secret, it is 
 patent that the influence of wholesome restraint can- 
 not be as strongly exerted on the people as if they 
 were allowed to meet in the full light of day where 
 the more staid and responsible members of the com- 
 munity would have a chance of a hearing. Doubtless, 
 anti-National journals will make much capital out of 
 this crime, and, as usual, attribute it to the League ; 
 but it must be borne in mind that the National League 
 is, at least technically, suppressed in Lixnaw as in all 
 Kerry. It would be better than indulging in recrimi- 
 natory phrases about these crimes if all fair-minded 
 members of the community aided in an effort to stamp 
 them out ; but the people are taught a bad lesson when 
 they see crime partially shielded or tardily exposed 
 in certain other parts of this county. We hope, in 
 all sincerity, and with some trustfulness, that this will 
 be the last of those terrible deeds of blood which have 
 defamed this county." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, there is also an article 
 which appears in United Ireland. I am reading from 
 its reprint in the Kerry Sentinel of Friday, February 3, 
 1888 — about four days after the murder, the next issue 
 after the murder. I cannot give your Lordships the 
 date of its appearance in United Ireland, but I presume 
 it would be about the same time. Sir C. Russell then 
 proceeded to read the article, which was as follows : — 
 
 " Kebrt. 
 " (From United Ireland.) 
 " Another Kerry murder ! Unhappy Kerry, that 
 once was one of the most tranquil and happy counties 
 in Ireland, that now is the most turbulent and blood- 
 stained, the prey of the moonlighter, the evictor, the 
 coercionist ! What is to be done with Kerry ? Whose 
 is the reproach of Kerry ? Kerry is a problem which 
 should make thinking men of all parties pause, and 
 face to face with Kerry we should even hope that 
 among our enemies there would be men who would give 
 over screaming for a little, and strive with a sense of 
 awe to find the truth. Here is Kerry, the most coerced, 
 the most policed county under English rule. It is only 
 a fortnight since Judge Murphy,, at the Cork Assizes, 
 inflicted on some dozen moonlighters the most terrific 
 sentences — penal servitude for 25 years ; penal servi- 
 tude for 14 years ; and so on. Hot-foot upon these 
 sentences comes the murder of unfortunate Fitzmaurice 
 upon the high road to Ahabeg. Kerry has more police 
 in proportion to its population than any county in 
 Ireland, yet in Kerry there is more agrarian crime 
 and most crime of any kind that is never detected. 
 Last year Mr. Balfour's administration increased the 
 immense extra police tax of Kerry at one bound by 
 £1,000. Yet crime only grows more desperate. The 
 administration of Kerry grows more severe and more 
 expensive. There is something rotten in the state of 
 Kerry. Is it not time for even honest Unionists to 
 ask how much of the rottenness consists in the ad- 
 ministration, whose oppressiveness and expensiveness 
 advance with equal pace with the recklessness and 
 immunity of crime ?" 
 
 Then follow a number of figures as to the crime and the 
 
 Norah Fitzmaurice. 
 
350 
 
 The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 police of the county. The last sentence, my Lords — I 
 do not wish to trouble your Lordships more than is 
 necessary — is as follows : — 
 
 " Kerry is a conclusive verdict against English rule 
 in Ireland. It must never be forgotten that Kerry was 
 not always a county of evil fame. Ten years ago 
 moonlighting was unknown there. Its history since 
 then is the history of English misgovermnent in epi- 
 tome. Population going down ; cost of misgovermnent 
 going up ; a peaceful county transformed into a scene 
 of turbulence and crime ; wholesale depopulation, 
 wholesale coercion ; and in the end nothing to show 
 for it but a swollen extra police tax, moonlighting, 
 Glenbeighs, and Ahabegs." 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — I think you told us 
 that Quilter was your cousin ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there any other cause of quarrel between him 
 and your father except this question of the farm ? — No. 
 
 My learned friend has put it to you that your father 
 took the farm ? — Yes. 
 
 If I understand you rightly, I understand that your 
 father and uncle occupied the farm jointly, and your 
 father was willing to pay his rent, but your uncle was 
 not ?— Yes. 
 
 If the whole rent had not been paid your father 
 would have been evicted ? — Yes. 
 
 And to save losing his part he paid the whole rent ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Was it for that that Quilter was angry with him ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 You also told my friend that you saw some other 
 articles in the Sentinel as well as in the Weekly Reporter. 
 Did these articles refer to your father at all ? — They 
 did. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — She told me she could not say 
 that they did. 
 
 Sib H. James. — No, she said she saw others. My 
 Lords, this whole article in United Ireland 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — The part I left out is principally 
 relating to figures. 
 
 Sib H. James.— I do not wish to occupy your Lord- 
 ships' time unnecessarily, but there is a great deal of 
 dealing with the Government. (Reading.) " Talk of 
 Bulgaria under the Pashas and Bashi-Bazouks ! Beside 
 Kerry under Balfour, with its extra police tax and its 
 extra policemen, its emergency men of the field and 
 its emergency men of the judicial bench, its Adye- 
 Currans and its Cecil Roches, its Sam Husseys and its 
 Darleys and Roes, its rack-rentings, its batonings, its 
 impriaonings, and its evictions, Bulgaria was a model 
 of freedom and good government." 
 
 Michael Harris was next called, and examined by Sir 
 H. JAMES. Witness said, — I am a sergeant in the 
 Royal Irish Constabulary. That letter is in the hand- 
 writing of Quilter. I believe that letter purporting to 
 be signed by Dowling was signed by Quilter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, I may say there is no 
 doubt about it. 
 
 Re-examination continued. — I was stationed at Free- 
 mount on January 31 of this year. That was about 
 four miles from where Fitzmaurice lived. I heard of 
 
 the murder, and I afterwards arrested Moriarty. I 
 was present at the trial of Moriarty and Hayes, who 
 were afterwards convicted. The last witness gave 
 , evidence against them in relation to identification. I 
 was present at the chapel at Lixnaw on April 15, 
 1888. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I quite accept this lady's state- 
 ment and accept her evidence as correct. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lords, I am obliged for my 
 friend's statement. I have a little more to prove. 
 (To witness.) Were you inside the chapel while Mass 
 was celebrated ? — Yes ; and I saw Thomas Dowling, 
 the secretary of the Land League, there. I saw him 
 walk out of the chapel. Miss Fitzmaurice had been at 
 Mass for half an hour or more. When he got up 60 or 
 70 people left the chapel. The people did not come 
 near to where Miss Fitzmaurice was sitting. That 
 condition of things remained from that time to this. 
 The police kept on her right. On the 29th of April I 
 went to Lixnaw chapel. I saw on the chapel gate a 
 nptice signed T. Dowling. I have not got it ; I took 
 it down and gave it to a sergeant. Dowling was sen- 
 tenced to imprisonment for intimidating Miss Fitz- 
 maurice. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That intimidation was that same 
 act of leaving the church ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir H. James.— You gave the notice to Flynn? — Yes. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. On 
 its reassembling, 
 
 Bib H. James said, — My Lords, I would put in the 
 Kerry Sentinel of April 25, 1888. In it, my Lords, 
 there is a report of the proceedings before Captain 
 Mt-ssey and! Mr. Cecil Roche, when certain persons 
 were charged, of whom Dowling was one, with intimi- 
 dating Norah Fitzmaurice, and the report goes into 
 details of the evidence that was then set out. I only 
 prpceed to put this in for one purpose — I only put it 
 in for the purpose of showing that the fact of intimi- 
 dation as alleged to have been used, and that evidence 
 was brought in support of it, was brought to the 
 knowledge of the proprietor of the paper. It is negative 
 proof that there had been no condemnation at any 
 time. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, observations were 
 made in condemnation of any action 
 
 SIR H. James. — No ; I beg your pardon, no speech 
 at all, my Lords. It is a fact. We seek to establish 
 non-condemnation. That is a negative, and I can enly 
 do it by means of the papers here, and our allegation is 
 that particulars are to be found of non-condemnation. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I object entirely to the papers 
 beine put in on any ground my learned friend has put 
 forward. My friend is entitled to say 
 
 The President.— The Kerry Sentinel— 1 thought you 
 had admitted it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Certainly, my Lords ; but not for 
 the purpose of proving the facts. 
 
 The President.— I do not see that it would prove 
 the facts. 
 
 Sergeant Michael Harris. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 351 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I admitted it for proving editorial 
 comments or reports of the Land League. This is a 
 report of a case 
 
 The President. — I have not got it ; let me see what 
 it is. (The paper was handed to his Lordship.) I 
 think it is only a report of proceedings before justices 
 on the charge of intimidation . 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith.— I thought the Kerry 
 Sentinel was owned by Mr. Edward Harrington ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— Then why should it not 
 be put in ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We must see in what relation it 
 is relevant. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— That is another point. 
 
 Sir H. James. — May I say how I propose to make 
 it relevant ? My learned friend in cross-examining a 
 witness has put in articles from the Kirry Ser.tine 
 condemning outrages, and we wish now to show thatjj 
 there has been no diminution of the intimidation and 
 boycotting in the case of Norah Fitzmaurice. This 
 evidence is, of course, of a negative character, but it is 
 necessary that we should have it, as we desire to bring 
 home to Mr. Harrington a knowledge of the intimi- 
 dation. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Then my learned friend may take 
 it as a fact that Mr. E. Harrington did know that 
 Daniel Dowling was charged with intimidation. At 
 the very time when this appeared an appeal from the 
 decision of the magistrates was being heard. . Is it 
 fair, then, to say that there was no condemnation ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — We say that from the first there has 
 been no evidence of condemnation. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My learned friend charges us in 
 respect of what we have done, and also in respect of 
 what we have not done. If he alleges that we have 
 not done a particular thing let him prove it. 
 
 Head Constable Irwin, recalled, said, in answer to 
 Sir H. James, — I knew Michael J. Quilter, who resided 
 at Lixnaw. On August 18, 1886, he made a statement 
 to me. 
 
 Sir H. James. — It has been proved already that he 
 was assistant-secretary to the League. Did you take 
 down what he said ? — I took it down word for word. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I will ask your Lordships' 
 opinion upon this. I agree that anything that this man 
 does as secretary of the League may be taken to be 
 Bvidence for the purposes of this case, but surely my 
 learned friend is bound to show that this statement 
 was made in that capacity. If this statement is patt 
 of a casual conversation, I submit that it is not ad- 
 missible. 
 
 Sir H. James. — The argument of my learned friend 
 hardly affects the admissibility of this evidence, 
 although it might have some bearing upon the ques- 
 tion of its value. This statement is not part of a 
 casual conversation, but a statement of certain facts 
 which this man made when ho was the assistant-secre- 
 
 tary of the League, and I submit that as the man is 
 dead we can have this evidence. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— The fact that the man may be 
 dead can make do difference in point of law. The 
 question is this— A man is shown to hold a certain 
 position as assistant-secretary of the League. If he 
 makes a statement which the prosecution avers has 
 reference to the Land League or the doings of the 
 Land League, surely it must be shown, before the state- 
 ment can be admitted, that it was made by him in his 
 character of secretary. 
 
 The President. — Some consideration ought to be 
 paid to the fact that this tribunal is composed solely 
 of legal members. It is very necessary, no doubt, when 
 there is a jury that everything should be done with the 
 greatest strictness so as to prevent anything which is 
 not properly evidence from being brought to the know- 
 ledge of the jury. But that does not appear to me to 
 be necessary in such a case as this before this tribunal. 
 It seems to me almost impossible to deal with this 
 evidence as Sir Charles Russell asks us to deal with it. 
 This is an official of the Land League, and it is impos- 
 sible for us to say beforehand that we will not allow 
 evidence to be given as to what such an official has 
 stated. If it should turn out to be casual conversation 
 no importance will attach to it. We cannot interfere 
 at this point, assuming that Sir Henry James would 
 not put the evidence forward if he did not think that 
 it had some characteristics which render it admis- 
 sible. I do not know what it is, and I cannot say 
 that it should be excluded. 
 
 Sir H. James (to the witness). — What was the state' 
 ment ? Read from your notes. 
 
 The President (interposing). — How came you to 
 take these notes ? On what occasion ? — I was on duty 
 in county Kerry. I had met this man previously, and 
 he had expressed a wish to see me. 
 
 The President. — Well, I cannot tell what it is ; 
 but this does seem to lead up to this sort of thing, 
 that he is making a statement adverse to the League. 
 
 Sir H. James. — It is a statement as to what 
 occurred. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — As to what he says occurred. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I said the same thing in other 
 words. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I object, my Lords. The fact that 
 them&n is dead adds strength to my objection. I think 
 it is clear that he did not make the statement in his 
 character of secretary. Apparently he was making a 
 sort of statement adverse to the League. 
 
 The PkjsSIDEnt. — We are all of opinion that this is 
 not admissible in evidence. Statements made by an 
 officer of the Land League in his character of an offi- 
 cial of the League might, and, I think, would, be 
 evidence ; but it has been held that a statement made 
 by a person charjfed with conspiracy in the nature of 
 a confession is not admissible in evidence. This case 
 appears to me to fall within that rule, and therefore, 
 unless this can be carried further than appears from 
 
 Head Constable Irwin. 
 
352 
 
 The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 the introductory answers given by the witness, it must 
 be excluded. 
 
 Sip. H. J asies.— Before proceeding with the next 
 witness, my Lord, I wish to put in evidence a copy of 
 the Kerry Sentinel of April 7. That is a statement 
 showing that Moriarty, one of the persons, made a 
 confession of his guilt. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— He was hanged for it. 
 
 Maurice Leonard was then called and examined by 
 the Attorney-General. He said,— I am a justice 
 of the peace for the county of Kerry. I have been agent 
 for Lord Kenmare since January, 1886. I have lived 
 all my life in Kerry, except when I was at school. I 
 am 36 years of age. I was bound to Mr. Hussey in 
 March, 1875, and I was appointed assistant agent on 
 Lord Kenmare's estate under Mr. Hussey on November 1, 
 1876. I continued to act as such until December 31, 
 1885. Either as principal or assistant agent I have 
 been acquainted with Lord Kenmare's estate since 
 November, 1876. 
 
 Are you acquainted, so far as their public acts are 
 concerned, with the doings of the Land League and 
 the National League during the time they were in 
 force ? — Yes ; I made it a part of my duty to find out 
 all I could about them. 
 
 Before 1880 and 1881 did you ever hear or know of 
 persons being punished for paying rent ? — No ; not 
 until after The O'Donoghue and Mr. Parnell held a 
 meeting at Listry in 1881. 
 
 Did yon ever hear of persons being punished for 
 taking an evicted farm ? — Not until after the No- 
 rent Manifesto published in the spring of 1881. 
 
 Had there been before the end of 1880 or the begin- 
 ning of 1881 any organization in Kerry against the 
 payment of rent ? — No. 
 
 Had there been any organization against taking an 
 evicted farm ? — No ; not up to January 9, 1881. On 
 that day The O'Donoghue held a meeting in Killaruey. 
 Prior to that meeting we had been able to let evicted 
 farms, and caretakers would mind them without pro- 
 tection. I did, however, from time to time receive 
 communications as to private quarrels about land. I 
 never heard before the beginning of 1880 of any com- 
 bination or organization to punish persons in any way 
 for taking evicted farms. 
 
 Was the expression " land-grabber " an old expres- 
 sion ? — So far as I know, it was not known until the 
 year 1885. 
 
 Then, may I take it that prior to 1880 or 1881 you 
 had never heard of tenants being denounced as land- 
 grabbers, or anything of that kind ? — No. 
 - I want to put one other general question to you. 
 Did you ever hear before 1880 or 1881 of secret 
 societies committing outrages on people because they 
 had paid their rent ?— No. 
 
 Or because they had taken evicted land ?— No. 
 
 What was the condition of Kerry, or of that part of 
 Kerry in which Lord Kenmare's estate was situate, up 
 
 to the end of 1880 and the beginning of 1881 ?— There 
 was no crime. 
 
 There had been distress in parts of Kerry ? — Oh, yes, 
 in November and December, 1879, and January, 
 February, and April of 1880 there were people blue 
 with hunger. 
 
 Had there been prior to the date I have mentioned 
 any abnormal development of crime ? — No. 
 
 Now, with reference to the question of crime, I 
 must ask you, before I go into details, did you find in 
 subsequent years that the crime and outrages were con- 
 fined to districts where there was great distress, or were 
 there also crimes in places where people were well 
 off ? — There was also crime where people were well 
 off. 
 
 Speaking generally, did you notice any coincidence 
 between the Land League and crime in point of time ? 
 — Certainly ; in 1881, when the Land League was 
 established, especially in the Rathmore district, the 
 crime commenced. It was stopped when the Coercion 
 Act was passed in 1882, and the improvement continued 
 from 1882 up to September 1,1885. On that day Mr. W. 
 O'Brien, M. P., Mr. Healy, M.P.,and Mr. E. Harrington, 
 M.P., and some Roman Catholic clergymen came into 
 the neighbourhood and made violent speeches. 
 
 After that time, in 1885, were there any meetings of 
 the National League ? — Oh, yes. 
 
 Did you find any change in the crime and outrage 
 after the National League began these meetings, as 
 compared with the intervening period of 1882 to 1885 ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Now, in your district, as far as you know, had there 
 been, prior to the beginning of 1881, any outrage in 
 respect of the payment of rent ? — No. 
 
 Or any outrage in respect of taking evicted farms ?— 
 No. 
 
 I will ask you, and I do not want you " to 
 refer to tho papers, if you remember a Land 
 League meeting at Listry ? — I saw them going 
 to it. It was some time in the early part of 
 1881. I do not remember the actual date. It is 
 reported in the Kerry Sentinel of January 4, 1881. 
 
 Well, that will fix it. Did it come to your know* 
 ledge iu that year that a,ny Land League courts were 
 held ?— Yes. 
 
 How did it come to your knowledge ?— I heard 
 tenants talk about them. 
 
 Do you know whether any Land League courts were 
 reported in the Kerry Sentinel 1 — Oh, yes. 
 
 I will give the dates— January 7 and February 4, 
 1881. In the spring of that year you saw notices of 
 courts being held ? — In the latter part of 1881 ; in 
 October and November, 1881. 
 
 Will you please tell me what the tenants said to you 
 in reference to these courts ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Upon what possible grounds, my 
 Lord, can such a question be put to the witness ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— For this reason, my Lords. 
 In the course of business it was the duty of this 
 gentleman to collect rents and have business transact 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 353 
 
 tions with the tenants in regard to the payment of rent 
 or the non-payment of rent. Statements were made to 
 him as to the reasons for not paying, and so on, and I 
 submit to your Lordships that it is competent for me to 
 give evidence of that sort. I will take this case. Sup- 
 pose a tenant says, " I am afraid to pay anything, for 
 if I do I shall be taken before the court of the Land 
 League." I submit I am entitled to prove that that 
 tenant did not pay because, as he said, he was afraid 
 to do so. The weight of such evidence may, of course, 
 be measured afterwards, but I submit I am entitled to 
 offer it. 
 
 Sir G. Russell.— If my friend mentions such a case 
 particularly I shall not object. My objection is that 
 the statement should accompany the act. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am, of course, going to 
 refer to detailed instances, but I propose now in this 
 way to prove the condition of the country ; I propose 
 to prove that there was a terrorism overshadowing and 
 extending over the whole district by reason of the 
 action of the Land League courts. I know it may be 
 said, " You ought to call single tenants who may have 
 given expression to such an opinion "; but I respect- 
 fully submit to your Lordships that in order to prove 
 the condition of the neighbourhood I am entitled to 
 ask a gentleman in this position for general evidence of 
 the statements made to him by the tenants. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — What is the case here, my Lords ? 
 The agent holds his office in the town on a market day, 
 and the tenants come in and talk with him and give 
 him reasons for their own purposes, which may be true 
 or may not be true, why they do not pay their rent. 
 Can it be seriously contended that gossip of that kind 
 can be used in evidence ? 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — You admitted, Sir 
 Charles, that evidence of this kind is admissible when 
 the statement which it is sought to bring in was 
 accompanied by a particular act. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I did, my Lord ; but how can we 
 test or define these vague and general statements ? 
 If it is confined to the proper rule of law, in the case 
 of tenants making statements we have got the means 
 of checking them and following them out. How can 
 we test these general statements ? 
 .The Attorney-General. — I would point out that 
 my learned friend himself in his cross-examination 
 has been referring to statements of the most general 
 character. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have not the least objection to 
 my learned friend asking his witness, if he chooses to 
 do so, whether he believes that the Land League was 
 the cause of every crime in the country. 
 
 The President. — No, no, Sir Charles ; that is not 
 the question at all. (After consultation with his col- 
 leagues.) We are of opinion that the evidence must 
 be confined, as it has hitherto been, except in cross- 
 examination, to the statements made by persons ac- 
 companying their acts. If when a tenant is asked to 
 pay his rent he gives a reason for not paying it, he 
 may be asked for that reason ; but beyond that all 
 
 general statements made by tenants are not, in our 
 opinion, admissible. 
 
 The Attorney-General (to witness). — Do you re- 
 member.the case of a man named John Cournane? — Yes. 
 
 I should ask you first, speaking generally, what had 
 been the relations between you and the tenants on 
 Lord Kenmare's estate prior to the Land League meet- 
 ings ? — They were very good. 
 
 I have made a mistake in the name. Do you re- 
 member the case of a man named Michael Cullinane ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Will you tell us the facts with regard to 
 him ? — There were three brothers in possession 
 of a holding. We found it necessary in 1881 
 to bring an ejectment in regard to the land. 
 When it was executed the three tenants came in and 
 an arrangement was come to with Michael Cullinane. 
 He was the wealthiest of the three, and took the 
 whole farm ; his brothers were to remain in their own 
 holdings, paying the rent to him. Shortly after that 
 Michael Cullinane came to me with his ears slit and 
 blood dripping from his neck. He alleged that he had 
 been attacked by moonlighters, and they afterwards 
 committed arson. 
 
 Did you know of anything against the map except 
 that he was occupying the farm which you have men- 
 tioned ?— No, certainly not. Notices were posted up 
 in the Killarney district. When the No -rent Mani- 
 festo was circulated in 1881 
 
 Pardon me for a moment. Did you know from any- 
 thing in the Kerry Sentinel whether Cullinane's case 
 had been before . the Land League ? — Oh ; the Land 
 League was in force. 
 
 Had Michael Cullinane's case been before the Land 
 League ? — He told me so. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is not evidence. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Did he say anything to 
 you about the Land League when he came to you with 
 his ears cut ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— What was the act accompanying 
 this statement, if one was made ? 
 
 The President. — Well, the man had his ears slit. 
 The witness can give some account of how it 
 happened. 
 
 The Attorney- General.— What did the man say I 
 — He came into the office and said, " See what has 
 been done to me for taking the farm." He repeated 
 afterwards that he was summoned before the League. 
 I think that was afterwards, but I am not quite sure. 
 
 Do you remember the case of John Cournane ? — Yes. 
 He was able to pay his rent, and we found it necessary 
 to take proceedings against him. The League defended 
 him. | 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— How do you know that ?— Their 
 solicitor told me. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I object to this evidence. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Did Mr. Brodrick, of 
 Tralee, defend Cournane ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he the solicitor who acted for the Land League ? 
 —So he informed ma. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
 12 
 
354 
 
 The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 Was Cournane evicted ? — Yes. After Lis eviction 
 a notice was posted. It was the first threatening 
 notice that we received. My bailiff took it from the 
 market-place in Killarney. It was brought to me a 
 few days after £he eviction. This is the notice : — 
 " To the farmers of Kerry. Take notice that you 
 will not propose to Mr. S. M. Hussey for the land 
 at Dromanhegmon, near Killarney, at your peril." 
 That referred to the place from which Cournane had 
 been evicted. 
 
 Do you remember the erection of a hut for a Mrs. 
 Murphy ? — Yes. In the Freeman's Journal for August 24, 
 1881, I read that Mr. Sexton, M.P., was to send 
 down a Land League hut for Patrick Murphy 
 on the following Sunday. On October 11, 1879, 
 Murphy came to me and asked me to bring an eject- 
 ment for non-payment of rent against him, as a man 
 named O'Callaghan had gained possession of the farm 
 for a debt due to him. Murphy wished to get back. 
 When the action for ejectment came before the County 
 Court Judge he dismissed it with costs because it had 
 been brought at the request of the tenant. Murphy 
 only owed 12 months' rent at the time. At his request 
 I brought another ejectment in a superior Court. Judg- 
 ment was given, and possession was taken by the sheriff 
 on December 11, 1879. Murphy and O'Callaghan were 
 both put out, but Murphy was reinstated as caretaker. 
 
 Had there been any quarrel between you and 
 Murphy ?— No. What was done was done solely at his 
 request. He remained as caretaker on the farm until 
 after the period of redemption had expired. It 
 eoming to my knowledge that he was agitating in the 
 district, I then called upon him to pay up and redeem 
 his land, and he did not do so. He was agitating 
 against the payment of rent. I re-let the farm to a 
 man who paid a fine of £150. I took out a caretaker's 
 summons against Murphy, who had retaken possession, 
 and the bailiffs went to execute it. They met with 
 every resistance, and hot water was thrown at them. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— Were you there ?— No. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It was reported to you 
 that they met with resistance ? — Yes. 
 
 Before 1881 had you been compelled to carry out 
 any evictions ? — Yes. 
 
 Before 1881 had you ever been obstructed by barri- 
 caded houses ? — No, never. The sheriffs used to go 
 accompanied by the bailiff only, without police. 
 
 Prior to the Land League agitation was there any 
 organized resistance to the execution of the sheriff's 
 writs ? — Never. 
 
 What was the next thing that happened in Murphy's 
 case ? — The bailiffs got instructions from me to take 
 out the doors and windows, and I am informed that 
 when they were proceeding to carry their instructions 
 out Mrs. Murphy turned round and said 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We cannot have that. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Was the house burnt ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Without your knowledge and consent ? — Yes. We. 
 
 never knew a word about it until. the police reported 
 the occurrence at 8 o'clock in the evening. 
 
 Where did they try to erect the hut ? — They, wanted 
 to put in on a road belonging to Lord Keumare. That 
 was on the Sunday after the report of the League 
 meeting in Dublin had appeared, the Sunday after 
 August 24. About 500 people went to the road. Mr. 
 E. Harrington was there. The authorities sent troops 
 to the number of about 200 to keep the peace. I took 
 out 60 labourers to prevent the erection of the hut, 
 and we hunted the people off two roads. Then they 
 went to the farm of Mr. Daly. 
 
 Mr. Harrington and a large number of persons 
 were there for the purpose of erecting the 
 hut p — Yes ; each man carried a pole for some portion 
 of the hut. 
 
 You prevented its erection with the assistance of 
 the police ? — No, with the assistance of the CO 
 labourers. They tried to erect it on Daly's land. 
 
 Did he resist or consent ? — He resisted to a certain 
 extent, but ultimately they succeeded. 
 
 A few nights afterwards his ear was cut otf ? — Yes ; 
 a small piece was chipped off his ear. 
 
 Do you remember anything happening' to John Keef 
 of Lisheen at this time ? — Yes ; the man paid his rent 
 on October 25, 1881, and on November 27 he was raided, 
 and the calves of his legs were blown away. 
 
 Do you remember anything in connexion with a Mrs. 
 Grapey ? — Yes, she reported to the officer that she had 
 been attacked by the League for paying her rent. I 
 have the letter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — How is this evidence ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I should have thought 
 that this was exactly within their Lordships' ruling. 
 
 Sir C. Russei.l. — Is there any act accompanying 
 the letter ? I shall object until you have satisfied 
 yourself that the matter comes within the ruling. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I do not think that that 
 particular letter does accompany an act done. I 
 therefore will not press the matter. (To the witness.) 
 Had John Keef to whom you have referred been 
 a tenant on the farm for long ? — Yes. He was a 
 most respectable old man, paying his rent regularly. 
 He has paid it regularly up to the present day. I 
 never heard of any private cause of vengeance against 
 him. 
 
 Do you remember the case of the Cronins of 
 Maughantoorig ? — Yes. They paid rent on October 
 25, 1881, and on November 27 they were shot in the 
 legs. Keef was shot on the same night. 
 
 Do you remember anything happening to Denis 
 M'Carthy ? — Yes. He paid on October 7, 1881, and 
 he was fired at on October 16. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Some evidence was 
 given yesterday with reference to the payment of 
 rent by that witness. I think you will find that he 
 did not state in the witness-box that he had paid his 
 rent. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— No ; he said that his wife had 
 paid his rent. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 355 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — He said he had paid no rent. 
 The Attorney-General. — He said no rent had been 
 paid. (To the witness.) Do you remember any incident 
 in connexion with a Mrs. Lynch ? — I received a letter 
 from her with reference to the payment of Jeremiah 
 Callaghan's rent. This is the letter : — 
 
 " Ballymanagh. 
 
 " Mr. Leonard, — My father have sent me with the 
 balance of a gale's rent. Himself would be afraid to 
 Dome with it, as he is no Land Leaguer. Please make 
 no remark in presence of any one in the office, but give 
 me a receipt. •' Mrs. Lynch." 
 
 Had Callaghan previously paid his rent openly ? — 
 Always. There had been no apparent fear or unwilling- 
 ness on his part before. This occurred about Decem- 
 ber, 1881. 
 
 Did you receive a letter from Patrick Lynch of 
 Coolcorran ? — Lord Kenmare did, and he forwarded it 
 to me. The letter is dated Nov. 10, 1881, and runs : — 
 " Oratory of the Holy Family, Grosvenor- 
 square, Manchester. 
 
 " My Lord, — My father, one of your lordship's 
 tenants, has written to me asking me to pay his rent 
 to you as he is afraid to do so himself. The more 
 honourable and courageous course for him would 
 be to pay it himself, but the poor man cannot suppress 
 this feeling of terror which those midnight marauders 
 have caused to spring up in his mind. I enclose there- 
 fore a cheque for £35, payable to your lordship. He 
 tells me that there is a rumour that 25 per cent, re- 
 duction is granted in the current gale. I have allowed 
 for this reduction, but if it be not granted I shall 
 send the balance of the current gale as soon as I 
 hear from your lordship. The tenant's address is 
 Patrick Lynch, McMullane. Begging your lordship to 
 be so kind as to make the receipt out in my name on 
 this occasion, with profound respect, 
 
 " I remain your lordship's obedient servant, 
 
 " Patrick Lynch." 
 
 Lynch had before always paid openly ?— Yes. There 
 had been no apparent reluctance on his part to 
 come forward himself until this time. 
 
 Now I must ask you about a case with regard to 
 which evidence has been given already. Did you 
 know Daniel Leahy ? — Yes. He had been bailiff for 
 years and years on the estate at Scarteen. 
 
 Did he make a communication to you with reference 
 to his appointment? Answer " Yes " or "No,"— 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you remember his taking some grazing in 
 1881 ? — Yes, he took some grazing on Lord Kenmare's 
 demesne. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— We had all this yesterday. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am aware of that, but 
 with reference to a particular question it is necessary 
 to have this evidence. (To the witness.) Was that 
 land in Lord Kenmare's hands ? — Yes, at that time. 
 
 Was that man subsequently murdered ?— Yes ; on 
 August 20, 1882, he was shot and stabbed. 
 
 Did you know a man named Jeremiah Leahy ? — Yes. 
 He was secretary of the Firies branch of the League. 
 
 Do you produce a letter from him to you ? — Yes. 
 
 Look at this letter (produced) and compare it with 
 the letter which you say is in Jeremiah Leahy's hand- 
 
 writing. Were these two letters written by the same 
 person ? — Yes. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I will now read the 
 letter which I was obliged to postpone yesterday. It 
 is to Jeremiah M'Mahon, who succeeded Leahy at the 
 Firies branch of the League : — 
 
 " Corbally, Jan. 10th, 1883. 
 " My dear Jerry, — Enclosed is a list of the Firies 
 collections for Parnell. I am sorry to inform you that 
 I shall be on my way to America when you receive 
 this. You can inquire of Mr. Harrington if the funds 
 will be turned over to the National League, and if so 
 send up whatever balance you may have in hand. I 
 will send you a cheqne for the remainder in my hands 
 on the first favourable opportunity, that is, if I am 
 not arrested at Queenstown, which I dread very much. 
 My reason for this step is that it appears that an in- 
 former has turned up in Dan Leahy's case, and 
 numerous arrests are contemplated, and it is said my 
 own among the number. I need scarcely tell you 
 what a wrong that would be, but there is nothing but 
 wrong at the present day. Don't mention a word of 
 this to any one living, as if it became known to the 
 police they might arrest me at once. Good-bye, old 
 fellow-suspect. Write often and send papers. 
 " Yours very faithfully, 
 
 " Jeremiah Leahy. 
 " Mr. Jeremiah M'Mahon." 
 
 Examination continued. — Now, had anything been 
 done by Dan Leahy to offend except to take this 
 grazing ? — No, he had resigned being bailiff in July, 
 1880. He informed me that he was threatened. 
 
 On previous occasions had you grazings to let ?— 
 Yes, and I had let them. 
 
 Did you ever before hear of taking grazing as being 
 an offence ? — No. 
 
 Now, had you some tenants of the names of Thomas 
 Lyons, Corlaliene ; Daniel O'Connor, Lisheen ; Sulli- 
 van, Ballyfinnan ? — Yes. 
 Do you produce a letter from T. Lyons ? 
 The following letter was then read : — 
 
 " Tralee, Oct. 27th, 1881. 
 " S. M. Hussey, Esq., Killarney. — Enclosed you 
 have cheque value £57 2s. 6d.sterling ; kindly place to 
 -the oredit of the following tenants on the Kenmare 
 estate— Pat Lyons £27, Jeremiah F. O'Sullivan, Bally- 
 finnane, £30 2s. 6d. Interest due out of your office 
 £7 10s. Total for rent £37 10s. The half-crown is 
 for income-tax usually charged. Send me receipts and 
 oblige " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " Thomas Lyons." 
 Examination continued. — Had these persons always 
 paid you openly ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, had you a tenant named Daniel O'Connor ? — 
 Yes. 
 Do you produce a letter from him ? 
 The following letter was then read : — 
 
 " Lisheen, December 29th, 1881. 
 " My dear Mr. Hussey, — Owing to my servitude I 
 now wish to explain to you some particulars respecting 
 the same. I fortunately escaped the raids made on 
 this arid the other farms hard by. I am thoroughly 
 convinced I am envied owing to my communication 
 with Mr. Tivey. I am certainly willing to pay my 
 rent, but after so doing I am liable to share the same 
 
 Mr, Maurice Leonard- 
 
 12-2 
 
356 
 
 The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 as my neighbours. As you are aware, Donoghue, who 
 was served with me, was attacked the second night 
 after leaving your office. He (Donoghue) and I are, 
 as I said before, willing to pay, but want your honor 
 to allow us some time — at least till peace is in some 
 way restored in this locality. ' 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 " Dahiel O'Connor." 
 
 Examination continued. — A man named Donoghue is 
 referred to in this letter. Had he paid his rent ? — Yes. 
 Tivey was a butter merchant in Cork, and Connor was 
 his agent. I had also a tenant named Arthur Keefe. I 
 Droduee the following letter from him : — 
 
 " Port William, Killarney. 
 
 " Honored Sir, — Enclosed is a cheque to the 
 amount of £27 7s. 6d., being the rent due of my farm, 
 the poor rate being £11 5s. I promised you I would 
 send it you, and am more than thankful to your honor 
 for obliging me, considering it my safest way to over- 
 come suspicions, and expect, if any reduction or the 
 like be granted, 1 will be entitled to the same. There 
 is one thing causing me much uneasiness, and it is to 
 gel; a licence for a revolver. I was speaking to Mr. 
 Bodkin, E.M., about it. He said he should see Mr. 
 Hussey before granting, so I hope you will intercede 
 with Mr. Hussey that 1 may be granted it ere long, 
 not knowing when danger would approach. 
 " Your very obedient servant, 
 
 " H. Doran, Esq." " Arthur Keefe. 
 
 How long had Keefe been a tenant ? — He purchased 
 the interest of his holding, I think, in 1877. 
 
 Now, what sort of a position were these tenants in ? 
 —Very comfortable ; they were respectable men. 
 There had never in any case been any unwillingness 
 to .pay rent before this. 
 
 Do you remember anything happening at Glangis- 
 treen ? — We found it necessary in 1882 to evict three 
 tenants there, who were able to pay their rent and 
 refused to do so — Michael Riley, Maddox, and 
 Timothy Galvin. Shortly after this, Miss Reynolds, 
 of the Ladies' Land League, came and stopped at the 
 same hotel in Killarney where I was. 
 
 Did anything happen to the houses after Miss 
 Reynolds's visit ? — I think it was the day afterwards 
 that she went to Rathmore, and stopped there, and the 
 following night these houses were fired into. 
 
 Did you yourself see the marks of the firing on the 
 houses afterwards F— No, my bailiffs reported it to me 
 on the following day. 
 
 Sir C Russell. — Were all these evictions in the 
 same place ? — Yes. 
 
 Examination continued. — A portion of the holdings 
 was town lands. Other tenants had paid, but these 
 were afraid. 
 
 What sort of holdings were these ? — One was about 
 30 acres, another 16, and another 23. 
 
 Were the tenants in a position to pay ? — Certainly ; 
 they redeemed shortly after they had been evicted. 
 They made an arrangement with me j they paid both 
 rent and costs, and are still in possession. 
 
 Do you remember what happened with reference to 
 John Horgan, of Clounts ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Does he know of his own know- 
 ledge ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Yes, you will find he 
 does. 
 
 Witness. — I know it perfectly well ; I was present 
 when he was evicted. There were about 150 police 
 and 150 soldiers. I think it must have been some 
 time in 1881. 
 
 What happened after the eviction ? — He was re- 
 admitted as caretaker of the house, and directed to 
 let the lands to the highest bidder, pending the re- 
 demption. 
 
 Were they let ? — Yes, to Francis Moymhan. 
 
 Yes ? — And reported to me afterwards that that morn- 
 ing the house was fired into. 
 ' Sir C. Russell objected. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Forgive me for one 
 moment, Sir Charles. (To witness.) Do you know of 
 yourself whether the house was fired into or not ?— No, 
 except from the report of the constabulary. 
 
 Was it Moymban's or Horgau's house that was fired 
 into ? — Both, but I meant Moymban's. 
 
 Was that the agreement ? — Yes, between Francis D, 
 Moymhan and the Earl of Kenmare. 
 
 That was to let the grazing with the consent of 
 Horgan ? — Certainly ; he was let back as care- 
 taker of the house. Horgan himself negotiated the 
 matter, and brought in Moymhan. It was a friendly 
 thing ; it was an arrangement between all parties. 
 
 Was there any ill-feeling between you and Horgan ? 
 — Not a bit in the world. 
 
 That was an agreement that the grass land should 
 be let ? — Yes, in order to help him to redeem the 
 farm. 
 
 Then the tenant got credit for that ? — Oh, 
 certainly. We must account for every farthing. 
 
 Whatever it is, the tenant gets the benefit of it ? 
 — Yes, we must account for every penny we get. 
 
 Do you know a man named John Moymhan ? — Yes, 
 of Baiiard. I think there is some cousinship between 
 the two men. 
 
 Do you produce a letter from him ? — Yes. 
 
 The witness then read the letter, which was as 
 follows :— 
 
 " Banard, January 12, 1882. 
 
 "Honored Sir, — I am in receipt of a note from 
 Mr. Arthur O'Keiffe about the payment of my rent. 
 He states that he was obliged to borrow £4 as I 
 only gave him £16 as I was informed the Earl of 
 Kenmare was giving 20 per cent, reduction. 
 
 " Mr. O'Keeffe also says a writ has been issued for 
 me. I now most respectfully submit to your Honor's 
 consideration my case. I have always paid my rent 
 and would have paid my rent now as I ever did but 
 when I paid my rent in November 1880 my 
 neighbours were afterwards served with writs and 
 came into the offioe the olerk said they had as good 
 a right to pay their rents as I had. 
 
 " When they came home began to vent their 
 indignation against me and I was held Up since as 
 an enemy even at Rathmore. In the first week in 
 November a notice was posted and headed The Black 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21, 18S8. 
 
 357 
 
 Sheep of the Parish and in that notice the names of 
 the Cronins and of John Keeffe of Lisheen and 
 Jeremiah Scannell and mine appeared. When I was 
 told this I began to think of how I could get in the 
 rent and I asked Mr. Keeffe as he was near town if 
 he could see some one from the office and try to pay. 
 John Keeffe is a cousin of mine and when I saw him 
 mortally wounded I was very much terrified. Now you 
 can think that Mr. A. Keeffe is a truthful man and 
 can state that I gave him my rent on the 18th of 
 November and would have willingly paid it were it 
 not for being afraid. I sincerely hope your Honor 
 will reconsider my case and if you will ask Mr. 
 Doran he will be able to say that I told him through 
 the constable of Kathmore on the day of the evic- 
 tion that my rent was paid so fault is not mine 
 and that your Honor will not charge the extra as I 
 understand the Earl of Kenmare is not willing to put 
 an honest tenant to costs. So as I can understand 
 the writ has been issued you will be good enough to 
 send me a copy by post to give my neighbours to 
 understand that I have not paid my rent. So I 
 earnestly entreat you will not tell anybody of having 
 paid my rent (as it is a sentence of death). I have 
 my brother James at my house but if you are against it 
 I will have him removed as I should not do anything 
 that would be hostile to the interest of the Earl of 
 Kenmare. 
 
 " I remain your Honor's most obedient servant, 
 
 " Mr. S. M. Hussey." " John Moymhan. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Will you ask him about the extra 
 referred to ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — There is something about 
 " your honour will not charge the extra" ? — Those are 
 the costs. 
 
 Had you ascertained that this man had sent this 
 money to O'Keeffe ? — I had received it. 
 
 Although the money had been received, he asked for 
 a writ ? — Yes. 
 
 What sort of position had John Moymhan been in ? — 
 He was a moBt comfortable man, and is comfortable 
 up to the present day, the rent always being paid. 
 Up to this time he had not tried to pay his rent 
 Becretly ; he always came in openly and paid it. 
 
 The names of the Cronins and John Keef of Lisheen 
 appeared in the notice. Were those the men who 
 were shot ? — Yes, and Scannell's horse's ear was cut. 
 He got £20 compensation. 
 
 Now, had you a tenant named Patrick Lawlor ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 On the 17th of April, 1882, had you a letter from 
 him ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 Witness then read the letter,which was as follows: — 
 " Droniadeesart, Monday, April 17, 1882. 
 
 " Sir, — I have enclosed a cheque for £36 7s. 6d., 
 with the poor rate ticket interest on money, making 
 in all £52 10s. 2d. Hoping you will send me a receipt 
 by post as soon as possible. I am afraid of being 
 attacked at night if made out I paid the rent, 
 
 I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " S. M. Hussey, Esq." " Patrick Lawlor. 
 
 I see that in two or three of these cases they sent 
 the poor rate ticket ?— Yes ; we have to allow half the 
 poor rate. They are entitled to be allowed half of it 
 when they pay their rent. 
 
 Was there interest ? Had he lent money ? — He had 
 lodged money in the office, and was getting interest 
 at 5 per cent. 
 
 This • payment was made up of the cheque of 
 £32 7s. 6d., half the poor rate, and the interest on the 
 money he had lodged in the office ? —Yes ; he would 
 have £200 lodged in the office. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — You apparently do not know ex- 
 actly the poor rate ? — I do not quite. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The amount actually of 
 the money paid would not tell the valuation unless 
 you had the papers here ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am not asking about the, valua- 
 tion ; I am asking about the poor rate. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Had you a man named 
 Cornelius Leary ? — Yes ; of Reansup. 
 
 Was he evicted, and was his son-in-law put in 
 possession of the farm ? — Murphy and Leary were 
 evicted, and Leary was put back in occupation as 
 caretaker. 
 
 Leary had been in occupation of a farm before he 
 was caretaker, had he not ? — Yes. 
 
 Did anything happen to him ? — Yes ; shortly after 
 he was put in as caretaker— on the 14th of March, 
 1882 — a party of moonlighters came and shot him in 
 the leg. He got £100 compensation under the Crimes 
 Act. 
 
 Was Patrick Duggan a tenant on the estate ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he shot ? — Yes ; in the beginning of 1882. 1 saw 
 him shortly after he was shot. He made a communica- 
 tion to me. 
 
 Was Murty Finane a caretaker of a farm from which 
 there had been an eviction ? — Yes ; the Land League 
 resisted the eviction. 
 
 What happened to the caretaker ? — As he was coming 
 home from Mass on Sunday he was shot in the back. 
 There was nothing against him, except the fact that he 
 was caretaker on an evicted farm. He was a poor 
 labourer. 
 
 The President.— Yoa did not give the date of that. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The eviction was on the 
 19th of December, 1881. (To witness.) How long after 
 that was he shot ? — Crowley was evicted on the 19th of 
 December, 1881, and Murty Finane was shot on the 
 12th of August, 1882. He was then caretaker on the 
 farm. 
 
 Joseph O'Sullivan, what was he ?— An estate bailiff. 
 He was shot in the back as he was going to Mass in 
 1883. The duties of an estate bailiff are to report 
 what is going on at the farms, to attend evictions, and 
 make seizures. 
 
 Now, I will pause for a moment, if you please, to 
 ask you about the Crimes Act of 1882. After that Act 
 was passed did things improve in your neighbourhood ? 
 — Oh ! vastly. 
 
 And up to the time of the expiry of that Act did 
 they continue better ? — Certainly. 
 
 Now, I take you, if you please, to the year 1885. 
 Do you remember 
 
 The President,— The last year you took was 1883, 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
358 
 
 The Special Commission, November 21, 1888. 
 
 audthelastincidentyou mentioned was O'Sullivan being 
 shot iu the back. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I beg your pardon, my 
 Lords, I have missed a name. (To witness.) Was Curtin 
 a tenant on the estate ? — John Curtin, of Castle Farm, 
 was. He had paid his rent on October 12, 1885. 
 
 Now, had you a farm in the occupation of a man 
 named Barry ? — Yes, he occupied the farm up to April 
 28, 1884. An ejectment was brought against him for 
 non-payment of rent, and before it was executed he 
 came and asked to be allowed to sell his interest. He 
 got permission to do so, and sold it to a man named 
 Daniel Donoghue for £90. Donoghue went into posses- 
 sion, and shortly afterwards the moonlighters came 
 and shot him in the leg. He got £100 compensation. 
 
 That was a case in which a man had bought the 
 interest of the previous tenant ? — Yes, and paid £90 in 
 hard cash. 
 
 So that the only person who suffered by that was the 
 landlord, and not the previous tenant ? — Certainly. 
 
 Do you remember the names of the moonlighters ?— 
 I could not tell. 
 
 Do you remember a man named Sullivan ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — What date was this when the man 
 was shot in the leg ? — December 18, 1881. 
 
 You are sure the name of the man who purchased the 
 farm was not Sullivan ? — Oh, no, it was Donoghue. 
 The outrage occurred on December 18, 1881. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It was my fault, my 
 Lord, I had overlooked the case of Donoghue. Barry 
 was the name of the tenant of whom Donoghue pur- 
 chased the farm, and Donoghue was shot in the leg. 
 That is quite right. 
 
 Witness. — The farm was let to Patrick Donoghue on 
 December 12, 1881, and he was shot December 18, 
 1881. 
 
 Now, I want to direct your attention to another 
 case. Was there a man named Dennis Sullivan who in 
 1884 took a farm from Barry ?— Yes, but that is another 
 Barry— James Barry. I think he was a cousin of the 
 other Barry. His family sent for him, and he went to 
 America and left his farm behind him. (Loud 
 laughter.) 
 
 And when did he go to America ? — In 1884. His 
 farm lay vacant for some months, and was let to Sulli- 
 van on April 28, 1884. In December, 1885, there was 
 a raid upon Sullivan. The moonlighters made a raid 
 upon him. 
 
 Were two young men convicted of that raid ? — Yes. 
 Their names were Coakley and Meaney. 
 
 Did you know whether either of thorn was a member 
 of the National League ? — It was reported in the dis- 
 trict that they both were. 
 
 Did you believe that '/— I did. 
 
 Were you at the trial of these two men ? — Not at 
 Cork. I think I was present at the hearing before the 
 magistrates at Killarney. I do not know anything 
 about the way in which they were detected. 
 
 Do you know by whom these men were defended ? — 
 I know they got up a subscription for their defence in 
 
 Killarney. The Land Leaguers in Killarney got up 
 the subscription. Dennis Coolnan, who was connected 
 with the League, told me he was getting up the sub- 
 scription. I do not know who actually defended them . • 
 
 Had you a tenant named John Cronin ? — His mother 
 was a tenant of ours. 
 
 Had you a letter from him ? — Yes, on January 19, 
 1885. 
 
 Will you produce the letter ? — (Witness produced the 
 letter.) 
 
 Read it, please. 
 
 Witness then read the following :— 
 
 " 19th January, 1885. 5,Clanwilliam-place, Dublin. 
 
 "Respected Sir, — I feel much for troublingyour honour, 
 but I can't help it. In consequence of these moon- 
 lighters in Kerry my mother was rather afeard to pay 
 the rent herself for fear of it being discovered, so I 
 had to send it from here, hoping it will be in due time 
 as we could not meet it any sooner. Knowing it was 
 honestly due I hope your honour will make it all right 
 now, sir. I enclose aPostoffice order for £2 13s. 9d., 
 payable in Killarney, for the Right Hon. the Earl of 
 Kenmare,it being half-year's judicial rent due of Patrick 
 Cronin, Gutnagaun. Sir, you will oblige very much by 
 ordering receipt to be sent to my address in Dublin. 
 " I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " John Cronin." 
 
 Do you produce a letter from Timothy Daly, written 
 on October 27, 1885 ?— Yes. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — Herein I have enclosed a cheque in 
 your name in the National Bank for £12 10s., it being 
 the amount of the last May gale due of me, and please 
 have it entered to my credit in the book until these 
 troublesome times pass away, for I don't think it safe 
 at present for me to go to the office and have it 
 entered in my pass book. Sir, I will be more than 
 obliged to yuu if you write a few lines to Farranfore 
 Post Office for me when you receive this, for I will be 
 uneasy until I hear you received it. 
 
 " I remain your obedient servant, 
 
 " Timothy Daly. 
 
 " Knockaderry, Farranfore." 
 
 What is meant by the pass book ? — The book repre- 
 sents or is a copy of the ledger account of the tenant's 
 rent kept in the office. Bach payment is entered in it. 
 The tenant keeps it as the record of the rent paid. 
 
 Do you produce a letter from John Killiher ? — Yes. 
 " Castleisland, November 2nd, 1885. 
 
 " Sir,' — Please to give me time for a month for my 
 rent. I came here fourteen miles to-day to sell cattle 
 and could not make any money of them to pay my rent 
 as you can see by the post mark of the letter. I send 
 you the second envelope that your writing would not 
 be known, as wo have frightful trouble here in Rath- 
 more about the League. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 i. " Glangiskeen. " John Killiher. 
 
 " Mr. M. Leonard." 
 
 Before the Land League was established were you 
 ever asked to send a letter in an envelope addressed 
 by the tenant himself ? — No. 
 
 Do you remember a meeting at which Mr. William 
 O'Brien, M.P., Mr. Healy, M.P., Mr. B. Harrington, 
 M.P., and an American priest spoke ?— Yes, in Sep- 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 21 and 22, 1888. 
 
 359 
 
 tcmber, 18S5. They came to Killarney and made some 
 fearful speeches. (Laughter.) 
 
 In your opinion, had that meeting any effect upon 
 the districts ? — From that day to this we have had 
 nothing but agitation in Kerry. The maetinj was held 
 at Fair Hill, Killarney. 
 
 Do you remember references being made to a certain 
 Father O'Connor ? — Yes, I think it was at the same 
 meeting. 
 
 The learned counsel then read the following extract 
 from the Kerry Sentinel of November 10, 1885 : — 
 
 " Writs are flying around broadcast, and it behoves 
 the tenantry to keep sharply on the alert and en- 
 deavour to baffle those legal plunderers by each and 
 every means that human ingenuity can contrive within 
 British law. It is a life and death struggle for their 
 existence, the grip of the highwayman is on their 
 throats, and the very laws of Heaven make it incum- 
 bent on them to resist the plunder of their families to 
 the last. In the Kev. P. O'Connor, P.P., the tenants 
 have a wise, zealous, and faithful guide. Let them be 
 led in all things by his counsel and advice, and nothing 
 will occur to bring disgrace- on the righteous struggle 
 in which they are engaged. We are informed that a 
 number of the tenants have lodged their rents in his 
 hands less 30 per cent, to be put in the bank' to their 
 accouut uutil the struggle is decided. Let all the 
 others follow their example without delay, and if the 
 worst comes they will at least have wherewithal to 
 feed and clothe their families this terribly trying year. 
 Let their motto be ' No surrender ' ; 30 per cent, or 
 nothing." 
 
 What had happened with reference to reductions 
 before this time ? — From 1882 up till 1885 there were 
 no applications for reductions. 
 
 Had there been reductions in the earlier years ? — 
 Yes. In November, 1879, 20 per cent, was given ; in 
 1880, 20 per cent. ; in 1881, 20 per cent. ; in 1885, 
 25 per cent. ; in 1S86, 20 per cent. ; in 1887, 20 per 
 cent. ; and in the present year 20 per cent. That is, 
 on all yearly tenancies. 
 
 From 1882 up till 1885 had the tenants demanded a 
 general reduction ? — No. 
 
 Was there anything in the condition of the country 
 in 1885 to call for what I may term a general reduc- 
 tion ? — Ye6, in the latter end of 1885. 
 
 For the first time after 1882 ?— Yes. 
 
 It being now 4 o'clock the Commissioners adjourned. 
 
 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 22. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 18th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Eoyal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On their Lordships taking their seats, the Attorney- 
 General resumed the examination of Mr. Maurice 
 Leonard. 
 
 Respecting reductions ; I have asked you as to a 
 certain Father O'Connor. You had put in a request in 
 the Kerry Sentinel asking the people to follow the wise 
 and faithful guidance of the Kev. P. O'Connor. Were 
 there any speeches ? — There were speeches in the same 
 paper of the 10th of November, 1885. 
 
 Do you remember what sheriffs' sales there were 
 about this time ? — William Daly, of Tralia, cattle sold , 
 and Kane, of Clounalara ; they were two tenants on 
 Lord Kenmare's estate ; they were working farmers. 
 
 What happened at these sales ? — Mr. Shcehan, M.P., 
 took a band from Killarney up there. Sheehan was 
 president of the Killarney National League. 
 
 Silt C. RUS3ELL. — Were you there ?— Yes. Sheehan 
 weut out from Killarney with a band ; there was also 
 one from Castleinain and from Castleisland. Mr. T. 
 Healy was there, and Patrick Gorman, who was re- 
 ported to be the president of the Ballyhar branch of 
 the National League. Castleisland League was repre- 
 sented by James Hussey and George Quinn. There 
 was a large demonstration of the National League ; 
 about 300 or 400 of them were there. 
 
 What was the result of the sale with regard to the 
 prices realized ? — The cattle were put up by the sheriff 
 and bought in by the tenant, and Mr. Sheehan, M.P., 
 gave a cheque for a portion of the amount of the exe- 
 cution and tho tenants paid up the balance in a 
 few days themselves. 
 
 I call attention to Father O'Connor's speech, re- 
 ported in the same article of the same paper at which 
 this disturbance or demonstration took place : — 
 
 " Father O'Connor said they had to-day scored a 
 splendid victory. They could understand for the future 
 the vital importance of unity and determination, and 
 could learn to protect themselves by taking a leaf out 
 of the landlords' book. There was a combination of 
 landlords in Cork the other day, and their whole object 
 was to send cattle across to England that were raised 
 on evicted farms, and after, if they had the money, to 
 clear the people out of the country. 
 
 " A voice. — ' They will go themselves first.' 
 (Cheers.) 
 
 " They now knew what to do in the future. (Cheers.) 
 The people would stand together like brothers, and 
 when one was attacked they should all come to assist 
 him. (Cheers.) Let them stand together, because their 
 cause was a just one, and they were only trying to 
 resist oppression and injustice ; and that resistance 
 they all knew very well was forced upon them by the 
 inhuman conduct of those who had the power to 
 harass and ruin and destroy the people of the country. 
 
 " A voice. — ' Down with Hussey.' (Groans.) 
 " Father O'Connor. — If any tenant went behind his 
 neighbour's back and paid his rent he was a traitor and 
 a coward, and should be cast out from amongst them. 
 " A voice. — ' Shoot him.' (' No, no.') 
 '"Father O'Connor. — Don't, but put what we call a 
 
 ' brassil ' 
 
 " ' What is a brassil ? ' — ' A brassil is a red mark.' 
 " upon him, and he will be known and execrated all 
 over the country. It was by acting thus, shoulder to 
 shoulder like men, they could succeed. 
 
 " Mr. Sheehan next addressed the meeting in an 
 eloquent speech. He said the men of Firies had to-day 
 made a splendid effort to throw off ths crushing yoke 
 that bound them. Some years ago they had a middling 
 good agent on the Kenmare estate, who enabled them 
 to live at least from hand to mouth. Had he been 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
360 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 continued they would probably be still the same sub- 
 1 missive slaves they were before, but the tyranny they 
 were subjected to at the hands of Sam Hussey had been 
 unbearable, and they had risen like men to assert their 
 rights. It was rumoured that Hussey was about bidding 
 farewell to the Kenmare estate ■ 
 
 " A voice. — ' The d 1 go in his road.' (Laughter.) 
 
 " and, if so, Mr. Sheehan hoped in God they would get 
 worse than him so that they would be compelled to 
 shake off once and for ever the intolerable yoke that 
 crushed them. 
 
 "A voice. — ' We could not get worse.' 
 
 " Pat Murphy, of Rath.— 'We should go to Hell to 
 find him.' (Eoars of laughter.) 
 
 " Mr. Sheehan counselled them to psrsevers firmly 
 in their just demands, to act with courage and determi- 
 nation as they had done to-day, and victory would be 
 theirs in a short time." 
 
 I will give Sir Charles the whole of the report in 
 case he wants to refer to any part of it. I should like 
 the whole of it put on the note. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— You had better read it all. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Do you recollect anything 
 happening as to the school ?— Oh ! yes, immediately 
 after the sheriff's sale the school was boycotted. 
 Gloster's children used to go to school, and imme- 
 diately after the sheriff's sale referred to the school was 
 boycotted ; all the children left except Gloster's two 
 children. 
 
 Do you know whether the boycotting of the Firies 
 National School was reported in the Kerry Sentinel ? — 
 Yes, on the 10th of November, 1885. 
 
 What does it say ? — " Boycotting a National School. 
 —On Tuesday last the children of the male and female 
 school at Firies, numbering about 500, left in a body, 
 in consequence of the children of the notorious Arthur 
 Gloster, one of Lord Kenmare's bailiffs, who is boy- 
 cotted, being attending the school. The children 
 marched along the roads singing ' God save Ire land ' 
 and groaning for Gloster. The same scene was repeated 
 on subsequent days, and not one single scholar has re- 
 mained in the schools, and the teachers' occupation, 
 like Othello's, is gone. The utmost indignation is 
 expressed against Gloster in the district in conse- 
 quence of his having served a number of writs and 
 assisted in the seizure of cattle for rent on the Ken- 
 mare estate." That was in the same paper as reported 
 the sheriff's sale. 
 
 Did you receive a letter from Timothy Connihan ? 
 —Yes. The letter is as follows : — 
 
 " Clumlara, November 11th, 1885. 
 . Sir, — You would confer a favour on me if you sent 
 me a receipt for £18 I paid you on account of my rent 
 on the 23d of October without including the word 
 account or balance in it, as I am reported to have the 
 rent paid, and am bound to produce some proof of not 
 having done so beyond the valuation before the public 
 on Sunday next. The balance I will soon pay. Your 
 compliance will oblige " Your obedient servant, 
 " Timothy Connihan. 
 " To Maurice Leonard, Killarney. 
 " P.S. — The same date will do, and will send the 
 other receipt if you wish." 
 
 Did he afterwards come to you ? — Yes. He said he . 
 
 had been summoned before the National League for 
 having paid his rent beyond Wie valuation. He asked me 
 to give him a clear receipt for the £18 that he had paid 
 in, and said that he would pay me the balance in a 
 few days, in order that he might be able to show that 
 he had only paid his rent at the valuation. I gave him 
 a receipt. Previously I had heard Father O'Connor 
 advise tenants not to pay beyond the valuation. I 
 heard him make a speech to that effect in Killarney. 
 Connihan told me that he had to appear before the 
 League the next Sunday. The National League branch 
 at Firies met every second Sunday. Connihan was in a 
 very comfortable position. He had paid his rent before, 
 and has paid it subsequently. 
 
 Had you a tenant named John Herlihy ? — Yes, near 
 Rathmore. He was in a position to pay his rent; and 
 his rent is clear up to the present time. In Novem- 
 ber, 1885, I received the following letter from him : — 
 
 " Reanasup, Gneeveguillea, county Kerry, Novem- 
 ber 7th, 1885. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I enclose a draft in the National Bank 
 for £13 10s. payable at Killarney, being the amount of 
 one gale of rent. You will please send a receipt to my 
 address. I have to request that you will keep this 
 matter a dead secret, as it is very necessary that it 
 should not be made public, and that when sending the 
 receipt the Estate Office brand be not marked on the 
 envelope. Hoping you will kindly oblige, 
 " I remain very truly yours, 
 
 " To Mr. Maurice Leonard. " John Herlihy. 
 
 " P.S. — Please address the letter containing receipt 
 John Herlihy, Reanasup, Gneeveguillea." 
 
 Did you hear anything from the other tenants about 
 the post-offices ? — They said they were not safe. They 
 believed that their letters were tampered with at 
 Gneeveguillea and other post-offices. 
 
 Did you receive another letter from Herlihy ? — Yes, 
 one dated December 26, 1885. 
 
 Did anything pass between you and Herlihy before 
 that letter was sent ? — On the 4th of November, 1885, 
 I had occasion to bring writs against every tenant on 
 the townland, and the very day the writ was issued 
 in Dublin I received Herlihy's letter that I have 
 read. So I sent back a receipt to Herlihy, and charged 
 him only £2 for the writ. The letter of December 26 
 is as follows : — 
 
 " Reanasup, Gneeveguillea, Rathmore, Decembei 
 26th, 1885. 
 " Dear Sir, — I beg to inform you that I received in 
 due time the writ you kindly Bent me by post. I also 
 wish to let you know that I removed my hay and cattle 
 from my own land, as others in my neighbourhood have 
 already done. Now I have another favour to request 
 of you, and that is to sell my farm by sheriff's sale if 
 the farms of William Fitzgerald, Reanasup, Pat 
 Cronin, Newquarter or Carhoonse, and John Mahony, 
 Banard, be sold in that manner. And also whatever 
 notices of sale or other legal documents you send by 
 post or by Mr. Patrick Cronin to these three farmers 
 (who are already served with writs) I have to request 
 that you send the same notices and in the same manner 
 to me. But if you should have any private business 
 with regard to this matter which it would be neces- 
 sary for me to know, you will please send it enclosed 
 in an envelope to Miss May Herlihy, Commercial* 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 22, 1888, 
 
 361 
 
 house. Main-street, Kanturk. This girl, who can be 
 implicitly trusted, is my daughter, and she will send 
 to me immediately whatever accounts she receives. 
 The reason I wish the private letters not to he sent 
 direct to myself is that I strongly suspect Killarney 
 letters may be tampered with at Gneeveguillea or Rath- 
 more post-office, I enclose one envelope addressed as 
 above for convenience if required. Dear Sir, I have 
 confided to you the whole secret of this business since 
 the commencement, and I trust you will help me out of 
 this terrible difficulty in the manner I have requested, 
 even should the form be not entirely lawful. I will 
 be only too happy to pay all the expenses incurred at 
 the earliest opportunity. I may tell you thatj if it 
 were known with certainty that I had my rent paid my 
 life would be in the greatest danger. Hoping you 
 will kindly oblige and keep this matter as I have 
 written before — a dead secret, 
 
 " I remain, dear Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " Mr. Maurice Leonard." " John Herlihy. 
 
 Did that man pay his rent ? — Yes, on the 7th of 
 November. 
 
 And the costs of the writ which you had served on 
 him ? — Which I had ordered for him. 
 
 Yes, quite right. What happened with regard to the 
 other tenants whose farms were to be put up to sale ? 
 — I had to bring writs of ejectment against them 
 which added £16 or £17 in addition to the rent, and 
 they then paid me. 
 
 When process was going against their farms ? — Yes. 
 
 In the letter there are these words : — " I removed 
 my hay and cattle from my own land as others have 
 already done." Was that not allowed by the terms of 
 the tenancy ? — Not at all, but the Land League issued 
 orders. 
 
 To avoid distress, I understand ? — Yes, to avoid 
 seizure. 
 
 Sir C. Rttsseix. — Did you see these orders ? — No. 
 
 Sir C. Bcssell. — No notice, as far as you know, 
 was issued by the Land League ? — No, except what 
 I heard from general rumour. 
 
 Examination continued. — Well, this man who had 
 paid his rent acted in the same way as a number of 
 people who had not paid their rent ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, on the 2d of February, 1886, did you receive 
 another letter ? — Yes. 
 
 The following letter was then read : — 
 
 " Beanasup, Gneeveguillea, Bathmore, 
 February 2, 1886. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I beg to inform you that I received, on 
 Monday, the 25th ult., the registered letter you kindly 
 sent from the estate office, to the effect that my farm 
 would be sold by sheriff's sale at the Court-house, 
 Tralee, on the 13th of the present month. The date first 
 written was the 6th of February, but this was crossed 
 and the 13th written over head. I have also to state 
 that William Fitzgerald, of Beanasup, and Pat Cronin, 
 of Newquarter or Carhoonse, received the same day 
 letters to the very same effect, but here is a terrible 
 difference. These two farmers and three or four 
 others from near Bathmore received on yesterday 
 printed forms from the sheriff's office, Tralee, stating 
 that these farms with the several others,aboutl4 in all, 
 would be sold at the Court-house, on next Saturday, the 
 6th of February, but my name did not appear in the 
 printed list. Again, the leading members of the Gneeve- 
 
 guillea branch of the National League obtained some 
 time ago an account from Dublin that judgment had 
 been marked against William Fitzgerald, Pat Cronin, 
 and also the Bathmore tenants whose names appeared 
 in the sheriff's list sent to each on yesterday. No 
 judgment was then marked against me. These two 
 facts place me in a dreadful difficulty. You have 
 kindly sent me a writ and a notice of sale, as I earnestly 
 requested, but I greatly fear that you have mistaken to 
 order judgment to be marked against my case in Dublin, 
 as if I paid nothing, and consequently my name is not 
 in the sheriff's list of the farms to be sold at Tralee on 
 the 6th of February. Now, Sir, I have to again request 
 and beseech you in the most earnest manner to send 
 an order at once to the Dublin Court and get judgment 
 marked against my case if it is not already done, and 
 get my farm legally sold, if at all possible, at Tralee 
 on the 13th inst., or as soon after as possible, in the 
 same manner in every respect as all the other farms 
 have been sold. You may consider me too persevering 
 in writing thus, but, Sir, you should kindly remember 
 that I have, as above stated, received two documents 
 from the estate office, and, being suspected before, 
 should these turn out to be false, what, then, would be 
 the consequence ? I have no hesitation in saying that 
 my life would be seriously in danger in these despe- 
 rate times and this still more desperate district, when 
 every farmer in my townland is ejected in Court and 
 expecting eviction. As I have previously stated, I am 
 more than willing to pay all expenses incurred. You 
 will please send a reply, for safety, to my daughter's 
 address in the enclosed envelope. I have again to 
 implore you to act kindly as I have requested, or in 
 some other manner which yourself may know, in which 
 it would be believed I paid no rent for the present 
 gale, to save me in these terrible times from personal 
 violence, or, worst still, from boycotting, for which I 
 will ever feel thankful, and perhaps may at some future 
 period kindly repay your kindness and consideration. 
 Wishing to be excused for the length of this letter, 
 which you will please keep a dead secret, 
 " I beg to remain, dear Sir, 
 "Your most obedient servant, 
 
 " John Herlihy." 
 
 Did you do anything inconsequence of that request ?■ 
 — Yes, I gave notice of sale of his farm, and as it was 
 not a legal process I asked the sheriff in court to 
 adjourn the sale, which was done. The farms of the 
 other tenants were properly sold. 
 
 There are three names mentioned as of persons 
 whose farms were sold—William Fitzgerald, Pat 
 Cronin, and John Mahony. Were they in a position to 
 pay at the time of the sale ? — Certainly. 
 
 Did they subsequently pay ? — Yes, with £16 or £17 
 costs in addition. It was a most cruel proceeding of 
 the National League at the time. They had to pay a 
 very considerable amount in consequence, more than 
 they need have done. 
 
 Did you get a letter from Patrick Lynch ? — Yes. 
 Patrick Lynch, of Inchcallane, It is dated December 
 24, 1885 :— 
 
 "Dear Sir, — I have enclosed two cheques for rent 
 on account for myself and Timothy Sheehan of Bath- 
 more. My cheque is £23 and Timothy Sheehan's 
 cheque is £10, which you will please receive on account, 
 and stop all further law proceedings, as you are well 
 aware how dangerous it is for us to do so in paying 
 so much which at the present time we could not on 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard, 
 
562 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 any account pay any more at present. Please send an 
 acknowledgment by post to each. 
 
 " I remain, dear Sir, yours respectfully, 
 
 " Patrick Lynch." 
 
 Had you a tenant named Jeremiah Murphy ? — Yes. 
 He wrote me the following letter : — 
 
 " Gneeveguillea, Bathmore, Decembsr 26, 1885. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I have to earnestly request that you 
 send by post to me at your earliest convenience a 
 notice to pay the November rent. You will please 
 elate that you would have me served already for its 
 recovery were it not for the decent manner I 
 behaved in the payment of the arrears due of Mr. 
 M'Sweeney at the time I purchased the farm. You 
 will, I trust, kindly oblige as the state of this part of 
 the country is so desperate that a man's life or property 
 is not safe at the present time. 
 
 '* I remain, dear Sir, your humble servant, 
 
 " Jeremiah Murphy." 
 
 Do you remember whether Murphy had paid that 
 November rent ? — Oh, yes, a month before. He wrote 
 and asked me to send him a notice to pay it. 
 
 Was there a case of Jeremiah Sheehan ? What had 
 he done ? — A Mrs. Toomey was evicted in 1886, and 
 Sheehan came to me in 1887. 
 
 Did what happened to Sheehan take place after 
 1886 ?— Yes. 
 
 Then leave it, please, for a moment. I beg your 
 Lordships' pardon. Had you a tenant named John 
 Horan ? — Yes. He wrote as follows : — 
 
 " Rathmore, April 10, 1886. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — Enclosed you have a draft on the Pro- 
 vincial Bank, Cork, for £13 13s. 3d., amount of the 
 last November gale, after deducting poor-rates and 
 statement, the receipt of which I also enclose. I should 
 not think it safe for me to go to Killarney on account 
 of the rent agitation that prevails at present. Please 
 send me the receipt by post to Farranfore. 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " John Horan." 
 I should say the words " National Bank, Killarney," 
 are crossed out and " Provincial Bank, Cork," written 
 over them. 
 
 Do you remember whether that man had previously 
 paid you ? — Oh, yes, he had paid up to date. 
 
 Had yon a tenant named Edmond Casey ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you produce a letter fr m him 1 — Yes. It is 
 dated April 24, 1886 :— 
 
 " Honoured Sir, — Whoever .will reach you this en- 
 closed an answer on writing where and what time 
 during the day I can see you in private outside of the 
 office in order to let the people scatter. I will wait 
 for the last train to Farranfore so you can fix the most 
 convenient place I can see you at leisure. It would 
 not be safe for me to go near the office. Travel Ire- 
 land and you would not meet a greater set of black- 
 guards than there is around me. I have tome money to 
 give you belonging to a neighbouring old woman with 
 whom I am on friendly terms. I have some money to 
 give you myself also, as well as to speak about some 
 other matters. Be sure that the message will be pri- 
 vate, as I don't know who I may give it to. Whether 
 you would put some recent date in my book for the last 
 rent. Put a stamp or more in your pocket. 
 " Yours sincerely, 
 
 " Edmond Casey." 
 
 Do you remember seeing that man ? — Yes ; I met 
 him at the Railway Hotel. 
 
 Did he pay you money ? — He did. He paid for him 
 self and for one other. 
 
 Was that for a tenant who had previously paiii yoi 
 openly ? — Yes. I receipted the book for the previous 
 gale, altering the date at his request. 
 
 That is, you did not put in the pass book the last 
 payment he had made ? — No. 
 
 Did he give you any reason why he did not wish it 
 to be put in the book ? — He said he was afraid. 
 
 Did you receive another letter on September 28, 
 1E8G, from Casgy ? — Yes (reading). 
 
 " Honoured Sir, — Unless prevented by something 
 unforeseen I will meet you in the Railway Hotel the 
 evening of the 1st of October, Friday next, to give 
 yoa some money. I have some business to the fair ot 
 Castleisland that day, so I find it best opportunity tc 
 slip in by the evening train from Farranfore, whict 
 reaches Killarney a little after six in the evening. In 
 case anything may take you away on that evening let 
 me know in some form as I have no other business but 
 to. see you. If you want to stop me of going that 
 evening drop a line to a man named James Lyons, 
 Castleisland, for me, and I will call there, or if Mr. 
 Doran goes to the fair tell him you will be in Killarney 
 not that evening. I find it better to go in the most 
 private manner fearing a repetition of last year's 
 work it would be impossible for me to leave this place 
 any other day without being spotted by the class that 
 are in one yard with me here so that I would wish to 
 have tbem in the dark about the matter let everybody 
 do his own work. I would very badly want to see you 
 about the state of the water course or courses here it 
 would be difficult for me to find words to describe. 
 Long before boycotting was general in Kerry 1 had 
 ample experience of it in many ways. The reason the 
 water courses are let close up is to block me up and 
 keep me idle, so that I could not drain or manure. 
 There are several parties between me and the river, 
 so that I am completely blocked up. Unless you give 
 me any relief, all my work will be idle. It would be 
 as well for a person not to have had land at all, 
 unless he is doing something in the 6hape of improve- 
 ment. What land I have is a regular swamp. Reclaimed 
 and improved bog land so that I would have no busi- 
 ness neglecting it. Mr. Doran was badly able to walk 
 it four years since. It is' a hard case that a man would 
 not be allowed work or pay if others could prevent 
 him. " Yours sincerely, 
 
 " Edmond Casey." 
 
 Do you remember whether you met that man ? — I 
 did. He paid me rent for himself and also for widow 
 Donelly. 
 
 I will now ask you about the case of Sheehan ? — 
 Yes. In the latter end of 1887 Mrs. Toomey came to 
 me and asked permission to sell her interest in her 
 farm. I gave her permission to do so, and it was bought 
 by a man named Cornelius Sheehan. A man named 
 Collins also claimed the farm. They came to me and 
 I decided to give it to Sheehan. He paid £150 to Mrs. 
 Toomey, and shortly afterwards received » threatening 
 notice. It was in the following terms : — 
 
 " Blen of Cork and Kerry, take notice that John 
 Sheehan has grabbed a farm, contrary to the wishes of 
 the National party, from the notorious Leonard, Lord 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 363 
 
 Kenraare's agent. Any person valuing his life is re- 
 quested to shun him. God save Ireland." 
 
 Did any of the tenants produce their cards of the 
 National League to you ? — Yes, when they came to 
 me to pay their rent. I saw the cards in the pockets 
 of their passbooks. I asked them for them, and they 
 said I coald keep them. 
 
 Now, you have referred to a number of letters and 
 statements as to not paying rent, and the letters have 
 been read. During the years to which these letters 
 refer-by which I mean 1881, 1882, 1885, and 1836— 
 were there any other organizations preaching the non- 
 payment of rent besides the Land League and the 
 National League ? — No. 
 
 It is suggested, Mr. Leonard, that this intimidation, 
 whatever it was, was the work of some secret 
 societies, and not of the League. Do you believe 
 that ? — I do not. It was the work of the Land League 
 and the National League. There was a branch of the 
 Land League at Rathmore in 1881, of which Patrick 
 M'Carthy was the president. I only mention places 
 that are in the neighbourhood of Lord Kenmare's 
 property. There was a branch at Ballyduff. John 
 Callaghan was president of that branch at first, and 
 afterwards a man named O'Connor. The next branch 
 was at Gneeveguillea, of which Casey and John 
 O'Connor were chairman and secretary respectively. 
 Jeremiah Sullivan was subsequently the chairman of 
 that branch, and another John O'Connor secretary. 
 Then there was a branch of the National League at 
 Ballyhow, of which Martin Lyne was chairman. The 
 chairman of the Firies branch of the National League 
 was the Rev. Patrick O'Connor. I do not think 
 Father O'Connor was chairman of what was called the 
 League in 1881, but I know he was chairman of the 
 National League which was got up in the parish in 
 1885. There was both a Land League and a National 
 League at Killarney. Mr. Sheehan, M.P., was chair- 
 man of both. There was a branch of the National 
 League at Kilcommin of which a Mr. Healy was 
 chairman. 
 
 Now I want to ask yon, please, Mr. Leonard, were 
 these branches of the Land League and of the National 
 League mere paper organizations, or were they active V 
 — They were most active. They used to meet every 
 Sunday after Mass, except the Firies branch, which 
 met every second Sunday only. 
 
 You say that there was a part of Killarney in which 
 there were some secret societies ? — Yes ; I had reason 
 to believe that some four or five young fellows in the 
 immediate neighbourhood of Killarney were connected 
 with a secret society in Castleisland. 
 
 I do not want to know their names, but you knew 
 "them ?— I did. 
 
 Speaking of the outrages and the intimidation to 
 which you have referred, do you mean to say that they 
 had been caused by any secret society ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Sir C. Russell objected to the question as being 
 too general. 
 
 The Attornev>Genekal. — I will put the question in 
 
 the form my learned friend wishes me to adopt. Do 
 you believe that the outrages were caused by any 
 secret society ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Do you believe that the intimidation was caused by 
 any secret society ? — Certainly not. 
 
 "Was there any society preaching the non-payment of 
 rent except the Land League and the National League ? 
 —No. 
 
 Are you able and willing to give my learned friend 
 every information with regard to the tenants on this 
 estate ? — I court the opportunity of doing so. 
 
 Now, as regards the putting back of these people as 
 caretakers, in the number of years to which you have 
 referred what was the number of tenants who were 
 actually permanently evicted for non-payment of rent? 
 — There were altogether 2,000 tenants on Lord Ken- 
 mare's estate. From 1874 up to the year 1880 there 
 were only two tenants permanently evicted, and 43 
 were readmitted as caretakers. 
 
 Tell us the numbers in the succeeding years ? — In 
 1881 five were permanently evicted, and 15 were 
 evicted, but put back as caretakers ; in 18S2 three were 
 permanently evicted and 96 were readmitted as care- 
 takers ; in 1883 two were permanently evicted and 17 
 were readmitted as caretakers ; in 1884 one was per- 
 manently evicted and 08 were readmitted as care- 
 takers ; in 1885 none were permanently evicted and 
 44 wore readmitted as caretakers ; in 1886 one was 
 permanently evicted and 48 were readmitted as care- 
 takers ; in 1887 four were permanently evicted and 
 50 were readmitted as caretakers ; and in 1888, up to 
 the present time, one has been permanently evicted and 
 three have been readmitted as caretakers. 
 
 I do not know whether you can give us the actual 
 numbers, but, if not, give us au estimate as nearly as 
 you can of the proportion of the tenants who were 
 evicted on this estate who settled with the landlord 
 amicably ?— They all settled except the 19 I have 
 mentioned as having been permanently evicted. 
 
 I wish you to be careful in your answer to this ques- 
 tion. I am not speaking of any particular case, but 
 speaking generally. Were those tenants who were 
 evicted able to pay or not ? — A great many of them 
 were. 
 
 Were those who were evicted by any means the 
 poorest persons on the estate ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Did you find resistance to pay or difficulty in getting 
 payment solely in cases whore there was most distress ? 
 —Certainly not ; the most reluctance to pay was shown 
 where the people wore well off. 
 
 Do you believe that the resistance to payment was 
 the result of severe distress or of inability to pay ? — 
 Not at all. 
 
 Speaking of the tenants themselves, I suppose you 
 went among them ? — I knew them intimately. 
 
 You saw them from day to day or from month to 
 month ? — Yes. 
 
 Well, when you got theso tenants by yourself, did 
 they show any hostility towards you ? — Up to October, 
 ISSl.the tenants were most friendly.and when you went 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
364 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 oat upon their farms they would chat and talk and tell 
 you the latest gossip of the place ; but after the 
 establishment of the Land League, in October, 1881, 
 their demeanour entirely changed, and they would 
 scowl at you when they met you, and would set their 
 dogs at you. 
 
 How long did that last ? — Until the latter end of 
 1883. 
 
 • Now, after 1883, up to some later date, what terms 
 were you upon with the tenants P — On very good terms 
 again, and remained so up to 1886, when the National 
 League was established iu the place of the Land 
 League. 
 
 And then did the same ill-feeling again arise P — 
 Yes ; there was the same scowling and " booing " 
 and blowing of horns and insult of us in every Way 
 they could as we passed over the estate. 
 
 Is the National League now powerful in the district or 
 not ? — It is as powerful as ever it was, in my opinion. 
 The Plan of Campaign has ^been sprung upon mo, 
 and the fight has to be done all over again. 
 
 Now as to the evictions. Did you find any difference 
 in the way you had to carry them out in these years 
 1881-1882 and 1885-1886 to what you had in the preced- 
 ing and the following years ? — Up to 1881 the sheriff 
 could drive with the bailiff and get quiet possession, 
 but after 1881 I had in one instance to obtain the 
 assistance of 180 soldiers and 200 police to carry out 
 an eviction. 
 
 Was there the same kind of resistance — I do not say 
 in degree — after the National League came into exist- 
 ence ? — Yes. In one case 400 troops were required. 
 
 Do you remember whether there was any difference 
 in the evictions you had to carry out in the year 1884, 
 which is a year in which the Land League was not in 
 sxistence ? — In 1884 the sheriff went on to the estate 
 with only four policemen. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sib C. Russell. — I understand 
 you to say that the National League in Killarney is as 
 powerful now as ever it was ? — Certainly it is. 
 
 Probably it is more so ? — I cannot eay that it is more 
 
 BO. 
 
 It was so powerful before that it cannot be said to 
 be more powerful now P — That is so. 
 
 And are the great majority of the people of the 
 neighbourhood with whom you are acquainted members 
 of it P— Yes. 
 
 People of all classes ? — All the farmer class. 
 
 And the shopkeepers ? — Yes. 
 
 Therefore we may say all the farmers and all the 
 shopkeepers of the neighbourhood are members of it p 
 —Yes, some of them. 
 
 Of course there are some exceptions, but, generally 
 speaking, the farming class and the shopkeeping class 
 are members of it ? — Yes. 
 
 Respectable people whom you yourself think highly 
 of ? — Yes, most respectable. 
 
 Practically all the respectable people excepting land- 
 lords and their attaches belong to it ? — A great many 
 
 respectable people belong to it, and a great many 
 ruffians also. 
 
 I suppose that amid the landlord class there are also 
 degrees of merit ? — That is a matter of opinion. 
 
 Let me, on another matter, ask you a few general 
 questions. First, you have read yesterday and to-day 
 a number of letters. This is not the first court of 
 inquiry in which those letters have figured ? — No. 
 
 They were all trotted out — or perhaps I had better 
 say read — before the Cowper Commission, were they 
 not P— A portion of them. 
 
 Tell me which of them were not read before that 
 Commission ? — A few were not read before that Com- 
 mission. I think that when I had read a certain 
 number the Commission stopped me and said that they 
 had heard sufficient. 
 
 Will you tell me which you did not read ? I 
 suppose you read the cream of them, a fairly strong 
 sample ? — I read some of them. 
 
 I should like to ask a general question or two with 
 regard to those letters. You have read several this 
 morning, four or five, have you not ? — I should not 
 like to pledge myself with regard to the exact 
 number. 
 
 Some were written in 1885-1886 ?— Yes. 
 
 Am I right in saying that, with those exceptions, all 
 the others were written in 1881?— In 1881 and 1882. 
 
 All the rest were written either in 1881 or before 
 May, 1882 P— Yes. 
 
 Then it stands thus — a number of the letters were 
 written to you in 1881 and in the early months of 
 1882, and then some half-dozen were written in 1886 ? 
 —In 1885 and 1886. 
 
 And the intervening period is a blank as far as this 
 class of correspondence is concerned ? — Yes. 
 
 That is to say, that after the early months of 1882 
 up to 1885 you were not favoured with correspondence 
 of that kind ? — No ; during that interval the tenants 
 paid me openly. 
 
 I will come to that in a moment. I want to get the 
 facts first. Did it happen that you saw some of these 
 correspondents of yours before they wrote those 
 letters ? — Certainly not. 
 
 None of them ? You saw none of the tenants before 
 they wrote those letters ■? — Certainly not, except in 
 the ordinary way of their paying their rent. 
 
 I am not speaking of an ordinary or of an extraordi- 
 nary way Of seeing them. What I want to know is 
 whether you did see any of them before they wrote 
 those letters ? — I saw them when they paid their rents. 
 
 Are you sure you did not see Herlihy before you re- 
 ceived those letters ? — I will tell you. I saw Herlihy 
 on the 18th of December, 1885, when he came into 
 the office and asked me to send him this writ. I got 
 a letter from him at the end of November, 1885. 
 
 You saw him on the 18th of December, 1885 P— 
 Herlihy came to the office on the 18th of December, 
 1885, and personally asked me to send him a copy of 
 the writ which I hold in my hand. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 22, 1888: 
 
 365 
 
 Was Herlihy a man very well to do ? — He is very 
 comfortable. 
 
 And so, probably, all your other correspondents are ? 
 •—They are. 
 
 You know probably that, rightly or wrongly — which 
 I am not asking your opinion upon — one of the motives 
 that actuated the tenants was that the rich should 
 stand by the poor ? — There is no doubt about that. 
 
 So that, by means of the richer and wealthier 
 tenants among them standing by the poor, they might 
 present what is called a " united front " ? — Yes. 
 
 I take it that you were not a member of the Land 
 League yourself ? — No. 
 
 Nor of the National League ? — No. 
 
 And you were fighting both ? — Certainly. 
 
 And you were picking up the best crumbs of evidence 
 against both that you could lay your hands upon ? — 
 No ; I was not taking any amount of trouble to get 
 up evidence against them. On the contrary, the Land 
 League and the National League gave me serious 
 trouble. 
 
 But yesterday, in answer to this question — " Are 
 you acquainted, at any rate as far as public acts are 
 concerned, with the doings of the Land League and 
 the National League during the time that the Land 
 League and the National League were in force in the 
 county of Kerry " — you said " Yes ; I made it part of 
 my duty to know all about them." Is that true ? — 
 That is the fact. 
 
 Then I was not wrong in saying that you did collect 
 such information as you could about them ? — Yes. I 
 had first to fight the Land League in 1881, 1882, and 
 1883, and then I had to fight the National League in 
 1885, 1886, 1887, and a portion of 1888. 
 
 I am not blaming you at all. I am merely asking 
 the question whether you thought it part of your duty 
 to collect all the information you could about those 
 Leagues ?— Yes. 
 
 And you have told us elaborately the result of 
 your observations and of the information you 
 gathered ? — Yes. 
 
 In the course of your experience as a land agent, 
 have you known tenants who were anxious to curry 
 favour with the landlords ? — A few. 
 
 None of your correspondents were of that class ? — 
 My anonymous correspondents were of that class. 
 
 We have not heard of them before. None of the 
 correspondents whose letters have been read were of 
 that class ? — No. 
 . Is Kerry in one or more unions ? — It is in six unions. 
 
 You are a magistrate ? — Yes. 
 
 The land agents generally are ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you any property in Kerry ? — No ; I have some 
 house property in Listowel. 
 
 What was the poor-rate in the electoral divisions of 
 Killarney in 1878 ? — In the Coom division it was 5s. 
 in the pound, in Killarney 4s., in Kilcummin 2s. 10d., 
 in Brewsterfield Is. 10d., and in Ballahan 2s. lOd. 
 The average would be from 2s. 6d. to 2s. 9d. in the 
 pound. 
 
 Is Lord Kenmare's property all in the Killarney 
 Union?— No, he has some in Cork and some in Limerick 
 
 In your evidence yesterday you referred to a letter 
 from Arthur O'Keefe, of Lisheen, in which he said, 
 " Enclosed is a cheque to the amount of £27 17s. 6d., 
 being the rent due of my farm. The poor-rate being 
 £11 5s., I promised I would send it you." How was 
 the poor-rate so much ? — I think that he had not paid 
 it the previous year, and that he sent the two years' 
 together. 
 
 Was not the poor-rate more than the average in 
 Castleisland ? — I believe that it was lis. in the pound 
 there. 
 
 There was a great deal of distress in the neighbour- 
 hood ? — In 1879 and the commencement of 1880 there 
 was great distress. We had a very bad autumn and a 
 very bad spring. 
 
 Can you give an idea of the total number of evic- 
 tions in Kerry from 1879 to 1883 ? — I cannot tell you. 
 I can only speak of Lord Kenmare's estate, the figures 
 of which I have given you. 
 
 Was the whole number for Kerry in 1879 and 1880 
 about 3,000 ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Is it your experience that evictions contribute to 
 crime and disturbance ? — Harsh evictions would. 
 
 And do ? — They would certainly. 
 
 Probably you have never known of a harsh eviction ? 
 —No. 
 
 Then your opinion is that no eviction you have had 
 to do with contributed to disturbance and crime ? — 
 No, they ought not to. 
 
 Do you think that none of your evictions ought to 
 have led to disturbance and crime ?— No, because the 
 tenants always had every opportunity of coming to 
 terms with their landlord. 
 
 Is it true or not that evictions do contribute greatly 
 to disturbance and crime ? — Harsh evictions do . Under 
 certain circumstances evictions do contribute to dis» 
 turbance and crime. If the League sent people to 
 blow horns and assembled a crowd at an eviction that 
 would be likeiy to cause a disturbance. 
 
 In other words, if evictions were carried out quietly 
 and no fuss is made and no one resents they would not 
 cause a disturbance ? — No. 
 
 Or ought not to ? — No. 
 
 What proportion of evictions on the Kenmare 
 property was by what is known as Dublin writs ? — In 
 1885 we proceeded by writs instead of ejectment. 
 
 I am speaking of Dublin writs instead of processes 
 before the County Courts ? — We got writs of habere for 
 non-payment of rent in possession. 
 
 How many ? — In 1875 there were two served on the 
 estate, in 1878 seven, in 1879 two, in 1880 five, in 
 1881 14, in 1882 nine, and in 1883 one. 
 
 Were there any writs in ejectment in the Superior 
 Court issued in 1884, 1885, and 1886 ?— There were 
 writs to seize goods and chattels. 
 
 No writs of ejectment, no habere of ejectment, no 
 writs of possession ? I mean you took no proceedings 
 in the Superior Court ?— I have given you all. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
366 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 Now, about the writs in the Superior Court for rent 
 in 1885 ? — In 1885 we did not bring ejectment to any 
 large extent. In 1885 there were 21 writs ; in 1886 
 33, in 1887 47, and in 1888 38 writs were served. 
 
 What is the cost of the writ ?— £2 10s. 
 
 Was there any of these cases which was not within 
 the jurisdiction of the County Court ? — They were all 
 within the jurisdiction of the County Court. 
 
 I may take it the costs of the County Court would 
 be much less ?— Yes ; but it would not be so summary, 
 as we should have to wait three months to get an 
 ejectment. 
 
 You took the most summary mode to strike terror? — 
 I had to do it to get the rent. 
 
 What was the course of the proceedings when you 
 proceeded for the rent and not for ejectment ? — There 
 was an execution on such chattels as the tenant had. 
 
 You mean that what interest the tenant had was put 
 np for sale by auction ?— If the sheriff made a seizure 
 and returned no goods.then we put up the farm for sale. 
 
 You knew that from the state of feeling in the 
 country, or, as you would prefer to call it, from the 
 action of the Land League and the National League, 
 there would be a great improbability of there being 
 any purchasers ?— Certainly ; the result was that the 
 tenant's interest would be bought in for a nominal sum, 
 generally £5. I know of a case of a tenant's interest 
 valued by the Land Commission at £1,100 being sold 
 for £5. 
 
 The tenant's interest would be bought in by the 
 landlord or his agent ? — Yes. 
 
 Upon the purchase he would get a conveyance from 
 the sheriff, and in that case there would be no period 
 of redemption ? — No. 
 
 How many cases of that kind were there on the 
 estate from 1879 to 1886-7 ?— There was one in 1881— 
 Daniel Crawley, whom the League defended. There 
 was also James Flynn's case in the same year. In 
 1882 there was one, that of Michael Moymhan, who 
 was defended by the League, and one other. In 1883 
 there was Catharine Mahony, and in 1887 there were 
 two cases. 
 
 How many were there altogether ?— Two in 1881, 
 two in 1882, one in 1883, and two in 1887. 
 
 Were there none in 1885-6 ? — No. There was one in 
 1888. The case was that of Honoria Shea, of CleeryJ 
 
 What was the value of her interest ?— It was fixed at 
 £1,100 by the Land Commission — by John George 
 M'Carthy — on June 13, 1884. It was in respect of two 
 farms at Cleery and Ballydoney. 
 
 When was her interest sold ?— On June 11, 1887. 
 The landlord bought her interest for £5 each farm, £10 
 altogether. She was turned out, and is out still. The 
 farms have not been relet, but are stocked and in the 
 charge of caretakers and police. The lady is now dead. 
 In 1886 I had to Bue her for her judicial rent, and I 
 seized her stock and sold it, and the rent was paid, 
 with £19 costs. Her son was the principal Land 
 Leaguer in the district, and attacked the office in every 
 possible way, preventing the payment of rent. 
 
 When did she apply to the Court for a judicial rent ? 
 —In 1883, and it was fixed in 1884. 
 
 The reduction in her rent only dates from the judg- 
 ment ? — From the next gale day after the judgment. 
 
 The President. — How much were the arrears ? — 
 Twelve months. I may mention, my Lord, that when 
 I served this woman with a writ her solicitor, Mr. 
 Mahoney, defended the action. At the last moment 
 he gave his consent to judgment and asked me for a 
 settlement. I told him I was prepared to take £50 
 and give him time till June 30 for another £50. Mr. 
 Mahoney said that was fair, but the tenant asked me 
 to extend the time till September. I told him it was 
 impossible, as I closed my books on June 30. The 
 tenant refused the offer. I put up both farms for sale, 
 and afterwards further terms were asked. I said I 
 was willing to let the tenant back on payment of six 
 months' rent, and that I would take the costs by in- 
 stalments. That was refused. 
 
 SlE C. Rt/ssell. — In April, 1886, Mr. Mahoney gave 
 consent to judgment ? — Yes. 
 
 What extension of time did he ask for ? — I offered 
 him till June 30, and he wanted till September. 
 
 Then it was not a case of refusing to pay rent ? — He 
 distinctly refused to pay unless he got an abatement of 
 the judicial rent. 
 
 You are aware that Parliament intervened, and did 
 allow the tenants whose rents had been judicially 
 revised to go into the Court again on account of the 
 abnormal fall in prices in 1885 and 1886 ? — Yes. 
 
 You do not agree there was any necessity for that 
 second revision ? — Of course 1 agreed. That is the 
 reason I offered to take £100 out of £263. 
 
 I must ask you whether you did not say this in your 
 evidence before the Cowper Commission, on November 
 13, 1886 : — " Question. — Then, in your opinion, there ii 
 no necessity for revision of the judicial rents ?— 
 Answer.— Oh ! certainly not, because the Land Com- 
 mission strained every point in favour of the tenant." 
 
 Witness. — So they did. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (reading) : — " Question. — And rents 
 can be paid now throughout the estate — not only 
 the judicial rents, but in the other cases also. 
 Answer. — Certainly. Lord Kenmare's trustees gave 
 25 per cent, of the last gale in May, 1885, and 
 they are giving 20 per cent, of this December 
 gale. Question. — Then there is no necessity for 
 revision of judicial rents ? Answer. — Certainly not. 
 Question. — Do you think the circumstances of the 
 tenant demanded that abatement ? Auswer. — I think 
 so, to the yearly tenant, on account Of the excessively 
 bad times and the fall of prices." 
 
 You say there you were of opinion that there was no 
 necessity for the revision of the judicial rents becauso 
 the Land Commission had considered every point in 
 favour of the tenant ? — Not where the tenant was 
 solvent. 
 
 Is it the landlord view or the landlord's agent 
 point of view that the question of the justice or in- 
 justice of pressing for rent depends upon anything 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 22, 18S8. 
 
 b67 
 
 except whether the laud has or has not fairly produced 
 the rent ? — Not at all ; I will tell you the way we 
 proceed. 
 
 You said if the tenant is able to pay — is solvent — he 
 ought to get no abatement ? — His judicial rent is a fair 
 rent, and if he is solvent he should get no abatement. 
 
 But you have told us that previous to 1886-87, after 
 the judicial rents were fixed, there was a serious and 
 abnormal fall in prices. Is it your view that the 
 tenant is not entitled to any consideration in the way 
 of abatement so long as he is able from any means or 
 sources to pay ? — He is entitled to get a fair abate- 
 ment if prices fall. 
 
 What did you mean by saying that the " solvent " 
 tenants were not entitled to any abatement ? — The 
 solvent judicial tenants — whose rents are fair — are 
 able to pay. Of course there are judicial tenants 
 whose rents are fair who cannot pay. They ought to 
 get an abatement. 
 
 You are arguing in a circle. Why do you bring in 
 the question of solvency if, as soon as the rents have 
 been fixed, there has been a fall in prices ? — Tate a 
 solvent judicial tenant. He has a fair rent, and he is 
 comfortable in every way. Ha requires no abate- 
 ment. 
 
 That is to say, although the harvest did not justify 
 the rent in 1886-87 through the fall in prices, yet, if 
 he is a man well off, he ought to pay without abate- 
 ment ? — Yes, certainly. 
 
 What was the schedule that was actually applied 
 under the Act of 1887 to the union in which Lord 
 Kenmare's property was situated ? — The rents were 
 fixed in 1881. On December 20 the Commission made 
 a further reduction of 13 J per cent. Dn the rents 
 fixed in 1882 they averaged a further reduction of 14J 
 per cent. On the rents fixed in 1883, a further reduc- 
 tion of 16^ per cent. On the rents fixed in 1884 they 
 made a further reduction of 12 per cent., and in 
 December, 1885, they added a further reduction of 3$ 
 per cent. 
 
 So that the point from which the abnormal fall 
 was to be considered was from the end of December, 
 1885 ?— Yes. 
 
 So that those who had got their rents judicially 
 fixed before that date were entitled to a revision ?— r 
 Yes. Those fixed after that date wero not. 
 
 I assume that in the rents fixed after that date the 
 Commissioners had presumably taken into account the 
 fall ? — Yes, certainly. 
 
 The Pkesident. — What is the Act to which you are 
 referring ? 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — The Land Law (Ireland) Amend- 
 ment Act, 1887, my Lord. Your Lordships will hear 
 the whole history of these Acts at a later stage. (To 
 the witness.) These reductions, are they cumulative ? 
 — No ; I think they average about 20 per cent. 
 
 That reduction is not a permanent one ? — For three 
 years from 1887, and then, at the end of that time, the 
 rents rise again to the former point. , 
 
 You have told us you have lived in Killarney 
 
 practically all your life ?— Since January 26, 1876. I 
 have lived in county Kerry all my life exoept when I 
 was at school. 
 
 You say that the relations between landlord and 
 tenant in Kerry were of a most friendly and cordial 
 character ? — I speak of Lord Kenmare. 
 
 And so continued up to when ? — Up to the time when 
 The O'Donoghue held his meeting in Killarney on 
 January 9, 1880. 
 
 Then you think that The O'Donoghue and his 
 meeting were the fons et origo mali 1 — He began to 
 abuse Lord Kenmare and his estate, and every one 
 connected with it. 
 
 You do not think any protection for the tenants 
 was wanted at all ? — In 1880 it was absolutely necessary 
 to give the tenants every assistance, because there 
 were several of them blue with hunger in consequence 
 of the fearful autumn they had had. 
 
 Did you think it necessary to give them legal pro. 
 tection ? — How do you mean ? 
 
 You thought it better to leave them to the cordial 
 and friendly relations between landlord and tenant ?— • 
 In Lord Kenmare's case, certainly. 
 
 Do you think the Land Act of 1881 was not wanted ? 
 — Certainly not in Lord Kenmare's case. Lord Ken- 
 mare only wanted a fair rent. We did not object to 
 the Act in the slightest degree. 
 
 You are too young to remember the Land Act of 
 1870 ?— I remember it. 
 
 It had very little effect in the country ? — I do not 
 think it was worth much. 
 
 Sir C. Kussell. — I agree with you. (Laughter.) 
 
 Were arrears at all a trouble on Lord Kenmare's pro- 
 perty ? — No. There are tenants at present who owe 
 the rent due in May, 1883. 
 
 I should have thought that pointed to its being a 
 trouble ? — Among 2,000 tenants there must be some 
 poor ones. There are some 200 poor tenants. 
 
 And they are not a trouble ? — No, because the poor 
 man does not join the agitation ; he wants to hold 
 his land and he pays when he can. 
 
 Dp you think the Arrears Act was necessary ? — No. 
 It ruined the country, because it made every man dis- 
 honest. 
 
 Yon approve of the Land Act of 1881. but you think 
 that the Arrears Act was dishonest ? — Certainly ; it 
 made honest people dishonest. 
 
 You did not think there was anything in the general 
 condition of the people or the peace of the country 
 which rendered it necessary ? — Some Act was necessary, 
 bu> I do not approve of the Arrears Act. 
 
 What Act was necessary ? — Something was necessary, 
 I cannot say what ; but certainly the Arrears Act 
 ruined the whole place. 
 
 Was it necessary to put down the Land League and 
 send tnem to prison ? — No. 
 
 You did not think it necessary in any way to deal 
 with arrears ? — Not on Lord Kenmare's estate. 
 
 Are you speaking solely of Lord Kenmare's estate ? — 
 Yes : I only know of others by rumour. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
368 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 You have used the expression that iu 1879 and 1880 
 the people or some people were blue with hunger t — 
 That is perfectly true. 
 
 Was there general distress in Kerry ? — Yes. We had 
 a poor autumn, a fearful winter, and a very bad 
 spring. It rained in Killarney from January 1 to 
 March 3 without stopping. (Laughter.) 
 
 It generally rains in Killarney ? — We get every pass- 
 ing shower as a rule. 
 
 Umbrellas are at a premium ? — Well, we generally 
 live in our waterproofs. (Laughter.) 
 
 The potato crop was bad ? — Yes. 
 
 And that is what the people rely on for food ? — Yes, 
 the great majority. 
 
 It is to the other crops they look for the payment of 
 their rent ? — Yes, and the sale of their pigs and 
 stock. 
 
 Do you find that the tenants in Killarney are fre- 
 quently assisted by their friends ? — Yes ; their children 
 in America frequently send me their rent. 
 
 That has been so for as long as you can recollect ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 In some of the letters you have received payment of 
 rent from Manchester and Dublin ? — Yes, in the case 
 of Cronin. 
 
 In July, 1879, was a memorial presented to Lord 
 Kenmare by the general body of his tenantry asking 
 for a reduction of rent ? — I believe so. 
 
 Was there a conference of Catholic clergy of the 
 Listowel Deanery on September 5 of that year, at which 
 a resolution was passed saying a reduction was neces- 
 sary for the people in your district ? — That was in 
 North Kerry, 30 miles from Killarney. 
 
 And at Millstreet Deanery the same ? — Yes ; 20 
 miles from Killarney. 
 
 Canon Griffin presided ? — Yes. » 
 
 He was a man unfriendly with the League ?— He has 
 never countenanced it. 
 
 Did Lord Kenmare at that time, in answer to these 
 representations, make any reduction ? — I don't know. 
 I know they got a reduction on the November, 1879, 
 rent. 
 
 Do you know that Lord Kenmare said that if the low 
 prices continued he would the following spring be 
 willing to inquire into the matter ?— All I know 
 is that on the November, 1879, rent the tenants 
 got 20 per cent, abatement in addition to a large 
 expenditure on the estate in the way of improvements. 
 
 On the private demesne ? — No ; on the estate. 
 
 Is it not the fact that no abatement was made till 
 the next year ? — The abatement was made on the 
 November, 1879, rent, which was paid the following 
 January. I may mention that previous to January, 
 1880, Lord Kenmare was spending close upon £300 per 
 week in labour. When the distress occurred Lord 
 Kenmare directed Mr. Hussey to make a large expendi- 
 ture on the estate. From October, 3879, till the 
 middle of April, 1880, £300 per week was spent in 
 labour. 
 
 Was not that money advanoed under statute at an ex- 
 
 ceptionally low rate of interest to the landlord ?—* 
 Yes ; no interest was charged for two years, and after- 
 wards 1 per cent. The tenants were not charged one 
 farthing interest. Lord Kenmare came into his pro. 
 perty in 1851, and from that time up to 1885 he has 
 spent £173,994 on his estates in Kerry, Cork, and 
 Limerick. On the Kerry estates alone he has spent 
 £163,814. 
 
 What is the total rental of Lord Kenmare on his Irish 
 estates ?— £40,000. 
 
 And of his Kerry estates ?— About £32,000. 
 
 The expenditure referred to in these figures has 
 apparently been from moneys advanced by Parliament. 
 How was it expended ?— On buildings, £40,116 ; land 
 improvements, £15,019 ; roads,£4,432; Killarney town, 
 £1,192 ; seed potatoes to tenants in 1879, £2,381 ; 
 general labour on the roads, £65,381 ; Board of Works 
 loans, £34,500. 
 
 How much of this money was expended on tho erec- 
 tion of a mansion ? — Not a penny. 
 
 As regards the cottages in Killarney, they were let 
 at a rent ? — They were let at a nominal rent, but the 
 rent was never paid. 
 
 Were you aware of memorials similar to that ad- 
 dressed to Lord Kenmare being sent to Lord Headley 
 and other landlords in Kerry ? — I do not know. 
 
 When Mr. Hussey succeeded to the agency was there 
 a rise in rent ? — He raised the rents in 1875, 1876, 
 1877, and 1878. It was a general rise all over the 
 estate. He brought the rents up to what they wera 
 before the famine. 
 
 What was the amount of the rise ? — £2,250 was the 
 gross amount, but it related to 453 tenants. 
 
 You could not in fact raise the rents upon a great 
 number of tenants because of the leases ? — There are 
 2,000 tenants on the estate; 150 are leaseholders, 140 
 judicial rents, and 1,757 yearly tenants. 
 
 What was the state of things in 1875 and 1876 ? Were 
 there not then a number of leaseholders upon whom 
 you could not raise the rent? — Yes ; 150. 
 
 Previous to 1878-79 they had no right of recourse to 
 the Land Court ? — No. 
 
 Was any abatement made to the leaseholders at all f 
 — There were leases made from 1811 up to 1873. When 
 the Land Act of 1881 passed Lord Kenmare had it 
 stated in open Court that he was prepared to take a 
 surrender of any lease and let the tenants go into the 
 Court to fix the rents. Out of 150 leaseholders on the 
 estate only two accepted the offer and went into Court. 
 
 A lease, of course, secured them undisturbed posses* 
 sion as long as they paid rent, and against any increase 
 of rent ? — Certainly. 
 
 I think it was an Act of the present Government 
 which enabled leaseholders to come in ? — Yes ; the 
 Act of 1887. It is the same Act which deals with the 
 revision of judicial rents. 
 
 They then came in ? — No ; there are only two, and 
 they came in in 1882. 
 
 But they could not get into Court in 1882 ? — Yes, 
 because we offered to take a surrender of their leases. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 36T9 
 
 They could not in point of law ? — Yes ; we offored to 
 accept a surrender and make them yearly tenants. None 
 of them came in after the Act of 1887. 
 
 Now, about this question of good feeling between 
 landlord and tenant. Speaking generally, do you think 
 they were very cordial up to 1881 ? — I do not like to 
 speak of outside the Kenmare estate ; I do not know 
 personally about it, and I am only speaking of rumours. 
 Speaking generally, and not of Lord Kenmare's estate, 
 rumour said there was not that cordial feeling. 
 But you had to do with other estates ? — No. 
 You were articled to Mr. Hussey ? — Yes, from 
 March, 1875, to January, 1876. 
 
 Is not Mr. Hussey one of the most extensive land 
 agents in Kerry ? — Yes. 
 
 Then your experience was extensive there ? — Well, I 
 was learning my business at the time, and did not give 
 my attention to this question. 
 
 Now, did you ever see a remarkable letter which 
 appeared in the columns of The Times newspaper from 
 the late General Gordon ? — No. 
 
 You know that General Gordon knew a good deal 
 about Ireland ? — I think I have heard so. 
 
 Do yon know that he lived for some time in Kerry ? 
 — I never heard he had ; I think I would have heard 
 if he had. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I will now read from The Times 
 of the 3d of December, 1880. 
 
 The Attobney-Gekekal. — I hope you will read the 
 whole of it. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Certainly I shall. The letter of 
 General Gordon is written from Glengariff, and is 
 addressed to a correspondent " J." 
 
 The following letter was then read by Sir C. 
 Russell : — 
 
 " Sir, — The Irish question deeply interests all 
 classes of people at the present moment. Among 
 others, Col. Gordon has been lately investigating it on 
 the spot. He has written me the following brief re- 
 marks, and, as may be imagined from his previous 
 career, he goes to the root of the matter. The vast 
 interest of the subject must be my excuse for sending 
 this private letter for publication, which I do on 
 my own responsibility. Whether the public will 
 agree in his conclusions or not, at least they 
 offer a new departure for consideration, and they 
 are those of a man who has wielded autocratic 
 power over millions of human beings, and who knows 
 the responsibilities of government. 
 
 " I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 " December 1." " J. 
 
 " My dear J, — You are aware how interested I am 
 in the welfare of this country, and having known you 
 for 26 years I am sure I may say the same of you. 
 
 " I have lately been over to the south-west of Ire- 
 land in the hope of discovering how some settlement 
 could be made of the Irish question, which, like a 
 fretting cancer, eats away our vitals as a nation. 
 " I have come to the conclusion that — 
 " (1) A gulf of antipathy exists between the land- 
 lords and tenants of the north-west and west and 
 south-west of Ireland. It is a gulf which is not caused 
 alone by the question of rent ; there is a complete 
 lack of sympathy between these two classes. It is 
 
 useless to inquire how such a state of things has come 
 to pass. I call your attention to the pamphlets, 
 letters, and speeches of the landlord class as a proof 
 of how little sympathy or kindness there exists among 
 them for the tenantry, and I feel sure that the tenantry 
 feel in the same way towards the landlords. 
 
 " (2) No half -measured acts which left the land" 
 lords with any say to the tenantry of these portions 
 of Ireland will be of any use. They would be rendered— 
 as past Land Acts in Ireland have been — quite abortive, 
 for the landlords will insert clauses no do away with 
 their force. Any half measures will only place the 
 Government face to face with the. people of Ireland 
 as the champions of the landlord interest. The 
 Government would be bound to enforce their decision, 
 and with a result none can foresee, but which certainly 
 would be disastrous to the common' weal. 
 
 " (3) My idea is that, seeing — through this 
 cause or that, it is immaterial to examine — a dead- 
 lock has occurred between the present landlords and 
 tenants, the Government should purchase up the rights 
 of the landlords over the whole or the greater part of 
 Longford, Westmeath, Clare, Cork, Kerry, Limerick, 
 Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Cavan, and Donegal. The 
 yearly rental of these districts is some four millions. 
 If the Government gave the landlords 20 years' pur* 
 chase it would cost 80 millions, which at 3^ per cent, 
 would give a yearly interest of £2,800,000, of which 
 £2,500,000 could be recovered ; the lands would be 
 Crown lands ; they would be administered by a Land 
 Commission, who would be supplemented by an 
 Emigration Commission, which might for a short time 
 need £100,000. This would not injure the landlords, 
 and so far as it is an interference with proprietary 
 rights,it is as just as is the law which forces Lord A to 
 allow a railway through his park for the public 
 benefit. I would restrain the landlords from any 
 power or control in these Crown land, districts. Poor 
 Law, roads, schools, &c, should be under the Land 
 Commission. 
 
 " (4) For the rest of Ireland I would pass an Act 
 allowing free sale of leases, fair rents, and a Govern- 
 ment valuation. In conclusion, I must say, from 
 all accounts and my own observation, that the state 
 of our fellow-countrymen in the parts I have named is 
 worse than that of any people in the world, let alone 
 Europe. I believe that these people are made as wa 
 are, that they are patient beyond belief, loyal, but, at 
 the same time, broken-spirited and desperate, living 
 on the verge of starvation in places in which we would 
 not keep our cattle. 
 
 "The Bulgarians, Anatolians, Chinese, and Indians are 
 better off than many of them are. The priests alone 
 have any sympathy with their sufferings, and natur- 
 ally alone have a hold over them. In these days, in 
 common justice, if we endow a Protestant University, 
 why should we not endow a Catholic University in a 
 Catholic country ? Is it not as difficult to get a 
 £5 note from a Protestant as from a Catholic or Jew ? 
 
 Read the letters of and of , and tell 
 
 me if you see in them any particle of kindly feeling 
 towards the tenantry ; and if you have any doubts 
 about this, investigate the manner in which the Relief 
 Fund was administered, and in which the sums of 
 money for the improvement of estates by landlords 
 were expended. 
 
 " In 1833 England gave freedom to the West Indian 
 slaves at a cost of 20 millions — worth now 30 millions. 
 This money left the country. England got nothing foi; 
 it. By an expenditure of 80 millions she may free 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
370 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 Jier own people. She would have the hold over the 
 .land, and she would cure a cancer. I am not well off, 
 
 tut I would offer or his agent £1,000 if either 
 
 of them would live one week in one of these poor 
 devils' places, and feed as these people do. Our comic 
 prints do an infinity of harm by their caricatures — 
 .first, the caricatures are not true, for the crime in Ireland 
 is not greater than in England ; and, secondly, they 
 .exasperate the people on both sides of the Channel, 
 and they do no good. It is ill to laugh and scoff at 
 a question whioh affects our existence. 
 
 " Yours sincerely, " C. G. Gordon." 
 
 The Attorney-Genera.!.. — I understand the witness 
 to say that General Gordon had not been in Kerry. 
 
 Witness. — I never heard of his being there. 
 
 The President. — What General Gordon was this ; 
 the General Gordon ? 
 
 Sir 0. Russell. — Yes, my Lord. (To witness.) Does 
 not part of the Kenmare estate go up to Glengariff ? 
 — Not within 40 miles of it. 
 
 Not this property, but another ? — Yes, he has a Cork 
 property. 
 
 Well, do not catch me up in that way. Does not 
 his Cork property go into Bantry ? — Yes. 
 
 Is not Glengariff close to Bantry? — Within five miles. 
 
 You do not agree with that letter ? — I do not know 
 anything about those counties personally. 
 
 But he refers to Kerry. — What does he say about 
 Kerry ? (Laughter). 
 
 I have read the letter ; he talks about Kerry. — What 
 part of Kerry ? 
 
 No particular part. Is there any county in Ire- 
 land in which there is a greater degree of wretched- 
 ness than parts of Kerry ? — Yes j parts of Galway and 
 parts of Clare. 
 
 Now, I want to know a little about the state of 
 affairs outside the mere land question in Kerry. The 
 magistrates of the county are, of course, appointed by 
 the Lord Chancellor, on the nomination of the lord 
 lieutenant of the county. Who is the lord lieutenant 
 of Kerry ? — Lord Kenmare. 
 
 I think that of late years, as far as dealing with 
 disturbance and ordinary magisterial duties are con- 
 cerned, local magistrates have rather receded into 
 the background ? — Yes, since the agitation. 
 
 They have left, to a large extent, the performance 
 of magisterial duties to magistrates appointed by the 
 Government ? — Yes, they did not like to get unpopular 
 —some of them, that is. 
 
 Well, no doubt there are magistrates and magi- 
 strates. How many resident magistrates are there in 
 Kerry ? — There is Captain Massy in Listowel, Mr. 
 Roche in Tralee, Mr. Butler in Cahiroiveen, and Mr. 
 MacDermott at Killarney. 
 
 These magistrates hold their offices directly upon 
 the will of the Government of the day ? — I have been 
 informed so. 
 
 In addition to these resident magistrates, are there 
 what are called district magistrates ?— Yes ; there is 
 Colonel Turner, who is sometimes at Tralee, and some- 
 times elsewhere. 
 
 Now, I think it was in 1886 that Sir liedvers 
 Buller came to Kerry ; in what capacity did he go 
 there ? — When he came first it was reported that he 
 came to put down outrage, but it turned out not to 
 be that at all ; he came to ask about the payment of 
 rent, and how it had been paid for years back. 
 
 Was he a magistrate ? — He was there a short time, 
 and I think he was a magistrate afterwards. 
 
 Now, it was notorious, was it not, that he again 
 and agaia intervened to try and stop eviccioas as 
 being a source of disturbance and crime ? — I believe 
 so. 
 
 Did he not — to use the expression of a distinguished 
 statesman— use great pressure within the law ? — I 
 believe so — and outside the law too. (Laughter.) 
 
 That was rather serious for a magistrate ? — Well, it 
 was done. 
 
 Then you did not approve of Sir Redvers Buller ? — Oh, 
 I did not mind a bit. He had arrived at Killarney ahoui 
 24 hours, when he sent for me, asking whether I would 
 go over Lord Kenmare's estate with him. I said I 
 would be only too happy to go over the estate with 
 him, and he never sent for mo from that day to this. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 I understand, that Lord Kenmare is averse to any- 
 thing that has the appearance of violence and harsh- 
 ness. — Certainly ; he inquires minutely into everything 
 on the estate himself, outside the office altogether. 
 
 But I think I am right in saying that the control 
 of the estate was not in Lord Kenmare's hands ? — Mo ; 
 it was in the hands of trustees from January 1, 1883. 
 Lord Kenmare, as far as he himself was ooncerned, had 
 no legal power to make abatements ; it must be the 
 act of the trustees. 
 
 Now, with reference to the Cowper Commission, I 
 understood you to say that the Commission was not at 
 all needed ? — I never said any such thing. 
 
 You think it was needed ? — Certainly ; there were 
 any amount of lies going about concerning landlords 
 and tenants, and it was well that the truth should be 
 known. 
 
 Who were the Commissioners — Lord Cowper was the 
 chairman ? — Yes ; there were Mr. Neligan, Q.C., Lord 
 Mitltown, Mr. J. Caird, and Mr. T. Knipe. Lord 
 Mill town is an Irish landlord, Mr. Neligan is a County 
 Court Judge and a landlord in Kerry. I do not know 
 whether Lord Cowper is an Irish landlord ton. 
 
 Is this Mr. Caird the same Caird who publicly 
 stated that there were 500,000 tenants in Ireland who 
 could not pay any economic rent ? — I think so. 
 
 H6 is no w Sir James Caird ? — Yes. I think he was 
 then. 
 
 What was the date of that public statement of Sir J. 
 Caird ; was it in 1881 ?— I think in 1885. 
 
 Well, I am told it was earlier. Was Mr. Knipe the 
 only representative of the tenant-farmer class ? — So I 
 believe. 
 
 He was a farmer from the North of Ireland ? — So I 
 understand. 
 
 How many tenants on the Kenmare property 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 371 
 
 altogether went into the Land Court ? — One hundred 
 and fifty-two, including middlemen's interests that fell 
 in. I think there were about 20 odd leases of that 
 kind granted in 1811. The landlord granted a lease to 
 the middleman, who would pay a head rent, and then 
 be would be left to deal with the tenants and make 
 such arrangements for rents as he thought right. . 
 
 Is that extensively done ? — It was the custom, I 
 believe, in 1811. 
 
 Now, I will just mention some of the reductions 
 made by the Land Court. Cornelius Shea, valuation 
 £20 10s., former rent £28, judicial rent £23.-1 do not 
 think there is a tenant of the name of Sheehy on the 
 property. 
 
 On the Cork property ? — No ; there is no such 
 tenant there. 
 
 Just think — Cornelius Shea, of Gorreebeg ?— Oh, I 
 thought you said Sheehy. Yes ; that was by consent. 
 
 Mary Tisdall, former rent £60, reduced to £47. — 
 No ; we appealed in that case, and succeeded in 
 proving that it was a demesne holding. 
 
 But the Commissioners reduced it to £47 103. ? — Yes, 
 illegally, it was a demesne holding. 
 
 Catherine Manyan, £9 to £7 10s. — That was by 
 consent. 
 
 John Sullivan, £8 to £5 15s. ; Peter Long, £36 to 
 £29 ; Patrick Connors, £22 to £19 ; J. Mahony, £9 to 
 £8 ; Michael Eiordan, £53 to £24.— That is a mis- 
 take ; there is nobody of £50 of rent at all. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Perhaps it is a mistake 
 for £30 ? 
 
 Witness. — No ; he never paid more than £14 a year. 
 
 There are a number of others. Timothy Sullivan, £40, 
 reduced to £36 9s., M'Gillicuddy, £48, reduced to £32. 
 —That was increased by the Court of Appeal. 
 
 It was part of the policy, was it not, on the Kenmare 
 estate to appeal ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Was it not the general rule ? — Certainly not ; why 
 should we do such a thing as to throw money away in 
 law costs when we knew we could not get it increased ? 
 We got an independent vainer to value every case. We 
 went into Court and were guided solely by him. 
 
 Rightly or wrongly, a great many of the tenants who 
 had applied for abatements, did they not afterwards 
 withdraw their notices ?— No ; except in two cases— 
 Keef of Lisheen and Koornan of Lackabane— none 
 of the tenants withdrew their notices. 
 
 These judicial rents which you say were agreed to, 
 were they agreed to after the tenants had given notice 
 of going into Court '/ — On the tenant serving his 
 originating notice we got his holding valued. 
 
 The question was repeated.— Yes. I will tell you 
 about it. We got an independent valuer to value the 
 land. He fixed it at a certain value, and we called 
 upon the tenants, and they accepted it. 
 
 Was this man an independent valuer ? — Yes. 
 
 Had he had anything to do with the management of 
 the property ?— Yes, at one time. 
 
 You would hardly call him an independent valuer ? — 
 Certainly. 
 
 What had he had to do with the property ? — He waa 
 assistant agent under Mr. Hussey. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — Was there a man 
 named Duggan, a tenant of Lord Kenmare ? — Yes ; he 
 was an extensive middleman upon the property. 
 
 Was he evicted ?— Yes, on the 20th of April, 1887. 
 
 Had the family of the Duggans been tenants on the 
 Kenmare property for long ? — Yes, ever so far back. , 
 
 For 200 years ?— Ever so far back. 
 
 Before your time ? — Yes. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did you read a letter by this man which was pub- 
 lished after the eviction ? — Yes. 
 
 Of course you did not agree at all with his version 
 of the facts ?— No. 
 
 Did you publish a letter in reply ? — No, because it 
 was a notorious case. He adopted the Plan of Cam- 
 paign. He sold all his stock, he removed his hay, 
 oats, and corn to Mr. Dowling's farm at Clonnts. He 
 carried away the fixtures of the farm, and then defied 
 me. 
 
 Now, have you done ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you told us all you have against the Duggans ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Then we will hear Mr. Duggan's story. I need 
 hardly say, Mr. Leonard, that you took in the Kerry 
 Sentinel? — I did indeed. 
 
 I thought so. My Lords, I am going to read a letter 
 published in the Kerry Sentinel of April 26, 1887. 
 
 The President. — You are going to ask him whether 
 that is a true version ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwoob. — Yes, my Lord. The letter was as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Sir, — I trust to your courtesy to insert the follow- 
 ing statement. For over 200 years the lands of Knock- 
 masseed, co. Kerry, have been held by the Duggan 
 family under the ' Kenmares.' This place when first ' 
 taken was a wilderness, consisting of bog and 
 water. My forefathers drained, fenced, and re- 
 claimed the land, planted it, built a largo 
 dwelling-house and out-offices. Having made these 
 improvements, each time that the lease expired 
 the rent was raised and some of the land taken from 
 the Duggans. So late as the year 1848 my father took 
 out a new lease — a most stringent one it is. Ho had 
 just built a new dwelling-house and out-offices, at a 
 cost of about £1,800, and planted 72,000 trees. Two- 
 thirds of the land was taken from him, and tho rent 
 raised from £70 to £100 a year — an encouragement for 
 him to make further improvements ! Farms held under 
 the Kenmares 50 years ago by tho Duggans at a head 
 rent of £70 per annum are now paying the present Earl 
 over £500 a year. The rent of Knockmasseed has been 
 paid up to May, 1885. In May, 1886, I paid £20 out 
 of the half-year's rent of £50, and duo the previous 
 November. I received a writ in February, 1887, for 
 £180 (£50 of which is the ' running gale,' not payablo 
 until 1st of next month). I was evicted on the 
 20th of this month by the sheriff for non-payment of 
 the above, and was asked by him if I would pay £180. 
 I said no. So far back as the year '80 I wrote and 
 told tho agent I could not pay so high a rent. The 
 only concession I got since was an allowance of £10 
 in one ' gale ' of rent paid in '82. In April, '86, 
 I wrote and told Lord Kenmare that I would not pay 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard, 
 
372 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 an ' impossible rent,' and begged of him to give me 
 a reduction. He did not answer my letter ! I then 
 wrote to Lord Castlerosse, as one of the trustees of 
 the estate ; he declined to give me an abatement, and 
 suggested ' that with moderate farming the farm 
 ought to be one of the cheapest holdings in the Rath- 
 more district.' I denied myself in every way to pay 
 what in these bad times is an unjust rent. The rates 
 and county cess amount to considerably over £40. Mr. 
 Leonard told me no abatement would be given, and in 
 his well-known capacity as agent he offered to let 
 Knockmasseed to a neighbour, and told him that I had 
 left the place. Mr. Leonard must have been well 
 aware I had not removed. Such is the consideration 
 and fair play shown by the Kenmares to a family who 
 spent thousands on this farm, and who honestly paid 
 their rent as long as they could. £10 is the solitary 
 allowance made by the landlord in 200 years ! The 
 Kenmare family never spent a penny on Knockmasseed, 
 therefore is it strange, in the face of such hard facts, 
 that Irish tenants should call for justice ? How 
 differently English landlords treat their tenants. 
 " I am, Sir, yours, 
 
 " The Evicted Tenant. 
 " Eathmore, April 23, 1887." 
 
 Will you please tell me — this letter appears to be a 
 statement of facts — what facts alleged there as facts 
 are untrue ? — Well, I should say about 50 acres of 
 valuable land attached to the demesne — - 
 
 I do not want to argue with you as to what the 
 character of the land is. Tell me what statement made 
 there is an untrue statement. — He has not referred 
 
 That is not an answer. — He refers to years back 
 that I cannot speak of. 
 
 Then you cannot say they are untrue. Can you tell 
 me any statement of fact in that letter that is not 
 true ? — Will you let me see the letter, and I will tell 
 you. 
 
 Did you not attend when I read it, and you had a 
 copy there ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I beg your pardon, there 
 is no copy. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I beg yours then. 
 
 The letter was handed to the witness. 
 
 Witness. — As regards the 200 years — - 
 
 I am sure I do not want to waste time. — In 1848 
 there was a lease taken out. I do not know whether 
 the rent was increased or not. It is true that he built 
 a new dwelling-house at a cost of £1,800. 
 
 Is it also true that the Kenmares never spent one 
 farthing 'I — Yes. 
 
 How many thousand trees did he plant ? — I daresay 
 there are now 3,000 in the whole place. 
 
 I daresay, now ; I am talking of the time when he 
 planted them. — It is true that he received a writ in 
 1887. 
 
 I want you to tell me what is not true. It will take 
 you longer to tell me what is true than what is not. — 
 This is not true, that I wanted £180 when he was 
 evicted. That is downright untrue, because I offered 
 to take £50. (Reading.) " I was evicted on the 20th 
 of this month by the. sheriff for non-payment of the 
 above, and was asked by him if I would pay £180." 
 
 You speak for yourself. He says it was the sheriff.— 
 The sheriff was carrying out my orders. With refer- 
 ence to his letting Knockmasseed to a neighbour I will 
 tell you what occurred. 
 
 I am asking you to tell mo what is not true.— Well, 
 that is not true to a certain extent. Mrs. Godfrey 
 said the farm was not worth anything. I said that was 
 not a fact, and I said, " Won't you sell your interest 
 and see what it is worth ?" She said " No." I said, 
 " Well, if you won't pay me a fair rent I will take 
 £50, or I will have to evict you." After the eviction 
 a man came to me and wanted to take the farm. He 
 said he would give Mrs. Godfrey £200 for her interest 
 in it. I then got the solicitor to write to tell her 
 
 I do not want to interrupt you ; but I think you 
 have challenged that statement, tho circumstance con- 
 nected with the letting of the farm.— But you must let 
 me say this, the National League in Rathmore said 
 they would boycott him" if he took it. 
 
 That you wish to add as another rap at the National 
 League ? — No ; it is a fact. 
 
 You have finished the letter now ? — Yes. 
 
 I think you told us that the Curtin family are tenants 
 of Lord Kenmare, and have been for a long period ? — ■ 
 Yes. 
 
 We were told that owing to the treatment of the 
 Curtin family after the murder the family had greal 
 difficulty in getting a living out of the land ? — They had 
 some difficulty in tilling the land. Lord Kenmare sent 
 out his machines and men to work it for them. 
 
 Do you suggest there had been increasing difficulty ? 
 — The dispute they had with the National League 
 caused difficulty. 
 
 Did you put in a distress on Mrs. Curtin last April ? 
 — Yes, for rent. Mrs. Curtin and the family wanted to 
 make themselves popular at the office's expense, and 
 would not pay their rent, unless they got what they 
 called a substantial abatement. The meaning of that 
 was 
 
 Please ! please ! please ! You say that you dis- 
 trained upon the widow, Mrs. Curtin, in April last ?— 
 Will you let me explain ? 
 
 The President. — He is entitled to explain. If you 
 do not let him do it now, I must at another time. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I only want to get at the facts. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — It may be that a false 
 inference might be drawn. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — If you think that, my Lords, I 
 would rather have his explanation now. 
 
 Witness. — In 1887 I repeatedly wrote to Mrs. 
 Curtin for her rent, and she sent me no reply. I knew 
 at the time she, was trying to get popularity with the 
 League, and she wanted me to evict her or serve her 
 with a writ. So I would not do that ; I sent a dis- 
 tress. 
 
 That was a matter of personal favour ? — Yes,to make 
 her popular in the district. (Laughter.) When I saw 
 what she was at I did not do it. I issued a distress 
 warrant, and took her cattle ; and tho very morning 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 22,-1888. 
 
 S73 
 
 her cattle were seized, she came in and gave me a 
 cheque on the National Bank. (Laughter.) 
 
 The cattle were seized in April ? — Yes. 
 
 What rent was due ? — £150, a year's rent. 
 
 What would be the expenses of the seizure ? — She 
 was charged no costs. The expenses, legally, would 
 be £1 10s. 
 
 By Mr. Harrington. —You said something about 
 pressure being brought to bear on some of the Kerry 
 landlords ? — So I heard. 
 
 Did you experience anything of that pressure upon 
 the Kenmare estate ? — No. 
 
 You met Sir Redvers Buller and Colonel Turner, 
 Who was then his secretary ? — Yes. 
 
 You heard about the pressure that was being brought 
 to bear upon the other landlords ? — Yes. 
 
 Pressure outside the law ? Would you give us some 
 instance ? — He interfered with the action of the 
 sheriff ; would not give the sheriff protection, or allow 
 protection to be given. 
 
 Were there any other officials down there who were 
 bringing pressure upon the landlords ? — I do not think 
 so. 
 
 Any judicial functionaries who were bringing pressure 
 upon landlords ? — No. 
 
 Any County Court Judge ? — No ; when ejectments 
 were brought before him he asked the landlords to let 
 him settle what should be paid, and the landlords in 
 every case left it to him. 
 
 Did you always leave it to him ?— I had no occasion 
 to. Oh, I did leave it to him in the case of Shea. In 
 that case I offered to ]eave it to the County Court 
 Judge to decide, and Shea, the tenant, would not 
 agree. 
 
 M'Sweeney, do you remember what his interest 
 was sold for ? — He was sued for 12 months' rent. 
 
 What do you think was the value of his farm ?— A 
 year's tenancy, £15, the valuation being £14. In my 
 absence from the office he went in and paid when my 
 back was turned, on account of the judgment. 
 
 If it was paid behind your back you did not think it 
 necessary to send it back to him ? — No. 
 
 But he sued you afterwards for restitution P — No. 
 
 Did the case come before the Court in any way ? — 
 Yes, and I offered to leave the case to the decision of 
 the Judge, and he would not accept it. 
 
 This report, my Lords, is from the Kerry Sentinel of 
 January 10, 1888 (reading) :— " Mr. Hennessy," that 
 was the barrister who appeared for the tenant, " for 
 the tenant then suggested that in a case of this kind, 
 where the tenant had actually paid three-fourths of 
 the rent due, he had come within the equitable pro- 
 visions of the Land Act of 1887. His Lordship agreed 
 in this, and suggested to the agent (Mr. Leonard) that 
 it was a case in which the tenant- ought to be let go 
 back. Mr. Leonard refused, and so these proceedings 
 were brought on account of M'Sweeney having acted 
 harshly towards a tenant named Rahilly, who is now a 
 bailiff on the Kenmare estate." 
 
 Witness.— 'He wantonly sold his own farm, and then 
 
 went into possession, and turned out Rahilly on tha 
 high road. 
 
 That was his own right ? — Certainly. 
 
 And one which a good many Irish' landlords exer« 
 cise ? — Yes ; and I say it would be a monstrous thing. 
 He deliberately went and ejected Kahilly. 
 
 He should eject for the purpose of the sale ? — Fo< 
 possession after the sale. 
 
 And if the person who took the farm restored Rahilly 
 he had nothing to say to it ? — M'Sweeney bought the 
 farm himself. 
 
 We are speaking of another farm ? — I will tell you 
 what occurred. He got a judgment against Kahilly, 
 he put up his farm under sheriff's sale ; bought it in 
 for £5 ; brought an ejectment, then, for possession, and 
 got a decree for possession. When he brought the 
 decree for possession I brought also a decree of eject- 
 ment for non-payment of rent. The sheriff put out 
 Rahilly, and I stepped in and put out M'Sweeney, 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 The President. — Would that be a convenient point 
 to adjourn ? 
 
 The Court then adjourned for luncheon. 
 
 On resuming, the cross-examination of Mr. Leonard 
 was again taken up by Mr. HARRINGTON. — You told me 
 that you refused to agree to the suggestion of the 
 County Court Judge ? — Yes, on that date. 
 
 The County Court Judge is not a member of ths 
 National League, I suppose ? — I presume not. 
 
 He is a pretty strong opponent of the League ?— 
 Well, I think he is a very fair-minded man. 
 
 Oh, yes, and so are many members of the National 
 League, are they not ? — I dare say they are. 
 
 Well, I will read the report. It says that : — " Mr. 
 Leonard refused to accept his Lordship's sugges- 
 tion, and said that these proceedings were brought 
 on account of M'Sweeney having acted harshly towards 
 a tenant named Rahilly, who is now a bailiff on the 
 Kenmare estate. His Lordship said that had nothing 
 to do with the present case. M'Sweeney had only 
 exercised his legal rights towards Rahilly, and it 
 certainly did not come well from landlords to object to 
 any man exercising his legal rights." Is that correct ? 
 —Oh, yes. 
 
 ' ' The present case was the most important as affect- 
 ing the peace of the county that had been tried since he 
 came into it." — I do not agree with that. 
 
 " He disapproved of the landlord's action, and 
 strongly urged on Mr. Leonard to consider whether it 
 was not a case in which he should yield to Mr. 
 Hennessy's suggestion." Did Mr. Dowling appear as 
 your solicitor in that case ? — Yes. 
 
 He asked to have the case adjourned to Tralee ? — No, 
 I think not. I think that was the Judge's suggestion. 
 
 Did not the Judge say that ' ' he felt very sore over 
 it, and that he would not allow the scandal of it to go 
 outside Killarney "? — At the Judge's suggestion the 
 case was adjourned to Tralee, owing to an impertinent 
 observation of the tenant. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
374 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 We are talking of different cases ?— No, indeed, 
 exactly the same case. Before the Judge finally decided 
 the case, the tenant, in Court, made use of an im- 
 proper observation. The Judge turned round and said, 
 " I will adjourn the case to Tralee." 
 
 I think you will come upon that in the report of the 
 case of another man. — Not at all. 
 
 you have said that this paragraph I have read is 
 true. Did not the Judge say that he disapproved of the 
 action of the landlord, and urge you to consider 
 whether it was not a case in which you should yield 
 to Mr. Hennessy's suggestion ? Was that stated ?— The 
 Judge made a personal request of me. 
 
 Answer my question — Was that stated by the County 
 Court Judge ? — Yes. He addressed a personal request 
 to me. I did not feel at liberty to accede to it, 
 because I thought M'Sweeney's conduct improper. 
 
 At that same sessions we had a description of a 
 number of Dublin writs served on the estate ? — Yes, 
 owing to the action of the National League. 
 
 You have the National League on the brain, I think. 
 (Laughter.) — No, but I have had a deal of trouble from 
 it. 
 
 And, I suppose, you do not anticipate that all the 
 trouble is over yet ? — No, I do not. 
 
 Apart from the Dublin ejectments, were there other 
 proceedings taken before the County Court Judge ? — 
 Oh, yes, civil bill decrees for rent. 
 
 Now, at this very date we are speaking of, the date 
 on which this case was heard, had you 70 processes for 
 rent for hearing before the County Court Judge ?— I 
 think there were about 50. 
 
 It would not be true to say there were 70 ? — No. 
 
 Was there a case in which the amount was £17 10s. ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Due on May 1 ? — No, due on November 1, 1885. The 
 tenant in that case owes for the 1886, 1887, and 1888 
 rent at the present moment. 
 
 That is a case of a tenant you proceeded against, 
 although you knew he could not pay you ? — I knew he 
 could pay me 12 months' rent. 
 
 The 12 months you were prepared to extract from him 
 was 12 months to be dated back three years ? — Yes. 
 
 You knew he was unable to pay more than one year's 
 rent, but you took no steps to wipe out his arrears ? — 
 No. 
 
 Although you knew his capacity was the payment of 
 only one year's rent you took no steps to wipe out the 
 other two ?— No, because I had no intention of asking 
 him for the arrears. 
 
 Have you any intention of asking for them now ? — 
 No. Ultimately I may, if I see he gets on and is able 
 to pay. 
 
 They will remain on the books until he is able to 
 pay ? — Certainly. 
 
 Eugene Moymhan, was he sued for £14 ? — I presume 
 he was. 
 
 The yearly rent being £12 4s. ? — I think so. 
 
 Dennis Leary, do you know anything about him ? — 
 Oh, indeed, I do. That man owes four years' rent at 
 
 the present moment. He has eight cows, and his rent is 
 £8 a year. 
 
 When do you hope he will be able to pay ? — That 
 depends upon circumstances. 
 
 When times get more prosperous ? — Yes. 
 
 The arrears will remain in the books against him 
 until times do get prosperous 'I — Until I consider he is 
 able to pay. v * 
 
 If you were removed from the agency in the morn- 
 ing, have you any entry in the book which would 
 enable the incoming agent to judge of the case ? — In 
 every ledger account there is a favourable observa- 
 tion, and there I enter the circumstances of the tenants 
 as far as I am able to make them out. 
 
 Now, as to 1'atrick M'Carthy, do you know anything 
 about him ? — Oh, yes, the man whose family had the 
 fever. The fever was so bad in his house that his 
 neighbours would not enter it, and he had to wake his 
 daughter in the road. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith. — It does not seem that 
 you will be very quick going through these 50 cases. 
 
 Mr. HARRINGTON'. — I am going through them as 
 quickly as the witness will allow me. (To witness.) 
 He had the fever in his house ? — Yes, it was so bad 
 that the neighbours would not enter the house. He has 
 got nine cows, and I demanded a gale's rent up to 
 May, 1885, and he would not pay it. I had to get a 
 decree against him and seize his cows. He then came 
 in and paid the gale's rent. 
 
 You do not know where he got the money ? — No. 
 
 Do you believe he borrowed it ? — No. 
 
 Have you heard of men borrowing the money to pay 
 their rent ? — I have heard of them raising money on 
 bills at the banks. 
 
 Have you heard of their being ruined afterwards ? — 
 From time to time. 
 
 Is it the case that you have in any instances en- 
 deavoured to shield the farmers from shopkeepers, 
 from whom they had borrowed money to assist them 
 in paying their rent, by marking their cattle for the 
 landlord ? — In several cases on the property where 
 tenants have broken down I have found it necessary to 
 seize their cattle and sell them back to them to pro- 
 tect them. I have always told them they must pay 
 their debts to the shopkeeper by instalments. 
 
 You always protected them from the shopkeepers by 
 marking the cattle ? — In the case of struggling men I 
 always did. It is quite a common practice on the 
 estate. 
 
 Is it not the fact that you have been sued several 
 times for this proceeding ? — Yes. 
 
 And have not the shopkeepers recovered judgment 
 against you ? — No ; against the tenants. 
 
 Has not your assignment been broken ? — No. At 
 the present time there is an action in the Superior 
 Courts in which you advised as counsel 
 
 You know more than I do. — I have your letter. 
 
 Well, never mind about that. Do you know David 
 Walsh ? — Oh, yes, quite well. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 22, 1883. 
 
 375 
 
 Did you do a service of that kind for him ? — Yes, 
 but 
 
 I do not want you to do more than answer the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Witness. — Perhaps you will allow me to explain. 
 
 Mr. Harrington. — If you have an explanation to 
 make I have no objection, but if it is only a question 
 of details I think you might save their Lordships' 
 time. Cornelius Leary, did you do a service of that 
 kind for him ? — Yes. 
 
 You told us something about the action of Sir Red- 
 vers Buller in the way of bringing pressure to bear 
 upon the landlords. Do you know bis successor ?— 
 Yes, Colonel Turner. 
 
 . Has he in his own capacity interfered to any extent ? 
 — No, not with the Kenmare estates. 
 
 Now, with reference to the money expended on the 
 estates and these cases that came before the Court 
 subsequently— where the money expended on the estate 
 touched the farms in question, was evidence given of 
 the money expended by the landlord ? — Certainly. 
 
 And that was an element considered by the Commis- 
 sioners in fixing the judicial rent ? — Yes. 
 
 So that although the tenants do not pay directly tor 
 the expenditure, indirectly they are paying for it, be- 
 cause it was taken into consideration in connexion with 
 the fixing of a judicial rent ? — The whole evidence 
 was laid before the Commissioners, who decided as 
 they thought best. 
 
 I believe that some of the money spent at that time 
 was spent in opening up the bogs of the district ? — 
 Three roads were opened into the bogs. 
 
 At one time did the tenants have the bogs free ? — 
 They had them at a nominal rent ; Mr. Galway 
 charged them Id. a yard and Mr. Hussey 2d. a yard. 
 
 That was after the expenditure of this money ? — Yes ; 
 the money on the whole estate. 
 
 You have told us that none of the money was spent 
 on the mansion ? — Yes. 
 
 Some of it wa3 spent on the demesne ? — Yes ; the 
 work gave local employment. 
 
 And it consisted in throwing down some of the 
 houses of the peasantry and extending the demesne ? — 
 Yes, five tenants gave up possession, and they got 
 £3,800 as compensation. 
 
 Was a portion of the money which was expended on 
 the estate used in connexion with the destruction of 
 the houses of some of the tenantry and the extension 
 of the demesne ? — No. 
 
 You have told us that £163,814 was expended on the 
 improvements on the estate ? — Yes. 
 
 Did any of that money go to buy out these tenants, 
 who were removed in order that the demesne might 
 be extended ? — No ; that expenditure was quite sepa- 
 rate. 
 
 Have you not already told me that a portion of this 
 money was spent in the extension of the demesne ? — 
 No. 
 
 Was the demesne extended ? — Yes, considerably. 
 
 By the inclusion of some 16 farmhouses ? — No : fonr 
 
 or five. The lands adjacent to the demesne were held 
 under a middleman, and when the lease expired Lord 
 Kenmare took the farms, paying compensation. £1,982 
 was spent in Killarney itself. That was for the im- 
 provement of cottages and for cleansing and lighting 
 the town. Rent has been charged, but I regret to say 
 it has not been paid (laughter), except in a few 
 instances. Portion of the expenditure was for the 
 erection of a town-hall. This is let to the public for 
 purposes of amusement, but the cost of lighting is 
 only charged. 
 
 How many vacant farms are there on the estate now ? 
 — Nineteen agricultural holdings and one town field. 
 
 Have the majority of them been vacant since 1881 ? 
 — Yes. Lord Kenmare has been grazing some of these 
 lands. 
 
 Have you refused to pay the poor-rates in respect of 
 them ? — No ; not in respect of farms I have actually 
 stocked. I refused to pay poor-rates in respect of 
 farms which were evicted, bnt upon which the tenants 
 fed their cattle, having pulled down the fences. 
 
 Was Lord Kenmare taken into Court in respect of 
 the poor-rates ? — Yes ; the guardians of Kenmare 
 Union sued for 18s. 3d., and ultimately the case went 
 to- the Court of Appeal. There were other cases also. 
 
 What was the distress on Mrs. Curtin for ? — For 12 
 months' rent, including the hanging gale. That is the 
 gale which is not usually demanded from the tenants 
 within four months after it falls due. 
 
 But in the case of Mrs. Curtin, although according 
 to ordinary practice you would have accepted half 
 a year's rent if she had paid it, you sued her ? — No. 
 
 You levied a distress. Was not that suing her ? — 
 No. (Laughter.) She gave me a cheque for £60, 
 which was £20 short of the ordinary gale, and there 
 was the running gale besides. With reference tc 
 evicted farms, I have repeatedly proposed to the 
 tenants that they should sell their interest and put the 
 whole of the purchase-money into their own pockets ; 
 that the incoming tenant should go into Court to have 
 a fair rent fixed, and that all arrears should be wiped 
 off. I have also said to tenants that if they paid one 
 gale's rent I would allow them 5s. in the pound, wipe 
 off all arrears, and let the Court fix the rents of the 
 holdings. 
 
 Tell me one evicted tenant to whom you made thai 
 offer ? — To every one of them. 
 
 Give me a name. — There was James Flynn, who 
 was evicted on December 19, 1881. Con. Casey put 
 £200 in my hand and Baid that if Flynn would give up 
 the goodwill of the farm he should have that sum. I 
 sent for Flynn, but he would not accept the offer. 
 His father-in-law afterwards turned him out of his 
 house and Flynn is now living in a hovel in Killamey. 
 
 That has nothing to do with the case. Give me the 
 name of one tenant to whom you made the offer which 
 you have described. — There is Mary Toomey. 
 
 The President.— Well, there is a name. 
 
 The witness.— There are two. (Laughter.) 
 
 Sir. Maurice Leonard. 
 
376 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 Mr. Harrington.— Who is the other ?— Jeremiah 
 Connor. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — I think you have 
 said there was no other organization in Kerry besides 
 the League ? — Yes, except in a small portion of the 
 neighbourhood of Killarney. 
 
 If other witnesses maintained the contrary, you 
 would not be of the same opinion ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Have you better sources of information as to the 
 existence of secret societies than the police ? — I 
 think I have. I hear things, and things are told me 
 that would never be told to policemen. 
 
 Is most of your time devoted to your duties as a 
 land agent ? — Altogether, and unfortunately I could 
 not get a week's leave in seven years. (Laughter.) 
 
 If a police officer were to swear that nearly every 
 village had its secret society you would not agree 
 with him ? — Certainly not. 
 
 I think you said that the National League is as 
 powerful as ever in Kerry ?— Certainly. 
 
 That refers to all this year ? — Yes. 
 
 Then if the Chief Secretary said that the National 
 League was a thing of the past you could not agree 
 with him ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Then you have better sources of information ? — Yes, 
 perhaps ; because I talk to the people and hear many 
 things that the Chief Secretary or a constabulary 
 officer would not hear at all. (Laughter.) 
 
 Is your experience confined to the Kenmare estate ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 I think you have said that you think that evictions 
 would not or ought not to lead to outrage or dis- 
 turbance ? — Ordinary evictions would not ; harsh 
 evictions, I think, would. 
 
 Is it not human to resist the destruction of home ? — 
 It is illegal to resist the sheriff. (Laughter.) 
 
 It is illegal, I admit ; but in the circumstances 
 is it not an error common to humanity ? — The 
 tenants are very fond of their homes and it 
 is the last extremity to evict them. They cry 
 bitterly when put out. 
 
 Then an eviction in these circumstances would 
 naturally lead to resistance on the part of the evicted 
 people ? — Certainly. I know of one man to evict whom 
 I had to take with me some 400 men. 
 
 If you were a poor man — I hope you never will be — 
 and you saw yourself and your children evicted in con- 
 sequence of misfortune, you would not think much of 
 the law ? — I cannot say. I would not evict a poor 
 man ; nor have I ever done so. 
 
 But if you were in the position which I have de- 
 scribed, you might think the law was wrong or unjust ? 
 •—Well, I have had no personal experience of it. 
 
 I hope you never may have personal experience of 
 it. I have. Now, you say there are 200 poor tenants 
 on Lord Kenmare's estate. Do the trustees ever remit 
 their rent ? — In cases in which I have made repre- 
 sentations to the trustees they have acted upon them. 
 
 Do you exact the full legal rent from these 
 tenants ? — No ; I do not. I can give you a case. I 
 
 saw three cows belonging to a man, which had died 
 from disease, and I represented his case to the 
 trustees, and they remitted a gale of rent. 
 
 Well, you deserve every credit for that. But you 
 take the rent ? — I take what they offer. 
 
 You take from these 200 tenants .what they offer ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 And that rule will continue in the future ? — Most 
 certainly. 
 
 You said that people were " blue with hunger " in 
 1879 and 1880 ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you talsfe rent from them ? — From those who 
 could pay. 
 
 From those who were " blue with hunger "?— No ; 
 besides the expenditure of £2,381 for seed potatoes at 
 that time, Lord Kenmare threw his woods open to the 
 people. 
 
 Were arrears forgiven ? — The arrears remain on the 
 books to this day. 
 
 You state that £2,381 was given in relief. Did Lord 
 Kenmare get the money back ? — No. 
 
 Were the potatoes given indiscriminately ? — No ; 
 they were portioned out according to the tenants' 
 valuations. 
 
 Not according to the circumstance of a tenant 
 having paid his rent ? — No ; the potatoes were got for 
 the improvement of the estate, and they were distri- 
 buted according to valuation. 
 
 You have said that portions of Galway and Clare are 
 worse than Kerry ? — Yes ; I consider from my own 
 observation that they are worse. 
 
 r With reference to these poor tenants on the Kenmare 
 estate, I suppose that in many houses pigs inhabit the 
 same apartment with the family ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you not consider that a very low condition of life? 
 — Certainly ; but they would sooner part with their right 
 hand than with the pig. (Laughter.) 
 
 The pig, I believe, plays a prominent part in the 
 payment of the rent ? — Yes. (Laughter.) 
 
 In that case neither the tenant nor the' landlord has 
 the same objection to pig as the Jews have ? — No. 
 
 You say that Sir Bedvers Buller went to Kerry ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you know that this gentleman said before the 
 Cowper Commission that the League had been the 
 salvation of the people ? — I heard that he had said it. 
 
 Do you agree with him ? — I do not think he knew 
 much about the country. (Laughter.) 
 
 Do you agree with him ? — No ; I do not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biggar. — Did The O'Donoghue 
 live in Kerry a good part of his life ? — Yes, I believe 
 so. 
 
 He represented Tralee in Parliament ? — Yes ; I 
 think so. I do not think he was a member of the Land 
 League or National League. 
 
 Was he a Liberal Unionist ? — I do not know what 
 he was. I could never find out. He changed 
 so often that it used to be impossible for me to re- 
 member what he was. (Laughter.) 
 
 Now, yesterday you told us about a man who had a 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 377 
 
 horse whose ear was cut off. Can you tell us what the 
 value of the horse was ?— I should say about £16. The 
 man was awarded £20. 
 
 This award of £20 for a horse worth £16 was ap- 
 proved by the magistrates of the county of Kerry ? — 
 Originally it was approved by the cesspayers, and then 
 the claim went before the grand jury. 
 
 And the grand jury gave the final award ? — Yes. 
 
 And that is a fair sample of the way in which they 
 adjudicate in a case of that kind ? — Well, it is a 
 sample. The extra £4 was put on for the costs to which 
 he would be put. 
 
 Is not that contrary to law ? — Well, it is contrary to 
 law, but it is always done. (Laughter.) 
 
 Ke-examined by the Attorney-General. — A sugges- 
 tion was made by Sir C. Eussell as to your having seen 
 the people who wrote to you before they sent these 
 letters you have read. Had you anything directly or 
 indirectly to do with those letters being sent ? — Never. 
 
 Did you ever suggest to any one that the letters 
 should be sent ? — No. 
 
 Is there any foundation for the suggestion ? — Not the 
 slightest. 
 
 You have spoken about receiving these letters in the 
 periods of 1881 and 1S82 and 1885 and 1886. Did you 
 get any in 1883 and 1884 ?— No ; .none. 
 
 Had you ever received any before 1881 ? — No, never. 
 Tenants then came openly and paid their rents. 
 
 You have told Sir Charles Eussell that many respect- 
 able people joined the League. Why did they join ? 
 
 Sie C. Eussell. — How can he know ? This is not a 
 fair question. 
 
 The President.— I do not think it is worth press- 
 ing. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Very well, my Lord. My 
 friend put it to you that you had been picking up 
 crumbs of evidence against the League. Had you any 
 idea of giving evidence ? — Not the slightest. I had to 
 find out all about them in order to fight them. 
 
 About the poor-rate. Does the landlord pay half ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 I think you said that in one district the poor-rate 
 was very high. What was the reason of that ? — Out- 
 door relief was given by the guardians in that division 
 to anybody who applied for it. -' 
 
 Did that practice prevail in other parts ? — In some 
 divisions it did, but not to the same extent. 
 
 My friend asked whether evictions produced crime 
 or ought to produce crime. You have stated that you 
 had evictions before 18S1. In your opinion, did they 
 produce any effect on the crime, in the district ? — Not 
 until the starting of the Land League. 
 
 You were asked to name the day of the interview 
 with Herlihy, and you named December 18 ? — That was 
 the day. He called and asked me to send him a writ 
 by post. 
 
 Now, as to the case of Mrs. O'Shea. This is what 
 Mr. M'Carthy, the Land Commissioner, said with refer- 
 ence to it : — 
 
 " Mrs. Honoria O'Shea has three farms adjacent to 
 
 each other and in the immediate precincts of Killarney. 
 There has been no increase of rent since the farms 
 were taken in 1806. The landlord has made a large 
 expenditure on farm buildings. Taking into account' 
 the expenditure, we think the first farm is value for 
 the present rent of £108, and we fix the specified value 
 at £524. Although the second farm has 20 acres of 
 deep soil, we think the rent should be reduced from 
 £90 to £80, and we fix the specified value at £320. 
 In the third case we reduce the rent from £80 to £75, 
 ind we specify the value at £320 . " 
 
 Were those the three interests which you have re< 
 ferred to as being sold for £10 ?— Yes. 
 
 It has been stated that in 1883 the property was in 
 the hands of trustees ?— Yes. 
 
 Was there any difference in the management of the 
 estate after the trustees took possession of it ? — Certainly 
 not. 
 
 Have you dealt with the tenants in the same way 
 as before ? — Yes ; on my own responsibility. 
 
 And you have not been fettered by the trustees ?— ■ 
 Not in the least. 
 
 Used Lord Kenmare to live in the place ? — About 
 five or six months every year. 
 
 I should like to read to you, and ask whether it is 
 correct or not, another judgment of Mr. M'Carthy's 
 on February 26, 1884. 
 
 The President. — How do you justify this ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Well, I will not press it. 
 (To the witness.) Will you explain what you meant 
 when you said the Arrears Act made people dis- 
 honest ? — It prevented honest men paying their rent. 
 
 Were there to your knowledge people able to pay 
 their rent who got in arrears ? — Certainly. 
 
 Did that prevail to a considerable extent ? — It did. 
 
 You mentioned the case of a man named Cronin, 
 whose friends sent his rent from Manchester ? — From 
 Dublin. 
 
 In that case, was he able to pay it himself ? — Well, I 
 do not think so. 
 
 That was a case of charity ? — Yes. He was a feeble 
 man and his wife was ill. 
 
 You have been asked particularly about this monej 
 which went in improvements, and which came partly 
 from Government. I want to get this clear. Has it to 
 be repaid in a certain number of years ? — In 35 years, 
 by instalments. 
 
 By the landlord ?— Yes. 
 
 How about the tenants ? — The tenants were allowed 
 to drain their own lands, and do the improvements 
 themselves. They got at the rate of £7 10s. an acre 
 for draining the land, and did it by their own labour. 
 
 Will you explain to me about the rise in the rents ? 
 I understood you to say that the total increase was 
 £2,500, and that the gross rental was £32,000. Was 
 this increase regulated by percentage, or by examining 
 each holding ? — By examining each holding. The Land 
 Commission afterwards reduced it by £803, and then 
 it was further reduced by £153. The outstanding in- 
 crease on the property is now about £1,250. 
 
 That was in 1875 ?— Between 1875 and 1878. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
378 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 Was there any complaint as to the increase except 
 in troublous times ? — Oh, the tenants grumbled at it, 
 of course. 
 
 Were they good years from 1862 to 1875 ?— I can 
 only speak as to the period between 1875 and 1878. 
 They were very good years. We did not raise the 
 rents at all higher than they were before the famine. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— They are still £1,100 
 below what they were in 1875 ? — Yes. We had 152 
 leaseholders on the estate. Only two cases were taken 
 into court, and both these were under voluntary 
 arrangements, and not under the Land Act. 
 
 I notice in General Gordon's letter a statement that 
 at that time (December, 1880) crime was not worse 
 in Ireland than in England. Speaking of your own 
 neighbourhood, was it free from crime up to 1880 ? — 
 Certainly, it was free from crime until after January, 
 1880. 
 
 There was considerable distress in the autumn of 
 1879 ?— Yes. 
 
 Did that distress produce any increase of crime ? — 
 Certainly not. 
 
 I will read some passages from the report of the 
 Cowper Commission and found some questions upon 
 them : — 
 
 " It appears from the evidence that the operation of 
 the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, has been affected 
 in many districts by combinations to resist the pay- 
 ment of rent and the right of free sale. In Ulster 
 such combinations do not, as a rule, exist. 
 
 " In the other provinces combinations made them- 
 selves felt before the passing of the Laud Act, 1881, 
 and have in various forms continued to the present 
 time. Outrage was at first mado use of to intimidate 
 parties who were willing to pay rents, but latterly 
 the methods of passing resolutions at National League 
 meetings, causing their proceedings to be reported in 
 local newspapers, naming obnoxious men and then boy- 
 cotting those named, have been adopted. Tenants 
 who have paid even the judicial rents have been 
 summoned to appear before self-constituted tribunals, 
 and if they failed to do so, or appearing, failed to 
 satisfy those tribunals, have been fined or boycotted. 
 The people are more afraid of boycotting, which 
 depends for its success on the probability of outrage, 
 than they are of the judgments of the Courts of Justice. 
 This unwritten law in some districts is supreme." 
 
 The President (interposing). — Is there not a great 
 deal of this upon which you cannot found a question ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — My recollection is that the cross- 
 examination of Sir C. Russell was directed only to 
 that portion of this Commission relating to cases 
 where this gentleman was agent. 
 
 The President. — It certainly seems to me that on a 
 great deal of this you cannot found questions. 
 
 The Attorney-General — I will confine myself to 
 asking questions on particular points. (To witness.) In 
 the first place, with regard to the holding of courts, 
 did that occur in your district ? 
 
 Mr. ASQUITH. — I submit, my Lord, that this question 
 does not arise out of the cross-examination. 
 
 The President. — No, it does not arise. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I would humbly submit 
 
 that, having called for the report and put the names of 
 the Commissioners to the witness, Sir C. Russeil stated 
 that he would call your Lordfhips' attention to the 
 paragraphs of the report at a later stage. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — He will have to make it 
 evidence if he can. 
 
 The President. — I do not think that the Attorney- 
 General is entitled to take the witness through the 
 whole report and ask him whether he agrees. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Very well, my Lord, I will 
 only put one or two questions. (To witness.) Will you 
 tell me who were the persons who held courts in your 
 district ? 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — I renew my objection. 
 
 The President. — This is the same point over again. 
 There has been nothing to bring up this question. The 
 point is of importance with regard to the possible use 
 of this report. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am satisfied. It might 
 have been said that I did not ask questions with regard 
 to the report. 
 
 The President. — As far as I can look ahead I do not 
 see how the report is evidence. It seems to me that 
 we have to form an opinion on the same subject as the 
 Commissioners . 
 
 Re-examination continued. — You have mentioned the 
 name of Barrett, whom you called in to value farms. 
 Had he any connexion with Lord Kenmare's estate ? — 
 No connexion ; he was in business as an independent 
 land agent at Bantry, and had no responsibility with 
 regard to the estate when he valued the farms. I got 
 him to value a farm, and then I said to the tenant, 
 " There is Mr. Barrett's valuation ; if you like it, take 
 it ; if not, go before the Land Commissioners." 
 
 Now, is Mr. Duggan a middleman ? — Yes. There 
 were three small tenants, paying about £12 a year. 
 
 Do you know any profit rental received by Mr. 
 Duggan ? — Yes, but not on that portion of the estate ; 
 he held a lease on another portion. 
 
 This gentleman wanted a reduction ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he able to pay his rent ? — Yes, certainly. 
 
 Was there any reason in his position or the amount of 
 rent charged him that necessitated any reduction at 
 all in your opinion ? — No. I would never have sued 
 him only he adopted the Plan. 
 
 The Plan of Campaign ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, will you just explain ; you were asked about 
 the poor-rate on evicted farms ? — Yes. I always paid 
 the poor-rate on the farms that were stocked, but 
 where the tenants pulled down the boundary fences of 
 the farm and fed their cattle on it indiscriminately I 
 would not pay it. It was the rate collector's duty to 
 distrain. Owing to the fences being pulled down 
 other tenants' cattle strayed in. The rate collector 
 has the right to distrain in order to get poor-rate. 
 
 Now you mentioned a reduction given in 1880 in 
 respect of the 1879 rent ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you give a reduction in 1886 ?— Yes, 20 per 
 cent, in 1886, and also in 1887 and 1888. 
 
 You were asked about some resolutions passed by 
 
 Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 379 
 
 some Catholic clergymen ; as far as you know had 
 they aDy reference to Lord Kenmare's estate ? — Not a 
 bit ; that was 17, 20, and 40 miles away. 
 
 There was nothing on the Kenmare estate to justify 
 such resolutions ? — Certainly not ; all that could be 
 done for the tenants was done. 
 
 District-Inspector HuggiDS, who has previously 
 given evidence before tho Commission, was then 
 called and examined by Sir H. JAMES. He said, — 
 I am a district inspector of the Koyal Irish Con- 
 stabulary, and was transferred to Castleisland on 
 December 4, 1880, and remained there till July 15, 
 1886. My attention was called to the publication of 
 cartain speeches made at a meeting on October 10, 
 1880. A report was made on the occasion. 
 
 At what place, according to your knowledge, was 
 that meeting hold? — At Castleisland. 
 
 Sib H. James. — It may be convenient if I state that 
 this was a speech delivered at a meeting at which 
 Mr. Biggar was present. It will be proved after- 
 wards. It is among the speeches, copies of which 
 have been delivered to your Lordships. 
 
 The President. — They have not been delivered to 
 us. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Copies were handed in to the 
 secretary of the Commission, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — I have not seen them. 
 
 Examination continued. — When you came to Castle- 
 island did you find that there was a branch of the Land 
 League established there ? — Yes. 
 
 Who was the secretary ? — Timothy Horan. 
 
 Now, did you at any time see a letter purporting to 
 come from Horan and addressed to Mr. Herbert ? — 
 Yes, to Mr. Arthur Herbert ; he was subsequently 
 murdered. The letter is iu the hands of District- 
 Inspector Davis. 
 
 In what 'state did you find the district when you 
 arrived there ? — It was in a very disturbed state ; 
 there were outrages almost every night. 
 
 Were there meetings of the Land League from time 
 to time '/ — Yes ; they were held on Sundays, in a room 
 which they rented. I saw people going in and out. 
 The meetings were largely attended, and addresses 
 were delivered from the windows to people outside. 
 
 At the station was there a book kept called the 
 outrage book ? — Yes. 
 
 That book is here, I believe ? — Yes. 
 
 Who made the entries in that book ? — The distiict 
 inspector or his clerk. 
 
 Who would that be at that time ?— Mr. Davis. I 
 was then head constable. I made some entries ; the 
 district inspector and the clerk made some. I had 
 access to that book and looked from time to time at 
 its contents. When any complaints of outrages were 
 made the district inspector or head constable, or both 
 sometimes, visited the scene at once. If a constable 
 reported to me an outrage, on inquiring into the 
 matter I would enter it in the book. In very many of 
 
 these instances I made personal inquiry before making 
 the entry. I have a copy of that book. 
 
 On the 6th of December, 1880, what happened ? 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — I should like to see this book. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Yes. My Lords, it is a book 
 with other entries in it. As far as I can see there is 
 no reason why my friend should not see the book. 
 
 On the 5th of December, 1880, what occurred ? — 
 There were several houses visited and arms taken from 
 them. 
 
 I have got 14. Is that correct ? — No ; 13. 
 
 December 10, 1SS0 ?— Entry as to Michael Caseyv 
 forcible possession. I inquired into that case myself. 
 He said to me that he had been called out of bed, 
 taken out of the house, tied to a cart, and his 
 whiskers cut off, and an unlawful oath administered 
 that he should leave the place he had taken and give 
 it to a woman named Nolan, who had been the former 
 tenant. 
 
 The President. — We had this on a former occasion.. 
 It is actually in print. We ought to have this. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I am sorry wo have no print of 
 this. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — My learned friend, as far as we are con» 
 cerned, can read straight out and let the witness 
 correct him. That seems to me the shortest method. 
 
 Witness. — At the time I left there were 58C 
 outrages. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Just follow from me, if you please, 
 I want to ask you particularly about one at Castle- 
 island. Is there a Roman Catholic clergyman named 
 Archdeacon O'Connell? — There was ; he is dead now. 
 
 To your knowledge and in your presence did ha 
 express himself strongly against the Land League ? 
 
 Mr. Keid. — My Lords, I would rather take your 
 Lordships' opinion upon this. Whether a deceased 
 clergyman has expressed himself strongly against the 
 Land League surely is irrelevant. 
 
 The President. — First of all, did he say he had or 
 not ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — It is not an expression of opinion, 
 but whether he expressed himself in public. (To wit- 
 ness.) Did you take these notices down (the notices 
 were handed to the witness) ? — Yes, on the 18th of 
 December. " Any person who pays Archdeacon O'Con- 
 nell more than half the ordinary Christmas offerings 
 will be boycotted." 
 
 Sir H. James. — Mr. Eeid says he is admitted to 
 have been an opponent of the Land League. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — Certainly not. I never said he was. I 
 do not admit he was an opponent. 
 
 Examination resumed. — I never saw Archdeacon 
 O'Connell go to a Land League meeting. 
 
 On December 20, I believe, a police patrol was 
 attacked ? — Yes ; two policemen reported to me that 
 they had been attacked. On the 31st of December, 
 1880, the houses of Timothy Keane and Edward 
 Brown, of Mullen, were visited by an armed party at 
 night, and a gun taken from Keane's house. On the 
 4th of January 13 houses were entered by parties, 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
380 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 shots fired, and arms taken away. I was away for a 
 few days then, but I inquired subsequently into the 
 matter. On the 30th of January, 1881, the house of 
 James Black, an old man about 70 years of age, was 
 entered, shots fired, Black beaten, and his gun taken 
 away. On the 13th of February, 1881, another house 
 was visited by an armed party, who demanded admit- 
 bance in the name of the Land League. They fired a 
 Jhot, took some money, and a gold watch and a gun. 
 (The outrage book was here produced and handed to 
 the witness.) The gun was found in a cock of hay 
 convenient to Walsh's house. I cannot say whether he 
 was a member of the Land League. I afterwards in- 
 quired into an attack that was made upon the barracks 
 on the 17th of March. On the 7th of April the houses 
 of Powell and Quinlan were visited by an armed and 
 disguised party, who demanded and took away a gun 
 from each house. Powell stated that one of the 
 parties told him that he would not suffer during the 
 agitation. 
 
 "What agitation ? — The Land League. 
 
 Were these arms to your knowledge found near the 
 place where Mr. Herbert was murdered ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — 1 understand this witness has 
 repeated something that was reported to him. I 
 understand him to say that a portion of the report 
 was that the person who was outraged was told that 
 certain things would not happen to him during the 
 agitation. I understand that is what was reported to 
 him. 
 
 The witness. — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Then I must ask my learned friend 
 not to interpret that into the land agitation. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — In regard to this useful method of 
 proving outrages I have nothing to say, but if there 
 are any expressions tending to connect with the Land 
 League incriminated persons I think we ought to have 
 them proved at first hand. 
 
 Mk. Justice A. L. Smith. — We have gone a great 
 deal further than that. When Mr. Alan Bell was giving 
 evidence we had the same controversy with Sir Charles 
 Russell. He was going to put in some Blue-books, 
 a.nd he said that he would let the whole thing go over. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I do not wish to go beyond what Sir 
 Charles Russell has said, but there are other matters 
 which as Mr. Justice Smith says that there were at- 
 tempted 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — Last time the contro- 
 versy arose there was a column headed " Motive," and 
 Sir Charles Russell said he would let the whole thing 
 go in. 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — I was going to ask my learned 
 friend not to call upon the witness to interpret any- 
 thing that was said. 
 
 The witness.— There was no agitation at that time 
 hut the Land League. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I accept that. (To the witness.) 
 What were the words ? — The words were " during the 
 agitation." 
 
 The President. — I was not attending at the moment.. 
 
 Is that what was written down—" during the 
 agitation " ? 
 
 Sir H. James.— No, my Lord. 
 
 The President.'— Well, what is written ? What are 
 the words which have given rise to this discussion ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lords, all that is written here 
 is," April 7, 1881, robbery of arms, James Powell, 43, 
 farmer ; Morris Quinlan, 46, farmer, district Castle- 
 island, Farranfore." Then under another heading, 
 " Millstreet, in each case warrants," and so forth, 
 observations stating the result of the trial and other 
 particulars. (To witness.) What caused you to 6ay 
 this ? Did you make inquiry after the report of this 
 outrage was made to you ? — Yes, I made inquiry of 
 Powell, and he said that to me. I am sure of that. 
 I am speaking from memory now. I took a note at 
 the time, but I have not got that note now. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— Then it would occur to me that 
 this further inquiry, to which the witness has spoken, 
 would appear rather to go beyond the former admission 
 that was made by my learned friend Sir Charles 
 Russell. 
 
 The President. — I think so, too. I was about to 
 make the same observation. On that occasion we had 
 something in writing — namely, something that was put 
 under the head of " motive," and that was, 
 with the consent of Sir Charles Russell, given in 
 evidence. This is something quite fresh. We have 
 here a report, and you are seeking to supplement 
 it by giving in evidence something obtained from 
 an inquiry made at the time. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Will your Lordships forgive me ? It 
 you will look at the book you will see that it does not 
 appear to be in the shape of a report at all. It is the 
 record of a fact resulting from a report. This does 
 not appear to be a transcript of what the man 
 said. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — At all events, our admission does 
 not go to that. 
 
 The President. — All I have to say is that I feel 
 that Sir Charles Russell's admission would only go to 
 making all that is in that book evidence. 
 
 SirH. James. — Quite so. I will discuss the matter, 
 if it arises, how far any particular report may or may 
 not be evidence ; but I hope it will not be necessary. 
 There is nothing in the book except a list of the out- 
 rages, and no report at all about them. (To witness.) 
 Have you another hook ? — Oh, yes, there is another 
 book. I have not got it here. I believe it is in Castle- 
 island. 
 
 You told us something about a gun being taken away 
 from this place. Have you any knowledge of the gun 
 being afterwards found ? — Yes, mr. Davis showed me 
 the place where it was found. It was found near to 
 the place where Mr. Herbert was murdered. 
 
 April 7, 1881, the house of three farmers visited. 
 Have you got that ? — Yes, that was the same night. 
 
 April 26, 1X81, the house of Michael Dennehy was 
 entered ? — Yes, he was bailiff for Mr. Henry Herbert, 
 of Muckross. It was entered at night by an armed 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins, 
 
The Special Commission, November 22, 1888. 
 
 381 
 
 party. A part of his ears were cut off. His wife 
 . reported the matter to me next morning, bringing to 
 the barracks the part of the ears cut off. I visited 
 the place at once. He was a bailiff and had to serve 
 processes. 
 
 I do not know whether you spoke to him. Did you 
 see him after the warning he had received ? — I saw 
 him when I went out and inquired into the matter, and 
 
 he told me that he had been 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I think, my Lords, this is going beyond 
 the admission. 
 
 Sir H. James. — This raised the difficulty. My 
 learned friend, I think, most rightly has taken the 
 course of trying to limit this inquiry, and he said 
 that if it could be avoided your Lordships should not 
 have to go into these cases over and over again, 
 belling us in the same breath that we shall not go into 
 particular details. These cases are of some importance 
 if we accept that view ; yet when we try to deal with 
 them generally my learned friend make's an objection 
 with which, from a technical point of view, I cannot 
 find fault. 
 
 The President. — That is so ; but still I think we 
 have limited this sort of evidence with tolerable 
 clearness. If this man had come and made some 
 complaint about his ears having been cut off, that 
 would b£ legitimate, and I do not suppose any objec- 
 tion would be taken to that. A report was made in 
 this case by the wife. If the evidence goes beyond 
 that, I do not think it ought to be accepted. Suppose 
 she had said a particular individual had done it, I do 
 not think evidence ought to be taken on that. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Will your Lordships allow me to 
 put it in this way ? This officer, in the execution of 
 his duty, goes to make inquiries, and he is now asked 
 to give evidence, if your Lordships think it is evi- 
 dence, as to the result of these inquiries. I hope your 
 Lordships will see that we shall be compelled to call 
 these witnesses if this evidence is not admitted. 
 
 The President. — Yes, so yon would be ; but the 
 question is, how far will you have to press that ? Un- 
 fortunately,^ all these objections to evidence one does 
 not know what is sought to be kept out or what is 
 sought to be put in. The general principle is this — 
 that a general report made to the police may be given 
 in evidence, but we do not think that that admits all 
 the details of the outrage that may have been stated to 
 the police as evidence of the fact. 
 
 Sib H. James. —Of course there is a little difficulty 
 in defining the meaning of the words " general 
 report." 
 Ik. Justice A. L. Smith.— Public matter. 
 Sir H. James. — Your Lordships will feel this 
 difficulty — that really, if I cannot prove what this man 
 said when the witness in the performance of his duty 
 goes to inquire what the case is by this witness, I 
 may be, however reluctantly, driven into particular 
 proof of it. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — With deferenoe to my learned friend, I 
 do not think bo. We raised no objection whatever to 
 
 constables or officials proving reports made to them as 
 primd faaie evidence, rebuttable, of course, of outrages 
 having been committed. Nay, further, when there 
 appears to have been any motive assigned at the tima 
 we have not objected to evidence being given and 
 entered of that motive. But this case seems to go 
 further, because my learned friend is asking the 
 witness whether he spoke to the person who suffered 
 the outrage, and whether that person stated that on 
 some previous occasion some previous notice had been 
 given. My learned friend asked that that should be 
 taken as evidence of the notice having been previously 
 given, as I understand it. Now I do think that that 
 is going quite beyond the rules of evidence, and I 
 should have thought your Lordships would object, 
 because it is not reliable evidence. With regard 
 to my observations a day or two ago with respect 
 to abbreviating the inquiry, we really wish to 
 abbreviate the inquiry ; but if anything has to 
 be proved, as I say, connecting the outrages 
 with the League or with the incriminated persons, we 
 desire that that should be fully proved, and this seems 
 to be a point which should be proved in this way. 
 
 The President. — What was the question you put ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — It was partly a question and partly 
 an answer to an objection. First, I asked, under ob- 
 jection, whether the witness, in the course of his duty, 
 since the matter was reported to him by Dennehy"s 
 wife, visited Dennehy at his house. Then I proceeded 
 to ask generally, " Did he make a statement to you ? " 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — If he explains to you 
 what the statement was about, Mr. Eeid will not 
 object to that. 
 
 Sir H. James. — But I wish to carry it further than 
 that even. The man stated to him that he had his ears 
 cut off, and that they were cut off in consequence of 
 something. 
 
 The President. — I go with you entirely except as to 
 the " in consequence." 
 
 Sir H. James. — Of course, my Lord, the cutting off 
 might have been a surgical operation. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — Suppose he went 
 further and said, " My ears were cut off by A B " ? 
 Would that be admissible ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — If you ask me whether it would be 
 admissible on an indictment for murder I should say 
 not. But if your Lordships think I cannot ask the ques- 
 tion I will not press it. 
 
 The President. — We cannot admit the evidence. 
 Wherever you find it necessary to go into details they 
 must be proved by those who can speak to them. 
 
 Witness. — The man is dead. 
 
 Sir H. James.— On May 14, 1881, Edward Boyle, 
 bailiff and gamekeeper to Lord Ventry, received a 
 threatening notice ? — Yes ; and on May 19 Denis Nelligan, 
 process-server and bailiff, of Castleisland, received a 
 threatening notice. On June 3, 1881, a meeting of the 
 Land League was held at Farranfore, and on the same 
 night the houses of three farmers were visited by an 
 armed and disguised party, who made them swear not 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
582 
 
 The Special Commission, November 22 and 23, 1888. 
 
 to pay rent. On May 29 a meeting of the Land 
 League was held at Brosna. That is about seven 
 or eight miles from where these men lived. On 
 June 26 the house of a man named Hugh Brosnan 
 was entered early in the morning by an armed and dis- 
 guised party. On June 29 the house of Michael 
 M'Auliffe was broken open at night by an armed party. 
 He was beaten, and shots were fired into the house. 
 John M'Auliffe was wounded in the arm, and it had to 
 be amputated. I saw in the Kerry Sentinel an article 
 denouncing the M'Auliffes. 
 
 Was Michael M'Auliffe a process-server and bailiff? — 
 He was. On July 5 there was a Land League meeting 
 at Knocknabowl, in the Castleisland district. The 
 Rev. Mr. M'Gillicuddy spoke. I was present and heard 
 the speeches. I can only repeat what was said from 
 memory. Mr. M'Gillicuddy said that if Herbert came 
 to the locality again to serve ejectments they would 
 make him fly like a red shank. He also pointed 
 towards the ruins of a house from which Denis 
 Donohoe had been evicted, and said that if those old 
 walls could speak they would cry out " Oh, Herbert." 
 
 The learned counsel then read an extract 
 from the Kerry Sentinel of April 26, 1881 :— " A 
 special meeting of the branch of the Irish National 
 League was held on Sunday. The chair was taken by 
 the Rev. M'Gillicuddy. Resolved, ' That we condemn 
 in the strongest terms the conduct of those who, by 
 affidavit, trumped up against the Rev. Father Murphy 
 a charge which has been proved in open court to be 
 false — namely, that he had attempted to bribe 
 M'Auliffe with reference to an ejectment.' " It was 
 added that the matter would be discussed at a future 
 meeting of the League, with a view of passing a 
 stronger resolution of condemnation against the 
 bailiff. 
 
 Examination continued. — On September 11, 1881, a 
 Land League meeting was held at Ourragh, near 
 M'Auliffe's house ; speeches were made by the Rev. A. 
 Murphy, Mr. E. Harrington, M.P., and others. I heard 
 the Rev. Mr. Murphy advise the tenants against 
 going singly to the landlord. He said that they 
 should go in a body, and that he had heard that some 
 of them had gone by the back stairs. He added, " Are 
 there no night boys here ?" 
 
 Sik H. James. — In the Kerry Sentinel, the paper from 
 which I have just read, the Rev. A. Murphy is 
 described as their " late respected president." (To 
 the witness.) Is the term " night boys " known in 
 the district ?— Yes. People that visited houses at 
 night were often called night boys. 
 
 Was there a person named Timothy O'Connor Brosnan 
 at that meeting ?— Yes. He complained about the 
 poverty of the people, and said it was no wonder they 
 were poor under the sway of " Evict'em " Meredith 
 and " Skiver'em " Herbert. 
 
 The President. — I daresay some one heard, but I 
 could not catch the words. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I understand that Herbert had 
 
 spoken of " skiver-" ing or skewer-ing some one, and 
 Meredith of evicting some one. 
 At this point the Court adjourned. 
 
 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 23. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 19th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court 
 of the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On their Lordships taking their seats, Sir. H. James 
 resumed the examination of District-Inspector Hug- 
 gins. Witness said, — After the meeting of the 11th 
 of September, 1881, Mr. Meredith obtained constant 
 police protection. On October 8, 1881, James Curtir 
 received a notice threatening him with evil conse- 
 quences if he did nob join the Land League. On 
 October 16, 1881, seven houses were visited by an 
 armed and disguised party, who swore the inmates 
 not to pay rent, and fired shots into the house. In that 
 case there was a man shot by the police. He was 
 called on to stand, and he did not, and the police 
 fired at him. On October 16, 1881, a horse was muti- 
 lated belonging to Jeremiah Mahony. I do not know 
 if Mahony had paid his rent. There was also a notice 
 threatening his daughter. She was a schoolmistress 
 in the locality. On November 7, 1881, the houses of 
 five persons were visited by an armed party, and warn- 
 ing given not to pay rent. On November 10, 1881, 
 Walter Costelloe received a threatening notice. He 
 had a mason building a house, part of the house 
 was knocked dowu, and the mason building it was 
 threatened. The mason had been in the habit of 
 working for Mr. Herbert. On November 12, 1881, the 
 house of Mr. Galvin, of Doonen, was visited. I in- 
 quired into the outrage, and Galvin said that a party 
 of men entered his house and asked him had he paid 
 his rent ; he said he had. 
 
 Sik C. Russell. ^My Lords, this is a serious point, 
 and I object to what this witness was told. We do 
 not pbjeet at all to this list of alleged outrages being 
 read ; but we do object to its being taken as if it were 
 question and answer. What is regular on the part of 
 mj learned friend is only to take this book and read 
 it. 
 
 The President.— First of all I should like to know 
 what is written there ? 
 
 Sib H. James. — There are two books kept ; this book 
 only incidentally mentions the motives of the act. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am objecting to this gentleman 
 being asked to make a statement about supposed facts 
 which are not in his own knowledge. This is a mere 
 recital of outrages. 
 
 The President. — What occurred in your absence, 
 Sir Charles, was this. It turned out that all was not 
 entered in that book, but he said that he had entered 
 it in another. I thought we were to have that book. 
 Assuming for a moment there was written in the book 
 what was said at the time, I thought that we ought to 
 have it. 
 
 SIR C. Russell. — I do not complain that the witness 
 should be asked to prove this list, but my learned 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 383 
 
 Friend is getting from the witness certain statements 
 made to him. 
 
 SIR H. Jambs. — They were matters reported to him. 
 
 The Pkesihent. — I have already said that I thought 
 the course taken was in a spirit of conciliation and in 
 order to save time. I think, however, that we 
 ought to lay down some general principle, arid the 
 general principle which wo lay down is this — that a 
 report made to the police at the time the facts 
 occurred ought to be admitted in evidence for what it 
 is worth. Sir Charles Eussell has shown by cross-exa- 
 mination on a former occasion that the report was 
 liable to be impeached on various grounds and suggest 
 other motives than those connected with the Land 
 League. I think that will be found to be a definite 
 principle on which we can act. As I understand, the 
 report was made to the policeman at the time of the 
 facts. I took exception to the words " in consequence," 
 which I do not think are admissible. 
 
 Mr. Eeid.— May I make this suggestion ? This book 
 contains a part of the evidence to be admitted and 
 another contains a further part. Suppose my learned 
 friend Sir H. James, on the assumption that he is 
 going to prove something from the other book, asks 
 this witness to speak from his memory, we may, when 
 we get the other book, find that he is mistaken. I 
 would suggest that he should simply read what this 
 book contains, otherwise we may have to undo all that 
 has been done and thus lead to a great waste of time. 
 
 Me. Justice A. L. Smith.— Would it not be better 
 to wait till we get the other book ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — The book has been sent for ; it can- 
 not be brought in a moment from Castleisland, county 
 Kerry. It will be here on Tuesday, and in the mean- 
 time I will endeavour to meet the objections of my 
 learned friends. 
 
 Examination continued. — On November 12, 1881, I 
 saw Thomas Galvin myself from three to four hours after 
 the outrage. I proceeded to his house at Doonen im- 
 mediately the outrage was reported to me. He was 
 wounded by a bullet in the thigh. On November 13, 1881, 
 it was reported that the military sentry at Sandville 
 Barracks had been attacked. On November 15, 1881, three 
 farmers received threatening letters. On November 18 
 a wall on the land of Timothy Horan was knocked 
 down. I do not know whether he had paid his rent ; 
 that was not the motive assigned for the outrage. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Is that the same man as the 
 secretary of the League '/ 
 
 Witness. — No, it is not the same man. Between the 
 18th and 29 th of November, 1881, outrages were 
 reported to Mr. Davis. On the 29th of November, 
 1881, I saw a notice posted up threatening certain 
 persons for sending their children to the National 
 School at Cloonee Loughs. The notice was partially 
 torn down by Mrs. O'Brien, the schoolmistress. It 
 threatened to boycott people who sent their children 
 to Mrs. O'Brien's school. The Bchool was boycotted 
 because Ann Griffin, the assistant teacher, had a 
 brother who had taken an evicted farm. On Novem- 
 
 ber 30, 1881, the houses of nine farmers were visited, 
 and an oath exacted not to pay rent. On the 3d of 
 December, 1881, 13 farmers wore visited and the same 
 oath exacted from them. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— The entry in the book is " ad- 
 ministering unlawful oaths; intimidation." Is that 
 the oath not to pay rent ? 
 
 Witness. — Yes. 
 
 Examination by Sir H. James resumed. — On the 
 7th of December, 1881, Michael Flynn, farmer, Condal, 
 was fired at in his own house by an armed party. He 
 was wounded by a rifle bullet in the leg, which had to 
 be amputated. It was reported that he had paid his 
 rent. On the same night James Kearney, a caretaker 
 on a farm belonging to Mr. Raymond, was visited by 
 an armed party, who searched the house. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I must object to the witness 
 making a statement. 
 
 Sir H. James. — He is only giving the report made. 
 
 Examination continued. — On the 10th of December, 
 1881, threatening letters were sent to five persons. 
 On the 16th a sheep belonging to Mr. Hussey was 
 injured, which was being taken to an evicted farm. 
 On the 17th two farmers received threatening letters. 
 I' did not see them myself. On the 25th six houses 
 were visited by an armed and. disguised party. On the 
 14th of January a cow, the property of John Fleming, 
 was stabbed and killed. On the 5th and 6th of February 
 notices were posted up with reference to D. Keefe 
 and John Brosnan. They were to have their ears cut 
 if they paid their rent. I think Inspector Davis has 
 that notice. (Shown notices.) These were posted up 
 publicly. 
 
 Witness then read the following notice : — 
 
 " Take notice of this abomination ; that any 
 person who will pay his rent will get the revenge of 
 C. M. " 
 
 That, I suppose, means Captain Moonlight ? — Yes. 
 
 " and his successful companions' rifles. Any person, 
 male or female, who will speak to the constables will 
 get the same stand as I said before. Let every one 
 
 peruse it, and any person " 
 
 (Here there are some words torn out.) 
 
 " hand in it to tear it, C. M. will give you an 
 early grave in an early century." 
 
 That is what is written here ; I am reading it as it 
 is written. 
 
 " I stand truly as before. As sure as God is your 
 guide this is your coffin. — C. M." 
 (Then follows the representation of a coffin.) 
 
 " Captain Moonlight's warning." 
 Then there is a figure, which I cannot describe, and 
 the words, " Shoot him." 
 
 (To witness.) Will you now read the next document ? 
 
 Witness then read the following notice : — 
 
 " I stand here as sufficient and magnificent, as I 
 often have before, and I verily believe that they are 
 committed themselves wrongfully against the League. 
 One of them are wearing a round hump, and I will 
 soon straighten him." 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
384 
 
 The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 Do you know by the description who that is ? — No, 
 I do not know. 
 
 " He is deserving buckshot and ammunition these 
 many days, and I'll not mention the other one. 
 The landlords are now on the brink of a sandy founda- 
 tion, and on their knees. I hope you will stand by 
 their fall and keep them down." 
 (Here there are some words left out.) 
 
 "CM., who will regulate your stand. He is the 
 bravest captain in the land ; he will give you buckshot 
 to the eyes, and if any one will work for any landlord, 
 I will give him plenty shot. As sure as God is your 
 creator I am your murder. — C. M. 
 
 " Take this warning or not ; I will have your life 
 on the spot. Captain Moonlight, the boy that regu- 
 lates your movements. — CM." 
 : Were there any threats against the tenants of Mr. 
 Raymond and Lord Ventry ? — Yes, generally ; there 
 were no tenants named. 
 
 Now, look at this ; was this posted up ? — Yes. 
 
 " Feb., 1882.— Down with Landlordism. To all whom 
 it may concern — namely, rentpayers, bailiffs, spies, 
 &c, and especially the tenants of the Drumond " 
 
 That is Mr. Drummond ? — I believe so. 
 
 — " Raymond and Ventry estates. Know all the above- 
 mentioned tenants are now for the last time cautioned 
 to observe the following remarkable advice : — (1) 
 Avoid the Land Court as it is a sham ; (2) pay no rent 
 until our brave and gallant chieftain, Charles Stewart 
 Parnell, and the other suspects now in English prisons 
 are released, when they were illegally arrested under 
 that villanous Crimes Act so actively placed in force 
 by the magistrates and police or any other friends of 
 English paid hirelings ; (3) treat all traitors as Talbot 
 and Condon " 
 
 : They were informers, and were shot, were they not ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 " Avoid the man who is under the protection of 
 catchpoles." What is the meaning of catchpole? — It 
 is a name for the police. 
 Then follows what appears to be poetry :— 
 " By the God that sees us all, 
 " Rentpayers they will surely fall, 
 " For while Parnell in jail remains, 
 " Captain Moonlight must take pains 
 " In every way, both day and night, 
 " To make the tenants go aright. 
 " So now to end, enough I've said 
 " With £50 for the rentpayer's head. 
 " Down with the traitors and spies and all mean 
 tenants on the Kenmare estate who betrayed Parnell 
 by paying their rents, but they think it is not known as 
 yet, but let them prepare for death. 
 
 " Signed by Captain Moonlight or United Irishmen. 
 " Any person who disregards these rules will be 
 punished with certain death." 
 
 On February 18, 1882, two farmers were warned 
 not to pay rent, and threatened with death ? — Yes, 
 and on February 24, 1882, the houses of two farmers 
 were visited by an armed and disguised party. A shot 
 was fired into the house of one of them named 
 Dennehy, and he was warned not to pay his rent. On 
 February 28, 1882, the house of Cornelius Hickey 
 was visited by two armed and disguised men. His 
 
 case was proved here the other day. He was intimi- 
 dated and subsequently shot. He was shot on June 8, 
 1882, and his leg having been amputated he died. 
 Then on March 5 Daniel Doolan was fired at and 
 wounded. His case has also been proved here. 
 
 Then I think from March 5 to 25 there were 
 several outrages to which Inspector Davis speaks ?— 
 Yes. On March 30 Mr. Arthur Herbert was murdered. 
 He was at Petty Sessions in Castleisland that day. 
 Mr. Meredith had received police protection, but Mr. 
 Herbert had not. He used, however, to be protected 
 occasionally by patrols when we knew he was about. 
 He was murdered at a place called Lisheenborne, about ■• 
 two or two and a half miles from Castleisland. I 
 went to the scene of the murder at once. I saw Mr. 
 Moriarty there. He was going out with the clergy- 
 man of the parish, who had been sent to break the in- 
 telligence to Mr. Herbert's mother. He was hooted 
 and jeered at by a crowd at the gate. The crowd 
 consisted of people belonging to the locality. 
 
 Did you attend the funeral ? — I did. The police and 
 the military attended the funeral for the purpose of 
 protecting the people who were going to the funeral. 
 On the night following the day on which the murder 
 was committed a number of lambs were killed on Mr. 
 Herbert's demesne. I cannot say how many were 
 killed, but I saw one of them the next day. 
 
 That murder took place on March 30 ?— Yes. 
 
 Then from March 30 to April 16 there were several 
 outrages committed, which were inquired into by Mr. 
 Davis ?— Yes. On April 17, 1882, John Culloty, a 
 rent-warner, was attacked in his house and was shot 
 That case has been proved here. He was shot in the 
 leg, and his leg had to be amputated. Police protec* 
 tion was granted to him at that time. 
 ""Then between April 19 and 24 there were four out' 
 rages to which Mr. Davis speaks ? — Yes. On April 2£ 
 a farmer named James Eraght got a notice threaten- 
 ing him with death if he did not give up a farm he 
 had taken. On May 1, 1882, the dwelling-house of 
 Edward Walsh was fired into ; and on May 7 a notice 
 was posted up offering a reward of £100 for the name 
 of any person who worked for John Culloty. That 
 notice was spoken to before, and has been given in 
 evidence. On May 14 Michael Callaghan and Thomas 
 Lynch received threatening notices, and on June 2 
 the house of Honoria Cahill was fired into. It was 
 believed that her brothers were about taking an 
 evicted farm. Their place was about four miles from 
 Castleisland. 
 
 On June 8 we have again the case of Cornelius 
 Hickey, which has been proved already. I believe 
 during the early part of June a great many threatening 
 letters were received and boycotting notices ? — Yes, 
 there were both letters and notices. 
 
 They run from June 5 to 26 — namely, June 6, 6, 8, 
 12, 13, 18, 20, 23, 25, and 26 ?— Yes. 
 
 There is a notice, my Lords, I asked for just now. 
 It is dated February 8,1882, and I will read it now :— 
 
 " £100 reTvard for any one giving information of 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 385 
 
 paying rent. Captain Moonlight's office, Tipperary, 
 February, year 1882. Keefe, Daniel. — We are hereby 
 ordered to give you notice, and a strict one, why did 
 you pay your rent a few days ago ? Did you not know 
 that the moonlight brigade is not dead yet, and I 
 solemnly swear that before a few nights we will take 
 a walk to you and clip off your ears, and also to 
 the rest of your friends in Kilquane about paying of 
 their rent — namely, John Huggin, for putting his land 
 under the Court ; Maurice Costello, for settling with 
 the landlord ; John Sullivan, for telling the people to 
 pay their rent. Signed by Captain Moonlight. I 
 will give £5 reward to any person who will give in- 
 formation about tearing off this notice." 
 
 Then there is another notice : — " Captain Moonlight 
 is now at hand. There is £50 reward by Captain Moon- 
 light any man to give intelligence about any person 
 to serve a land-grabber and others." Then there is 
 a word " Sooper," and the notice continues : — 
 " And indeed, Mr. Horan, I am told you are giving a 
 passage to Pat Kean for his cattle to the orfen's land." 
 (To witness.) Do you know what that means ? — Yes, 
 Horan had allowed Kean to take his cattle over his 
 land. Kean was obnoxious. 
 
 Do you know what " orfen's " means? — Yes, 
 orphan's. 
 
 Sir H. James (reading). — " Well, now, we are tell- 
 ing you in one word that if you let his cows come 
 through your land any more by Jesus Christ your life 
 is not worth " — something I cannot read — " your sun 
 will be set. Take very good care not to let Kean's 
 cows come through any more and spare your own life 
 as long as you can." Then there is a picture of a 
 man shooting with a gun, with a coffin, and " Mind 
 the bog." Between June 5 and 2G there were several 
 of these letters and notices ? — Yes. 
 
 On June 27 did yon see the body of a man named Pat 
 Cahill, who had been murdered ? — Yes, it was lying on 
 the mountain side. That was in the 'Tralee district 
 and will not be in that book. This man was a care- 
 taker for Mr. Hussey on an evicted farm. On July 11, 
 1882, another caretaker named James Kearney was shot 
 at Ballyplimouth. He was a sort of managing man for 
 Mr. Raymond. 
 
 Then there were several notices from July 11 to 31 ? 
 ^Yes. 
 
 See if these are the notices you received in July ?— 
 jThe notices were handed up to the witness and ident- 
 ified by him, and returned to Sir H. James. 
 
 Sip. H. James. — This, my Lords, is a notice printed 
 in large type : — " Notice. — You are hereby re- 
 quested at the peril of your lives not to transact any 
 business with Patsy Power, the land-grabber, or his 
 representatives. You will be well watched by our 
 company.— Captain Moonlight." Who was Patsy 
 Power ? — He was a horse dealer who used to come to 
 Castleisland Fair. 
 
 Had he taken any land to your knowledge ? — Not to 
 my knowledge. I heard he had. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Here is another, my Lords : — 
 " Notice. — Labourers take warning, at your peril do 
 tiot go into his house or work for the tossock jumper 
 
 Collins, the oppressor of the poor widow and orphans 
 of your class. Save yourselves. Keep your eye on 
 
 " ; then there is the letter h. I presume it is 
 
 the commencement of " him." 
 
 Then July 12, 1882, James Eraght received a 
 threatening notice ?— Yes. 
 
 Tell me from whom you received it ? — I received it 
 from James Eraght. 
 
 The envelope is addressed to Mr. Maurice Murphy. 
 Who is he ? — He is the proprietor of the Crown Hotel, 
 Castleisland. The letter is addressed to his care for 
 " James Broct, Meenglaw." 
 
 Is Maurice Murphy known to you as a Land Leaguer ? 
 —He was. 
 
 An active member or not ? — He was an active member. 
 I received the letter from James Eraght. Land League 
 meetings were held at Maurice Murphy's Hotel. 
 Sir H. James read the letter, which was as follows : — 
 " July 12ch. — Brave James Eroct, — As a friend, I 
 caution you the sooner you give up bog-ranging and 
 understrapping and also land-grabbing is best for you. 
 Blast you, you boycotted ruffian, do you know that the 
 day has dawned in Ireland when landlords and their 
 tools are trodden under foot by a poor suffering 
 peasantry. It is absurd for your equals to think that 
 you could be lef b live in a civilized country like this. 
 So now prepare, you boycotted ruffian, you are sure to 
 fall like the rest of our poisonous reptiles. Your 
 carcass will be mutilated with bullets. — Yours truly, 
 Captain Daylight. Direct your letter to Castle- 
 island Barracks." 
 
 The man Eraght, who gave you that letter, had had 
 police protection, had he not ? — Yes ; he has had 
 police protection in his house for two or two and a 
 half years. On the 1th of August a horse, the property 
 of John Powell, of Dooneen, was maliciously stabbed. 
 On the 21st of July, the 26th and 27th of August, and 
 the 3d of September, 1882, several persons were 
 threatened respecting the payment of their rent and 
 working for obnoxious persons. Between the 3d of 
 September and 3d of October, 1882,-several persons 
 were threatened, the particulars being inquired into by 
 Inspector Davis. 
 
 On the 3d of October, 1882, Thomas Brown, of 
 Dromulton, was shot dead in a field ? — Yes ; he was 
 shot in a field convenient to his house. Between the 
 3d of October and the 30th of November, 1882, 13 
 Outrages, such as sending threatening notices, raids for 
 arms, &c, were committed in the district, according to 
 the reports furnished to us. 
 
 Just see if this is one of the October notices ? — Yes. 
 Sir H. James read the notice, which was as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Take notice Daniel Kearney, Moonlight Arms 
 Hotel. Take notice ! Pay no rent, or if you do you 
 are liable to be shot. It is not what your brother Jim 
 got you will get. You are liable for death altogether ; 
 and Jim will catch it yet. It is in store for both of 
 ye again. It is the last occasion we will be going to 
 trouble, Show this to Daniel Keef and Johny Walsh 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
 13 
 
38(5 
 
 The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 and Dan Walsh ; and Dan Walsh and Johny Walsh, if 
 yo do pay your rent, ye will catch it yet. 
 
 " Signed by Captain ." 
 
 An almost similar notice was sent to Daniel Carney ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Was this threatening notice Bent to Mrs. Kearney on 
 the 10th of November, 1882 ?— Yea. 
 
 Sir H. Jaiks read the notice, as follows : — 
 
 " Killarney, Nov. 10, 1882.— Dear Mrs. Kearney— I 
 hereby warn you not to allow your children to be 
 visiting the house of Mrs. Mahony, who is worse than 
 an informer, and partly acting on that principle as 
 well. If you don't keep your children from her 
 company altogether, I'll have you in eternity ere the 
 20th inst. Under pain of cruel deuth never again 
 allow your daughter or daughters neither to work 
 or speak to Mahony or his wife, who wants to 
 confirm old Biddy Shea in her dirty false swearing. 
 Lieutenant Moonlight, No. 14, will give the coup de 
 grace. ' ' 
 
 On November 30, 1882, was Edward Boyle, game- 
 keeper and bailiff to Lord Ventry, and his escort fired 
 at ? — Yes ; and Constable M'Lean, one of the escort, 
 was severely wounded and had to leave the service. 
 Here is another : — " Notice from Captain Moonlight. 
 If you don't send James Kearney's heifers off your land 
 you will get the contents of Captain Moonlight's guns. 
 It is all true, although you have a Captain Moonlight 
 yourself. He is a rotten one. I knew you were a 
 rotten scamp. You will get what Jim Kearney got.' 
 Between November 30, 1882, and February 25, 1883, 
 30 outrages, such as threatening notices, intimidation 
 by firing shots, raids for arms, &c, were committed. On 
 May 14, 1883, James Walsh, a caretaker, was fired at 
 and was wounded in the knee and he had the marks of 
 two wounds on each side of the spine. 
 
 Who was he ?— He was a caretaker on an evicted 
 farm. On June 30, 1883, a horse, the property of 
 Hugh Connor, was maliciously injured by one of its 
 ears being cut off. Between June 30, 1883, and 
 January 17, 1884, 33 outrages of the usual class were 
 committed in the district. On January 21, 1884, an 
 outhouse belonging to John Flynn, at Portduff, was set 
 on fire and six head of cattle and a horse were burnt. 
 Flynn got £120 compensation for the loss he had 
 sustained. Between January 11 and July 25, 1884, 
 84 outrages in the nature of raids for arms, threatening 
 letters, &c, took place in the district. On July 8, 1884, 
 some heifers, the property of John M'Carthy, farmer, 
 Cordal, were maliciously injured by having their tails 
 cat off. Between July 8 and September 29, 1884, 
 S3ven outrages in the nature of raids for arms and 
 threatening notices were committed in the district. On 
 September 29, 1884, some cattle, the property of John 
 M'Carthy, were again maimed. I do not know whether 
 he obtained compensation for that outrage. Between 
 September 29 and November 21, 1884, several out- 
 rages were committed, two cases of stealing and 
 slaughtering cattle being among them. On November 
 21, 1884, a jennet, the property of Patrick Horgan. 
 was maliciously injured by having its ears cut off, 
 On November 28, 1884, an attempt was made to 
 
 blow up the residence of Mr. S. M. Hussey, land 
 agent, by dynamite. The house was badly injured by 
 the explosion and compensation was awarded. 
 Between November 28, 1884, and July 1, 1885, 29 out-, 
 rages in the nature of raids for arms, cattle stealing 
 from evicted farms, and intimidation were committed. 
 In the case of the stolen cattle the beasts were sub- 
 sequently found slaughtered some distance away from 
 the farms from which they had been taken. On July 21, 
 1885, a valuable horse, the property of Bridget Horan, 
 was injured by having one of its ears cut off. 
 
 Do you know whether two Land League meetings 
 were held, one at Gneeveguillea on December 21, 
 1885, and the other at Knocknagoshil on January C, 
 1886 ?— Ves. 
 
 Were you present ?— Yes, at both. 
 
 Who were present, at the meeting at Gneeveguillea 
 on December 21, 1885 ?— Mr. Edward Harrington, 
 Mr. Stack, and Mr. Sheehan. 
 
 Those gentlemen were all members of Parliament ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 In the course of the speeches which were delivered 
 at that meeting was any reference made to landlords ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Mr. Keid. — If we are to have these speeches they 
 ought to be proved in the ordinary way. 
 
 Sir H. James. — We have no report of the 
 speeches and must prove them the best way we 
 cm. (To the witness.) You were not sent there as 
 a reporter ? — No. 1 was sent there to preserve the 
 peace. 
 
 Did you hear any reference made to Lord Kenmare 
 and Mr. Hussey ? — I did. 
 
 What was said in reference to them ? — They were 
 spoken of in connexion with the subject of their rents. 
 I did not take any notice of what was said. 1 am 
 speaking from memory. 
 
 What was said about paying rents ?— It was stated 
 that there was a demand for a 30 per cent, reduction 
 made by the tenants and that it was not accepted by 
 the landlords. The tenants were asked not to accept 
 the 30 per cent, reduction, but to go in for a 50 per 
 cent, reduction. 
 
 Was anything said about land-grabbers or land -grab- 
 bing ? — Yes. 
 
 What ?— I could not give you the exact words, but 
 landlordism and land-grabbers were denounced. 
 
 Then who were present at the meeting at Knock- 
 nagoshil ? — Mr. Sheehan, Mr. E. Harrington, and Mr. 
 Stack. 
 
 Were two reverend gentlemen there also ?— Yes. 
 One was the parish prie&t. Father Casey. 
 
 Among other persons did Dr. Moriarty speak ?— Yes. 
 
 Who is Dr. Moriarty ? — He lived partly at Castle- 
 island, where he is trying to get an appointment as a 
 dispenser. 
 
 What did he say ? — He Raid, among other things, 
 that he was an ardent admirer and follower of James 
 Stephens, and was well acquainted with all the 
 leaders of the Fenian movement in England, Ireland, 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 387 
 
 and Scotland, and until landlordism was complete!; 
 abolished there would be no hope for this country ; 
 next to landlordism was the land-grabber, because he 
 helped to keep up the system. The land-grabber should 
 be shunned by every man caring anything for his 
 country ; no man should talk to him ; they should 
 shun him as if he had the plague. They might if he 
 were dying go for the priest for him, but not to 
 attempt to bring him a doctor. Let him go to his 
 grave unhonoured, unwept, and unsung, but none of 
 them should go to his funeral ; he would not allow 
 any one to go there except his widow, who ought to 
 fire a pop-gun over his grave. 
 
 Was that spoken in the presence of the gentlemen 
 whose names you have given us ? — Yes. 
 
 Was this a large meeting ? — It was not a very large 
 meeting. 
 
 Were the words you have repeated to us spoken 
 loudly at the meeting ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you hear anybody dissent from that speech of 
 Dr. Moriarty ? Did either of the three members of Par- 
 liament you have named, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Stack, or 
 Mr. Edward Harrington, dissent from it ? — No. 
 
 Throughout the whole of the time you were at 
 Castleisland how were the police treated ? Could you 
 get cars or assistance ? — No ; three cars had to be 
 sent into the district to enable us to go on duty and to 
 move men on transfer. 
 
 On the 6th of January were you present when 
 Catherine Linahan was prosecuted for holding forcible 
 possession of a house 1 — I prosecuted her myself. 
 
 Was that at the Castleisland Petty Sessions ? — It was. 
 
 Did Timothy Horan, the secretary of the Land 
 League branch, when the case was called on, stand up 
 in Court and make any application ? — He did. 
 
 What did he say ? — He said he appeared to defend 
 the case on behalf of the Land League. The woman 
 had been put into forcible possession of the house by 
 an armed party before I went there. 
 
 Had you stated to the Court that the charge was one 
 of taking forcible possession by an armed party before 
 Horan said he appeared to defend for the League f — 
 The charge against Mrs. Linahan was for holding 
 forcible possession, not for taking it. The charge was 
 stated in open court before Horan said he appeared to 
 defend. 
 
 Was he qualified to appear as a solicitor ? — No, the 
 magistrates would not let him appear. 
 
 Had Mrs. Linahan taken the farm from Patrick 
 Murphy ? — Mrs. Linahan had been evicted from the 
 farm, which was taken by Patrick Murphy. Then 
 Murphy was put out again by an armed force, and Mrs. 
 Linahan reinstated. These events happened before I 
 went to the place. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sin C. Russell. — I should like to 
 know about this last case. Did you think it wrong 
 that a woman charged with keeping forcible posses- 
 sion should be defended ?— I thought it extraordinary 
 that Horan should offer to defend her, as he was not 
 
 any relative of hers. He said that he appeared on 
 behalf of the Land League. 
 
 Did you think it was wrong that any organization 
 should defend any person charged with an offence ? — I 
 do not know that I thought about the matter at all. 
 
 Was Mr. Edward Harrington present when Dr. 
 Moriarty spoke at the meeting of which you have told 
 us ? — I believe he was. I think he was in the crowd, if 
 not on the platform. I saw him moving convenient to 
 the platform at different times during the speaking, but 
 I will not undertake to say that I saw him moving 
 about in the crowd while Moriarty was speaking. 
 
 You have told us that Dr. Moriarty was seeking 
 some official position ; what was it ? — That of dis- 
 pensary doctor. I do not know whether he was en- 
 deavouring to use ihe occasion of this meeting for the 
 purpose of pushing himself. 
 
 Did you think he was ? — No. 
 
 Had you known him take any part in any meetings 
 before or since ? — I did not see him till just about the 
 time when he tried to get the appointment. I did not 
 know whether he was a member of the Land League or 
 the National League. Except what he said himself I 
 did not know whether he had any connexion with the 
 League. I did not take any notes of the meeting. Dr. 
 Moriarty 's was the only speech I wrote. I did not 
 take notes at the meeting, but wrote" my account of it 
 when I got home to barracks, which are quite con- 
 venient. The notes have been in my possession ever 
 since. I did not put the date on till last summer, when 
 I was in Castleisland. I took the dates of the meet- 
 ings from the official records. I see that I have written 
 both 1885 and 1886 as the date of the meeting. That 
 was a mistake. Constable Hourigan was at the 
 meeting with me. 
 
 Were these three members of Parliament whose names 
 you have mentioned members for the county in which 
 the meeting was held ? — Yes, for Kerry. I cannot say 
 whether Mr. Sheehan was member at the time. 
 
 How long have you been in London ? — Since Novem- 
 ber 1. 
 
 Is this your first visit ? — No. I got a subpoena in the 
 O'Donnell trial. I had a letter from Mr. George 
 Bolton, of Dublin, asking me whether I would accept 
 service by post, and I said I would. 
 
 Mr. Bolton is Crown Solicitor, is he not ?— He is 
 Crown Solicitor for Tipperary. 
 
 How long were you here on tho first occasion ? — 
 About three weeks. 
 
 How many inspectors, sub-inspectors, district in- 
 spectors, head constables, policemen, resident magi- 
 strates, anct district magistrates of Ireland are there 
 over here ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Toll me within a hundred or two ? — I do not think 
 there are 100 district inspectors ; but I daresay there 
 are 100 altogether. 
 
 How does Ireland get on without them ? — I can't 
 say. (Laughter.) 
 
 Have outrages gone down since they arrived in 
 London ? — I cannot say. 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
 13-2 
 
388 
 
 The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 I want to know about this outrage book. Are all 
 outrages, whether agrarian or non-agrarian, entered in 
 it ? — Every outrage reported is recorded in it. 
 
 What particulars are recorded in the book ? — No 
 particulars are recorded in the book beyond the names 
 and the nature of the outrages. 
 
 Do you know that these books have been in use 
 since 1845 ? — I cannot say how long. 
 
 At all events, going back a considerable time ? — I 
 think they have been in use more than 20 years in 
 that form. I am not sure on that point. 
 
 But the record is a record of every outrage reported ? 
 —In some instances outrages are ordered not to be re- 
 corded trom tne particulars given in the report. 
 
 Are you aware that from these books are compiled 
 the returns made to Parliament of agrarian outrages ? — 
 res. 
 
 Am I not right in saying that every one of the 
 outrages you have mentioned is returned to Parliament 
 in the official return Y — No. 
 
 Tell me one that is not. — There are several in the 
 book. You will see several outrages in that book 
 ordered not to be recorded for the return. 
 
 You have not spoken of any outrages ordered not to 
 be recorded, have you ? — I only gave particulars of the 
 outrages reported. 
 
 Then every outrage of an agrarian kind — or supposed 
 to be agrarian — which is reported, and which has not 
 been ordered not to be recorded, is returned in the Par- 
 liamentary return ? — Yes. 
 
 The returns of these are made by a person called the 
 Inspector-General ? — Yes, Mr. Reed. He was an officer 
 in the constabulary, and his office is in Dublm Castle. 
 
 Has he any information to enable him to judge 
 whether the offence is agrarian or non-agrarian, to be 
 recorded or not, except the returns made by the 
 police ? — He has. He has the report of the particulars 
 of each case, not as given there in that book, but a 
 lengthened report from the district inspector of police, 
 or in his absence the head constable, amplifying the 
 whole of the circumstances. 
 
 And upon that information he determines whether they 
 are to be classed as agrarian or non-agrarian, or not to 
 be recorded at all ? — Yes. 
 
 In what cases are directions given that they are not 
 to be recorded at all ? — It may be any class of case. If 
 the police report they do not consider it to be an 
 outrage from the circumstances connected with it— for 
 instance, there were several raids for rent, and the 
 belief was some of them were got up by the farmers' 
 sons themselves as an excuse not to pay" rent— then 
 these were ordered not to be reported. 
 
 That is the line I want to follow. Then the view 
 that the Inspector-General takes as to whether the 
 offence is agrarian or not, or is to be reoorded or not, 
 would depend upon the particulars here in this book, 
 with the addition of the amplified report ?— Yes. He 
 also gets a further report if anything fresh transpires. 
 Often the report is pending a month or two months 
 
 before directions are given whether it is to be recorded 
 or not until full inquiry is made. 
 
 Hay I take it in the same way that the question is 
 determined whether or not it is agrarian or non- 
 agrarian ? — Yes. 
 
 So that the Inspector-General is dependent upon the 
 police report, and has no independent sources of in- 
 formation ? — That is so. 
 
 Is there any case in which you came to the conclu- 
 sion that the outrage was " a got-up thing " ? — If you 
 show me the book I will tell you. 
 
 There were such cases ?— There were, but I cannot 
 tell you how many. 
 
 About how many ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 In your time in Castleisland were there a large num- 
 ber which you came to the conclusion were " got-up " 
 outrages ? — I should say there were about 20, speaking 
 roughly. I was in Castleisland from December 4, 1880, 
 to July 15, 1886. 
 
 Do you say there were only 20 cases in which you 
 came to the conclusion they were got up ? — I should 
 say there were 20 at least. I cannot say how many 
 till I look at the book. 
 
 Would you like to say there were not 50 ? — I would 
 not say there were. 
 
 As to which the police themselves arrived at the 
 conclusion that it was a got-up job ? — Yes ; the cases 
 were ordered not to be recorded because in the opinion 
 of the police the outrage was not genuine. 
 
 In every case where the Inspector-General ordered 
 it not to be recorded the police were also of the same 
 opinion that it was not a real outrage ? — Yes ; some- 
 thing made it doubtful. 
 
 Is there any case in which the Inspector-General 
 arrived at a different conclusion from that to which the 
 reports of the police would have led ?— I think not. 
 Mr. Davis will be able to give you clearer evidence 
 on that point. He reported more outrages. 
 
 Therefore the result of what you say is this — that it 
 depends upon the opinion of the police, taking any 
 locality, what view the Inspector-General would take 
 of the classification of the outrages ? — Yes. I think 
 so, as a rule. 
 
 Am I right in saying that in point of numbers an 
 enormous majority — something like 80 per cent.— of 
 these cases recorded are cases of threatening letters or 
 notices ? — Yes, threatening letters and notices and 
 raids for arms. 
 
 Did not the threatening letters and notices represent 
 the great majority ? — Threatening letters and raids for 
 arms did. 
 
 Take them separately— threatening letters and 
 notices ? — I think they do. 
 
 And raids for arms constitute another large class ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 And these two together represent an enormous majo- 
 rity of the cases ? — Yes. Very frequently when the 
 raids for arms took place there was also administering 
 unlawful oaths to tenants. 
 
 Is it a characteristic of these offences, these moon- 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 3S9 
 
 light visits and raids for arms, that several frequently 
 occurred on the same night and in the same district ? 
 •^-Yes, a district is generally attacked. 
 
 And, therefore, presumably by the same band ? — 
 Yes ; but in every case it is only reported as one out- 
 rage. 
 
 I think that is not so ?— The names of all are given, 
 but it is put down as one outrage. 
 
 How long have you been in the constabulary ? — I 
 joined in July, 1861. 
 
 And where have you been stationed ? — In Cork and 
 Kerry most of my time. 
 
 Have not anonymous threatening notices and letters 
 been during the whole of your time a common offence 
 in Cork and Kerry ? — No, nothing like that. 
 
 Do not suppose I am suggesting there were as many. 
 I am asking you, was it not a common offence ? — It 
 was not a common offence. 
 
 Was it a frequent offence ? — It was not a frequent 
 offence, though there were occasional cases. 
 
 Neither in Cork nor Kerry ?— There were occasional 
 cases. 
 
 It was an offence well known, but not a common 
 offence ? — Not common nor frequent, but occasional. 
 
 Were raids for arms unknown ? — I never remember 
 one occurring. 
 
 Were you in Kerry in 1865, 1866, and 1867 ?— No ; I 
 was in Cork. 
 
 Do you say that in 1865, 1866, and 1867 raids for 
 arms were not frequent in Cork ?— I do. I do not 
 remember one. 
 
 Do you say that seriously ? — I say that seriously. I 
 went to Cork in 1862, and I was there till Decem- 
 ber, 1880, and I do not remember a single case of a 
 raid for arms. 
 
 You would not like to say they did not occur ? — Not 
 in the districts I have been quartered in. Before I 
 went to Ca6tleisland I was in Cork city. 
 
 Do you say that you did not hear of raids for arms 
 in the years I have mentioned ? — Yes, in Charleviile, 
 at the time of the Fenian rising. 
 
 Ah ! now you are remembering Charleviile is in 
 Cork ?— Yes. 
 
 I want to remind you of something more serious. 
 Did you never hear of a raid for arms upon a trades- 
 man's place of business in the city of Cork ? — I did. 
 
 Had you forgotten that ? — I had. 
 
 Did you ever hear of one upon Bandon Barracks ?— 
 At Mallow Barracks. 
 
 We are getting at it. Did you not hear of one at 
 Bandon military barracks ? — No. 
 
 I see that the book of outrages for the Castleisland 
 district begins in December, 1880. Before that time 
 it formed part of the Tralee district ?— Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I should like to have the Tralee 
 books for the years 1878 and 1879; Will my learned 
 friend send for them ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — They are not in the 
 building at the present moment. 
 SIR C. Russell (continuing cross-examination).— Look- 
 
 ing through this book several .things strike me. Thero 
 is an entry on November 29, 1881, of a threatening 
 notice to Mrs. O'Brien, the school teacher. Under 
 the head of " Observations," I find " Notices 
 threatening farmers for sending children to Mrs. 
 O'Brien's school, boycotted in consequence of her 
 having Ann Griffin as a teacher " ? — I said her brother 
 had taken an evicted farm. 
 
 I find this pencil note, " Can't say yet." What 
 does that mean ? — I cannot say ; it is not my writing. 
 
 On December 8, 1881, there is another threatening 
 notice. Sundry farmers in Brosna were warned not 
 to go to the Land Courts and not to pay rent, or they 
 would soon hear from Captain Moonlight. There is a 
 similar pencil note, " Cannot say if it will be attended 
 to." What does that mean ? — That is, he can't say if 
 it will have any effect. 
 
 Was there any connexion between firing at Michael 
 Flynn on December 7 and raiding for arms at the 
 house of James Kearney, caretaker to Mr. Raymond ? 
 — They are separate outrages. Kearney said it was a 
 party of men that fired at him, and only two men 
 went to Flynn's house. 
 
 On December 16 there is reported a case of malicious 
 injury to a hay-pressing machine, the property of Mr. 
 Law Hussey ? — It was only a trifling injury. The 
 machine was going to work opposite a rick yard, and 
 it was upset by the side of the road. It was an agrarian 
 crime, but the Inspector-General directed that it 
 should not be recorded, because it was a very trifling 
 injury. The general rule in cases of malicious injury 
 is that they are not considered worth recording unless 
 the damage done amounts to £5. As a general rule 
 also where information is not sworn or compensation 
 applied for a case is not recorded. 
 
 On December 17,' 1881, there was a letter to Timothy 
 Horan. Did you come to any conclusion as to whether 
 or not that was agrarian ? — I do not think it was. 
 I think the letter was about paying dues or some- 
 thing. He and another farmer were threatened if they 
 paid Christmas dues to Father Lynch. The priest was 
 partially boycotted. I do not think the outrage was 
 connected with the Land League. The notice was not 
 attended to. 
 
 The official minute is that this offence is not to be 
 recorded. Is the motive that its connexion with 
 agrarianism was doubtful ? — Yes. I do not know what 
 Father Lynch was boycotted for, but I know he was 
 partially boycotted. 
 
 There is one which I am particularly anxious to ask 
 you about. On February 21, 1882, at Castleisland, 
 there is an entry " firing into dwelling house, ad« 
 ministering unlawful oaths" ? — That was a case I was 
 going to bring to your notice. They made no report of 
 the outrage. I went and saw where the shot was fired 
 through the door of the house, and I came to the 
 conclusion it was not a genuine outrage. 
 
 What does that mean ? Does that mean that these 
 men had concocted a story for some purpose of their 
 own that they had been fired into and illegal oaths 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
590 
 
 The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 administered ? — That was my opinion, and I believe 
 it was Mr. Davis's also. 
 
 I want you to note the fact that you do record it 
 as an outrage. — The fact was reported, but I do not 
 think it was recorded. 
 
 You put it in the outrage book ? — Everything re- 
 ported is put in the outrage book. 
 
 But if at the time an outrage is reported you come 
 to the conclmion that it was not a real outrage, 
 but a fabrication, do you make any observation 
 opposite it in this book P — There are observations made 
 opposite it. 
 
 In those cases in which you make up your mind that 
 the thing is a fabrication, do you or do you not re- 
 cord your conclusion under the head of " observa- 
 tions "? — It is not done unless it is directed not to be 
 recorded by the Insoector-General. 
 
 In all cases in which you come to the conclusion that 
 the outrages are fictitious you make a report of your 
 views to the Inspector-General, but you do not make 
 any record opposite the outrage until the Inspector- 
 General decides ? — Yes. 
 
 Whether that is right or wrong is another matter. 
 These outrages are entered according to the order re- 
 corded, and not according to dates ? — Yes ; we may 
 not have heard of the occurrence till days afterwards. 
 
 There is another case on April 6, 1882 — an alleged 
 malicious burning of a farm. Did you make a note of 
 ♦hat ? — I heard of it. I did not visit the place. 
 
 Did you form any opinion as to whether it was a 
 genuine case or not ? — I did not visit it. 
 
 The official note is "This case will not be recorded." 
 Does that mean it is not to be treated as a genuine 
 case ? — Yes. 
 
 Wo have heard of the manner in which compensation 
 for malicious injury is paid, and it has been suggested 
 that the payments are liberal. Does it not occur to 
 your mind that men who could get from the Road 
 Sessions or from the Grand Jury liberal payments 
 would not be unwilling to have their property injured ? 
 — Certainly I could not say that. 
 
 Have any cases occurred in which you have suspected 
 that men have been parties to injuring their own pro- 
 perty by way of entitling them to compensation for 
 malicious injury ? — I never heard of cases of that sort. 
 
 I will call your attention to one in a moment. Did 
 you ever suspect a case of that kind ? — No, never. 
 
 You thought that the cases of malicious injury were 
 all genuine ? — Yes ; I do not remember any case in 
 which the person seeking compensation was the person 
 Who got up the injury ; not that I remember now. 
 
 Or that you suspected in cases of burning hay or 
 injury by fires, arson, that compensation for malicious 
 injury was claimed when there was no such injury ? — I 
 came to the conclusion that the case you now refer to 
 —that of Bneis Lain — was an accident. But the con- 
 stabulary cannot appear at the Presentment Sessions 
 or Road Sessions unless summoned as witnesses. 
 I daresay if the constabulary had appeared in that 
 case compensation would not have been awarded. 
 
 The President.— Which case is that ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The case of Eneis Lain, my Lord. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — What is the date ?— I 
 do not know. 
 
 Now, I want to follow up this question. Where 
 were the Road Sessions held ? — The sessions for the 
 Castleisland district were held in Tralee, about eleven 
 miles off. 
 
 How much did he get ? — I could not say ; I think it 
 was something over £100 — £160 or £180, I am not 
 quite sure. I was not at the sessions. All the cattle 
 in his house were burned, and his house was burned 
 down. 
 
 In the case of Eneis Lain you came to the conclu- 
 sion that there was no malicious burning ? — Yes. I 
 came to the conclusion it was an accident. I believe 
 it was accidental. 
 
 You say you were powerless to intervene and pre- 
 vent the cesspayers being mulcted ? — The police have 
 no locus standi unless they are summoned. 
 
 Now, in connexion with the sad story of Mr. Her- 
 bert's death we have had mentioned an injury to some 
 lambs which were grazing in his demesne close to his 
 house ? — Yes. 
 
 On the night of the murder and at the time the 
 police were actually there ? — Yes, there were police 
 there that night. 
 
 Was it not the law that there could be no compensa- 
 tion for loss of life unless there was also injury to pro- 
 perty ? — I do not know any such law in existence. I 
 do not believe there was. 
 
 Mu. .Justice A. L. Smith. — What was the date of 
 that? 
 
 Sir H. James.— The 31st of March, 1882, my Lord. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Now, here is another 
 case :— " 1st May, 1882, firing into dwellings. 
 Edmund Walsh, 45 " — that I presume is the age — "far- 
 mer." Did you come to the conclusion that that was 
 a sham ? — I must wait till I see it. I do not know 
 that I visited that house at all ; I do not see it in 
 my list. Yes, I came to the same conclusion as about 
 Eneis Lain ; I believe it was not a genuine outrage. 
 
 Now, you understood that these were being put for- 
 ward as a fearful catalogue of crime ; did you not 
 say anything about these not being genuine ? — I gave 
 the list of outrages that were reported. 
 
 You came to the conclusion that that was also a 
 sham ? — Yes, there was no man in the district that 
 would fire into his house. 
 
 Was it not a fact that Edmund Walsh was a 
 prominent member of the League ? — Yes, and that ia 
 one reason why I believed it to be a sham. 
 
 It was that that excited your suspicion ? — No, not 
 that altogether. 
 
 Now, Mr. Herbert's name has been mentioned. How 
 far did he live from you ?— About four or four and 
 a-half miles. 
 
 Now, I must ask you to tell me candidly was Mr 
 Herbert unpopular in his capacity of landlord or 
 magistrate, or was there a general ill-feeling towards 
 
 District-Inspector Huggius. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 391 
 
 him 1 — I do not think he was much of a landlord at 
 all ; he was the agent for a property, and I know he 
 got unpopular there. On one occasion he could not 
 get a process-server to serve writs, and served them 
 himself. I was protecting him with a party of police. 
 On another occasion, at the eviction of O'Donoghue, I 
 believe he and Mr. Davis were nearly injured. 
 
 That would be in connexion with his land agency ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Do you not know that as a magistrate he 
 was greatly disliked ? — I do not know. He had 
 a rough sort of manner with him that would not have 
 added to his popularity, if it did not detract from it. 
 
 Very well. Now, do you recollect the occasion of 
 some row in the streets, when he complained of the 
 police not " skivering " the people ? — Yes, that oc- 
 curred at Petty Sessions, at Brosna. I made a mistake 
 yesterday in saying it was at Castleisland ; I heard 
 Mr. Herbert mention it at Castleisland Petty Sessions. 
 
 That was not the kind of feeling or expression 
 that would make him popular ? — Certainly it was not. 
 
 Do you recollect his ordering the police to fire on 
 tho people at Molahiffe fair ? — I have heard he did ; 
 I was not there. Mr. Davis was there. 
 
 Did you hear that he ordered the police to fire and 
 the police refused ? — No, I was not there. " Skiver- 
 ing," I believe, would mean " bayonetting," or cutting 
 up in some Way. On the occasion a lot of police 
 were protecting bailiffs serving writs, and the bailiff 
 had to retire. Not only that, but I believe he had to 
 go back, and take up some processes he had posted on 
 the door and served. 
 
 Now you have given one instance of Eneis Lain 
 getting compensation, in May ; did he not make a 
 second claim in June ?— No, I will tell you about that 
 if you will allow me. That outrage was not recorded ; 
 it was directed not to be recorded. 
 
 Why?— His house was burned, I believe accident- 
 ally, and it was believed that he injured some cattle 
 and actually set fire to his own house to give colour 
 to his claim at the Road Sessions. That was the 
 motive attributed, and it was ordered not to be 
 recorded. 
 
 I have no doubt you are quite correct, but that is 
 not quite what I am asking you. I have pointed out 
 already that in May he made a report of one outrage 
 of malicious injury.— Yes, that was the burning of his 
 outhouse with the cattle in it. 
 
 On the 5th of June he made another representation ? 
 
 His claim for the first would not come up till 
 
 November. There was no claim on the second occa- 
 sion ; the only claim was for the first outrage. It was 
 the opinion of the police that he had either got tho 
 thing done or done it himself, to give colour to his 
 claim, and consequently it was not recorded. 
 
 Now, on June 11, 1882, at Castleisland, a threaten- 
 ing notice was posted concerning David Hickey, the 
 relieving officer ?— Yes, Cornelius Hickey was shot at 
 and wounded, and David Hickey took him to his 
 house. 
 
 The entry is to the effect that a notice was posted 
 threatening any person having to do with David Hickey 
 as long, as Cornelius Hickey was in his house, and 
 there is an official note saying that the Inspector- 
 General directs that it was not to be recorded as an 
 outrage ? — I suppose it was not looked on as a very 
 important case. 
 
 Why not, if it was true ? Was not the ground that 
 the police came to the conclusion that David Hickey 
 had got this notice posted up ? — The notice had no effect 
 on the district, because the man was removed to the 
 hospital at once. 
 
 Cut it has been suggested that it was in consequence 
 of the brutality of the people that he was removed at 
 once, and that David Hickey did not dare to keep 
 him in his house. Did you come to the conclusion 
 that it was posted by David Hickey ? — I believed it 
 was genuine ; I could not say ; it was reported to 
 Mr. Davis. 
 
 But it was you yourself who spoke of tho case and as- 
 cribed the motive for it ? — Yes, the motive was that tho 
 man was to be removed, and David Hickey was to be 
 boycotted if he did not remove him. 
 
 But why, if it was a genuine and not a put-up job, 
 was it not an outrage ? — I suppose it was because it 
 had no effect. 
 
 But is it the less an outrage because it had no 
 effect ? — I cinnot say. 
 
 It is stated that the notice threatened any person 
 who should enter Hickey's house until Cornelius 
 Hickey was removed, and that he was removed in 
 consequence of that notice ? —Yes, that was so. 
 
 Do you meau to convey that the effect of the post- 
 ing of that notice was that this man was removed to 
 the hospital, whereas otherwise he would have been 
 tended in Hickey's house ?— Yea, I believe but for that 
 notice he would have been tended in David Hickey's 
 house, as David Hickey wanted him to stop and Cor- 
 nelius would not stop for fear the notice would have 
 an effect on him. 
 
 Then what do you mean by saying the notice had no 
 effect ? — I believe it had no effect, because the man 
 was removed. 
 
 Do you consider that the posting of that notice was 
 genuine or not? Was it an outrage ? — Well, I consider it 
 was calculated to affect the man very much. He was 
 a publican. 
 
 Was it an outrage or not ? — I could not say. 
 
 To your mind was it a gross and unfeeling outrage ? 
 — It was an unfeeling one. 
 
 That being so, was it because it was thought that 
 Hickey or somebody in his interest had put up 
 the notice that the Inspector-General directed it 
 not to be recorded as an outrage. Aye or no ? — I believe 
 it was on account of the notice having no effect. 
 
 On the 17th of June, 1882, there was an outrage on 
 Delane. Is there no record of that ? — No, I do not 
 think so . 
 
 What is that paper to which you are referring ? — It 
 is a list I made out from the book, because in that 
 
 District-Inspector Huggina. 
 
392 
 
 The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 list only one name is given in a case where there may 
 be many others, and by this list I can tell the names 
 of the other persons who were visited or raided, 
 
 Did you make it for the purpose of giving your 
 evidence here ?— I made it out from those lists, and 
 compared it. 
 
 How does it come that you have not taken any note 
 in your proof or notes for your proof of any of these 
 concocted outrages ? — I only took down cases which 
 were reported. 
 
 But there are also cases reported which are dealt with 
 rs got-up outrages ; how is it that you have not thought 
 it fair to refer to them ?— I did not take them down. 
 
 Why ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Was it because you were not asked f— I was not 
 asked. 
 
 I ask you, do you think it was fair to exclude from 
 your account before this Court as cases of malicious 
 injury, threatening notices, and firing into dwellings, 
 what you conceived to be got-up cases ? — I did not 
 take any note of these cases. 
 
 Why ? — I cannot give any explanation. 
 
 Now, about Delane, what was the injury ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 Are you sure you did not make these entries your- 
 self ? — I made some entries in the first book. I know 
 nothing about Delane's case. 
 
 You cannot tell us why that was not reported ? — No, 
 I cannot even tell what happened in that case. 
 
 On the 26th of June, 1882, there is a case at Castle- 
 island you must know something about ; it is the 
 alleged intimidation of P. Bradley and six others — a 
 regular batch of them. What was that case ? — I be- 
 lieve that was a case where people were visited and 
 ordered not to pay rent to the Misses Busteed. 
 
 Was that a genuine claim or not ? — Well, there was 
 a good deal of doubt. 
 
 Did you come to the conclusion that it was not 
 genuine ? — I did. 
 
 That it was another put-up job ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, on July 10, 1882, there is a case of alleged 
 intimidation of Thomas Prenderville, a caretaker, and 
 Edward Prenderville, a publican f — Yes, I remember 
 that case. The farm was taken by Edward Prender- 
 ville from Thomas Prenderville, and Thomas was 
 supposed to be connected with getting up the matter 
 himself. 
 
 Was he under police protection ? — No. 
 
 Has it come within your experience that men have 
 complained of intimidation and outrage in order to get 
 police protection, where there was no real intimida- 
 tion ? — I only know one case ; and he only got pro- 
 tection by patrol for a few nights. 
 
 There is one case in which you were satisfied he was 
 shamming ? — I was not satisfied at the time. 
 
 On the 15th of July, 1882, there is the case of 
 Patrick Connor, malicious burning ? — Yes, I believe 
 that was accidental. 
 
 Did he get compensation 1 — I do not remember ; I do 
 not think he did. It was the burning of a house. In 
 
 such cases I always told them that if they went for 
 compensation in a case not genuine they would be 
 reported by the police. 
 
 I thought you told us the police had no locus standi 
 in such cases ?— No ; but I always used to tell the 
 people where I believed it was a case of accident 
 that I would report it. 
 
 Now, have you any reason for saying that that was 
 accidental rather than intentional ? — Yes ; from the way 
 the house was burnt and the circumstances of the case. 
 
 Was there anything in the circumstances of the case 
 to lead you to that conclusion ? — Yes ; a man would 
 not set fire to his own house. 
 
 Why not, if he could come on the county cess and get 
 compensation ? — I do not believe he applied for com. 
 pensation at all. 
 
 The President. — Is there anything to show the 
 cases in which there is sworn information ? 
 
 Witness. — In any case where compensation has been, 
 claimed there must be information sworn within three 
 days of the outrage. 
 
 Sib C. Kussell. — You have no declaration in this 
 case such as a claimant has to make P — No. 
 
 The cases of informations which you would record 
 would be cases of informations by the persons on whom 
 an outrage was committed or by a witness of the 
 outrage ? — Yes. 
 
 Under that heading in the majority of cases there is 
 the word nil. — You cannot get the people to give in- 
 formation. 
 
 SIR H. James. — Does that mean that you had no in- 
 formation on the subject P — Yes ; the people would not 
 come forward to give any. 
 
 The President. — Well, that is ambiguous. 
 
 Sir'C. Eossell.— The heading is " If information 
 sworn, before whom and when." — That means an in- 
 formation by the party injured if they knew any one or 
 anything connected with it. 
 
 Or an information by the person, if any, who wit- 
 nessed the outrage ? — Yes ; on that information there 
 may be a warrant granted. 
 
 Now, Farranfore, July 30, 1882 ? — That is in my 
 district. It is not in my evidence. 
 
 Who was it who took your evidence P — Head Con- 
 stable Irwin took down my evidence in longhand. I 
 held this list in my hand, and I dictated to him the 
 outrages that I refer to in my statement. I missed 
 those that were sham outrages. 
 
 You had no record of them ? — There are mentioned 
 in the statements any outrages that I knew anything 
 about. 
 
 Is there a note about any of these things being re- 
 corded as shams, got up p — No. 
 
 This is a case you say you know about. Michael 
 Fitzgerald, 65, herd, 30th July, 1882 ?— I know 
 nothing about that. 
 
 This is the observation : — " A notice threatening with 
 death if he did not give up the hording. Suspected 
 Fitzgerald got up this to get an increase of wages. 
 The Inspector-General made this note. This case will. 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 393 
 
 not be regarded as an outrage." Where was it that 
 Irwin took your evidence ? — In the Inns of Court 
 Hotel. 
 
 Irwin does not belong to your county. I thought he 
 came from Gal way P — No; he comes from the dep6t in 
 Dublin. 
 
 Has he been acting as Mr. Soames's clerk in taking 
 the evidence ? — No ; he did it to oblige me. I asked 
 him. It was a long statement, and if I had to go over 
 all the outrages instead of getting some one to take it 
 from me it would have taken me a long time. 
 
 September 27, 1882. Castleisland, Bally beg. David 
 Nagle, 45, William Deuchsy, 37, Matthew King, 28, 
 Patrick Bradley, 68, Daniel Murphy, 68. Did you come 
 to the conclusion that outrage was a sham ? — 'There 
 was a good deal of doubt about it. 
 
 Did you come to the conclusion that it was a sham ? 
 —I believed it was a doubtful case. 
 
 Did you come to the conclusion that it was a sham ? 
 —I could not say that it was. I strongly believed it 
 was a doubtful case. (Laughter.) 
 
 I think you said you went to this district in 1881 
 and remained there till 1886 ?— In December, 1880, and 
 remained until July, 1886. 
 
 When you went to Castleisland in December, 1880, 
 you had charge of a district ? — Yes. It was not a 
 district inspector's station then ; it became so a fort- 
 night afterwards. 
 
 Just explain to my Lords what was the extent of the 
 district ?— About 11 miles broad by 26 long. That was 
 when it became a district. When it was under me it 
 was about ten miles long by about four or five broad. 
 
 What were the places included ?— There were about 
 40 or 50 townlands in it. 
 
 Name the places ?— Castleisland, Cordal, Ballybeg, 
 Farranfore — about 40 townlands, I think. 
 
 Tell us what branches of the Land League were 
 established, and where, when you went there in 
 December, 1880 ?— I do not think there was any branch 
 there except Castleisland when I went there. 
 
 Very well ; that accords with what I have been told. 
 
 There may have been a branch, but I did not know 
 
 anything about it. 
 
 Did you ascertain that that local branch of the Land 
 League had only recently been established in Castle- 
 island ?— I ascertained that it was only established 
 from the 10th or 11th of October. 
 
 Established October, 1880. You went there in 
 December, 1880. When was the next, and where ?— I 
 believe there was one established then, or soon after, 
 at Brosna. I think that was the only one. Perhaps 
 there was one at Cool (or Cordal). I am speaking now 
 of the whole of 1881. 
 
 During 1881, the whole of that year there 
 was one in Castleisland, there may have been 
 one at Cool, but you are not certain. You 
 are aware that there was a suppression of the 
 Land League in October, 1881 ?— Yes. 
 
 I am not suggesting, you know, that the Land 
 League meetings did not continue to be held in 
 
 particular places. Were there, iu this district that 
 you are speaking of, any Land League meetings that 
 you are aware of held in October, 1881 ? — I do not 
 know that there were, except the Ladies' Land 
 League. 
 
 I understand now. Then it stands thus — one Land 
 League branch, no Land League meetings after 
 October in Castleisland, suppression of the League in 
 October, 1881, and no Land League meetings held 
 after that date except one, you say — the Ladies' Land 
 League ?— Yes, a branch of the Ladies' Land League 
 that was held at Castleisland. There was a branch at 
 Cool (or Cordal). 
 
 Very good. You are aware, of course, that, under 
 the Act that was then in force, there was power of 
 summary arrest for attending meetings ? — Yes. 
 ' A power which was to be enforced ? — 1 do not think 
 there was any one arrested in Castleisland. 
 
 No, because there were no meetings, you told us. 
 You are aware also — we shall have, of course, to 
 call my Lords' attention to that hereafter — you are 
 aware also that, under the Act that was then in force 
 known as Forster's Act, there was power of arresting 
 and putting in prison on what is called reasonable 
 suspicion, and the persons who were so put in prison 
 were called suspects ? — Yes. 
 
 None of those persons so arrested was ever brought 
 to trial ? — No. 
 
 No charge ever formulated against any of them, 
 which they had an opportunity of meeting ? — No, there 
 was not, as far as I remember. 
 
 Now, how many arrests were made in Castleisland F 
 — I could not exactly tell you, but there were a great 
 many. 
 
 I do not, of course, ask you exactly — it would be 
 unreasonable to -do so — but how many, or about how 
 many, were arrested in Castleisland ? — Well, in 
 Castleisland town is it, or district ? At all events, I 
 am sure there were 20. 
 
 At least ? — Oh, there were more. I am sure, at 
 least, there were 20. I could not go over that number. 
 
 And if you included your whole district, how many 
 would you say ? — I cannot exactly say how many ; 
 there were, at all events, 25. Mr. Davis will be able 
 to tell you. 
 
 It is suggested to me that there were more. Have 
 you got any list of the persons who were arrested ? 
 — I could have it after the adjournment. I know it 
 from memory. 
 
 Will you kindly add to it, please, the position of 
 life of these people — what they were ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, I want to put this general question to you. 
 Taking. the ten months before Forster's Act came into 
 operation, and taking the ten months after Forster's 
 Act came into operation, which period was the worse 
 for crime and outrage, according to your view ? 
 
 Sib H. James. — My Lords, may I ask this, if my 
 friend is speaking of Castleisland generally ? This 
 witness was not in Castleisland, 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
394 
 
 The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am trying to get it generally, 
 and the witness is quite able to qualify any answer. 
 
 The President. — He has volunteered to put down 
 the names. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Yes, these are the names of persons 
 who were arrested. My friend's question is now to 
 compare the time previous to that date — that is, the 
 2d of March, 1881, with the date afterwards. This 
 witness never came there before December. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — He is speaking of a great many 
 things that are not in his own knowledge. 
 
 The President.— He was asked no question of this 
 time in the examination in chief. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Taking the three months before 
 October, 1881, when the League was suppressed, and 
 the three months after October, 1881, which was the 
 worse from point of crime and outrage ? — I do not 
 think there was very much difference ; if anything, I 
 think the three months afterwards were the worse. 
 
 It is suggested to me that that period was much the 
 worse ? — I would not say that it was, and I will give 
 you a reason. A great many of the outrages 
 then were 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have not asked you that. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We will ask him. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I certainly should not object to 
 your asking. (To witness.) Now could you tell me the 
 12 months before 1881 and the 12 months after 1881 ? 
 —I believe the 12 months after 1881 were worse 
 than the 12 months before. I think there were 40 or 
 50 reports more in 1882 than in 1881, at least. 
 
 You will give us this list after the adjournment. May 
 I ask you generally, meanwhile, this question ? Were 
 not many of the 25 to 30 persons arrested in your 
 district leading men in the district ? — There were a 
 few of them at least. 
 
 I say many ? — Not very many. 
 
 A few of them were leading men in the district ? — A 
 reat many of them were leading men as regards the 
 position they held, I believe, in the Land League. 
 
 That is another question. I am not comparing them 
 with the social position of landlords and agents. 
 ■ — There were none of those. 
 
 Taking the general class of persons arrested, were they 
 not what you .describe as a respectable class of farmers 
 and shopkeepers — many of them ? — Yes, they were. 
 
 And you also say they were persons who took the 
 leading parts in the Land League organization ? — Yes. 
 
 So that by the operation of these arrests the lead- 
 ing persons in the Land League in Castleisland were 
 removed to prison ? — A good many of them. 
 
 Who was the president of the League at Castle- 
 island ?— I believe a shopkeeper named Moore. 
 
 Was he that when you went there first in December, 
 1880 ?— I believe he was, I was not certain. 
 
 What was Mr. Moore, did you say ? — A shopkeeper— 
 a draper — he is a well-to-do man. 
 
 Was he arrested ?— No. 
 
 I am told you may have mistaken the date ; but I am 
 told that Mr. Kenny Mr. Kenny became president 
 
 after Moore, and he was arrested. He was a Poor Law 
 guardian and farmer ; ne was a considerable farmer. 
 
 How many acres of land would he farm about ?— I 
 daresay close upon a hundred, if not more. He was 
 a comfortablo farmer. 
 
 Whose tenant was hp ? — I think he was on Mr. Mar- 
 shall's property. 
 
 Who was the secretary when you went there in Decem- 
 ber, 1880 ?— Timothy Horan. He was not arrested. 
 
 Do you recollect a gentleman of the name of 
 Brosnan, O'Connor Brosnan I believe he is named ? — 
 O'Connor Brosnan and his father were both arrested. 
 
 Tell me, speaking generally — there may be some 
 exceptions — but the men that were arrested as suspects 
 remained in prison, the greater number of them, until 
 the spring of 1882 ? — Yes, I believe they did . 
 
 So that those of them who were arrested in 1881 
 remained there from October, 1881, until April or 
 May, 1882 ?— Yes, I think so. 
 
 Who was Brosnan ? — He was a publican, baker, 
 grocer, and so on ; he had also extensive lime works. 
 He was a man of some position and some means. 
 
 Was he a man you would describe as a respectable 
 man, apart from the connexion with the Land League, 
 which, of course, is crime ? — Yes, he was looked upon 
 as a respectable man. I regarded him as something else. 
 
 The police inspector did not see him in so favour- 
 able a light ?-No. 
 
 The Court here adjourned for luncheon. 
 
 On its reassembling, Sir C. Russell resumed his 
 cross-examination. The witness handed to Sir C. 
 Russell the list of names which he had prepared in the 
 interval. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am afraid this has interfered 
 with your luncheon, Mr. Huggins. (Laughter.) My 
 Lords, I will hand this in. 
 
 Witness. — I made it out from memory. I do not 
 think there are any more. Two of theso men were 
 arrested twice. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— The first is P. D. Kenny. The 
 next is Brosnan. He is a gentleman, I am told, of somo 
 65 or 70 years of ago. He is the old man as to whom 
 you intimated that your opinion of him was not the 
 opinion of his neighbours. The next is Timothy Bros- 
 nan, his son.a shopkeeper. The remaining names are E. 
 Hussoy (farmer's son), Cornelius Hussey (ditto), Bartho j 
 lomew Hussey (ditto), William Quinlan, Patrick Quin- 
 lan, Lawrence Quinlan, John Burke, Daniel Kelleher, 
 Jeremiah Leahy, Michael Carroll (shopkeeper.of Brosna), 
 Thomas O'Connell, Thomas Walsh (shoemaker), David 
 O'Connell, — Murphy, Pat Cahill, and Jeremiah 
 M'Mahon. Were Lawrence Quinlan and John Burke 
 arrested twice ?— Yes ; they were re-arrested. 
 
 The result of all those arrests was that those who 
 were the responsible heads of the local branch of the 
 Land League were imprisoned ? — Some of them. 
 
 Well, you comprise in your list the president, the 
 treasurer, and the secretary, Timothy Brosnan ? — I was 
 not aware that Timothy Brosnan was the secretary. 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 395 
 
 I thought you said that the younger Timothy Brosnan 
 was secretary ? 
 
 The President.- -Iloran was not arrested ?— No, my 
 Lord. .. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I thought you said that Brosnan 
 had been secretary at one time ? — Not to my know- 
 ledge ; but I think he was secretary of the National 
 League. 
 
 At all events, the president and the treasurer were 
 arrested ? — Yes. 
 
 Of the remaining 17 names in your list of 19, were 
 all or any of them members of the committee ? — 
 Jeremiah Leahy, it was proved yesterday,was secretary 
 of the Firies branch. 
 
 I did not ask that. Were any of these 17 men mem- 
 bers of Ihe committee of the Castleisland branch ? — I 
 think Timothy Brosnan was. 
 
 You made some reference just now to Firies ? — Yes; 
 there was a branch of the League there. 
 
 Was that in your district ? — It was. 
 
 You have misled us, I fear. You told us that the 
 Castleisland district was enlarged ? — Yes. 
 
 You also told us that when you were placed in 
 charge this enlarged district had not been made ? — No ; 
 it was not an important district then. Four months 
 after I went there the district was formed. 
 
 Yes ; but I asked you what branches of the Land 
 League there were up to October, 1881, and you told 
 me that there was one in Castleisland, and that there 
 may have been one in Cordal ? — Yes ; I did say so, 
 but that only referred to the sub-district of Castle- 
 island. There were only the two branches there when 
 I had charge of the sub-district myself. 
 
 And you told us that it was ten miles long and four 
 or five broad ? — Yes. 
 
 When was there first established in your enlarged 
 district ?— September 14, 1880. 
 
 No, no ; listen to the question. When was there 
 first established a branch of the National League ? — I 
 could not tell you the date ; but it was some short 
 time after the suppression of the Land League. I 
 think it must have been in 1882, after the establish- 
 ment of the Ladies' Land League. I could not fix the ' 
 date with accuracy ; it was in 1882 or at the begin- 
 ning of 1883. 
 
 Where was it established ? — At Castleisland. 
 
 Was there any other branch of the National League 
 in your district, the enlarged district ? — Yes ; at 
 Firies. It was established, I think, at the same time. 
 Branches were also established at Brosna and at 
 Knoeknagoshil. 
 
 Were those all the branches you knew of in the en- 
 larged district P — I think so, but I am not sure that 
 there was not one other branch. 
 
 Will yon undertake to say there was any branch of 
 the National League established in Castleisland before 
 1885 ? — I could not undertake to say that. I do not 
 remember the date. 
 
 Will you undertake to say that there was any branch 
 of the National League established in any part of the 
 
 enlarged Castleisland district before the end of 1885 'i 
 — I told you I could not remember the date, and I do 
 not. 
 
 Very well. You have served the greater part of 
 your time in the force in Cork and Kerry. Have you 
 become aware of the existence of secret societies in 
 Kerry ? — I know of no secret societies in Kerry but 
 the moonlighters ; and I believe them to be part and 
 parcel of the Land League and National League. 
 
 Did I ask you that, Sir ? Did you say that because 
 you think it a damaging statement to make ? — I did 
 not say it for that reason. 
 
 Will you swear you did not weigh, in giving that 
 which wasnotan answer to my question, whether it was 
 not a damaging statement to make ? — No, I did not. 
 
 Did- you not deliberately tell the jury (Laugh- 
 ter.) Well, that is not so very inaccurate after all, 
 as my Lords are both Judge and jury. Did you mean 
 to put upon me an answer which I did not ask for^ 
 and which you believe to be injurious ? — No, I did 
 not. 
 
 That is your statement upon your oath ? — Yes. 
 
 How long have you heard of the existence of moon- 
 lighters ? — Since I went to the district, in 1880. 
 
 Did you never hear of them before ? — No. 
 
 And never heard of any secret societies in Kerry 
 before, except these moonlighters ? — No. 
 
 And you never heard of them before you went to 
 Castleisland ? — No, never. I saw them mentioned in 
 the paper before I went there, a short time, but I 
 never heard the name used except in connexion with 
 the raids in the country about that time. 
 
 You never heard the name moonlighter used before 
 1880 ?— Never. 
 
 Either in Cork or Kerry ? — Never. 
 
 You never heard of the existence of a secret society 
 in Cork or Kerry before 1880 ?— I did in Cork. 
 
 You did hear of a secret society in Cork ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the name of it ? — The Fenian Society. 
 
 Any other ? — No, I did not hear of any other. 
 
 If, Mr. Huggins, you have not heard of them in 
 Cork, where else have you heard of them ? — I heard 
 of the Whiteboys in Clare and Leitrim. 
 
 But only the Fenians in Cork ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you never heard of the Ribbon Society ? — I 
 did not hear of any Ribbon Society in Cork. 
 
 Nor in Kerry f — No. 
 
 Your experience being principally in Cork and 
 Kerry, you wish to convey that, with the exception of 
 the Fenian Society in Cork, you heard of no secret 
 society in either Cork or Kerry before 1880 ? Is that 
 your evidence ? — That is my evidence. 
 
 Very good. I forget the date you told us you entered 
 the police force ? — In July, 1861. 
 
 Were you, during the Fenian period 1865, 1866, and 
 1867, in Cork?— Yes. 
 
 Very well. Do I understand you to say that the only 
 secret society you speak of from official information 
 is that of the moonlighters, who you say were part 
 and parcel of the Land League and National League ? 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
396 
 
 The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 —What made me say that was that I had seen mem- 
 bers of that society attend the meetings of the Land 
 League. 
 
 Did yoa ever report that the Land League was a 
 secret society, or any persons connected with it ? — I 
 did not report it. 
 
 Why did you not, Sir ?— I attributed the acts done 
 to this society, and this society I believed 
 
 Answer my question, please. Did you report to 
 your superiors, either verbally or in writing, that the 
 moonlighters were a secret society or a branch in 
 connexion with the Land League ? — I did not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Keid. — You have given a 
 list of outrages and information in connexion with 
 them to Sir Henry James, and, as I understand, one 
 source of your information is this book you have 
 shown us. Is that so ? — The source of my information 
 with regard to particular outrages is that book, but I 
 did not speak to outrages I did not inquire into my- 
 self. 
 
 Is there another book kept in the office which is 
 another source of your information ? — I did not refer 
 to another book. There is another book in which a 
 report of outrages is made. 
 
 That is another book relating to outrages, and you 
 have not referred to it yourself ? — No. 
 
 Yesterday you stated that on February 13, 1881, the 
 house of William Saunders, at a place called Carker, 
 was visited by an armed and disguised party, who de- 
 manded admission in the name of the Land League. 
 Where did you get that last bit of information ? — I 
 got it from a person in the house. 
 
 Did you make any note of it ? — Yes, and it is re- 
 ported. 
 
 Is that in the other book ? — Yes, that would be in 
 the other book. Reports of all the outrages are made, 
 and they are copied intj this letter book, which is 
 kept at the police station. 
 
 That is the other book to which I am referring. We 
 shall see that, I presume ? 
 
 Sib H. James.— Certainly, we will do all we can to 
 get it. 
 
 You have no other source of information but these 
 two books ? — No, none, except my own opinion as to 
 the facts. So far as records are concerned, there is 
 nothing except these two books. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell did not ask you, but I ask you, 
 What do you say was the reason of the increase in 
 crime after October, 1881 ? — I believe it arose from 
 a sort of retaliation for the arreBt of the suspects. 
 
 Did not their arrests begin in the month of March, 
 1881 ? — I believe so, but I do not know the date. 
 
 Do you believe that the crimes in Kerry since the 
 years 1879 and 1880 have in no eases been due to 
 secret societies ?— I do not believe they have. There 
 may be some cases of it. 
 
 Let me understand you. Do you say or do you not 
 that any crimes, in your judgment, have been due to 
 •ecret societies ?— My opinion is they have not. 
 
 Do you say that many of them have not been due to 
 
 private malice ? — Some of them may have been due 
 to that cause. 
 
 Do you not believe that many of them have been 
 due to private malice ? — That may be so. 
 
 Or to family quarrels ? — Well, yes. 
 
 You stated to Sir Charles Russell that some of these 
 claims were sham claims. Did you communicate that 
 fact to any one on behalf of The Times newspaper f — I 
 did not. 
 
 Why not ? — I -just took the record of the book as I 
 found it. 
 
 Did you not think it material to state to these 
 gentlemen that there were a considerable number of 
 crimes in Kerry since 1880 which you believed to be 
 sham crimes ? — I have not referred to these crimes, 
 except one or two of them. 
 
 You stated that the moonlighters, in your opinion, 
 were a branch of the National League and Land 
 League. Will you give me the grounds for that 
 opinion ? — My ground for saying that is that until the 
 establishment of the Land League in Castleisland it 
 was a peaceable district. 
 
 Is that your sole reason ? — That is one reason. 
 
 Give me any other 'I — Another reason is that the men 
 we suspected of committing those outrages we're attend- 
 ing the Land League meetings. 
 
 Give me the names, if you please ?— Well, there are 
 a great many of them. 
 
 A few of the principal ones ? — I believe that every 
 one of the persons named in that outrage book was 
 connected with the League, and more or less with the 
 commission of crime in the district, and a great many 
 more. 
 
 You say the commission of crime ? — Not directly, but 
 prompting it. 
 
 Give me any evidence you have of that ? — I will give 
 you a case that was before the Court yesterday. 
 
 Before you say that, was your opinion formed yes- 
 terday ? — No. 
 
 Well, then, before we come to yesterday I should 
 like some evidence of something that has ocourred 
 during the seven or eight years you have been speak- 
 ing of. — Well, take the case of Michael Dennehy in 
 1881. His ears were cut off by an armed and disguised 
 party, and shots were fired into his house. That man 
 stated to me that he was warned by a member of the 
 League. 
 
 Give me the name ? — Well, I would rather not. 
 
 But I would rather you did. — Well, I will give you 
 the name. It was Maurice Murphy. He stated ho 
 was warned by Maurice Murphy not to serve writs, 
 and to go to Terry Brosnan and tell him he had 
 returned the writs. He did not go, but served the 
 writs, and that very night his house was attacked 
 and he was outraged in the way I have described. 
 
 And you infer from that that Maurice Murphy was 
 one of the persons who committed the outrage 'i — No, 
 I do not. I infer from it that if the man had gone to 
 Terry Brosnan and returned the writs there would have 
 been no outrage. 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 397 
 
 That is not quite the answer I want. (Laughter.) 
 That is not an answer to my question. Give me any 
 piece of evidence connecting the Land League with these 
 outrages ? — I infer from that statement that Terence 
 Brosnan could have prevented the outrage, and would 
 have done so if the man had reported to him that he 
 had returned the writs. 
 
 That is what you infer ? — Yes. 
 
 Let me ask you for another piece of evidence, 
 please ? — I do not remember any now. 
 
 I do not want to hurry you. Your charge is this, 
 that these criminals, these moonlighters, these out- 
 rage-mongers were part and parcel of the Land League, 
 and I want to know your ground for saying so ? — Well, 
 ou nearly every occasion on which I heard members of 
 the League speak at meetings I heard landlords, 
 bailiffs, and men who had taken evicted farms de- 
 nounced by these men ; and I believe that that made 
 the men unpopular in the district, and caused a great 
 many of the outrages. Nearly all the murders were 
 those of bailiffs and men charged with taking evicted 
 farms. 
 
 Is that in your mind evidence that the Land League 
 and National League prompted or instigated crime ? — 
 Yes, that is what I formed my opinion on. 
 
 Is there any other ground ? — Well. I do not know 
 that there is. 
 
 You have been, I suppose, in intimate knowledge for 
 seven or eight years of all the private information 
 brought to the police ? — No, I have not. 
 
 Have you not been at the head of the police ? — No, 
 Mr. Davis. 
 
 You were in a high position ? — Yes, I was. I heard 
 a good deal of everything that was going on in the way 
 of information. 
 
 Are you able, beyond what you state, to give any 
 evidence whatever, of any kind, against the Land 
 League as being connected with outrage ? — No, I 
 cannot. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — I want to ask you about this 
 book. It begins on December 1, 1880. Where is the 
 book before this ? — I told Sir Charles that that book 
 only dates from the time Castleisland became a dis- 
 trict. Castleisland was before that attached to the 
 Tralee district. 
 
 I did not know my learned friend had asked you 
 about it. How long have you been engaged, Huggins, 
 in getting up the case for The Times ? 
 
 Sib H. James.— My Lord, I must object. There is 
 no foundation whatever for such a question. 
 
 The Pbesiuent. — You may get an account of how 
 he has been brought into the case. 
 
 Sib C. Bussell. — My Lord, we charge deliberately, 
 and we shall endeavour to make it good in evidence,that 
 the whole of the executive authorities as represented 
 by the police and some of the resident magistrates 
 have been agents of The Times in getting up their 
 case. 
 
 Sib H. James.— That is not my point. .What I object 
 to is that Mr. Lockwood, without having any founda- 
 
 tion for it, should ask the witness, " How long have 
 you been engaged in getting up the case for The 
 Times ?" 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I will not argue with my learned 
 friend as to the exact form of the question, but I 
 submit that it is perfectly proper and regular. If the 
 man has not been engaged in getting up the case for 
 The Times he can say so. (To the witness.) When 
 were you first employed by The Times ? — I was not 
 employed by The Times at all. 
 
 Sib H. James. — I submit that my learned friend has 
 no right to put this question without foundation. 
 Counsel has no right to say " When did you murder 
 A. B. ?" unless there is some foundation for the ques- 
 tion. In the same way he has no right to ask " How 
 long have you been engaged in getting up this case ? " 
 for it assumes the fact. 
 
 Sib C. Bttssell. — This witness has admitted that he 
 received a communication from the Crown Solicitor 
 asking whether he would dispense with the personal 
 service of a subpoena and give evidence. 
 
 Sin H. James. — In this matter the gentleman referred 
 to has not acted as Crown Solicitor. He has a private 
 practice as well. 
 
 Sib C. Bussell. — We shall hear about that later on. 
 Then this witness compiles a record of some sort, which 
 he has before him, but of which we have not got a 
 copy. He has had his evidence taken by another 
 person directly representing The Times, and he went 
 to Castleisland, not being then stationed in the dis- 
 trict, in order to refresh his recollection of these 
 matters. 
 
 The Peesident. — I do not consider that Mr. Lock- 
 wood was entitled to put the question in that form 
 and to assume that the witness has been employed by 
 The Times. However, the witness has now denied it, 
 and the incident may be allowed to pass. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Who did employ you ? — No one. I 
 got a subpoena from Mr. Bolton. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith. — Did we not hear all 
 this two hours ago ? I thought your side, Mr. Lock- 
 wood, were complaining that the case was dragging. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — If we had this two hours ago, it is 
 rather strange that Sir Henry James did not make his 
 objection then. 
 
 Sib H. James. — I only object now to the form of the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood (to witness). — Who has employed 
 you ? — No one has employed me. In answer to a com- 
 munication, I wrote to Mr. Bolton that I would accept 
 service of the subpoena by post, and that I could not 
 give any very accurate information with regard to the 
 crimes committed. 
 
 How long have you been engaged in getting up 
 evidence ? — I went to Castleisland at the time of the 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter " trial, and I wrote to Mr. 
 Bolton, as I have explained. 
 
 When did you come to London ?— On November 1. 
 
 The Peesident.— We have had all this before, Mr, 
 Lockwood, 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins, 
 
398 
 
 The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I will at once fall in with your 
 Lordship's suggestion. But there is one point I want 
 to get if I can. I want to ascertain this. Do I 
 understand that while you and the other Irish officers, 
 police constables and inspectors, are here in London 
 you are receiving your November pay ? — Yes. 
 
 And are you in addition receiving money from The 
 Times ? — I have not had any money from The Times 
 newspaper since I came here. 
 
 Who gave you the money to come here ?— Oh, 
 I got £5 with the subpoena, and that is all I 
 have got. They paid my expenses in the other 
 case. 
 
 Now, as to Mr. Sheehan, the Irish member, about 
 whose speech you have spoken — where is he now ? — 
 Well, I saw that he was arrested. I do not know 
 where he is now. (Laughter.) 
 
 I suppose you have a fairly good idea as to where he 
 is ? — No ; I saw also that he was liberated on bail, and 
 I have not read anything about the case since. 
 
 I do not wish, if I can help it, to quote over again 
 what has already been quoted by my learned friend ; 
 but there is one matter to which I must call attention. 
 I have here a document which this witness produces, 
 and I must read a few lines from it : — " Dr. Mori&rty 
 said that he was an ardent admirer and follower of 
 Dames Stephens, and was well acquainted with all the 
 leaders of the Fenian movement in England, Ireland, 
 and Scotland." Did you hear him say that ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you furnish this account of what Dr. Moriarty 
 said at Knocknagoshil to anybody ? Is this a report 
 furnished by you at any time ? — No, it was furnished 
 by another constable. 
 
 Then your recollection was that Dr. Moriarty said 
 " that he was well acquainted with the leaders of the 
 Fenian movement" ? — That was my recollection. 
 
 Mr. Sheehan denounced outrage at that meeting, did 
 he not ?— I do not remember. 
 
 B Just think ? — I did not take note of any speech 
 except that made by Dr. Moriarty. 
 
 Did not Mr. Sheehan denounce outrage at that 
 meeting ? — I cannot say that he did. Sergeant 
 Hourican was appointed to take notes at that meeting. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — You knew a large 
 number of Leaguers ? — Yes. 
 
 How many did you arrest for being members of a 
 secret society ? — I did not arrest any as Land Leaguers. 
 Those who were arrested were arrested as suspects. 
 
 That is not the question. How many did you arrest 
 for being members of a secret society ? — Almost all 
 those whose names I have given were in the Land 
 League. 
 
 Did you arrest them for being members of a secret 
 society ? — No. 
 
 Is not membership in a secret society considered a 
 serious offence against the law ? — Yes. 
 
 Then if you knew so many leaders of a secret society 
 why did you not arrest them ? — A man might be a 
 member of a secret society and yet do nothing to bring 
 himself within the power of the law. I do not think 
 
 it is a serious offence to be a member of a secret 
 society as long as a man keeps from crime. 
 
 He may be a member of a secret society no matter 
 what its object ? — Certainly. 
 
 If its object was murder you would not arrest him 
 on suspicion ? — No. 
 
 You would not try to proceed against him for con- 
 spiracy ? — I would, if I could get infoimation to justify 
 me ; but I would not arrest him without a warrant. 
 
 Now, with reference to these threatening letters— 
 they formed a great part of the outrages ? — Yes. 
 
 I suppose you have noticed that the phraseology is 
 about the same in all of them P — In some of them it 
 is the same. 
 
 Well, there is not much difference ; there is a strong 
 family resemblance in the diction. What steps did you 
 take to discover the authors of these letters ? — We did 
 all we could to bring the parties to justice, hut we 
 could not obtain any information. In some instances I 
 obtained specimens of handwriting, but £he evidence 
 was not strong enough. 
 
 Have you any specimens of the handwriting of 
 Land Leaguers in Castleisland ? — Yes, and comparisons 
 were made with the handwriting of the threatening 
 letters. In some cases I almost knew who were the 
 writers, but it could not be proved. 
 
 If you almost knew who the writers were, why could 
 you not provo it ? — The handwriting was bo disguised 
 that I did not think any jury would convict. 
 
 But experts would have discovered the connexion ? — 
 I did not think that any jury would convict in such 
 cases. 
 
 But it is not your duty to anticipate what a jury 
 will do ?— Oh, yes, it is. 
 
 Then if you think that a jury will not convict you 
 take no further steps to bring the person to justice ?— 
 You must bear in mind that the magistrates may not re- 
 turn a case for trial at all. 
 
 Did you charge any Land Leaguer with writing any 
 of these threatening letters ? — I did not. 
 
 Ee-examined by Sir H. James. — You have been 
 asked as to the meeting of January 6, 1886. Did you 
 see Mr. E. Harrington at that meeting ? — Yes. I 
 eaw him on the platform, round which there was a 
 crowd. 
 
 Was Mr. Harrington taking an active part in the 
 meeting ?— Oh, yes. 
 
 As far as you know, was he present when Moriarty 
 spoke ? — My recollection is that he was ; but I would 
 not be positive. 
 
 you have told Sir C. Russell that in the period 
 from December 4, 1880, to July, 1886, there were 
 some 20 cases of sham outrages in your district ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Was any person hurt in connexion with any one of 
 those sham outrages ? — No one. 
 
 Of course, in connexion with many of the other out- 
 rages which you have mentioned persons were in- 
 jured ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you do your very best to discover whether the 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 S99 
 
 outrages ' that came before your notice were real or 
 sham ? — Yes, in every case every possible inquiry was 
 made. 
 
 Was such information as you obtained placed before 
 the Inspector-General ? — Yes. 
 
 Were the papers ever returned to you for further 
 inquiry ? — Yes, frequently. 
 
 What do you say is the motive of a sham outrage ? 
 — In some cases the motive was the same as in the 
 case of Leonard, whose house was fired into. I believe 
 that was done with a view of giving him an excuse for 
 not paying his rent. 
 
 Was any successful claim for compensation ever made 
 In connexion with these sham outrages ? — Oh, no. 
 
 To your knowledge has any case been reported so as 
 to appear in the return as a real outrage when it was 
 a sham outrage ? — No. An outrage was first reported, 
 and then the district inspector had to wait to see 
 whether it was a real outrage or not. 
 
 The Parliamentary return would be a return of real 
 and not sham outrages ? — Yes. 
 
 Has every care been taken to return only real out- 
 rages ? — Only real outrages. 
 
 My learned friend has pointed out that in all this 
 list of outrages, amounting to hundreds, about* two 
 were sham outrages. Was it your intention to place 
 before the Court the real outrages only ?— It was. 
 
 My learned friend has asked you why you did not 
 prove before the Court the sham outrages ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is not what I suggested at 
 all. 
 
 Sir H. James. — The contradiction is, I think, a 
 little too strong. I think my learned friend asked, 
 " Why did you not tell the Court to-day about 
 these sham outrages ?" Was it your desire to give the 
 real outrages only ? — Yes. 
 
 The claims for compensation came before the Road 
 Sessions first, I believe ?— Yes. 
 
 There is a sworn information ? — Yes, three days after 
 the injury has been committed. 
 
 From the Presentment Sessions the olaim goes to the 
 grand jury ? — Yes. 
 
 Can the ratepayers appear to dispute the payment 
 of compensation ? — At the Presentment Sessions rate- 
 payers may move that the sum asked for be reduced. 
 The ratepayers are invariably represented by a lawyer 
 whenever there is any doubt as to a case, and wit- 
 nesses are called and cross-examined. The police are 
 called sometimes as witnesses. There was one case in 
 which compensation was given for an outrage which 
 was not malicious, but accidental. 
 
 In all your experience is that the only case you know 1 
 i— It is the only one that I remember. 
 
 My learned friends have asked you whether you 
 knew of any raids for arms before 1880. The raids 
 for arms since 1880, as I understand, have been raids 
 for arms at night ? — Yes. At the time of the Fenian 
 rising the raids which have been referred to occurred, 
 as far as I know, in daylight. The raid at Mallow Bar- 
 racks, I believe, was at night, but that was simply a lar- 
 
 ceny of arms. They were taken by stealth. There was 
 no raid by force as in the recent cases. The raid at 
 Cork could not be classed as a moonlight outrage. 
 
 You have said that during the whole of this timo 
 you have known only of one man asking for police 
 protection without cause ? — Only in one case, and the 
 man only got protection for two nighfco. We have had 
 many applications with good cause. 
 
 At this point Mr. Lockwood made some observation 
 which was audible only to those sitting near him. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I wish my friend would not in- 
 terrupt. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I did not wish to annoy my friend. 
 I did but suggest to him that he was going over a 
 great deal of ground that had been gone over before. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I object to this constant inter- 
 ruption. 
 
 Mr. LOCEWOOD. — I do not think that that is really 
 justified. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I do not know if my learned friend 
 refers to me. I have hardly made a remark to hira 
 durine the whole case. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood.— I did not intend to annoy my 
 learned friend ; but it did occur to me that we were 
 going over trodden ground, and I thought that my 
 learned friend would take a hint. 
 
 SIR H. James. — I do not care what my learned 
 friend says. I put a question to the witness which had 
 not been put before, and upon that my learned friend 
 made an observation to which I object. (To witness.) 
 Were applications made to you for police protection, 
 and were they well-founded ? — Yes. 
 
 Without such police protection do you think there 
 would have been injury to the applicants ? — I do. 
 
 Sir C. Russell asked you about Irwin having taken 
 down your evidence. I believe you and Irwin have 
 been living together ? — Yes ; at Castleisland and hero 
 in London at the hotel. He married a relative of 
 mine. 
 
 Did you ask him to take down your evidence ? — I 
 did, and I gave it to Mr. Soames. 
 
 Shortly after December 4, 1880, when you went to 
 Castleisland, was the force of police increased ? — Yes. 
 It was increased almost monthly from 1880 to 1882. 
 In 1882 the force was at its largest. 
 
 Mr. REID. — We did not ask a question about this in 
 cross-examination. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I beg your pardon. Sir Charles 
 Russell asked as to the extension of the district and 
 the extension of the police force. 
 
 The President. — Yes, I have a recollection of that. 
 
 fclB H. James. — You went there on December 4, 
 1880. How soon afterwards was the police force in- 
 creased ? 
 
 Mr. Reid.— I object to this ; not a word was said 
 in cross-examination about the increase of the police. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My learned friend suggested that 
 the district had to be reformed in consequence of the 
 increase of the police force 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
400 
 
 The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 The President. — I do not exactly see the bearing of 
 this. 
 
 Sib H. James. — I wish to prove that there was an 
 increase of the police force, and the reason will 
 appear afterwards. 
 
 The President.— Yes ; I will allow you to do 
 that. 
 
 Sir H. JAMES. — What rendered necessary this 
 increase of the police ? — The number of outrages that 
 occurred in the district. 
 
 You do not of your own knowledge know the number 
 of outrages before December, 1880 ? — No. 
 
 But after you went to Castleisland did the outrages 
 increase ? — Yes. 
 
 Outrages of the character which you have described 
 to-day ? — Yes. 
 
 Eeal outrages ? — Yes. 
 
 You gave Sir Charles Eussell the names of particular 
 Land League branches. Did you give him the names 
 of the branches in your own district ? — In the 
 district of Castleisland after it became a district. 
 First it formed a portion of the Tralee district, but on 
 the 14th of December, 1880, in consequence of the 
 state of the district, it was made a district inspector's 
 station, and took in some parts of Listowel and 
 Tralee. In the larger district there were more Land 
 League branches. 
 
 When was the Firies branch first established ? — I do 
 not know. 
 
 You have spoken of the suppression of the Land 
 League in October, 18S1. Where did the Ladies' Land 
 League meet ? — In Castleisland, at the house of a man 
 named Timothy Horan. 
 
 Do you know who was the secretary ? — I think it 
 was Mrs. Sullivan. 
 
 Is Timothy Horan the same Timothy Horan who was 
 secretary of the Land League ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, when the National League came into exist- 
 ence, did you see people attending its meetings ? — 
 ITes. 
 
 Were they or were they not the same people who 
 attended the Land League meetings ?— The same'; they 
 met in a different house, but they were the same 
 people. 
 
 You were pressed about certain people who were 
 arrested. Was Kelly arrested ? — Yes, I think so. 
 
 Who was he ? — He was president of the League. 
 
 Did he continue, or was he suspended ? — I am not 
 sure. 
 
 Now, as to these moonlighters. You know, of 
 course, that persons were arrested and punished for 
 iifferent crimes. To your knowledge, were any of 
 these persons members of the Land League ? — I believe 
 they were. I saw them attending meetings. I could 
 not say whether they were members of the League. I 
 went into a National League meeting one day and I 
 was ordered out. 
 
 Do you know a man named Crowley ? — Yes ; I believe 
 tie was secretary of the Scartaglin League. 
 
 Was he arrested ? — I believe so, but I was away. 
 
 Did most of the people in the neighbourhood belong 
 to the Land League ? — They did. 
 
 Farmers and farmers' sons ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you have to make inquiry from time to time as 
 to crime being committed, so as to endeavour to 
 detect the criminals ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you ever obtain information or assistance in the 
 neighbourhood about the commission of crime ? — No. 
 
 Did you ever receive any assistance ? — Iu very few. 
 instances. Carker was one instance in which we got 
 assistance from the people who had been attacked. 
 
 I am speaking of people who had not been attacked } 
 did you ever get assistance ? — No. 
 
 When you were trying to obtain information or assist- 
 ance from those persons you mentioned as Land Leaguers 
 did you receive any ? — No. Sometimes I got hints 
 which might have been useful if they had been given 
 in time, but in very few cases did I get any informa- 
 tion at all. 
 
 Even when applying to the persons who had been the 
 subject of these outrages could you obtain much in- 
 formation ? — No, in many cases they said that even if 
 they had known they would not tell me. I believe it 
 would have been worth their lives to have told me. 
 
 You were asked whether you had ever reported any 
 persons belonging to secret societies. Could you 
 obtain positive proof of people belonging to secret 
 societies ? — No. 
 
 Or any proof of their having committed the crime!) 
 you attributed to secret societies ? — No. 
 
 On the 17th of February, 1881, the house of William 
 Saunders was visited by an armed party ?— Yes. 
 
 I think there was a trial on account of this ? — Yes, 
 at Tralee. Miss Saunders was examined and cross- 
 examined as a witness. One of the men, Maclauchlan, 
 was convicted and sentenced to 10 years' penal servi- 
 tude. 
 
 Was he or was he not a Land Leaguer? — I believe ha 
 was. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — One question ; do you know of your 
 own knowledge whether he was or not ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 What is your ground for believing that he was ?— 
 Nearly every man like him in the district was once. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 And that is your ground for saying that he was one ? 
 — I also judged from his associates. 
 
 The President.— I would ask you,Mr. Eeid, whether 
 there are any means of ascertaining the names of members 
 of the League iu that district ? 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — I will try to supply your Lordship with 
 the information. I asked the question of the witness 
 because I was given to understand that this man was 
 not a member of the League. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biggar.— Witness says he 
 has seen persons belonging to the Land League at the 
 meetings of the National League ; I wish to ask him 
 whether he means to draw a distinction between large 
 public meetings and meetings of the executive or the 
 committee in private houses ? — I saw them attend both. 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23, 1888. 
 
 401 
 
 In every case ? — I do not quite understand the ques- 
 tion. I have seen nearly all the men whom I have 
 Been at public meetings at other meetings also. 
 
 Do you mean to swear that all the people you have 
 seen at open-air meetings you have also seen at the 
 meetings of the executive ? — No, I do not. I mean the 
 parties I have referred to as reputed members of the 
 League. 
 
 SlK H. JAMES. — My Lords, there is a witness from 
 Castleisland who has been telegraphed for to Ireland, 
 and it will cause him great inconvenience if he* is 
 kept from returning. Perhaps your Lordships will 
 allow us to interpose him ? 
 
 The President having signified his assent, 
 
 John Teahan was next called and examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson.— Witness said, — I am a farmer, hotel pro- 
 prietor, and extensive cattle dealer in Tralee, county 
 Kerry. The Land Corporation in 1886 took lauds from 
 which tenants had been evicted. Thomas Hurley was 
 employed by the Land Corporation. I was a member 
 of the Land League. In 1886 I bought cattle from 
 Hurley. I had sold to him but not bought. He was 
 buying for the Land Corporation. I suppose this was 
 in 1886. Up to the time of the sale to Hurley I was 
 on the best of terms with my neighbours. I remember 
 receiving a letter from a person connected with the 
 League at Tralee calling upon me to attend a meeting. 
 I have not got the letter, I tore it up.- I attended the 
 meeting. 
 
 Did you see afterwards a report of what took place 
 at the meeting, in the Kerry Sentinel ? — I paid no atten- 
 tion to it, because it never did me any harm. I at- 
 tended the meeting. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then read an extract from the Kerry 
 Sentinel of June 15, 1886, which was as follows : — 
 " Irish National League. — Tralee Branch. 
 
 " A full meeting of the committee was held on Sun- 
 day, when several cases of importance were brought 
 forward for discussion. Charges were brought by some 
 members against others of dealing in cattle with the 
 Land Corporation- and certain obnoxious landlords in 
 the district, which were adjourned till next Sunday in 
 order to give the secretary au opportunity of com- 
 municating with one of the neighbouring branches for 
 the purpose of obtaining some necessary information 
 in connexion with the matter. A letter was read from 
 John Teahan, cattle dealer and hotel proprietor, ex- 
 pressing regret for his hasty language before the com- 
 mittee at the proceedings of the meeting and under- 
 taking not to deal with the Land Corporation in 
 future. The committee promised Mr. Teahan to re- 
 commend his letter to the favour of the general meet- 
 ing on Sunday next. Letters of apology were read 
 from John White and William Brick for supplying cars 
 to the police to assist at evictions. Their letters were 
 also promised to be favourably considered." 
 
 Did you write to the Land League ? — I am sure I 
 did ; but I have no recollection of it. (Laughter.) 
 
 Had you on a previous occasion attended a meeting 
 reported on the 15th of June ? — Somebody charged me 
 with selling. I said when I took my cattle to a fair 
 I did not care who bought them. I wanted to sell 
 
 them to the best buyer, and I expressed my defiance 
 and walked out. That was the hasty language. 
 
 In this letter did you express your regret for the 
 hasty language ? — I do not know, Sir ; perhaps I did. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 After that did you come before another "meeting ?— « 
 Witness (rapidly).— I did not see any respectable buyer 
 in that meeting or any good man in that room who 
 could do any good for his country or anybody else. 
 
 Did you go before another branch in addition to the 
 Tralee branch ? Did you not go before the Newtown- 
 sandes branch ? — No. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then read an extract from the Kerry 
 Sentinel of June 18, 1886, which was as follows : — 
 
 " Newtownsandes Branch. — The usual fortnightly 
 meeting of the above branch was held on Sunday last, 
 Mr. John Nolan, P. L. G., presiding. The following 
 resolution was carried : — ' That our best thanks are 
 due to the Tralee branch for the timely steps they 
 have taken in denouncing the car owners there who 
 recently lent their cars for evictions here ; also those 
 cattle dealers who buy from the Land Corporation.' " 
 
 Did you go before the Tralee branch in June ? — I 
 think I did. I am not certain if I did. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson next read a report from the Kerry 
 Sentinel of June 29, 1886, which was as follows : — 
 
 " Tralee Branch. — A full meeting of the committee wa4 
 held on Sunday, Mr. Fitzgerald, V. P., in the chair. 
 Others present — William Flynn, Jeremiah Leahy (hon. 
 sees.), T. Kiordan, treasurer, Jeremiah M'Mahon," and 
 others. " Several charges and minor charges between 
 members of the League were discussed, and after the 
 committee devoting a considerable time towards in- 
 vestigation of the statements of both sides, they found 
 that nothing conclusive was proved by either party for 
 the League to take action on. Mr. John Teahan, the 
 cattle dealer and hotel proprietor, attended on the 
 invitation of the secretary to support letters of 
 apology he had sent forward for dealing with Thomas 
 Hurley and the principal representatives of the Land 
 Corporation. The corresponding secretary, Mr. Leahy, 
 stated that in consequence of inquiries made by the 
 Dingle branch of the League on Friday he had given 
 a letter to Mr. Teahan, to the effect that having given 
 a satisfactory explanation to the Tralee branch, he 
 would be at liberty to buy and sell cattle to all parties 
 except the Land Corporation. On receiving the letter, 
 Mr. Teahan said that as Dingle was always his strong* 
 hold, and having numerous friends and relatives there, 
 he would test their feelings before he produced the 
 letter from the secretary of the Tralee League. Con- 
 sequently he went to buy as usual, but up to the hour 
 of 11 p.m. he never succeeded in obtaining one soli- 
 tary beast. Mr. Leahy. — Tell me, Mr. Teahan, did not 
 I give you the letter mentioned on the understand- 
 ing that you should hand it to Mr. Michael 
 Murphy or Mr. Dissett before you attempted to buy 
 any cattle ? Mr. Teahan. — Certainly, Sir ; but I 
 thought I could buy as usual in consequence of my 
 large connexions in Dingle. Mr. Fitzgerald. — But, Mr. 
 Teahan, you found that the National League was 
 stronger iu Dingle than all those fancied friends and con« 
 nexions ? Mr. Teahan. — I did. I asked one man the 
 price of a beast barely worth £5. He asked me £15. 
 Mr. Leahy. — I wish to make it known to you, Mr. 
 
 John Teahan. 
 
402 
 
 The Special Commission, November 23, 18SS. 
 
 Teahan, that I have received a letter from Mr. 
 Murphy, secretary of the Dingle branch, informing me 
 that you treated them with marked discourtesy and in- 
 solence, and had I known that such would occur you 
 would never have got a letter from me to your advant- 
 age, for if one single branch of the League in Kerry is 
 insulted, the insult applies to the whole collectively. 
 Mr. Teahan. — Excuse me, gentlemen, I was out of 
 temper in consequence of a car of mine having re- 
 turned from Dingle the previous day without a com- 
 mercial traveller, Mr. Bellihan, who was conveyed 
 from my hotel, but who could get no order in any 
 business house in Dingle or receive a penny of any 
 debt due to him until he promised to dismiss my car, 
 and his employers, Messrs. M'Carthy and Sons, Cork, 
 were telegraphed to and sent orders to dismiss my car. 
 I thought, gentlemen, at that time that I had received 
 my pardon, and therefore lost my temper. I now 
 apologize for any hasty expression I may have used. 
 Mr. William Flynn (financial secretary). — Well, Mr. 
 Teahan, I think you have approached the League 
 in as good a spirit as could have been required, and as 
 there appears to be no objection, I can ask for your 
 subscription (laughter) which was returned to you some 
 time ago, and which was not one-fourth of your 
 liability to the League, and a substantial sum in addi- 
 tion, so as to come on a footing with the others of an 
 equal valuation. Mr. Teahan. — How much ? Mr. 
 Flynn. — £1, the same as Mr. Daw6on and Mr. John 
 Lamb paid. Mr. Teahan, — You are very hard on me. 
 Mr. Flynn. — Not half so hard od you as the Dingle 
 man who asked you a big price for the cow. Mr. 
 Leahy. — Don't be talking of hard terms, Mr. Teahan ; 
 perhaps there is not another secretary of the National 
 League in Ireland who would give you such a letter 
 to the Dingle branch as I did. Mr. Teahan. — I am very 
 thankful ; so you did. Mr. Teahan was then leaving 
 the room, when Mr. Michael Quinlan appeared and 
 charged Mr. Teahan with giving accommodation to the 
 horses and cars of Miss Lucy Thompson, Thomas 
 Hurley, and other members of the Land Corporation. 
 Mr. Teahan admitted the fact, and pleaded as an 
 excuse that he held a hotel licence, and was, there- 
 fore, bound to give accommodation to all whom he 
 could entertain. The President said it was no such 
 thing. A man's house was his castle, and he could 
 entertain or refuse whomsoever he liked if he con- 
 sidered it would affect his business. Mr. Teahan had 
 given an undertaking to have no dealing in future 
 with the Land Corporation, and how could he, in the 
 face of that undertaking, give accommodation to the 
 mainspring of the corporation — Miss Lucy Thompson 
 and her henchman, Tom Hurley ? After a short discus- 
 sion, Mr. Teahan agreed not to grant those parties 
 any accommodation in future." 
 
 Is that an actual report of What went on ? — It is, 
 mostly every word. 
 
 Did you go before the Dingle branch ? — I did. I 
 did not think it was the League that boycotted me. I 
 think it was entirely another class of men — the deal- 
 ing men. 
 
 You did not go before the dealing men ? — No. 
 
 You went before the League that you say did not 
 do it ? — The dealing men, of course, were members, I 
 suppose. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then read another extract from the 
 Kerry Sentinel of July 2, 1886. It was :— 
 
 " Dingle Branch. — A large meeting of the branch was 
 
 held on Sunday last, the Rev. C. Scully, C.C., presi- 
 dent, in the chair. All the officers and most members 
 of the committee were present. The minutes of the 
 last meeting were first read and signed. The secretary 
 then informed the whole house that he had been in 
 communication with Mr. Leahy, hon. sec. of the 
 Tralee branch, during the previous week respecting 
 the visits of Teahan and Savage, jun., to the town in 
 connexion with the fair. Both being obnoxious, the 
 members highly approved of the steps taken and as 
 strongly condemned the disgraceful conduct of Teahan 
 and Savage. The former foolishly imagined that 
 Dingle was ' behind the age,' and that nature intended 
 him to be its enlighteuer ; but perhaps he learnt on 
 the occasion of his last memorable visit that Dingle 
 possesses within its bosom a treasure — true patriotism 
 — which neither his Australian nor Land Corporation 
 money can ever purchase. Savage, too, finds that 
 though he may have money and intend to ' buy cattle 
 for his father until death,' he will not get them for 
 love or money for the Land Corporation. 
 
 " A letter was read from the Tralee branch, con- 
 gratulating the Dingle branch for its activity, &c, 
 under all the circumstances. 
 
 " Mr. T. Harrington also wrote that any acts of 
 grabbing or the like which occurred in 1879 cannot 
 be entertained by any branch." 
 
 In consequence of these proceedings, did you see 
 Miss Thompson and refuse to give her accommodation ? 
 — Yes, in this way. I said, — " Miss Thompson, you 
 will be good enough to drive your carriage into the 
 club yard for a few days until I settle with these fel- 
 lows," and she drove away. I could not say whether 
 " these fellows " were members of the Land League. 
 I kept a public hotel and livery stable yard. 
 
 Did you enter into negotiations for the purchase of 
 the Castle farm which belonged to Mr. Curtin, who 
 had been shot ?— Yes, I did. I offered £1,000 for it. 
 I think that Was some time last spring. 
 
 The spring of the present year ? — Yes, some time in 
 March or April last. 
 
 Did you receive any threatening letters ?— 
 Yes. I received five. I have not got them here. 
 
 Were any notices posted up in reference to you ? — 
 Not that I am aware of. When I took the farm I went 
 into the police hut. The police in charge were having 
 their dinner, and I said, " Within a week I will giv6 
 you your discharge." 
 
 ■ In oonsequence of these threatening letters, did you 
 retire from the bargain ? — Yes, I wrote to Mrs. Curtin 
 that I would have nothing at all to do with it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reitj. — You were boycotted, 
 I believe, at one time ? — Well, I do not call it boy« 
 cotting. I was able to get through. (Laughter.) 
 
 I am very glad to hear it ; but what complaint do 
 you make ? — I make no complaint. 
 
 Yon were a member of the Land League ?— I was. If 
 they wanted money now I would give it to them. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 You dealt with the Land Corporation ?— Yes. It is 
 very seldom in a week that I do not buy some 
 
 John Teahan. 
 
The Special Commission, November 23 and 27, 1888. 
 
 403 
 
 hundreds of head of cattle and sell. I. daresay I am 
 losing £100 by standing in this chair. (Laughter.). 
 
 I hope we shall not keep you very long, then, 
 and that you will soon get back to your money-making. 
 (Laughter.) Was it in consequence of your dealings 
 with the Land Corporation that you were boy6otfced or 
 partially boycotted ?— It was, Sir. I do not require 
 any money. I have plenty of money of my own. (The 
 witness displayed several notes on the desk.); These 
 are good bank notes. (Laughter.) 
 
 This Land Corporation is very unpopular in that 
 part of the country? — I do not know. I hold on to 
 Mr. Hussey. He is a good man. (Laughter.): You: 
 would hardly notice any difference abputthem. 
 
 They are all on very good terms ? — Yes, I can sell 
 cattle to them now and hear nothing about it. I go 
 into the fairs in Kerry and buy 300 cattle and 200 
 sheep in one day. (Laughter.) 
 
 I do not care to know all about that. Do you 
 say you were boycotted because of your dealings with 
 the Land Corporation ? — Well, I may say it was because 
 I was buying so much more cattle. Some days I drive 
 a tandem down with a good pair of horses, and they do 
 not like it. (Laughter.) 
 
 So that, in point of fact, you think the reason of your 
 being boycotted was jealousy of your superiorposition ? 
 — Yes ; people annoyed me about my hotel and about 
 buying so many more cattle than they did. 
 
 Then you say that was the reason ? — I think so. If 
 I swore anything that is what I would swear here. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 You were boycotted. Now let us understand who it 
 was that boycotted you. Was it your rivals in trade 
 that boycotted you ? — I say so. My trap was overturned 
 in a ditch about four or six miles from home. 
 
 Then the boycotting was dons out of spite ? — I have 
 qo doubt it was. 
 
 So far as boycotting is concerned, do you say that the 
 National League had nothing to do with it P — I could 
 not say that. The League was there, and I was a 
 member of it. 
 
 There was one " boy," you say, in the League who 
 had a grudge against you. Had he any reason for that ? 
 — I do not know. He is a man of straw, and I am a 
 man of means. (Laughter.) 
 
 I am glad to hear of your prosperity .—There are a 
 few blackguards there who don't pay a shilling to the 
 rates, and it would do no harm if they were put into 
 gaol. (Laughter.) 
 
 Is it not the fact that the National League 
 comprises nearly all the respectable people in 
 the district ? — There are a good many respect- 
 able men I know who do not belong to it, 
 and I daresay there are a good many respectable 
 men who do belong to it. I have never been there 
 since they took my subscription. (Laughter.) 
 
 He-examined by Sie H. James. — You say you lost 
 £100 by being here to-day ?— Yes. 
 
 Is that from your dealings in Kerry ? — Yes. 
 
 Are your dealings very great with the people in 
 
 Kerry ? — I have made a good deal of my money at 
 Kimberley, in South Africa, but I have made a good 
 use of it since. 
 
 Who is Flynn who addressed you at the Land League 
 meeting ?— He is a mau I would not give you a half- 
 penny a year for. (Laughter.) 
 
 Yes, but who is Flynh ? — Oh ! do not talk to me of 
 him. (Laughter.) He is dead now. 
 
 He was secretary of the League, was he not ? — I do 
 not know that he was. 
 
 Was he a rival of yours in trade ? — No. 
 
 Was he jealous of you ? — Not that I know of. He 
 was a good spouter. He could talk glibly. (Laughter.) 
 
 Who was Mr. Leahy, the gentleman who gave you 
 the letter ? — He was a farmer and had a shop in 
 Tralee. 
 
 What was he in the League ? — I believe he was 
 secretary. I tell you I was half cracked when I was 
 talking to them. (Laughter.) I would not look at 
 their letter. 
 
 You are all right now ? — Oh ! yes, I am. (Laughter.) 
 
 You gave the League £1 ? — I did. 
 
 Mr. Ebid. — My Lords, may I say this ? In the third 
 rule of the League it is stated, " The annual subscrip- 
 tion shall be at the rate of Is. for every £5 valuation 
 and in no case shall be less than Is. or more than £1." 
 
 The Court then adjourned until Tuesday next. 
 
 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27- 
 The Special Commission held their 20th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Eoyal Courts of Justice. 
 The Commissioners having taken their seats, 
 Sir C. Russell said, — I have an application to make 
 to your Lordships with reference to the discovery of 
 documents, but, my friend Sir H. James concurring, I 
 should prefer that it should stand over till after 
 luncheon, when the Attorney-General can be present. 
 The examination of witnesses called on behalf of 
 The Times was continued. 
 
 Sergeant John Gilhooly, Eoyal Irish Constabulary, 
 examined by Sik H. James, said, — I entered the 
 service in May, 1874, and I was first stationed at 
 Castleisland in March, 1875. I remained there in the 
 first instance till the beginning of December, 1875, 
 and I was then removed to another station in the same 
 county. The latter place is about 36 or 37 miles from 
 Castleisland. About 14 months afterwards, in the 
 beginning of ; the spring ol 1877, I returned to Castle- 
 island. From that time to the present, with the 
 exception of four months in 1885, I have remained at 
 Castleisland. When I first went there Castleisland 
 was only a sub-district. The police force there 
 consisted of a head constable, an acting sergeant, and 
 five constables. That force was then found sufficient 
 for the district. , When the head constable went out on 
 pension it was made a sergeant's station — that is, a 
 lower class of station as regards numbers than a head 
 constable's station. 
 
 John Teahan. 
 
 Sergeant John Gilhooly. 
 
404 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 Was the force at any time increased ? — Yes, in the 
 latter part of 1879 and 1880. 
 
 Between that and 1880 was there an increase or re- 
 daction, or did the force remain the same ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Has that any bearing, my lords, 
 whether there was an increase in the police ? 
 
 Sir H. James.— I think it has. 
 
 The President.— It seems to me that it has a 
 remote bearing on the subject in hand. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— We are getting proof of the same 
 thing over and over again, entailing enormous expense 
 on both parties. Let us have the figures as to the 
 increase of the police, subject to their being checked 
 by us. Let us now get to something that is material. 
 
 Mr. Keid. — This was gone into on the last day, 
 when I objected. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I am glad to accept any suggestion 
 from my friends, even as to the course of conduct of 
 the case, but my friends will forgive me if I say there 
 has been no evidence whatever given as to the 
 increase of the police force since 1880, the import- 
 ant period we are now dealing with. We propose to 
 put in evidence the increase in the police force in 
 18S0, which, we say, shows that there was an increase 
 of crime then. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — There is no more doubt that your 
 Lordships are sitting on that bench than that an in- 
 crease of crime occurred in that year. It is on record 
 —it appears from the Parliamentary returns.' Let the 
 official statements of the increase of the police force 
 ho put in. If you can furnish us with it, we 
 will accept it, subject to any questions we may desire 
 to raise. 
 
 Sir H. James. — If my friend would allow me, the 
 proof could have been given in half the time that he 
 is occupying in arguing it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Excuse me, the decision rests with 
 their Lordships. My learned friend appears to be 
 under the impression that he has the decision. 
 
 The President. — I am waiting until I can get the 
 opportunity of making a suggestion. (A laugh.) 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I hope your Lordship does not 
 intend to convey that I am standing in the way of a 
 decision. 
 
 The President.— Oh, no. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I only desire to stand in the way 
 long enough to protest against what we think a gross 
 waste of time, which is causing enormous expense. 
 
 The President. — I think the evidence is relevant in 
 the form in which Sir H. James last put it — Was it 
 necessary to have an increase in the police force in 
 that year ? I do not think that the particular numbers 
 are relevant. 
 
 Examination continued "by Sir H. James. — The 
 police, you say, remained the same from 1876 to 1880. 
 What took place in 1880 ? — Speeches were made in 
 that year. 
 
 Yes, but what sort of an increase was made in the 
 police ? — In 1880 it became a head constable's station 
 
 once more, and the force was increased to about 25 
 men. 
 
 Has there been a further increase since 1880 ? — It 
 has been nearly doubled. 
 
 To what number has the force there had to be in- 
 creased ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I understood your Lordships to 
 rule against that. 
 
 The President. — I do not think it necessary to 
 enter into details. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My learned friend says he will 
 accept any expression of opinion from the Bench, and 
 then he goes steadily on as if no opinion had been 
 expressed at all. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Then I will avoid all details. 
 
 The President.— I think it is quite sufficient to 
 prove that there was a further increase in the police, 
 which, you say, was in consequence of the increase of 
 crime in the district. 
 
 Examination continued.— We had no agrarian crimes, 
 to my knowledge, before 1880. There were no moon- 
 lighters ; there were some petty outrages, not agrarian 
 outrages. From 1878 to 1879 there were small outrages, 
 such as knocking down cocks of hay. 
 
 Could you find that they were agrarian outrages ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Was it his place to inquire ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — Did you take part in the inquiry ?— 
 I did, Sir. 
 
 Do you recollect speeches being made in 1880 ? — I do, 
 Sir. 
 
 Do you recollect one in October, 1880 ? — I do, Sir. 
 
 When do yon say the Land League was established in 
 Castleisland ? — I think it was in 1880. 
 
 After the Land League was established did you 
 observe any change in the district ? — A great change. 
 Crime began to get very prevalent in it. 
 
 Did that result in quite a different state of things to 
 what had existed before ? — Quite different. After 1880 
 moonlighters were abroad. 
 
 Do you recollect one case I call your attention to :— 
 Four men convicted in Cork in 1885 ? — I do, Sir. 
 
 Who were these four men ? — Their names were 
 Crowley, Fitzgerald, Dawley, and Corran. 
 
 What were these men convicted of ? — They attacked 
 the two police-stations and took arms from them. They 
 were moonlighting, and were sentenced to seven years' 
 penal servitude. These men were quite well known 
 to me. One of them, Crowley, was the reputed secre. 
 tary of the branch of the Kational League started 
 there — the Scartaglin branch. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Reputed secretary. 
 
 Sir H. James.— My Lords, my friend Mr. Atkinson 
 says that in evidence before your Lordships this man's 
 name is mentioned in United Ireland, that being before 
 your Lordships, as being the secretary. I will give 
 your Lordships the reference very shortly. 
 
 Witness. — The other three men were known to me. 
 I have seen them attending meetings in connexion with 
 the Land League and entering Land League rooms. 
 
 Sergeant John Gilhooly. 
 
The Special Commission, November 27, 1888, 
 
 405 
 
 The President. — Were they public meetings or 
 meetings of the Land League ?— Both, my Lords. 
 
 Sir H, James. — That is as to three of the men P — 
 Yes, Sir. 
 
 Where have you seen them so attend — in Castleisland ? 
 —At meetings where the Land League was held at 
 Scartaglin. 
 
 Sir C. Russell, in cross-examination. — Do you keep 
 an outrage-book at your headquarters ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— My Lords, I call for it for 1879 
 and 1880. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lords, this is a book which is 
 not rightly called an outrage-book. It is a very great 
 deal more ; it is a book containing letters of a con- 
 fidential nature in respect to certain persons in the 
 district, and those who have charge of the book state 
 that in the interests of the public service and also of 
 individuals, in their view it is impossible that that, 
 book should be produced. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, my learned friend is 
 rather straining the matter. The name " outrage- 
 book " is not my name, it is the official name printed 
 upon the back of the book itself. We have had one of 
 the books produced, and we derived a great deal, as 
 we conceive, of valuable information from this book, 
 and I affirm that there is not in the book— every page 
 of which I turned over — one single entry which bears 
 out the statement of my learned friend. 
 
 The President. — I understand this is another book. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am aware, my Lords ; but it is 
 another book of the same class. I call for the books 
 for 1880 and 1879. The promise was made to me that 
 they would be produced to me. Mr. Soames had pos- 
 session of them. 
 
 Mr. Soames. — No, no. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — At all events he undertook that 
 they should be forthcoming on this (Tuesday) morning. 
 Sir H. James used this statement : — " Yes, it will be 
 here on Tuesday morning ; it has been sent for." Now 
 I am not content to take this statement which my 
 learned friend has made, of course upon instructions, 
 that it is against the interest of the public service that 
 that book should be seen. T say that those who are 
 getting up the case and assisting in getting up the case 
 for The Times have had access to that book, and I shall 
 claim to have the same access to it. I am not saying that 
 Mr. Soames has seen it ; but I say that those who are 
 assisting in get'ting up this case have had access to it. 
 The book of 1880 has been produced in Court and read 
 by me, and produced by my request, and, my Lords, I 
 certainly say with great deference, as far as I can 
 respectfully do so, I shall insist that these books, or 
 all of them, be produced. If your Lordships think it 
 ri^ht that your Lordships should examine this book 
 Brst, I shall certainly make no objection ; but I shall 
 call for this and every other like book. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I submit that it would be nothing short 
 of a breach of faith if these books were not produced. 
 Mr. Huggins was called, and he spoke of two classes 
 of books— of the outrage-book, containing the record of 
 
 outrages, and the other a book which contained other 
 particulars in regard to outrages. Now your Lordships 
 will recollect that the ruling was that the police- 
 constables might prove matters reported to them 
 entered in that book, and therefore Mr. Huggins 
 was allowed to give evidence on the faith of the 
 other book being produced, and it was upon the 
 faith of that other book being produced that he 
 was allowed to go on and give evidence upon mat- 
 ters which did not appear in the first outrage-book. 
 Upon that Sir H. James gave an undertaking that 
 this book should be produced, and said that it had 
 been sent for and would be produced on Tuesday 
 morning. I submit that if we are not entitled to see 
 those books which the other side have seen, we have 
 not got a proper opportunity of meeting the case 
 properly. 
 
 Sir H. James.— I think my learned friend Sir 0. 
 Russell is under a misapprehension. As far as that 
 class of book is concerned which was produced on 
 Friday, no objection is made at all. But it was dis- 
 tinctly stated that there was another book which was 
 not merely a sequel to it but of another class. Mr. 
 Reid is perfectly right in what he says, in as far as 
 it is said that we were anxious that that book should 
 be produced and seen. But Sir C. Russell is misin- 
 formed when he says that any one who instructs me or 
 my friends has the slightest access to that book. 
 Neither Mr. Soames nor any one assisting him has the 
 slightest access to it or has had it in his possession. I 
 certainly thought that that book would be produced, 
 but it is not we who object ; it is a public official who 
 objects to its production on the ground that it is not to 
 the interests of the public service. This witness is 
 not the person, but the proper authorities in charge of 
 that book submit to your Lordships that it cannot be 
 produced. I regret that any words of mine as to the 
 production of the books should have made my learned 
 friend think that they were to be produced. I have no 
 power to produce them. I am speaking, not for my 
 clients, but for those who can say whether or not that 
 book can be properly produced. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My learned friend is under a mis- 
 apprehension. There are, as I understand, two classes 
 of book ; first the outrage-book, so labelled, as pro- 
 duced ou Friday ; and, secondly, a more confidential 
 book, and one which it would be against the public 
 interest to put in evidence. My question was as to 
 the first class of book — with reference to the production 
 of a book ejusdem generis with that produced on 
 Friday. 
 
 After consulting with his colleagues, 
 
 The President said,— There was a book— I am not 
 sure whether there was 'more than one, but at all 
 events there was one — called an outrage-book, and 
 after some discussion that was admitted in evidence. 
 There was a particular column concerning which dis- 
 cussion was carried further — a column, I think, headed 
 " Motives," but that also was admitted as a general 
 statement on the part of the police, made for the 
 
 Sergeant John Gilhooly. 
 
406 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27. 1888. 
 
 purpose of getting up criminal statistics. Then the 
 book which we are now considering did not contain any 
 such column as that of motives — that is at least my 
 recollection. But it turned out that there was another 
 book which it was supposed at the time contained some- 
 what similar information, and which was supposed to 
 supply, as I imagined, somewhat similar information 
 to that which was contained in the column " Motives." 
 It was certainly promised, as we understood— and I 
 quite understand the sense in which Sir H. James 
 opposes it, that so far as his clients are concerned 
 they have no objection to its production— that it should 
 be produced. No objection has come to its production 
 from the parties themselves, but some official has 
 raised an objection. Well, that objection must be 
 taken by the person who produces the book, and he 
 must give his reason. The sufficiency of it or not will 
 have to be determined by us. But I must say I think 
 it in the highest degree desirable that anything which 
 substantially was contained in that book called 
 " Outrages," including that which is entered under 
 the head of motives, ought to be produced, and 
 when that book is produced I should certainly think 
 that no objection could be taken to its production, and 
 I do not think that any objection will be taken. I 
 can, however, conceive that there may be some special 
 evidence — for example, concerning persons — which a 
 public functionary would think ought not to be dis- 
 closed, but if there are any such I think that Sir H. 
 James might look at them, and I hope it would not be 
 inconsistent with his position to show to Sir C. 
 Eussell, to Mr. Eeid, and those who assist him the 
 class of entries to which objection is taken ; and if it 
 should still be found impossible to come to any 
 arrangement, then we would very willingly look at 
 them ourselves. 
 
 SIR C. Russell. — Meanwhile I call for the outrage- 
 book, so endorsed. 
 
 Sir H. Jambs. — It may be convenient if I state 
 that the book is mentioned in Mr. Huggins's evidence, 
 question 16,741. 
 
 SIR C. Russell. — Your Lordships will observe that 
 in that answer Huggins was saying in effect that he 
 was giving his evidence from a book. 
 
 Mr. EEID. — And we admitted it on the hypothesis 
 that it was to be produced. 
 
 The President. — The other book ? Very well, I 
 hope I have sufficiently indicated our intentions. We 
 will get the book before us. 
 
 SIR C. Eussell. — Will your Lordships allow me to 
 clear this matter up 1 I would refer your Lordships 
 to question 16,254, a little earlier in my cross-ex- 
 amination : — 
 
 " I want to know, please, about this boon ; and I 
 wish to put this with a view to conveying it to my 
 Lords directly. This is a volume which is an official 
 volume, I presume ?— Yes, called the outrage-book. 
 " Furnished by the authorities ?— Yes. 
 " It is headed ' Outrage-book ' ?— Yes. 
 " And are all the outrages of every class, agrarian 
 
 and non-agrarian, recorded in it ? — Yes, every out- 
 rage that is reported is recorded in that book. 
 
 " That is what I mean, of course. Every outrage 
 reported is recorded in it, whether agrarian or non- 
 agrarian ? — Yes, that is, the particulars ; jilst the 
 name and so on, according to the headings in the 
 book." 
 
 The President. — Subject, of course, to any objec- 
 tion taken by an official, as much of these books must 
 be disclosed as is possible. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — This book, I understand, was not 
 objected to, my Lord. (To witness.) I call for the 
 outrage-book of your station for 1879-80 ? — I have not 
 got it here. 
 
 Then, my Lords, I must ask to be allowed to post- 
 pone my cross-examination of this witness. First of 
 all, let me make it clear what book I want. (To wit- 
 ness.) You were head constable at Castleisland ? — 
 No, I was sergeant. My superior officer at Castleisland 
 was Mr. Wright, District Inspector. 
 
 Was an outrage-book kept at your station ? — It was 
 not called an outrage-book. It was called " The Sub- 
 district Crime and Offences Eegister." 
 
 The same thing under another name. That is the 
 book I desire to see. My Lords, I ask leave to post- 
 pone my cross-examination. 
 
 Ee-examined by Sir H. James. — Take that book in 
 your hand (handing book to witness). Since the date 
 mentioned by my learned friend, September, 1880, was 
 that book kept at Castleisland ? — Yes, by the district 
 inspector. 
 
 Before that time was Castleisland a sub-district ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Where was the outrage-book of Castleisland offences 
 kept before ? — It was kept by the head constable in 
 charge at Castleisland. 
 
 Was there a similar book kept before 1880 ? — Not 
 similar to that. There was a book where all offences 
 are entered down. 
 
 This book shows only outrages committed P — That is 
 so. 
 
 What you call agrarian offences ? — Yes. 
 
 Not all offences ? — No. 
 
 Prior to that time a book was kept which showed 
 all offences ? — Yes. 
 
 The President (to witness). — By outrages do you 
 mean agrarian outrages t What is the distinction you 
 make between outrages and offences ? 
 
 Witness. — When I speak of offences I mean to in- 
 clude cases of drunkenness and other minor offences 
 and all prosecutions by the constabulary. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Picking pockets and such like 
 would be offences, but not outrages. Was any book 
 kept for the Tralee district ? — Yes, a book similar to 
 this was kept at Tralee previously. 
 
 And every outrage committed in the Castleisland sub- 
 district was registered at Tralee ?— Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— Let me have the book for 1879- 
 1880. 
 
 Sergeant John Gilhooly. 
 
The Special Commission, TsbvemBer 27, 18S8. 
 
 407 
 
 The farther cross-examination of the witness was 
 postponed. 
 
 William Davis, examined by Sir H. James, said, — 
 I am a district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabu- 
 lary. I was stationed at Castleisland from December 14, 
 1880, to May 15, 1887. I attended a certain meet- 
 ing of the Land League soon after I went to Castle- 
 island. I attended a meeting on December 30, 1880, 
 at Knocknagoshil. I attended a meeting at Castle- 
 island on March 13, 1881, a Land League meeting. 
 That meeting was not previously advertised. There 
 was a meeting at Brosna on May 29, 1881, of the 
 Ladies' Land League, and a Land League meeting at 
 Knocknabowl on June 5, 1881. There was also a 
 meeting at Farranfore on July 3, 1881. When I 
 arrived at Castleisland in December, 1880, there was 
 a branch of the Land League there. I know a person 
 named Patrick D. Kenny. He was president of the 
 branch of the Land League at Castleisland at that 
 time. I also know a person named Timothy Horan. 
 He was secretary of the branch. There was also a 
 branch of the Land League at Brosna. The branch at 
 Knocknagoshil was established in December, 1880. 
 
 With your Lordships' permission, I must follow out 
 one case — that of the murder of Mr. Herbert. (To 
 witness.) At the meeting that took place at Knockna- 
 goshil on June 5, 1881, did you hear Mr. Arthur Her- 
 bert's name mentioned ? — I did. 
 
 What was said about him ? 
 
 Sir C. Rubsell. — My Lords, I really must object 
 again. Are we to have this speech over again ? It 
 has already been read. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — It only came out in the 
 evidence of Huggins. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — No, my Lord, the speech was read 
 long ago. 
 
 MR. Justice A. L. Smith. — Do yon mean weeks 
 ago ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes, my Lord, it was read weeks 
 ago. 
 
 The President. — You are merely calling attention 
 to the fact. 
 
 Sib H. James.— I think I am right in bringing the 
 sequence of events before you. (To Sir C. Russell.) 
 Will you kindly give me the speech ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — It is the old Herbert speech. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I woald remind my learned friend that 
 he proved this spnech, and then proceeded to ask the 
 witness whether it was within his knowledge that 
 Mr. Herbert was murdered shortly afterwards. My 
 learned friend Mr. Lockwood said, " No, no, it was 
 nine months afterwards." That is perfectly and plainly 
 within my memory. 
 
 MR. Justice A. L. Smith. — It was proved and read 
 when one of the shorthand writers was in the box. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— Yes. 
 
 The President. — Perhaps you will be able to put 
 your hands on the speech, but I understand Sir Henry 
 James is not going into the details of the speech. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I only want to show the sequence of 
 
 events. (To witness.) What was said about Mr. Her- 
 bert at the meeting ?— He was referred to as a man 
 who had carried out an eviction in the neighbourhood 
 and levelled a house. 
 
 Was thi3 at Knocknagaushen ? — No, at Knocknabowl, 
 on June 6, 1881. 
 
 Did any outrages follow immediately after June 5 ? 
 — Several. 
 
 Was there a person in the neighbourhood of the 
 name Of Hugh Brosnan ? — There was. 
 
 At any time did Mr. Herbert show to you a letter 
 purporting to be signed by Timothy Horan ? — Yes, he 
 did. 
 
 Did you take a copy of that letter ? — I did. 
 
 When was it Mr. Herbert showed it to you ? — I can- 
 not give you the date, but the copy will give it you. 
 
 Did you take the copy the very day Mr. Herbert 
 showed you the letter ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you give the letter back to Mr. Herbert ? — I 
 did. He would not let me keep it. 
 
 Have you that copy you took with you ?— 
 No. I cannot tell you what has become of it. I 
 forwarded it in the usual way to the inspector. 
 After Mr. Herbert's death I applied to his mother.Mrs. 
 Herbert, for leave to examine his papers. With her 
 permission I searched among his papers for the original 
 of this letter and for other letters. His papers were 
 contained in several drawers. I could not find the 
 original letter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not offer any objection to a 
 copy of the letter being read, provided this witness 
 proves the handwriting of the original letter. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I am informed that the district 
 inspector, to whom the witness sent his copy of the 
 'letter, is unwell, and is not here to produce it. 
 
 The President. — Cannot you prove the handwriting 
 of the original letter ? 
 
 By Sir H. James. — Do you know Tim Horan's hand- 
 writing ? — I do. 
 
 Was the letter Mr. Herbert showed to you in Tim 
 Horan's handwriting 1 — I believe it was. 
 
 You did not know his handwriting very well at the 
 time, I believe, but from what you have learnt since 
 of his handwriting do you now believe that that letter 
 was in his handwriting ? — I have no doubt of it. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I understand that my learned friend 
 has no objection to the letter being read. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Subject, of course, to your pro- 
 ducing the original copy. 
 
 Sir H. James.— This is the letter. It is signed by 
 " Tim Horan, secretary." There is no date on the 
 letter, but its date is approximately fixed by its 
 contents :— 
 
 " Sir, — I am directed to call your attention to cer- 
 tain statements made against you at our last meeting 
 by Eugene Connor, with reference to his farm at 
 Barrankeal, as also by Breen Devise concerning the 
 farm at Gurnbeg. It was resolved at this meeting 
 that you be respectfully requested to attend at our 
 next meeting of the League, which will be held on 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
408 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 Sunday next, 2d January, 1881. Respectfully yours, 
 cm behalf of the committee, 
 
 " Timothy Horan, Secretary." 
 
 Do you know where the Barrankeal and Giirnbeg 
 farms are situated ? — I do. 
 
 Are they situated on Mr. Herbert's estate ? — Yes. 
 
 In May, 1881, was a tenant on Mr. Herbert's estate 
 evicted ? — He was a tenant of Mr. Holland's, for whom 
 Mr. Herbert was agent. 
 
 Was Mr. Herbert present at that eviction ? — He 
 was. 
 
 You have spoken of a meeting at Knoeknabowl; was 
 that held on the 10th of June ? — Yes. 
 
 I believe you found Mr. Herbert's body after he was 
 murdered ? — I did. 
 
 Were there three 6hot-wounds in it ? — Yes. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Give me the date of the murder. 
 —It was on the 30th of March, 1882. 
 
 By Sir H. James. — Did you send Dr. Moriarty to 
 break the news to Mr. Herbert's mother ?— I sent for 
 him to do so. 
 
 The night after Mr. Herbert's murder were any of 
 his lambs injured ?— Yes, 13 were killed. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I object to that. 
 
 Sir H. James. — When I attempted to prove the fact 
 by a previous witness the objection was taken that 
 the witness knew nothing about it of his own know- 
 ledge, and now my learned friend objects to my 
 proving the fact by a witness who does know of it of 
 his own knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— You can ask how many 
 lambs were killed. 
 
 SIR H. James. — Then, if youplease, how many lambs 
 were killed to your knowledge ? — Thirteen. 
 
 Were those lambs found upon the lawn in front of* 
 Mr. Herbert's house ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know whether Mrs. Herbert was boycotted 
 after her son's death ? — Yes, she was. I supplied her 
 with what she wanted. 
 
 Had you to take steps to provide her with food ? — 
 I had. I do not know whether she made any attempt 
 to obtain any food, but she sent to me to get it for 
 her, and I did so. 
 
 Now, you have the outrage-book before you from 
 December, 1880 ?— Yes. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Now, my Lords, following your 
 Lordships' wishes and my learned friend's suggestion, 
 I will take these outrages very shortly. But there 
 are certain specific cases to which we propose to refer 
 more particularly. Did you investigate certain outrages 
 between November, 1881, and March, 1882 ?— Yes. I 
 investigated nearly every outrage that occurred about 
 that time. 
 
 Just read from the outrage-book the references to such 
 outrages in that peri od as were not deposed to by District- 
 Inspector Huggins. — Among the outrages committed or 
 reported during that period were — a threatening notice 
 to a man named Pcgler,tbreateninghimwith death if he 
 paid his rent, throwing down the coping of the wall 
 of Timothy Horan's farm because he had paid his rent, 
 
 killing a horse because the owner conveyed the police, 
 and forcibly levying a contribution of £3 towards the 
 League funds from an old woman named Johanna 
 Reahy, A man was threatened with a visit from 
 " Captain Moonlight " if he allowed his children to 
 continue attending a certain boycotted school. 
 William Lane was threatened with death if he did not 
 allow a Land League hut to be erected upon his land. 
 Patrick O'Brien was threatened with death if he con- 
 tinued to supply the police with provisions, and labourers 
 working for boycotted persons were threatened. Those 
 who conversed with Tim Connor were threatened with 
 death, and a similar threat was held out to those who 
 either paid their rent or went into the Land Court. 
 Tim Connor's house was afterwards attacked and fired 
 into. A threatening notice was served offering £300 
 reward for information respecting persons who paid 
 their rent, and £500 for shooting a bailiff. The house 
 of John Culloty was visited, and he was threatened 
 and intimidated. That is the man who was afterwards 
 shot, t He was a rent-warner on Miss Bustead's estate. 
 Threatening notices were also issued against persons 
 who did not vote for the Land League candidates for 
 election to the Board of Guardians. Thirteen similar 
 notices were served. On March 30, 1882, came the 
 murder of Mr. Herbert. He had previously received 
 a threatening notice. A reward of £15 was offered for 
 information with regard to persons supplying the 
 police with provisions, and a threatening notice was 
 served, threatening any person who had any conversation 
 with a land-grabber that they would be shot. On April 
 2 notices were served threatening any of the tenants 
 on Mr. Drummond's estate with death if they paid 
 their rent. There are also anumber of cases of firing into 
 dwelling-houses and visits of armed parties at night. On 
 April 6, 1882, a dwelling-house was maliciously burnt. 
 On the 9th of April there was an alleged malicious 
 burning, on the 16th there was a case of intimida- 
 tion, and on the 17th a firing at the person. 
 On other dates in the month of April there were 
 various threatening letters and notices. One 
 threat given to Daniel Connor was in conse- 
 quence of his having come to terms with his 
 landlord without the other tenants. On the 28th 
 of April Mrs. Sheehau was threatened if she 
 did not take her daughter from where she was at 
 service, as her employer had settled with his landlord. 
 On May 1, 1882, a man was threatened with a visit 
 from Captain Moonlight if he did not remove his cattle 
 from the farm where they were grazing. On May 3 
 the Raymond tenants were threatened if they paid their 
 rents without 30 per cent, reduction. Numbers of 
 threatening notices were received in April, May, June, 
 and July. On May 14, 28, and 29 cases of malicious 
 burning occurred. On June 2 there was a case of firing 
 into a dwelling-house. Many of the threatening letters 
 received wore to prevent tenants paying rent and to 
 prevent dealings with boycotted persons. On July 12 
 Norah Duggan received a notice threatening her with 
 death if she did not leave the service of the police, and 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 409 
 
 Bhe left in consequence. On August 13, 1882, Denis 
 Bradley was threatened with death if he did not leave 
 Mr. Meredith's employment. On the 26th a man was 
 threatened if he entertained bailiffs. On August 27 
 Thomas Babington was threatened with death if he did 
 not take his cow off a farm from which the tenant had 
 been evicted ; his son was to suffer the like fate it he 
 continued to work a mowing machine. Similar threats 
 were made on various dates in September. On 
 September 14 a man named Costello was threatened 
 with death unless he gave up an evicted farm. On 
 October 3 Thomas Brown was shot. Up to that time 
 the outrages had been principally threatening notices. 
 
 Between October 3 and November 30 how many 
 threatening notices or raids for arms were there ? — 
 There were six in October and ten in November. Most 
 of these were threatening notices. There was a case 
 of cattle stealing, one of robbery of arms, and a case 
 of intimidation. 
 
 How many threatening notices or raids for arms were 
 there after November 30, 1882, to February 25, 1883? 
 —Thirty outrages were reported, including threatening 
 notices, intimidation, raids for arms, and firing shots. 
 
 Mr. Beid. — Allow me to make a suggestion. I do 
 not wish to complain, but just as my friend has asked 
 the number of outrages between November 30 and 
 February 25, and got the number and a general descrip- 
 tion of them, I would suggest that he should continue 
 to do the same thing. All these threatening notices 
 are substantially the same. 
 
 The President. — I quite agree, after a sufficient 
 number of examples have been taken. 
 
 Sir H. James.— I Bhould like your Lordships to have 
 a few examples. (To witness,) Bead a few cases in the 
 spring of 1883.— On March 11, 1883, Timothy Kearney 
 received a notice threatening him or any one who 
 associated with Mrs. Brown, the wife of the man who 
 was murdered. On the 10th and 17th Thomas and John 
 Nolan were threatened for having paid their rent. On 
 March 19, 1883, there was a notice threatening any 
 person who purchased a farm that Mrs. Sullivan had 
 for sale. On March 21 a man was threatened unless he 
 gave his support to the Nationalist candidate for Poor 
 Law guardian. On March 16, 1883, a man was 
 threatened if he did not leave Kearney's employment. 
 
 On May 14 we have it proved that Thomas Walsh 
 was murdered ? — No ; he was seriously injured by 
 three gunshot wounds. 
 
 During the rest of that year, from May 
 14 till the end of 1883, how many outrages 
 were recorded P — They showed a marked diminution 
 at that time. 
 
 In what year was the highest number reached ? — In 
 1882 it reached the highest point. 
 
 That brings us to the end of 1883 ; can you tell the 
 number of outrages in 1884 ; I do not think they have 
 been summarized ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — It all appears in the Parliamentary re- 
 turns, including date, month, and class of outrage. Is 
 
 this the best way to get this evidence ? I submit 
 not. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I should be satisfied if my friends 
 would admit that the summary of the reports in the 
 returns are entirely accurate. 
 
 The President. — I suppose you may take it as an 
 accurate summary of the reports made whatever they 
 may be worth. 
 
 Mr. Beid. — Whatever vice there is in the Parlia- 
 mentary returns is equally present in the evidence my 
 friend is now adducing. 
 
 Sir H. James. — It is entirely different. We have 
 the witness here who investigated the cases, and he is 
 open to cross-examination. 
 
 The President. — I thought that the object was only 
 to save the trouble of going into numbers, which could 
 be taken from the Parliamentary returns. 
 
 Mr. Beid. — We are not going substantially to fight 
 the accuracy of those returns in that or other years. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We are not going to say that the 
 returns do not give accurately the outrages reported by 
 the police. 
 
 Sir H. James. — But this witness has investigated 
 these outrages and reported upon them. (To witness.! 
 Give us the figures for 1884 ?— In 1884, 61 outragci 
 were reported and 51 were recorded. Of these 23 were 
 threatening notices and 28 outrages of another de- 
 scription. During the year 1884 there were four pro- 
 secutions, one conviction, three acquittals, and 47 
 cases in which there were no prosecutions. 
 
 Out of 51 recorded cases there, in 47 cases there was 
 no prosecution ? — Yes. 
 
 Can you give us shortly the outrages in 1885 ? — In 
 1885 there was an increase in the amount of crime. 
 Eighty-six outrages were reported — 77 were recorded 
 and nine were not recorded. Of these 26 were cases of 
 threatening notices and 51 were outrages of other 
 descriptions — such as visiting houses or physical vio- 
 lence. 
 
 Can you give me the figures for . 1886 ? — In 1886 
 there were 90, of which 76 were recorded and 
 14 were not recorded. There were 18 prosecu- 
 tions which resulted in seven convictions and 
 11 acquittals ; in 58 cases there was no 
 prosecution. 
 
 Give me 1887 ? — I can only give them to May 15. 
 
 Give them to that date ? — There were 26 outrages 
 reported, of which 25 were recorded. There were six 
 prosecutions, two convictions, three acquittals, and one 
 case of the accused absconding. 
 
 What were the figures for 1885 ?— In 1885 there were 
 ten prosecutions, two convictions, seven acquittals, 
 and one absconded. In 67 cases no prosecution took 
 place. 
 
 In April, 1883, did you search the house of Denis 
 Lane ? — Yes. I also searched the house of Timothy 
 Horan. 
 
 You have spoken of Patrick Kenny ?— Yes, he was 
 president of the Land League at Castleisland, and he 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
410 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 was also president of the branch of the National 
 League established there on June 6, 1884. 
 
 Did he cease at any time to be president ? — Yes, on 
 September 8, 1884. 
 
 Did you hear of any reasons being given in League 
 meetings for his ceasing to be president ? — Yes, it was 
 in the Sentinel and other papers in September, 1884. 
 
 Tell me again when you entered the force P — Thirty- 
 five years ago. 
 
 Have you been stationed in different pjirts of Ire- 
 land ? — 1 have. 
 
 It was your duty and constant endeavour to detect 
 crime ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you receive any assistance from the people in 
 the neighbourhood while you were at Castleisland ? — 
 Very little. 
 
 Was there any difference in the manner of their 
 giving you information before 1880 ? — Yes. After that 
 year people were afraid to give any information, and 
 even although pressed said they did not know the 
 persons who had visited their houses. 
 
 You have given us the numbers of persons prosecuted 
 in 1885 ; does that bear any proportion to prosecutions 
 previously ? — None whatever. 
 
 Had you known of moonlighters before 1880 ? 
 —In the parts of Ireland I was in I had 
 never known anything of the kind. 
 
 Spsaking from your previous experience, had you ever 
 known such practices in other parts as these moonlight 
 visits ? — No. 
 
 What is now the maximum force of police in Castle- 
 island ? — One hundred and eighty constables ; before 
 1880 there were seven men. 
 
 Sik H. James. — I will.now put in a letter which was 
 read by the Attorney-General in his opening speech. 
 It does not follow in sequence to the witness's state- 
 ments, but we wish to prove the handwriting. (To 
 witness). Is that Timothy Horan's handwriting ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Sib H. James.— The letter is dated September 20, 
 1881, and is addressed to Mr. J. P. Quinn. It is in 
 the handwriting of and is signed by Timothy Horan. 
 Upon the back is endorsed " £6, 12-10-81," and the 
 initials " J. F." Your lordship will see that the 
 heading of the letter is on the lithographic paper of 
 the League. 
 
 " I beg to direct your attention to a matter of a 
 private character, which I attempted to explain to you 
 when I was in Dublin at the Convention. One of the 
 men from a shock lost the use of his eye. It cost him 
 £4 to go to Cork for medical attendance. Another man 
 received a wound in the thigh, and was laid up for a 
 mouth. No one knew of the patients but the doctor 
 and myself, and the members of the society. I may 
 inform you that the said parties cannot afford to 
 suffer • and if it were a public affair a subscription 
 list would have been opened at once for them, as they 
 prove to be heroes. The third man escaped a shock, 
 but got his jaw grazed. I hope you will, at your dis- 
 
 cretion, do what you can to make a grant, which you 
 can send over to me or to the Eev. J. O'Callaghan. — 
 Yours, &c, " T. HoBAM." 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Asquith.— Before I went to 
 Castleisland I was stationed in the county Down. I 
 had never been in Kerry till I went to Castleisland. The 
 Land League was already established when I got 
 there. I cannot from personal knowledge say anything 
 of the state of that district till I got there. A very 
 considerable proportion of the outrages I have 
 enumerated were threatening letters and notices. 
 
 Is it your experience as a police officer before you 
 went to Kerry that threatening letters were a very 
 general form of crime in Ireland and always have 
 been ? — I have seen some cases in the county Down, 
 but I do not think there were half a dozen. 
 
 Have you seen the returns for 1879 for the county 
 Down ? — No ; I have only known a small portion of 
 the county Down. 
 
 Is it not a matter of notoriety that threatening 
 letters were very common in Ulster ? — I do not think 
 they were common, though I remember them for many 
 years. 
 
 In how many cases of threatening letters or notices 
 that you have given us were they followed by actual 
 outrage ? — I could not tell you without going through 
 the various outrages. I know that Mr. Herbert 
 received a threatening notice before he was mur- 
 dered. Culloty also got one before he was shot. 
 
 Can you give any other cases ? — I cannot recall them 
 at this moment. 
 
 Is it not a Fact that in the vast majority of cases 
 threatening letters and notices are not followed by 
 any crime ? — I should say so. 
 
 Did you investigate the authorship of any of these 
 threatening letters and notices ? — I did. 
 
 And did you succeed in tracing the authorship ? — To 
 my own satisfaction 1 did. 
 But not to the satisfaction of the authorities ? — No. 
 Did not your investigations lead you to think that 
 some of the persons who had received the notices had 
 themselves written them or were parties to their 
 being written ?— At least that they knew something 
 about them, or were cognizant of their being written 
 in a few cases. 
 
 Mr. Herbert was a magistrate as well as a land 
 agent ? — He was. 
 
 And he often sat on the Petty Sessions at Castle- 
 island ?— He did. 
 
 Is it not a fact, rightly or wrongly, that Mr. Herbert, 
 by his demeanour as a magistrate, made himself ex- 
 tremely unpopular among the people ?— I should 
 certainly say not. 
 
 Do you remember him using the expression in re- 
 proving the police for not " skivering "the people ? — 
 I was present, and my impression would be that he 
 used it in a sense different from what appeared. No 
 doubt he used the words. 
 
 Was it not commonly reported that he used the 
 words, and that he got the nickname of " Skiverer " 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 411 
 
 in consequence — was he not known by that name ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Were you present at Curran's fair when Mr. Herbert 
 ordered the police to fire ? — He gave an order for a 
 baton charge, and I thought it necessary. 
 
 Why ?— There was a fight between two factions, and 
 when the police interfered both factions joined and 
 attacked the police. (Laughter.) 
 
 In what capacity was Mr. Herbert present ? — At my 
 request, when I saw the demeanour of the, people 
 when this occurred. 
 
 Did he not order the police to fire upon the people ? 
 —He could not have done so, because they had no 
 rifles. (Laughter.) 
 
 Was it not reported in the neighbourhood that he had 
 ordered them to fire ? — I never heard it. He did 
 read the Riot Act. 
 
 Do you remember an occasion when he was taken 
 into custody himself by the police ? — No, but I heard 
 of it. 
 
 There was an inquiry, was there not, into the cir- 
 cumstances of a murder in connexion with a claim for 
 compensation by Mr. Lynch ? — There was. 
 
 Did you not then express the opinion that Mr. 
 Herbert was murdered because of his conduct as a 
 magistrate ? — I do not recollect. 
 
 Did you not then say you believed he was murdered 
 in consequence of his conduct as a magistrate ? — If I did 
 say so I believed it then, Out I do not recollect saying 
 it, I believe his murder was in consequence of his 
 action as an agent. 
 
 Were you present at the eviction of Donoghue, when 
 Mr. Herbert was present ? — Yes. 
 
 He took part in it ?— I did not see him do anything 
 except direct the bailiffs to do what they did. 
 
 And the bailiffs levelled the house ? — Yes. 
 
 Was that the common practice at evictions at that 
 time ? — I think it was the first case I ever saw. 
 
 Do you not think that was a thing that was calcu- 
 lated to excite unpopularity and temper ? — I have no 
 doubt it did. 
 
 Were you present at the meeting at Knocknabowl ? 
 —I was. 
 
 Was Father O'Reardon one of the speakers at the 
 meeting ? — I believe he was. I was at a distance and 
 only heard an occasional reference to Mr. Herbert. I 
 wa6 protecting the shorthand writer who was there. 
 
 Did you not hear that at that meeting Father 
 O'Reardon had. in the strongest terms denounced every 
 outrage and crime ? — I did not hear it so stated. 
 
 From what you know of Father O'Reardon as a 
 priest, should you not expect that from him ? — I do not 
 know Father O'Reardon at all, not even by repute. I 
 know a Father O'Reardon, but it is not the same. 
 
 When you came to Castleisland in December, 1880, 
 you found a branch of the League established there ? 
 —I did. 
 
 At what other places were there then branches in 
 your district ? — There was one at Brosna, one at 
 
 Knocknagaushen, and there had been one at Firies. 
 Those are all that I know of. 
 
 You know, of course, that there were branches at 
 Tralee and Listowel ? — I believe so. 
 
 Is it not a fact that during the whole of this period 
 Tralee and Listowel were comparatively quiet ? — As 
 regards Castleisland they were. 
 
 When did these branches that you have spoken of 
 cease to exist ? — The Land League ceased when the 
 proclamation was issued on the 21st of October, 1881. 
 After that proclamation they ceased to hold meetings 
 entirely. 
 
 And that cessation of meetings continued throughout 
 the autumn of 1881 and the spring of 1882 ? — Yes ; 
 and the National League was formed there, I think, 
 on the 12th of June, 1884. 
 
 So that between that time there was no branch of 
 either League in your district — October, 1881, and 
 June, 1884 ?— No. 
 
 I think you have told us that so far as the Castle- 
 island district is concerned crime reached its highest 
 point in 1882 ? — The greatest number of crimes were 
 reported in that year. 
 
 And more particularly, I think, in the early months 
 of 1882, between January and June ? — Yes. We did 
 not have so many in the summer months as in the 
 others. 
 
 In 1883, 1884, and 1885 crime was at a compara- 
 tively low figure ? — No, very high still. 
 
 I am speaking as compared with 1882 ? — Yes. 
 
 1882, 1883, and 1884 were fairly good harvests ?— I 
 cannot say. The people were fairly comfortable there. 
 
 I mean the great fall in prices which has since 
 occurred had not then occurred — had not then set in ? 
 — I am not able to say. I do not know. 
 
 The Land Act of 1881 came into operation at the 
 close of that year, and were not the people in your dis- 
 trict in 1882, and more particularly in 1883, going in 
 large numbers into the Land Court to have their 
 rents fixed ?— I heard of it. 
 
 In 1882, the summer of 1882, the Arrears Act was 
 passed ? — I heard of it. 
 
 Do you not know that in 1883 and 1884 a consider- 
 able number of people in your district obtained relief 
 under that Act ? — I have no doubt they did. 
 
 Now as to the National League, I think you said 
 June, 1884, was the date of the establishment of the 
 first branch ? — At Castleisland. There was one at 
 Ballymagelligot. I cannot tell you the date of that 
 being established. I know it was in Operation in 1886. 
 There was one at Knocknagaushen. I cannot give you 
 the date of that ; I think it was established about 1885 
 or 1886. There was one at Scartaglin, I know. That 
 was after that at Castleisland in 1884, but I cannot 
 give you the dates. 
 
 Is that all ? — Those are all. I believe there were two 
 others of which I know nothing. 
 
 Was the National League in your district of Castle- 
 island ever what you would describe as a strong organ- 
 ization ? — I do not consider it was. 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
412 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27, 1 
 
 The Bishop of the diocese, Dr. Higgins, I believe, 
 has always been hostile to the Land League and to the 
 National League ? — I believe so ; I never heard he 
 joined them. I do not know whether that had the 
 effect of preventing the priests from joining the 
 Leagues. 
 
 Was it as common in Castleisland as elsewhere for 
 priests to have prominent positions in the Land 
 League ? — In every branch of the Land League, I 
 think, there were priests ; but in the National League 
 I only know one — Archdeacon Orben ; he is the presi- 
 dent ; I think he became president in 1885 or 1886. 
 
 Did you not find that the young men of the district 
 were rather averse to joining the National League ? — I 
 cannot say that. 
 
 About how many members should you say, roughly, 
 it had in Castleisland ? Would you give us a rough 
 estimate ? — I cannot. 
 
 You say it has never been a strong organization 
 there ? — I never considered it was. That is my own 
 opinion, of course. 
 
 I think you gave evidence, Mr. Davis, before Lord 
 Cowper's Commission ? — I did. 
 
 In December, 1886 ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you looked at your evidence lately ? — I have. 
 
 My Lords, I asked him if he had given evidence 
 before Lord Cowper's Commission, and he states that 
 he has looked at his evidence since. (To witness.) 
 How long is it since you looked at it ? — A few days 
 ago. 
 
 Who gave it you to look at ? — I bought it. 
 
 I will call your attention to an answer, No. 21,466, 
 you gave there, where you say there is only really one 
 branch of the League at Ballymagelligot practically 
 working in the Castleisland district. — At that time. 
 
 Me. Justice A. L. Smith.— What date is that ?— 
 That is in December, 1886, my Lord. 
 
 You say there are some other branches which seldom 
 or never meet, and it is not necessary, considering 
 intimidation is so extensive in the district. I want to 
 ask you something about this intimidation. In what 
 forms is intimidation worked in your district ?— By 
 armed parties visiting houses at night and threatening 
 the occupants. 
 
 That is the principal form ? — Yes. 
 
 Moonlighting is the principal form of intimidation ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Now, in your opinion, to what class, as a rule, do 
 the moonlighters belong ?— To the class of farmers' 
 sons and the labouring classes generally. 
 
 From what you have seen and from the investiga- 
 tions you have made, do you believe the moonlighters 
 to be an organized body ?— Yes ; I believe them to be 
 an organized body. 
 
 A secretly organized body?— You will see by that 
 report before you. 
 
 I want to ask your opinion now ?— They were a 
 secretly organized body. 
 
 Did they go by any particular name among the 
 
 people ? — Moonlighters and night boys were synony< 
 mous names for them, I should say. 
 
 When did you first become acquainted with these 
 secret organizations in Castleisland ? — About the year 
 1882, I think, I first became acquainted with the organ- 
 ization. 
 
 What brought it to your attention ?— My inquiries as 
 to how in the course of so short a time a large district 
 like that could become so disorganized and such a 
 state of disorder exist. 
 
 What did you discover ? — I discovered that in the 
 Land League there was an inner circle which organized 
 the Fenians of the district into a Land League police 
 to carry out the behests of the League. I told that to 
 the Cowper Commission ; but it is not published 
 there. 
 
 How is it that it is not published here ?— I refused to 
 state so, and I was brought in afterwards, and the 
 reporters were not present. 
 You say you discovered this in 1882 ? — I did. 
 Did this organization you speak of continue to exist 
 in 1883, 1884, and 1885 ?— Yes, because the Land 
 League ceased to exist practically in October, 1881 ; 
 but, notwithstanding, this organization continued in 
 1882, 1883, 1884, and 1885. 
 Took the place of the Land League ?— Went en. 
 In your opinion were these outrages the work of 
 this organization ? — They were, by the direction of the 
 central organization in Dublin. 
 
 Did you ever find any proof of that central organiza- 
 tion in Dublin ? Did you ever succeed in tracing any 
 connexion between the moonlighters of Castleisland 
 and any body in Dublin ?— I have seen some man from 
 the League in Dublin who was organizing in Castle- 
 island, I think, in February, 1881. 
 What was" the name of the man ?— Boyton. 
 What did you say Mr. Eoyton did ?— I heard him 
 make a speech in Castleisland. 
 
 Can you give us the date of that ? — I cannot give 
 you the exact date. I think it was in February, 1881. 
 I heard him make a speech. ' I did not see him do any- 
 thing ; bat I heard what his business there was from 
 one of my informers in the place. 
 Will you give me his name? — I will not. 
 You will not give me his name ? — No, I will not. 
 Was it from the information which this person, 
 whose name you will not give, gave to you that you 
 came to the conclusion that Boyton was organizing 
 this body ?— It was. 
 
 Had you any other reason for coming to that conclu- 
 sion ? — The disorganized state of the district. Very 
 soon after he was there it got much worse. 
 
 Any other reason ?— I cannot give any other reason 
 for it. 
 
 You came from the county Down straight to Kerry ? 
 — I did ; I had been nearly seven years in Down. 
 
 Was there any branch of the Land League in Down 
 when you left ?— Not in any part that I was 
 acquainted with. 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 413 
 
 You told us that you on one occasion searched the 
 house of Mr. Horan ?— I did. 
 
 He was the secretary of the Land League ? — Yes. I 
 searched it under a warrant from the Lord Lieutenant, 
 under the Crimes Act of 1882. 
 
 You searched his house from top to bottom ? — Well, 
 yes, I did. 
 
 Have you ever instituted any proceedings against 
 Mr. Horan ? — Yes, for the search. As the result of 
 that search proceedings were taken against him for 
 having ammunition on his premises. He was con- 
 victed. 
 
 What was done to him ? — I think he was fined £3. 
 
 Did you ever take any proceedings of any kind 
 against Mr. Kenny ? — I did not ; but I am aware that 
 proceedings were taken against him about the same 
 time ; I think, for ammunition also. He was also, I 
 think, convicted and fined. 
 
 With the exception of these two proceedings,. have 
 either of these gentlemen, so far as you know, ever 
 been prosecuted at all, either at the instance of the 
 police or any one else ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 By Mr. Keid. — Mr. Davis, you referred to what you 
 said before the Cowper Commission. In your evidence 
 before that Commission occurs the following passage : 
 — " Do I understand you to say there is no sympathy 
 among the respectable tenants for these outrages ?— 
 Yes ; there is not. 
 
 " But they subscribe ? — They are compelled to sub- 
 scribe. 
 
 " Mr. Neligan. — Then there must be an organization 
 exereising a tremendous power over them ? — Yes. 
 
 " Have you any objection to state what that organiza- 
 tion is ? — I don't think it would bo for the advantage 
 of the country to state what it is. 
 
 "Lord Milltown. — Do you object to state ? — No, but I 
 object to its being published, as it might hereafter 
 frustrate the ends of justice. 
 
 "But you have no objection to its being published, the 
 name of the organization which in your judgment is 
 the cause of all these. horrors ? — Yes." 
 
 Now, that is what you said. You now say that you 
 afterwards stated to the Commission that it was an 
 inner circle of the Land League P — Yes. 
 
 And that you obtained this information from an in- 
 former ? — Yes. 
 
 Give me the name of the informer. — I will not. 
 
 I must press you. — I repeat to my Lords that I can- 
 not do any such thing. 
 
 My Lords, this is evidence of a hearsay character 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith.— I always understood 
 that a police-constable is not bound to state the name 
 of a person from whom he received information. 
 
 Mr. Beid. — We are wanting to get to the bottom of 
 this matter. Here is a police-constable who states that 
 the Land League has an inner circle according to his 
 information. I am entitled to find out who gave him 
 the information, otherwise we are at the mercy of an 
 anonymous informer whom we are not allowed to 
 ascertain, whose name even we are not allowed to 
 find out. We may be able to prove him to be the 
 
 greatest liar in the three kingdoms. I submit that I 
 am entitled to have the name. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lords, we have to ask you to 
 consider the entire question. I gather we may assume 
 that Inspector Davis has some good reason for refusing 
 to give this information. This man's life might not be 
 safe. 
 
 The President. — When this sori? of question arose 
 before I suggested that the question might be asked 
 why the witness refused to give an answer. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, if your Lordships think 
 he would be justified in refusing, then nothing would 
 be gained by asking the question. 
 
 The President. — That is the only way in which it 
 can be put properly and formally. It will be for us to 
 say whether the excuse he gives will be a sufficient 
 reason in our opinion, and whether we should or should 
 not exercise the power we have of calling upon the 
 witness to answer the question. 
 
 Mr. Beid. — With your Lordships' permission 
 I will defer asking the question, reserving the power 
 to ask it again. (To witness.) "When was this informa- 
 tion received ? — About January or February, 1882. 
 
 My Lords, I am going to ask generically the class of 
 person. (To witness.) Was that person a person in the 
 pay of the police or not ? — No, he was not in the pay 
 of the police. 
 
 Was ho a person who was a member of the National 
 League or the Land League ? — He was a member of 
 the Land League. 
 
 The Land League or the National League ? — The 
 Land League. 
 
 Did he purport to have himself taken part in the 
 organization of crime ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lords, I am afraid my friend is 
 on a track to find out who this person is. 
 
 The President.- — If I thought it reasonable I should 
 interfere on that ground ; but I think that Mr. Reid 
 is entitled to have the class cf man — whether the man 
 was one of t*he alleged criminals. 
 
 Mr. Beid. — I want to show the character of the 
 man. 
 
 The President. — You will wait your opportunity of 
 raising the other question ? 
 
 Mr. Beid. — Yes, my Lord. I shall desire to be 
 checked if I ask anything tending towards personal 
 identity. 
 
 The President. — I am quite sure of that. 
 
 Mr. Reid (to witness). — Did this gentleman convey 
 to you that he had himself taken part in this inner 
 circle ? — He did. 
 
 Did he make to you any communications indicating 
 that ho had taken part in crime or murder himself ? — 
 No. 
 
 Or in the organization of it ?— I cannot say. I won't 
 say that. He was not a perpetrator himself of any 
 crimes. 
 
 He did not say he was ? — He told me he never was. 
 
 He told you he had never organized crime himself ?— 
 No, that he had never perpetrated it, 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
414 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 He admitted to have known about it, approved of it, 
 and assisted in the organization of it ? — I should say so. 
 
 Did he give you any document ? — No. 
 
 Well, so much for that person. Now, Mr. Davis, 
 you have, I think, had all the secret threads of this 
 district through your hands ? — I know a good deal 
 about it. 
 
 In fact, whatever was knowledge you knew, and what 
 you did not know was not knowledge, on this subject. 
 Now, have you any evidence beyond that man you 
 hare referred to to prove the existence of this secret 
 ring or circle ? — No, save another person of the same 
 class. 
 
 Tarred with the same brush ? Now, beyond these 
 two statements, have you any evidence you can lay 
 before the Court ?— No, except the state of the country 
 and the outrages following. 
 
 You have no other secret and private information ? — 
 No. 
 
 My Lord, I do not desire to press this question of 
 identity, but will your Lordships allow me to ask 
 whether or not these persons are in Ireland ? Ireland 
 is a large area, and I think that the question may 
 fairly be asked. I would ask whether they are avail- 
 able to give evidence in the United Kingdom. 
 
 The President. — Whether they are capable of being 
 called ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — Yes, I think that question is fair. 
 
 Witness. — I believe one of them is. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — The other is not 
 within reach — is not accessible ? — No. 
 
 Did you have any communication with these persons 
 after 1882 ? — I think one of them I never met until 
 1886. The statement of the first was confined to the 
 Land League. 
 
 Was he a member of the Land League ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 And the statement of the second was confined to the 
 National League ? — Yes. 
 
 N ow — the last question on that topic — with regard to 
 the available person, is he the gentleman of 1882 or 
 1886 ?— Of 1886. 
 
 Now, Mr. Davits, I want to ask yon a question or two 
 about the causes of crime in Castleisland. Do you not 
 agree with this — that private spite or family quarrels 
 are a most fruitful cause of crime ? — I should say that 
 a good many outrages in the Castleisland district were 
 due to those causes. 
 
 Now about secret societies. Are there not many 
 secret societies in Kerry ?— The only one I ever 
 heard of besides the Moonlighters was the Fenians. 
 
 The old Fenians ; were they the hill-side men, who 
 were prepared to fight on the hill-side P— Yes. 
 
 Are there Dot some degenerate Fenians who are 
 members of subordinate secret societies ? — Possibly ; 
 I do not know. 
 
 Have you heard of the Bed Boad men ?— I do not 
 think I have. 
 
 Have you any doubt that Kerry is honeycombed with 
 secret societies ? — I cannot answer that question. 
 
 Have you not heard of that ?— Beyond what I have 
 told you I never heard anything more. 
 
 Now, a question or two with regard to the condition 
 pf the- people. When did you go to Kerry ?— In De- 
 cember, 1880. 
 
 Did you not then learn that there had been great 
 distress within the last 12 or 18 months? — When I went 
 there 1 the people appeared to be very comfortable. 
 
 Yes, that was the end of 1886. That year, I believe, 
 was not a bad harvest ? — No, I did not hear of much 
 dis.tr0ss until the summer of 1886, when the land did 
 not produce much. 
 
 I am speaking of the time you went there. Had 
 there not in the previous year been a great deal of 
 distress.? 
 
 The President.— You are only asking with regard 
 to the impression on witness's mind ; he has no 
 personal knowledge. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — We want to know, my Lord, 
 whether, the people had fallen into arrears. 
 
 Witness. — I heard that. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Had prices fallen very 
 much ?— I believe, that was so. 
 
 Now, with regard to these meetings. You had 
 reports, I suppose, of the various meetings that took 
 place ? — Yes, at the time. 
 
 Did you preserve those reports ?— No, they would 
 not remain with me. 
 
 I suppose reports of those speeches which you 
 thought would evoke illegal conduct would be pre- 
 served ?— Yes ; not by me, but they would be forwarded 
 on to the Castle. 
 
 And those speeches which did not in any way tend to 
 illegality would not be so recorded ?— No, I am not 
 aware that they were reported. 
 
 I suppose the ordinary way was to report anything 
 that inigrfc require notice or interference ? — When a 
 shorthand writer was sent I think he reported every- 
 thing that took place there. 
 
 Did you not hear of constant denunciation of out- 
 rage and crime on the part of the people at these 
 meetings ? — I have no recollection of any denuncia- 
 tion of crime until Mr. Davitt went down to Castle- 
 island. 
 
 Did you not know that at these meetings there was 
 constant denunciation of crime ? — No, I did not know 
 
 it.' 
 
 Now, let me remind you. You have spoken of the 
 meeting preceding the murder of Mr. Herbert. It was 
 a long' time before, was it not ? — The meeting at 
 Knocknabowl was on the 5th of Juno, 1881. 
 
 When was the murder ?— -On March 30, 1882. 
 
 Now, I will read from the speech of Father 
 O'Beardon. It was proved by the witness O'Malley, 
 pages 368-9 in the shorthand notes. Mr. O'Beardon, 
 after oomplaining of Mr. Herbert in the early part of 
 his speech, goes on to Say :— 
 
 . " We will not insult him, we will not offer him vio- 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 415 
 
 lence, we will not do him the smallest injury. The 
 man that would go now and offer him insult or do him 
 the smallest iniury would be the greatest enemy we 
 have." 
 
 Then he proceeds, lower down, a? follows : — 
 
 " I will also ask you to tell every one that you meet 
 that no man must do him the slightest injury, that no 
 man must insult him, that no man should offer him any 
 violence, and that the man that would suggest it, that 
 that man is the friend of Mr. Arthur Herbert, and is 
 an enemy to you and to your cause. Now you will 
 all promise me to do that. . . Let us hear no more of 
 these miserable outrages. They are your shame and your 
 disgrace. Your cause does not want these things. Come 
 out in the open daylight like men ; stand together ; 
 let no landlord, or his agent, or friend cajole you or 
 frighten you." 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood.— You told us that T. Horan and 
 Kenny were prosecuted ; do you remember when ? — 
 It would be immediately subsequent to the seizure in 
 1883. 
 
 Do you remember when the Peace Preservation Act 
 came into operation ? — Early in 1881. 
 
 Were you acquainted with the details of the prosecu- 
 tion ? — Yes, I was complainant. 
 
 What was found on their premise*? — Some ammuni- 
 tion. 
 
 Do you mean powder and shot ? — There were 
 cartridges for brecchloading guns. 
 
 Do you mean breechloading fowling pieces, useful 
 cither for sporting purposes or for frightening crows? 
 — What are generally used for sporting purposes. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — I believe you were present at the 
 meeting I addressed at Castleisland on the 21st of 
 February, 188G ?— Yes. 
 
 Was it a large meeting ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the character of the meeting, from 
 your point of view ? — There were farmers of the 
 neighbourhood and there were a good many town 
 people, 
 
 I suppose you have a general recollection of what 
 was said ? — Yes. 
 
 If your Lordships will permit me I will read two 
 extracts from my speech. 
 
 The President. — Certainly. From what are you 
 going to quote ? 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — From the Dublin Freeman's Journal, my 
 Lord, of the 22d of February, 1886. 
 
 Mr. Davitt then read the following extracts : — 
 " In fighting your enemy with the weapons of 
 barbarism, you are unconsciously fighting his battle. 
 Injustice may explain, but it does not palliate the 
 barbarous practices which too frequently occur in this 
 country. The landlords are legally privileged to do 
 wrong, unfortunately, but the victims of this injustice 
 are not morally or otherwise justified in resorting to 
 acts which are cruol and inhuman. The torture of 
 dumb animals, the infliction of pain upon blameless 
 and helpless poor beasts, who only exist to serve us, 
 and who minister to our needs, but who have not the 
 power even to give expression to the sufferings they 
 
 undergo in our service, is, in my opinion, a crime so 
 brutally wicked and so blindly barbaric in its callous 
 inhumanity that even if my own brother were brought 
 before me and proved to be guilty of such an atrocity 
 I should take pleasure in flogging him at the cart's tail 
 before flinging him into prison as a creature quite unfit 
 to walk abroad among men and as a libel on the name 
 and features of our common manhood. . . . 
 
 " I want you to look beyond the confines of your 
 own county and consider the consequences that your 
 acts will entail on the cause of your fatherland. I 
 demand the cessation of all proceedings which afford to 
 our enemies the only arguments with which they can 
 hope to combat our just demands for the abolition of 
 landlordism and Castle rule. But, apart altogether 
 from political considerations, I demand of you, in the 
 name of Irishmen of all parties and all counties, to 
 stamp out these abominable outrages which tend to 
 disgrace the Irish character in the estimation of man- 
 kind. Now, this custom of moonlighting, which may 
 have been originally resorted to without any intention 
 to do harm, only out of the devil-may-care feeling 
 peculiar to many districts in Ireland, but which, 
 sooner or later, degenerated into acts and proceedings 
 which, I am sure, if they were only thought of in the 
 beginning, would have prompted other and better pro- 
 ceedings and a different line of action to the young 
 men— now it has degenerated into common theft and 
 cattle-lifting. Why, I don't know, among the scum 
 of unadorned scoundrelism in human nature, a creature 
 so vile and contemptible as the man who will carry 
 out the purposes of the burglar and the cutpurse under 
 the guise of patriotism. Why, the devil putting on the 
 cassock of the priest is respectable ruffianism compared 
 with the villainy of the man who will go about to 
 plunder and raid under the pretence that he is putting 
 down land-grabbing and fighting against landlordism. 
 I ask you men and women of Kerry to stamp out this 
 sort of thing, which is a disgrace to you and to the 
 whole Irish character. If the national sentiment of 
 Kerry makes up its mind to stamp it out, it will do 
 so. You have seen, not long ago, the consequence of 
 these senseless and criminal proceedings. Two lives 
 were lost near this place owing to these nocturnal 
 adventures, and young men are now in prison who 
 ought to be the support of their families instead as a 
 consequence of following such evil practices. I ask 
 you, for Hod's Bake, for the common good, for the 
 character of your country, and on behalf of your 
 leaders, to set your face against this sort of thing in 
 future." 
 
 (To witness.) Does that agree with your recollec- 
 tion ? — Yes ; I think that it is a very fair report of 
 what you did say. 
 
 I do not know, my Lord, whether I may put a ques- 
 tion to the witness with regard to the Curtin family. 
 It was suggested that the boycotting of the Curtin 
 family was aggravated after my visit to the district, 
 and I think it was insinuated that I went down to 
 aggravate the boycotting. 
 
 The President. — I do not desire to limit you in any 
 reference to the matter, Mr. Davitt. You are quite 
 at liberty to examine the witness upon it. 
 
 Mr. Davitt (to witness). — You would not concur in 
 the view I have mentioned ?— No, I would not. I 
 may say it was remarked that you did not on that 
 occasion visit Mrs. Curtin, and that you did call upon 
 and visit the mother of the man who was shot. 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
416 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27, IS 88. 
 
 But her family were concerned in the boycotting. 
 Do you not think that the best way to stop the boy- 
 cotting would be to call upon them and see them with 
 that view 1 — Yes. 
 
 That is precisely why I called upon them. How, 
 have you ever prosecuted members of the police force 
 for outrages ? — No, not for outrage ; but I know what 
 you are referring to. It was a case where an outrage 
 was reported, that a shot had been fired into a window 
 and a man wounded, who subsequently died. People 
 at once said that the shot came through the window, 
 and at first attributed it to the unpopularity of the 
 man ; but I discovered that the shot never came from 
 the window, and had been fired by some person in the 
 house. The policeman was prosecuted for malfeasanco 
 and convicted, because he did not state the truth. I 
 do not know whether it resulted from the remarks of 
 Chief Baron Palles ; it was at the time when the 
 Chief Baron made'pome remarks on the subject. 
 
 Was there not a case of three policemen firing off 
 shots ? — That was in the Killarney district. 
 
 Then you know of such a case ? — I believe it was 
 reported, but I do not know. 
 
 At any rate, policemen were concerned in it ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, with regard to Fenianism. Do you know that 
 the Fenians were always believed to be opposed to 
 outrage of any kind ? — I have not had any experience 
 of that kind ; I am not able to say. 
 
 And that they never sympathized in any way with 
 outrage ?— I cannot say from my own knowledge. 
 
 The Commissioners then adjourned for lunch. 
 
 On the Court resuming, 
 
 Sib C. Rtjsseli, said, — I have now to give notice 
 that I shall move for a further discovery of documents. 
 This application is based upon an affidavit of Mr. Lewis, 
 which is as follows : — 
 
 " 1. That in the affidavit of documents made by the 
 defendants in the action of ' O'Donnell v. Walter and 
 another ' were disclosed seven letters, purporting to 
 be written by the said Mr. Farnell, and seven letters 
 purporting to be written by Mr. Egan, all of which said 
 letters the said Mr. Parnell and Mr. Egan denounce as 
 forgeries. 
 
 " 2. That in addition to the said letters there 
 were deposited in a box certain letters said to have 
 been purchased in America which are alleged by Mr. 
 Parnell and are admitted by the said defendants to be 
 forgeries. 
 
 " 3. That, in addition to the said 14 letters and the 
 letters lastly mentioned, I some time since received 
 information, which I believe to be true, that there were 
 in the possession of the said defendants or their 
 solicitors two letters which have been delivered to them 
 by the same person or persons who had delivered the 
 said letters purporting to be signed by Mr. Parnell and 
 Mr. Egan. 
 
 " 4. That the Commissioners directed inspection of 
 three letters purporting to be written by Mr. Michael 
 Davitt, one of which letters Mr. Davitt at once de- 
 nounced to Mr. Soames as a forgery, the other two 
 letters being genuine letters addressed by Mr. Davitt to 
 the Governor of Portland Prison and which had 
 evidently been obtained for the purposes of compari- 
 son. 
 
 " 5. That upon the occasion of the said inspection I 
 asked Mr. Soames whether he had a letter purporting 
 to be written by Mr. O'Kelly, but to which question 
 no affirmative or negative reply was given. Thereupon 
 I wrote to the said Mr. Soames the following letter : — 
 " ' November 15, 1888. — Parnell Commission. 
 ' ' Dear Sirs, — We shall feel obliged if you will kindly 
 inform us to-morrow whether there is in the possession 
 of yourselves or your client a letter purporting to be 
 written by Mr. O'Kelly. " ' Yours faithfully, 
 
 " ' Lewis and Lewis. 
 " ' Messrs. Soames and Co.' 
 
 " To this letter I received the following reply : — 
 " ' 58, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C., Nov. 17, 1888. 
 " ' Dear Sirs, — We consider the question you put to 
 us in your letter of the 15th inst. as most unusual, and 
 must consequently decline to answer it. We have as 
 much right to ask you for the grounds on which you 
 put the question to us, and to ask whether you 
 have documents in your possession. 
 " ' Yours truly, 
 
 " ' Soames, Edwards, and Jones. 
 " ' Messrs. Lewis and Lewis.' 
 " In reply I sent as follows : — 
 
 " ' Nov. 19, 1888 — Special Commission. 
 " ' Dear Sirs, — We are in receipt of your note of the 
 17th inst., in which you state that our letter asking 
 whether you have a letter purporting to be signed by 
 Mr. O'Kelly is mjst unusual, and that you decline to 
 answer it, and that you have as much right to ask us 
 whether we have documents in our possession. We have 
 no hesitation in stating the grounds upon which we put 
 the question. Certain letters purporting to be signed 
 by Mr. Parnell and Mr. Egan are denounced by these 
 gentlemen as forgeries ; we are informed that a letter 
 purporting to be signed by Mr. Davitt and a letter 
 purporting to be signed by Mr. O'Kelly were handed 
 to The Times as coming from the same source as 
 the other forged letters. Strange to say, the letter 
 purporting to be signed by Mr. Davitt was not dis- 
 closed in your affidavit of documents, and directly 
 Mr. Davitt saw it he pronounced it to be a forgery. 
 It is with a view of ascertaining whether 'another 
 forged letter purporting to be signed by Mr. O'Kelly 
 has been and is in the possession of The Times that we 
 ask the question, and you must surely appreciate the 
 importance which naturally will attach to the answer 
 whether from the same source your clients have also 
 received a letter purporting to be signed by Mr. 
 O'Kelly. We must press you for an answer to this 
 question, and if a letter be in your possession we re- 
 quire inspection of it. If you fail to comply with this 
 reasonable request we shall bring the matter before the 
 Commissioners." An answer came from Mr. Soames 
 on November 22 :— " You fail to tell us who is your 
 authority, nor does your letter remove our view that 
 your request is most unusual, and one that does not 
 call for compliance on our part." Mr. Lewis's 
 affidavit concludes thus:—" That it is absolutely 
 essential and necessary in the interests of the said 
 Mr. Parnell that the said defendants should be ordered 
 to state upon oath whether they have in their posses- 
 sion,or in the possession of their solicitors,a letter pnp 
 porting to be written by Mr. O'Kelly, and that the said 
 Mr. Parnell should have inspection of the said letter." 
 The affidavit received in answer to this from Mr. 
 Soames I will not characterize. I will content myself 
 with reading it :— " I have read a copy of the affidavit 
 sworn in this matter by George Henry Leivis, and with 
 reference thereto I say that, except as appears by 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
 Further Discovery of Documents. 
 
The Special Commission, November 27, 1888, 
 
 417 
 
 my affidavit, read on the 24th day of Octoher, all 
 the letters in the possession of or under the control of 
 the said John Walter and George' Edward Wright, or 
 me, as their solicitor, at the time of swearing the 
 affidavit of documents on the 12th day of October last, 
 were either set out in the schedule to the affidavit of 
 documents, or were in the box, being the exhibit 
 ' A ' to such affidavit. That the contents of the said 
 box have been submitted to the Commissioners, who 
 have ordered the production of certain of them. That 
 no letter bearing the signature of, or purporting to be 
 signed by, Mr. O'Kelly has come into the possession 
 of the said John Walter and George E. Wright, or me, 
 as their solicitor, since the said 12th day of October 
 last." 
 
 Now, the materiality of Mr. Davitt's letter I 
 should have thought obvious. The point is whether 
 The Times at the time when they obtained possession 
 of the letters which they state to be genuine, and which 
 are alleged to incriminate Mr. Parnell and others — 
 whether they got hold from the same source at the 
 same time of other letters which are alleged to be 
 forgeries, i do not suggest that Mr. Soames has said 
 anything but the truth, and, in fact, the affidavit 
 admits that they had the letter, which we say is a 
 forged letter, purporting to have come from Mr. 
 O'Kelly. The affidavit shows that in a box containing 
 what I know not, what number of documents I know 
 not, what class of documents I know not, were 
 deposited, among others, the letter purporting to be 
 signed by Mr. O'Kelly, and also the letter which pur- 
 ports to be signed by Mr. Davitt, and which is 
 described by us as forged. When I made an applica- 
 tion with respect to this matter the other day, your 
 Lordship was under the impression that a schedule had 
 been taken of these documents. 
 
 The President dissented. 
 
 Sib C. Eussell.— It may have been Mr. Justice 
 Smith. 
 
 The President. — I said that I would do my best to 
 have a schedule prepared. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — I am informed that no schedule 
 has been prepared, and that no schedule is in the 
 possession of the Secretary to the Commission. I am 
 further informed that all the letters have been re- 
 turned, and are now in the possession of Mr. Soames, 
 who is acting as solicitor for The Times. My applica- 
 tion is that a further affidavit of documents should be 
 made. I do not understand that it is denied that there 
 were put into this box, apparently in a way which 
 escaped your Lordships' attention, the forged letter 
 ascribed to Mr. Davitt and this letter ascribed to Mr. 
 O'Kelly. 
 
 The President.— It did not escape us, and of our 
 own motion we directed that the letters ascribed to 
 Mr. Davitt should be shown to him. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — Your Lordship refers to the two 
 genuine letters addressed to the Governor of Portland 
 
 Prison ? 
 
 The President. — No ; to all of them. We thought it 
 fair that Mr. Davitt should see all those letters which 
 -were alleged to have been written by him. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I make the same application with 
 reference to the O'Kelly letter. We have been 
 informed that The Times have had possession of such 
 a letter, and Mr. Soames does not deny it. He says 
 that he put that letter into the box at about the time 
 when the affidavit of October 12 was sworn, and that 
 he has not since received such a letter. My applica- 
 tion is that a further affidavit of documents should be 
 made. I do not think it necessary that I should 
 enlarge upon the materiality of this document, for it 
 is obvious. I should have thought that it ought not 
 to have been necessary to -make this application, and 
 that when asked whether he had such a letter Mr. 
 Soames would have thought it his duty to say whether 
 he had it or not. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I may pass by any 
 observations which have fallen from my learned friend 
 reflecting upon what Mr. Soames has done. This is an 
 attempt to get a document which my learned friend is 
 not entitled to see, and, in fact, to go behind the 
 decision of the Court. It is not correct that this 
 document was in any way concealed or placed 
 in the box so as not to be seen by your Lord- 
 ships. Every document was placed in an envelope, 
 and the contents were noted outside. This was 
 a letter, as I am informed, among those which were 
 put into the box, and which were obtained for the 
 purposes of the case by Mr. Soames. I assert that 
 this is an attempt by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis to get 
 information about the case for The Times which they 
 are not entitled to have, and that there is no founda- 
 tion for the allegation that tney are justified in asking 
 for a better affidavit of documents. Your Lordship said 
 on a former occasion : — " With regard to the mass of 
 documents, we have examined them, and we find in 
 them nothing inconsistent with the statement which 
 has been made on oath regarding them. They appear 
 to be documents relating exclusively to the case of 
 ■ O'Donnell v. Walter,' and they do not in any way 
 tend to assist the case of the other side. We are of 
 opinion that they are not documents to which the per- 
 sons charged are entitled to inspection. It has, how- 
 ever, occurred to us that with regard to many of them 
 there may naturally arise this sort of observation upon 
 them — ' We knew nothing of these documents, and we 
 are, therefore, not prepared at the moment to deal 
 with them.' That will be a ground for applying for 
 delay in dealing with them, which of course will be 
 listened to. But I must say, in considering this question 
 of the disclosure of the documents, we cannot fail to 
 see that the disclosure of them would show the wit- 
 nesses who were about to be called. And that is not 
 what litigants are entitled to. They are not entitled 
 to know the names of witnesses by whom the case is 
 proposed to be supported, and we must be careful in 
 our search after truth that we do not obstruct its 
 sources." What has happened since ? Some gentle- 
 men, we are not told who, have gone to Messrs. Lewis 
 and Lewis and told them something. Observe the 
 language of Mr. Lewis's affidavit ;-"'.' In addition to 
 
 Further Discovery of Documents. 
 
 14 
 
418 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 ihe said 14 letters and the letters lastly mentioned, I 
 some time since received information, which I believe 
 to be true, that there were in the possession of the 
 said defendants or their solicitors two letters which 
 have been delivered to them by the same person or 
 persons who had delivered the said letters purporting 
 to be signed by Mr. Parnell and Mr. Egan." It ap- 
 pears, therefore, that it is on hearsay that this ap- 
 plication is made. Some person has told Mr. Lewis 
 that The Times has a letter, and it is now said that it 
 is signed by Mr. O'Kelly. I will assume for the 
 moment that there is a le'tter coming from or traced 
 to Mr. O'Kelly. 
 
 The President.— Suggested to be a letter by Mr. 
 O'Kelly, who is, I presume, one of the persons 
 charged. It stands upon exactly parallel lines with 
 the Davitt letter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Precisely so. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— That is, a letter relating 
 to the case of Mr. O'Kelly, which your Lordships con- 
 sidered, when the matter was before you, was not a letter 
 which should be disclosed. Mr. Lewis now. says : — " I am 
 informed and believe that they have got such a letter " 
 —the letter he refers to — and he goes on to suggest, 
 without evidence to support the allegation, that the 
 letter is a forgery. I submit that, assuming that we have 
 got a letter signed by or purporting to be signed by Mr. 
 O'Kelly, it is a letter for which protection was pro- 
 perly claimed by Mr. Soames in the action of " O'Don- 
 nell v. Walter," and that nothing has happened since to 
 entitle Mr. O'Kelly to see it. I do not want to argue 
 this matter upon a point of law, but the rule is that 
 it must be ascertained from the affidavit of documents, 
 or from the documents themselves, or from the admis- 
 sion of the parties, that there is a document which the 
 persons are entitled to see. Now, I am perfectly will- 
 ing to test this matter at once. If this document did 
 escape your Lordships' attention I will ask your Lord- 
 ships to look at it again, and if you think that it is a 
 letter which Mr. O'Kelly ought to see I shall have 
 nothing to say. But I respectfully submit that they 
 are not entitled to come to this Court with an affidavit 
 which says simply that The Ti^nes have got something, 
 which something has been protected, and then to say 
 that they have a right to see it. Supposing that there 
 existed a document relating to somebody else than the 
 persons charged, would my learned friend's client be 
 entitled to ask for it, and so perhaps obtain informa- 
 tion about the witnesses for The Times ? No litigant 
 or other person has a right to intervene in the course 
 of a case and say, " In consequence of information I 
 have received I now ask for a letter and further affi- 
 davit of documents." In " Jones v. Montevideo 
 Gas Company" (5 Q.B.D., 656), the following rule was 
 laid down : — " An affidavit of documents made pur- 
 suant to the rules of the Supreme Court, 1875, Order 
 XXXI.,Rulel2,isconclusive against the party seeking 
 disclosure unless if can be shown, either from the 
 affidavit itself or from the documents therein referred 
 to, or from an admission in the pleadings of the party 
 
 swearing the affidavit, that other documents exist in his 
 possession or power which are material and relevant 
 to the action. In any of those instances, but not 
 otherwise, a further affidavit may be ordered." My 
 learned friend cannot say that the document for 
 which he asks is a document with respect to which he 
 obtained information in the manner contemplated in 
 this rule. All that Mr. Lewis says is that it is material 
 that a further affidavit should be made. The Master 
 of the Rolls, in the case which I have referred to, 
 said : — " We have consulted all the other members of 
 the Court of Appeal who usually sit and act, and we 
 are oE opinion that the rule to be observed is as 
 follows : — Every party to an action has a right to take 
 out a summons that the opposite party shall make an 
 affidavit of documents ; when the affidavit has been 
 sworn, if from the affidavit itself or from the docu- 
 ments therein referred to, or from an admission in the 
 pleadings of the party from whom disclosure is sought, 
 the Master or Judge is of opinion that the affidavit is 
 insufficient, he ought to make an order for a further 
 affidavit ; but except in cases of this description no 
 right to a further affidavit exists in favour of the party 
 seeking production." In this case Mr. Soames showed 
 that he was willing to submit the matter to your 
 Lordships, upon whom the unusual burden was imposed 
 of going through all the documents, and your Lordships 
 said that you saw no reason to displace the protection 
 claimed by Mr. Soames except in regard to certain 
 documents affecting Mr. Davitt. As to this particular 
 letter — my learned friend does not say it is vital that 
 Mr. Parnell should see it — I have no objection to your 
 Lordships looking at it, and if you should think that 
 it is fair that Mr. O'Kelly should see it, well and 
 good. Bat with reference to this hearsay information, 
 given yesterday or a few days ago, obtained possibly 
 from witnesses who have bsen called, I submit 
 that there is no principle or precedent according to 
 which a further affidavit of documents can be called 
 for. Mr. Soames has made an affidavit of documents, 
 and your Lordships have said that it was a proper affi- 
 davit. Upon nothing, except the hearsay evidence 
 obtained by Mr. Lewis, can it be said that Mr. Soames 
 has not made a proper disclosure of documents. My 
 learned friend insinuated that there was some want of 
 candour on Mr. Soames's part. 
 
 The President. — I think Sir C. Russell disclaimed 
 any such intention. 
 
 Sir C. Russell assented. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I refer to the words of 
 my learned friend — " that he would not characterize 
 the affidavit, but would rather simply read it." I do 
 not wish to go back from the offer I have made, but 
 I humbly submit that this application ought not to be 
 agreed to. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — In your Lordships' judgment 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L.Smith. — Do you ask for a further 
 affidavit of documents ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— We do not want that in the least, 
 but we want to see this document- 
 
 Further Discovery of Documents. 
 
The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 419 
 
 The President.— I think we will take time to con- 
 eider the matter. Among the considerations that must 
 guide us will be the document itself. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I should like to point 
 out one or two mistakes which my learned 
 friend has fallen into. Your Lordships have said 
 that Mr. Soames may well have supposed that a great 
 mass of documents were not proper to be disclosed. 
 
 The President. — What I said had special reference 
 to the other letters which were said to be spurious, 
 and which had been, so to say, foisted upon Mr. 
 Soames. I repeat, it was entirely of our own motion 
 that we directed that Mr. Davitt's letters should be 
 seen, there being nothing that led up to it, but we 
 thought in fairness that they should be seen. If 
 •ny attention had been directed to this letter relating 
 to Mr. O'Kelly I should probably have thought 
 the same thing. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My application is based upon the 
 fact that your Lordships' attention has never been 
 drawn to this letter. Either the letter is genuine or 
 it is not. If it is a genuine letter it is a document 
 which the party who is sought to be incriminated has 
 a right to see ; if it is not a genuine letter he has 
 an equal, if not a stronger, claim to fiee it, if the case 
 put forward by the other side is that thece 
 are genuine letters, and we can show that they come 
 from tainted sources and are forgeries. We do not 
 care about a further affidavit. 
 The President.— We will reserve our judgment. 
 The cross-examination of Inspector Davis was then 
 continued by Sip. C. Russell. 
 
 You have spoken of the information which you 
 received about this inner secret circle of the Land 
 League, and I understand you to say that you did not 
 follow up that information by bringing a charge 
 against any particular person ?- — No, I was not able. 
 " It has not resulted in any clue ? — No. 
 
 You told us that Boyton went down to Castleisland ? 
 — Yes ; I saw him there. He spoke at the meeting. 
 
 Except on that day was he ever to your knowledge 
 in Castleisland ?— I never saw him myself except on 
 that day. I heard that he organized the district. 
 
 Have you any personal knowledge of his ever being 
 in the district except on that one day ? — I have no 
 knowledge of it. 
 
 Do you allege that anybody has told you that he was 
 ever in the district except on that occasion ? — Yes ; I 
 heard so from the same person who told me the other 
 things I mentioned. 
 
 Was it the informant of 1882 ? — Yes ; he informed me 
 that it was Boyton who organized the district, but he 
 either did not know or did not tell me how long 
 Boyton was in the district. 
 
 From your observation as a police officer or from 
 police information do you know, or have you reason to 
 believe, that he ever was in the district except on that 
 one day ? — I have no reason to believe it. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — With regard to the prosecution of the 
 two policemen you have referred to, do not you know 
 
 that these two men were charged among other things 
 with intimidation ? — Yes, I was on the court of in- 
 quiry that tried them, but I cannot recall the circum- 
 stances of the case. 
 
 Well, I will call your attention to the evidence of 
 the parties who were intimidated. Doyle, a labourer, 
 heard shots fired about midnight ; his door was 
 broken ; his wife was awakened by the shots and 
 shouted. He looked out and saw two policemen, one 
 some distance in front of the other, in the public road. 
 Do you happen to remember what punishment was im- 
 posed on them ?— No, I do not remember. 
 
 I will tell you ; they were fined £2 and removed to 
 another district. — I cannot recall it to my mind. 
 
 I suppose you made a report to the Inspector-Gene- 
 ral ?-I did. 
 
 You gave what you thought a fair estimate of the 
 amount of criminality of which they had been guilty? — 
 I reported that they were found guilty ; that was all 
 I had to do. 
 
 Then the Inspector-General gave the punishment ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you remember that the punishment was a £2 fine 
 and removal to another district ? — I have no doubt 
 that was the punishment. 
 
 Do you say that that is the usual police estimate of 
 the amount of criminality they would attach to such 
 conduct as that of these two men ? — They were fined 
 for misconducting themselves and were punished. The 
 whole thing resolved itself into a case of drunkenness 
 and improper conduct. 
 
 And intimidating ? — I do not know that there was 
 any intimidation. 
 
 Shooting outside the building ? — Firing shots is cal- 
 culated to intimidate, but I do not suppose there was 
 any intention to intimidate. I do not suppose they 
 knew who the people were. 
 
 Do you think if it had been any one else the police 
 estimate of the criminality would have been the same ? 
 — A great deal depends on the motive with which the 
 thing is done. 
 
 There was another man — Moroney. Do you remember 
 anything about him ? — I cannot recall the circum- 
 stances. 
 
 Do you know he deposed to finding cartridges in a 
 wood near which the police passed ? — I cannot recall 
 the circumstances. I think it was a plantation near 
 Farranfore, and I think there was some ammunition 
 found there, but nnder what circumstances I cannot 
 say. 
 
 You do not remember whether the ammunition which 
 was found there was ammunition which had been laid 
 down for the purpose of misleading the police authori- 
 ties H — That is possible ; bat all the documents can be 
 obtained. I cannot recall what occurred. 
 
 This Moroney was fined 10s. ?— That may be, I can- 
 not say. 
 
 Would that be what a layman would get if it was 
 proved he tried to screen a guilty man ? 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
 14-2 
 
420 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 The President. — These are circumstances which may 
 affect the case, but which we cannot get. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — You were asked as 
 to the threatening letters. Had you ever known such a 
 number of threatening letters in any district as you 
 found in Castleisland ? — No. 
 
 What did the threatening letters refer to that you 
 had seen before — were they for taking evicted farms ? 
 —I cannot remember what they were all for, but I 
 have no recollection of their referring to evicted 
 farms. 
 
 The witness has been asked about Mr. Herbert's 
 unpopularity as a magistrate. I will put in, my Lords, 
 an extract from the Kerry Sentinel of March 31, 1882. 
 It is under the heading " From our Correspondent " : — 
 
 " Yesterday evening, apparently about the hour of 
 6 p.m., a very shocking murder occurred in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Castleisland. Some 20 minutes before 
 that hour it would appear that Mr. A. E. Herbert left 
 the town of Castleisland to proceed on foot to 
 Killientierna, a distance of about five English miles. 
 He must have left Castleisland, ou whose bench he, as 
 a magistrate, presided on that day, about half-past 5 
 on yesterday evening ; indeed it seems rather strange 
 that one so very openly unpopular as Mr. Herbert 
 should take this course. Five miles on foot seems 
 at even ordinary times a hazardous journey by night ; 
 but we again reflect on the fact that Mr. Herbert, 
 either through his misfortune or his fault, had suc- 
 ceeded in incurring the displeasure of the Land 
 League. Surely then there arise some things of a 
 political complexion in the horrid affair. So far as 
 the informations, combined with the opinion of our 
 most national citizens, may go in elucidating the cause 
 of death, we may say that the verdict will lie 
 somewhat thus — that death in this instance was the 
 result of the foolhardy bravery of the deceased . Mr. 
 Herbert could scarcely have reached the middle 
 age. He was the son of the late Parson Herbert, of 
 Killientierna, and was unmarried, leaving as his most 
 intimate mourners of his death a sister and an aged 
 mother. Your correspondent visited the scene of the 
 outrage late last evening or early this morning and 
 even then some arrests had been made, without, how- 
 Bver, it would appear, more than the barest suspicion. 
 It is very hard to arrive at anything like a surmise 
 of the cause which eventually resulted in this horrid 
 affair. The deceased never shirked the performance 
 of the duties which appertained to him as justice of 
 the peace. In truth, he rather glorified in having an 
 opportunity of disregarding the wishes of the people 
 when it was open to him to do so. He could scarcely 
 be called a landlord, and the relation of agents and 
 tenants which almost by haphazard grew up between 
 him and the,people of Knocknabowl must be the sole 
 basis on which to rest any landlord complexion in this 
 murderous affair. Your correspondent, however, and 
 observers on the spot would lean to the opinion that 
 deceased was attacked from behind a tall hedge on his 
 left side, and that in trying to return the fire of the 
 gun shot he was fatally wounded in the right hand, 
 which was reaching for his revolver, and so through 
 the right lung, this being the immediate cause of 
 death. He fell within' 3ft. of a telegraph pole, 
 30 yards away from where he first must have been 
 fired at. The shopking affair has. much affected all 
 
 parties, as the general belief is that the unfortu- 
 nate deceased came by his death in consequence 
 of his impulsive championship of a side and a class 
 in which after all his interest could not be great." 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — With reference to this, I shall ask per- 
 mission to read an extract from the Kerry Sentinel of 
 April 4, 1882. 
 
 Sib H. James. — My object was to point out what 
 was the cause of death alleged in the Kerry Sentinel, 
 not to suggest any improper motive. (To the 
 witness.) You were next asked as to the 
 meetings between October, 1881, and October, 
 1884, and about the Land Act and Arrears Act. 
 Did the Ladies' Land League meet after October, 
 1881 ?— Yes. 
 
 They were very active, I believe, and made great 
 exertions ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there a Miss Beynolds down in the district ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 The Crimes Act came into operation on July 12, 
 1882, did it not ?— I think so. 
 
 Is it your observation that the Crimes Act had any 
 power in repressing outrage ? — Undoubtedly it had. 
 
 You were next asked as to a speech made in the 
 district. I think my friend Mr. Reid read a speech of 
 Mr. O'Reardon. There are only one or two passages I 
 should like to read. The first is : — 
 
 " I have a great objection to bring any man's name 
 under censure, public or private, but I will not with- 
 hold the name of the landlord here to-day. The name 
 is Mr. William Hartlet, the name of the agent is Mr. 
 A. Herbert ; and I brand them here to-day as disturbers 
 of peace and order in the land." 
 Then again : — 
 
 " We are told that this landlord and agent intend 
 to come out here and serve these people with writs 
 and ejectment processes. Now, I am here to-day to 
 tell this Mr. Arthur Herbert that if he comes into 
 this remote district to disturb the peace, that if he 
 dares tc do it, though we will not injure a hair of his 
 head, that we will make an example of him." 
 Then :— 
 
 " If Mr. Forster is just, let him raise himself above 
 the prejudices to which he is listening, and let him 
 apply his coercion to anyone who may be calculated to 
 excite disturbance. Now, England, as far as I know, 
 has never done that in Ireland, and am I to expect 
 that this Mr. Arthur Herbert will be so treated ? Is, 
 therefore, this Mr. Arthur Herbert to be allowed 
 without our protesting against — is he to be allowed to 
 come into this district to create disorder and break up 
 happy homes, though poor homes ? I say he will not. 
 I say the homes of these poor people ought to be as 
 sacred as the mansions of the wealthy. I say I do not 
 speak now to you folly or sentiment, I say what I 
 have seen and what I know to be a fact. ... If 
 you want to understand how sublime is the philosophy 
 of oatholicity, what a high and noble culture it can 
 impart, even to those whose lot in life is cast apart 
 from them, go into one of these cabins and you will 
 see it there realized in an extreme degree. Is, there- 
 fore, Mr. A. Herbert tp be allowed to come in here 
 and break up the homes of these poor people and cast 
 them adrift on the wayes of the world? I say he will 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 421 
 
 nut. We will not insult him, we will not offer him 
 violence, we will not do him the smallest injury. The 
 man that would go now and offer him insult or do him 
 the smallest injury would be the greatest enemy we 
 have. A man said to me that Mr. Arthur Herbert, 
 after what is said of him to-day, will go and get a rick 
 of straw of his burned, or dosomething else. Now t I say 
 any man who would do that man an injury, you should 
 treat him as your greatest enemy. Leave him to us 
 and leave that village tyrant- to us, and if Mr. Forster 
 does not arrest him, I say, speaking seriously from my 
 heart, speaking the sentiments of my heart to you, I 
 say if that man ever comes before them disturbing 
 the peace, for breaking up the homes of the people, I 
 say that man has as good a right to be put in gaol as 
 many a man that is in it. I say to you, leave that village 
 tyrant to us, and we will keep an eye to him, and if 
 we possibly can we will guard you against him if 
 there is any liberty in Ireland. I ask you all to do 
 this ; the public in every town and village, and, mark 
 you, you are the public ; that if Mr. Arthur Herbert 
 
 comes to (There is a blank here, the name not 
 
 having been distinctly heard) to serve writs and create 
 disorder to the public, that we will by every lawful 
 means endeavour to make him a remarkable man in 
 the country. I will also ask you to tell every one 
 that you meet that no man must do him the slightest 
 injury, that no man must insult him, that no man should 
 offer him any violence, and that the man that would 
 suggest it, that that man is the friend of Mr. Arthur 
 Herbert, and is an enemy to you and to your cause. Now 
 ye will all promise me to do that. Will you promise 
 that you will leave him in our hands ? We promise 
 you that in that case, that if we can, that we will 
 endeavour to stop his course of licentious disorder in 
 this district at all events ; and I think it is very 
 likely we will succeed." 
 
 Then, my Lords, answer 21,466 in the Cowper Com- 
 mission has been referred to. May I refer your Lord- 
 ships to the previous answers ? I should like to read 
 the previous answers, beginning at 21,457 : — 
 
 " And you cannot proceed against anybody ? — No, 
 because every person would say that they did nothing 
 to him. 
 
 " But was not he denounced ? — It was in the 
 League. 
 
 " You cannot get any evidence of that? — No, 
 because these are closed completely to us. We have 
 no permission to enter these places, and we know 
 nothing but what is in the papers. 
 
 "If you had permission, would you be able to 
 tobtain evidence ? — Certainly. 
 
 " At "present the law is powerless ? — The law is 
 powerless. 
 
 " The President. — How far has boycotting affected 
 the payment of rent ? — My Lord, this Castleisland 
 district has been so organized since the commencement 
 of the Land League that people who would be inclined 
 to pay their rents are afraid. 
 
 " Have the rents not been paid ? — The rents have 
 (fceen paid hitherto on getting a reduction. 
 
 " Then the boycotting is not so much practised 
 lagainst the payment of rent at this moment as it has 
 joeen ? — Well, my Lord, perhaps at this moment there 
 lis no danger of its affecting it in that way. 
 1 " But the system still exists, and could be turned 
 Against the payment of rent at any moment ft— Un- 
 Questionably." 
 
 (To witness.) Is that according to your view ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you find a feeling of terror existed before the 
 Land League ceased to exist ?— It existed the entire 
 time I was there. 
 
 You have said the moonlighters used to carry out 
 the orders of the Land League. Do you know of any 
 other methods the League had of carrying out their 
 decrees except by the moonlighters ? — No. 
 
 You stated to my learned friend that you were 
 satisfied in your own mind as to the authors of some 
 of the letters ? — Yes. 
 
 1 presume they were people you knew, as you 
 thought ? — Yes, as I thought. 
 
 Were these persons Land Leaguers or not ? 
 Sib C. Russell. — My Lords, can that possibly be in 
 any way fair ? 
 The President.— I do not think it is. 
 Sib H. James.— The question was put to the witness, 
 " Did you find out who wrote the letters ?" and his 
 answer was, " No, not positively, but I satisfied my- 
 self in my own mind." I should have thought that 
 the fact that he was satisfied as to who were the 
 writers having been obtained from him, any re- 
 examination as to who they were would be admissible. 
 Sib C. Russell. — Is not that tantamount to asking 
 him, " Did you suspect a particular person ?" 
 The President. — Well, that is my view. 
 Sir H. James. — Well, my Lords, if your Lordships 
 think I should not ask the question I will not put it. 
 (To witness.) You were asked about two different 
 persons who gave you information in 1882 and 1886. 
 Did the information you received from them correspond 
 or not ?— It did, but the information I received in 1886 
 went further than that I received in 1882. 
 
 Mr. Davitt asked you whether you had ever known 
 Fenians also to be moonlighters. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I assure you you are mistaken. 
 That was not Mr. Davitt's question. 
 Mr. Reid. — I remember, it was my question. 
 Sib H. James. — No, no ; it was Mr. Davitt's ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The Pbesident. — Perhaps some gentleman has a 
 note. Perhaps the shorthand writer could read us his 
 note. (It was intimated to his Lordship that the 
 shorthand writer who took a note of that passage was 
 not then in Court.) 
 
 Sib H. James. — Mr. Davitt asked the witness 
 whether he had ever heard of Fenians committing 
 outrages. (Mr. Davitt assented.) (To witness.) Did 
 you know any person in this neighbourhood of Castle- 
 island as being a Fenian when you were there ? — They 
 were pointed out to me. 
 
 Did you mean to except those persons from among 
 those who committed outrages ? — I could not. 
 
 Were not those persons you believed to be Fenians 
 known to you aa Land Leaguers ? — They were repre- 
 sented to me as Land Leaguers. The police told ma 
 who were in the habit of attending these meetings. 
 Some of these persons were seeu^to be attending both 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
422 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27, 188S. 
 
 public meetings and meetings of the I^and League. By 
 public meetings I mean the occasions when they 
 addressed the public in the streets. 
 
 When they addressed the public ? Do you distinguish 
 such meetings from the meetings at LaDd League 
 houses ? — Yes, certainly. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My Lords, upon this question the Kerry 
 Sentinel has a leading article in the issue of April 4, 
 1882, and I wish to call attention to one or two 
 passages. It speaks of the murder of Mr. Herbert as 
 a " story of horror," and refers to that gentleman as 
 one " whose life had been foully and brutally taken by 
 this disgraceful deed." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I think the passage should 
 be read beginning " it should be well realized." 
 
 The President. — You will promise not to read it 
 again by-and-by ? (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I shall only read one or two passages, 
 my Lord. The first is : — 
 
 " There is, indeed, very little to add to the story of 
 horror which we had to give in our last issue and the 
 awful fate uf Mr. Arthur Herbert, J. P., of Killien- 
 tierna. It should be well realized that though one 
 human life was foully and brutally taken the lives of 
 seven young men are now at the mercy of any informer 
 who may account himself capable of sustaining a good 
 story against any one of them. It is to be hoped, 
 therefore, that light will be let in as soon as possible 
 on the mysterious manoeuvres of the police." 
 The nest passage 1 will read is this : — 
 
 " The people of the district have a character to 
 maintain as well as others, and also have a kind of 
 monetary interest in shaking the responsibility of this 
 disgraceful deed from their own shoulders." 
 Now, my Lords, the last part of the article I shall 
 read to repudiate the suggestion of the Attorney- 
 General when he read a previous extract from the 
 Kerry Sentinel : — 
 
 " Arthur Herbert had no presentiment of death, as in 
 evidenced by his oontempt for what would be his real 
 safety, the popularity which a country magistrate who 
 administers the law fairly and in a painstaking 
 manner always enjoys. He made himself unhappily 
 the dupe and tool of a clique of Kerry landlords, 
 whose shoulder-patting and flattery nerved him in his 
 rash contempt of the people. That ' his was the 
 fault of head, not heart,' will readily be admitted by 
 those whose duty compelled them not merely to differ 
 from him but to fight with him. It would have been 
 better for the Bench and himself had he never got the 
 commission of the peace, and it would have been still 
 better had he been removed therefrom when his rash- 
 ness too patently demanded it." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Immediately following 
 that, my Lords, is this passage : — 
 
 " This is not the only Irish outrage that Mr. Forster 
 and the Whigs can claim the credit of abetting, if not 
 of originating. Had some more regard been paid from 
 time to time to the wishes and demands of the people, 
 and obnoxious persons removed from power when peace 
 demanded it, then there could not be that boastful 
 sympathy with horrible crime rife among the peasantry 
 which is the shield of the assassin." 
 Then there is one sentence in the middle which is of 
 
 importance. It follows immediately after the statement 
 " If one human life was foully and brutally taken the 
 lives of seven young men are now at the mercy of any in- 
 former." It is as follows : — " It is to be hoped, there- 
 fore, that light will be let in as soon as possible upon 
 the mysterious manoeuvres of the police." United Ireland 
 also reports that a dozen young lambs were found m 
 the road killed with some sharp instrument. 
 
 The President. — What is the object of this, Mr. 
 Attorney ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Your Lordships will find 
 that the outrage is attributed in the Kerry Sentinel to 
 the police. 
 
 The President. — Even if it be, you know that does 
 not throw any light upon it. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I call attention to 21,471 of the Cowper 
 Commission : — " Then I gather from you that there is 
 less outrage now than there had been in former days, 
 and that the system of boycotting still prevails vefy 
 extensively, but the rents with abatements are still 
 being paid better than they had been ? — Yes, and un- 
 questionably in that district abatements are necessary. 
 And are being made ? — They are being made." 
 
 Sir H. James. — The date of that examination was 
 December 3, 1886. (To witness.) Is this Castle- 
 island a fertile district ?— What is known as the valley 
 I should call a fertile district. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — You said that in 
 February, 1881, a man came from Dublin to organize. 
 You said his name was Boyton ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you hear him make a speech ?- Yes. 
 
 What did he say ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — He said that Boyton came and be 
 heard him make a speech ; he said he was told by his 
 informer 
 
 The President. — Well, under what date is it 
 reported ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, I am afraid I 
 cannot go into it at this moment. 
 
 Sir II. James.— My Lords, I think it was read in 
 the opening, but not proved. 
 
 Sergeant Gilhooly was then recalled, and Sir H. 
 James proceeded to read a list of entries which had 
 been extracted from the outrage-book for Castle- 
 island, lhe entries were extracted from the record 
 for the year 1879. February 25.— Mary Barry knocked 
 down and life endangered by a horse. Case tried at 
 Castleisland Petty Sessions, March 20, 1879. Informa- 
 tions refused, magistrates being of opinion it was 
 purely accidental. June 11, 1879. — Breaking windows 
 at the Cordal dispensary and destroying medicine 
 bottles ; that is the second crime, June 17.' — Stones 
 averaging Jib. laid along the Castleisland railway line, 
 the property of the Castleisland Railway Company. 
 Not discovered; no clue. June 29, Castleisland. — Assault 
 on Pat Maloney, gamekeeper, throwing stones at 
 Edward Boyle and John Connor, gamekeeper, and 
 threatening Edward Boyle, No trial; no clue. July 10.' 
 — Cow stolen from Daniel Moynihan, farmer ; the cow 
 
 District-Inspector William Davis. 
 
 Sergeant Gilhooly. 
 
The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 423 
 
 was found straying. (Laughter.) July 25. — Two goats 
 strangled, property of Edward Boyle, gamekeeper, 
 Boyle was allowed £2 compensation at Tralee Special 
 Sessions. July 29, Castleisland. — That has no approach 
 to outrage— personal violence on a woman. August 
 1, 1879.— Murder of Daniel Flynn and robbing him, 
 small farmer and publican. Daniel Dunbarry found 
 guilty of manslaughter at Munster Winter Assizes, 
 at Limerick, on December 17, 1879 ; sentenced to 12 
 months' imprisonment, dating from August 1, 1879. 
 August 27, Castleisland. — A cock of bay about 12ewt. 
 thrown into a river ; cart thrown over the bridge and 
 broken ; property of John Rorke, labourer. September2 
 Castleisland. — Bight arm of a man, Denis M'Auliff, 
 cut with scythe ; tried before magistrates. Murphy 
 was acquitted, the magistrates believing it was purely 
 accidental. September 13. — Windows broken with 
 stones in dwelling-house, three timber gates broken ; 
 Thomas Brown, farmer. November 20. — Stabbing of 
 John Lynch, labourer, left temple and on back of 
 the head with penknife. Daniel Moynihan tried at 
 Tralee Assizes, March 11, 1880, but owing to delicacy 
 allowed out on his own recognizances. That is the 
 whole of the crime in Castleisland during that 
 time, as far as the books show. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir. C. Russell. — Was there a 
 book of outrages kept at Castleisland whan you were 
 there ? — There was. 
 
 Where is it ?— It is not here. It is only a station book. 
 
 Was there a book there which contained a record of 
 crimes and offences ? — Yes. 
 
 Where is it ? — I have not got it here. 
 
 Was not the district of Castleisland first formed in 
 1880 ? — Yes. Up to that time the offences I describe in 
 Castleisland are those of the whole district. 
 
 Did you not say it was larger in 1880 than what was 
 called Castleisland in 1878 and 1879 ?— No. 
 
 When were you subpoenaed ? — In June last. 
 
 By whom ? — Mr. Bolton. 
 
 It was stated that Mr. Bolton was a solicitor in 
 private practice ? — I could not say. 
 
 You only know him as a Crown official ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he take your evidence ? — No. 
 
 You never gave your evidence to anybody ? — No ; I 
 gave a statement. (Laughter.) 
 
 When did you give your statement ? — Last June. 
 
 Where ? — At the Inns of Court to Mr. Horn, a 
 resident magistrate. He did not go over it with me. 
 I gave it to him because he was an official over me. 
 
 You have served principally in county Kerry ? — Yes, 
 altogether. 
 
 Was there any ribbonism in Kerry ? — I could not say. 
 
 You have heard of it ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it strong in Kerry ?— Moonlighting was known 
 there ; that was the only ribbonism I knew. 
 
 You connected that with ribbonism ? — I do not under- 
 stand the difference. 
 
 Did you know of ribbonism in any other part of the 
 country ? — No. 
 
 Did you happen to come across any case where you 
 
 found or believed you found parties putting up 
 threatening notices on their own places ? — No. 
 
 Nor did you suspect any one doing so ? — No, never. 
 
 Or that injury to property for which a claim was made 
 had been done intentionally ? — No. 
 
 You never- came across such a case ? — No. 
 
 Was there any case reported as an outrage which you 
 afterwards thought was not an outrage ? — Yes. 
 
 Did these cases include threatening notices posted 
 up?— They did. 
 
 Or malicious injury, or alleged malicious injury !■— 
 I do not remember. 
 
 Do you say they did not ? — I will not. 
 
 Were there many such cases as regards threatening 
 notices ? — I could not really say. 
 
 Was there much distress in Kerry in 1879 and 1880 i 
 — Not very much. 
 
 Is it what you would call a prosperous part of the 
 country ? — Not very prosperous. 
 
 They live on potatoes, and are glad to get that ? — Yes. 
 
 Flesh-meat on Christmas Day ? — On a great many 
 other days ; you will see meat hung up in the 
 kitchen. 
 
 You have heard of " potatoes and point "; do they 
 point the potato at the meat and fancy it gets the 
 flavour ? (Laughter.) — I do not know. 
 
 I would like to ask you this — Did you as a police- 
 man move about among the farmers and talk to them ? 
 — Always. 
 
 Now, I would ask you whether through the years 
 1879, 1880, 1881, and 18S2 what the tenauts were 
 asking for were abatements in the rents ? — Yes, it was. 
 
 Was there any combination you came across against 
 the payment of all rent, or was it merely abate- 
 ments they were asking for ? — Only abatements. 
 
 Did they sometimes get the abatements they asked 
 for ?— I could not tell you. 
 
 When do you say the Land League was first esta- 
 blished in Castleisland ? — I think in 1880, at the 
 latter end of the year. 
 
 When were you moved there ?— In December, 1880. 
 
 Now let me ask you, did you say that there had 
 been no agrarian crime before December, 1880, in 
 Castleisland ?— Yes, in 1880. 
 
 The trouble was beginning ? — Yes, in the latter end 
 of 1879. 
 
 You know that there had been a very bad season in 
 1879 P— Yes. 
 
 About half the value of the crop in the two previous 
 years and about two-thirds of that of the previous 
 year ? — I could not say ; at all events, it was a bad crop. 
 
 It is the crop upon which the people depend for 
 their subsistence ? — Yes. 
 
 They pay their rent out of their stock and produce to 
 a very large extent P — I could not exactly say. 
 
 Was there a distress fund to which the police them- 
 selves subscribed in your district?— I do not remember. 
 
 Did you yourself subscribe to it ? — I do not know. 
 
 Was there not a collection got up in relief of the 
 local distress, to which the police subscribed ? — There 
 
 Sergeant Gilhooly 
 
424 
 
 The Special Commission, November 27, 1888. 
 
 was something about it, but I do not remember 
 particularly. 
 
 Was there a local committee at Castleisland for the 
 relief of distress P— Yes ; they gave meal and 
 potatoes. 
 
 With tickets to be given to the shopkeepers ?— I do 
 not remember. 
 
 Who were at the head of that committee ? — Mr. 
 Roche, the magistrate, was one of those who got it up 
 and gave tickets. I think the parish priests were 
 on it. 
 
 Who were there in 1879 ? — Archdeacon O'Connor 
 and Father Arthur Murphy. 
 
 They would know better than you about the con- 
 dition of the people about ? — They would. 
 
 This Land League that Was established in December, 
 1880, had it a very large number of members quickly P 
 —I could not say, but there was a good attendance. 
 
 Practically all the people of the neighbourhood joined 
 the League ? — I could not say that, but generally they 
 all attended the meetings — that is what I mean. 
 
 The respectable shopkeepers and farmers, big and 
 small, about the place ? — Yes, with very few excep- 
 tions. 
 
 I suppose not many landlords or agents joined it ? — 
 I could not say. 
 
 Except landlords and agents, practically the whole 
 people of the district joined it — generally attended its 
 meetings ? — Yes. 
 
 And they were all intimidated into joining it, were 
 they ? — I could not say they were all intimidated. 
 
 Very well. When was the first meeting held which 
 you say attracted your attention at Castleisland ? — 
 October, 1880, I think. 
 
 Who spoke at that meeting ?— Mr. Biggar and Mr. T. 
 Harrington. 
 
 Who else ? — I cannot really say. 
 
 Did Mr. Arthur O'Connor attend it ?— I think so. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. — What was the date of that meet- 
 ing ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell:*— I think it was about the 10th of 
 October. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — That was the first 
 appearance of a meeting in relation to the Land 
 League ? — I think so. 
 
 You say that the Land League was formed after that 
 meeting, about December ? — I think so. 
 
 Now, you have spoken of four men being tried for 
 the offence of attacking some farm, or a protection 
 hut— Crowley, Fitzgerald, Daly, and O'Connor. Now 
 you have suggested that Crowley was— to use your own 
 expression — the reputed secretary of the local Land 
 League at Scartaglin. Did you ever see him act as 
 secretary ? — No. 
 
 Would you like to swear that he was secretary ? — 
 No, I would not. 
 
 Do you know M. J. O'Leary ? Was not he secre- 
 tary ?— I could not say. Crowley was the reputed 
 secretary ; he went by the name of secretary through 
 the district. 
 
 Now, I put it to you, was not O'Leary secretary ?— 
 I could not say ; Crowley went by the name. 
 
 Further, can you say of your own knowledge that 
 Fitzgerald, Daly, or O'Connor were members of the 
 League ? — They attended at the League rooms at the 
 meetings on Sundays. 
 
 You have seen them yourself ? — Yes, frequently. 
 
 Can you name any precise time when you saw them P 
 — I cannot give any dates, except that it was on Sun- 
 days after Mass. 
 
 You say they attended regularly ? — No. I saw them 
 occasionally. 
 
 Did other persons, who were not members of 
 the League, attend these meetings ? — I could not 
 say whether they were members or not. 
 
 Now I will first draw your attention to this — I do 
 not know whether you know or riot — but going through 
 the offences you spoke of your own knowledge, would 
 it be about correct to say that 90 per cent. — or nearly 
 90 per cent. — were threatening notices or letters ? 
 I do not ask you to say precisely, but would they be 
 the largest proportion by far ? — Generally. 
 
 And the next largest number would be alleged 
 malicious injury to property ? — Yes. 
 
 I find in 1881 a threatening notice against John 
 Griffin " not considered an outrage ;" on the 9th of 
 January stones thrown at S. Macgillicuddy. Is Bally- 
 maquin in your district ? — No. 
 
 Then there is the case of John P. M'Carthy, of 
 entering a house and taking a gun, and the entry 
 " This case not to be recorded in the printed monthly 
 return." Do you know why ? — No, it is not in my 
 district. 
 
 Excepting the meeting that you have referred to as 
 taking place in October, 1880, is there any meeting to 
 which you have to call attention in Castleisland ?— 
 Not before 1880. 
 
 Is there any up to 1882 to which you wish to call 
 attention ? — No. 
 
 By Ms. Reid. — This book, you say, relates to 1879 ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 There are some outrages referred to there committed 
 in the Castleisland district P — Yes. 
 
 I suppose that would be in the Castleisland district 
 as then constituted ? — Yes. 
 
 Then the book of 1881 and later years also speaks 
 of outrages in this district P — Yes. 
 
 Is it the case that before December, 1880, the 
 district was ten miles long by four or five miles 
 wide, and that after that it was 11 miles broad by 
 about 26 miles long P — I do not remember. 
 
 I am referring to the evidence of Mr. Huggins, in 
 which these figures appear. Is it true ? — I cannot 
 say. 
 
 Can you furnish us by to-morrow morning with a 
 description of the two districts— the district as it was 
 before December, 1880, and as it was afterwards f — 
 I cannot. 
 
 By Mr. L00KWOOD. — You were present at the meet- 
 ing at Castleisland on October 10, 1880 ?— I was in 
 
 Sergeant Gilhooly. 
 
The Special Commission, November 27 and 28, 1888. 425 
 
 the streets, but I did not take any particular interest 
 in it. 
 
 Did you hear Mr. A. O'Connor's speech ?— I could 
 not say that I did. 
 
 As the speech will have to be read, I will leave 
 the matter here at present. Did Mr. A. O'Connor 
 denounce crime at that meeting ? — I could not say. 
 
 Were you at Castleisland in September, 1880 ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember an outrage on or about September 
 10 ; do you remember a widow named Leary, who had 
 been evicted ? — It might bo Mrs. Lenahan. 
 
 Was there a woman named Lenahan who was evicted 
 and reinstated by an armed force ? — I do not remember 
 any such outrage. 
 
 The meeting of October 10 was the first held in the 
 district ? — I think so. 
 
 How soon after that was the League branch 
 established ? — I could not say. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Something has been said 
 by Sir C. Russell as to Crowley's position in the 
 Scartaglin branch of the League. With reference to 
 this I will read an extract from the Kerry Sentinel of 
 November 17, 1885 :— 
 
 " At a meeting of this branch held on Sunday dele- 
 gates were appointed to attend the county convention. 
 The following were unanimously elected : — James 
 Riordan, president, Michael W. O'Leary, treasurer, 
 Cornelius Crowley, Michael J. O'Leary, secretaries. 
 The committee decided to send subscriptions to defray 
 the expenses of the convention. A man named 
 Donogke applied for admission. He was charged 
 with being a grass-grabber and aiding a land-grabber ; 
 was admitted a member by pledging himself to have no 
 more communication with Culloty, the land-grabber, or 
 to grass-grabbing or to anything against the National 
 League. Patrick Brosnan brpught a charge of grass- 
 grabbing against his brother John, but it was decided 
 to be referred to the parish priest." 
 (To witness.) I understand you never reported a false 
 case ? — No. I treated them as if they were not out- 
 rages. 
 
 Before 1880 did you know of any ribbonmen in 
 Kerry ?— No. 
 
 Did you know of the existence of these moonlighters 
 until the end of 1880 ?— No. 
 
 How far is Beaufort from Castleisland ?— Over 20 
 miles. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — 1 can give your lordships 
 the references to Boyton's speeches. They are on page 
 91 of the revised Blue-book. I will give my learned 
 friends those . for February 27, 1881, February 22, and 
 March 4. 
 
 Mr. Keid. — It is very desirable that we should be 
 given lists of the crimes in 1878 and 1879, but I hope 
 they will be classed in the same area as is covered by 
 Castleisland crime afterwards. 
 
 The President. — As far as possible that ought to be 
 
 done. 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— 'Why cannot you take it 
 
 county by county ? 
 
 Mr. RETD.— If I may say so, I quite agree with Mr. 
 Justice Smith. If you take a whole county the 
 
 Sergeant Gilhooly. 
 
 thing is perfectly clear, but when you take a particular 
 district it does cause enormous labour. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It is necessary also to 
 give detailed evidence with regard to certain districts. 
 Take, for instance, a large county like Kerry. There 
 are portions in which there is no crime and portions in 
 which there is a great deal. 
 
 The President.— It is from that that Mr. Eeid's view 
 derives its force. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am told that up to 
 November 30, 1880, the Castleisland district was not 
 changed. That will enable my friend to make the 
 comparison for himself. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— Yes, it was changed in 
 December, 1880. 
 
 The Court then adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 21st sitting to- 
 day at half -past 10 o'clook in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Boyal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On the Commissioners taking their seats, 
 
 Sir H. James said, — I mentioned yesterday that a 
 book which had been put in called the " Tralee 
 book " contained entries relating to Castleisland. 
 We have extracted from that book, now put in as we 
 promised, a statement of all that relates to Castle- 
 island in the years 1878, 1879, and 1880. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — We will have it examined, and I have 
 no doubt it will be found to be accurate. 
 
 The examination of witnesses called on behalf of 
 The Times was resumed. 
 
 Patrick Foran was then sworn and examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson'. He said :— My father's name was John 
 Foran, and he lived near Tullamore, in county Kerry. 
 
 Sir C. Bussell (interposing).— I do not know 
 whether my friend would like to inquire into the 
 truth of what I am saying, but the fact is that this 
 witness is called to speak to a very serious matter 
 which has recently occurred, which is now under 
 judicial investigation, and as to which a person is now 
 awaiting trial. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Of course we will avoid anything 
 relating to the case of the man now awaiting trial. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — The matter stands thus, my Lords. 
 The father of this man was alleged to have taken an 
 evicted farm some years ago and was boycotted. That 
 boycotting has now culminated in a murder, and for 
 that crime a man is now awaiting trial. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I think my learned friend's objec- 
 tion is well founded. If the case has culminated in a 
 trial which is now pending, we had better pass it 
 over. 
 
 Thomas Galvin, examined by Mr. Murphy, said,—. 
 In 1880 I lived near Castleisland, county Kerry, and 
 was a tenant of Lord Headley's. One night in 
 November, 1880, five men came to my house about 8 
 
 Patrick Foran. 
 
 Thomas Gal via. 
 
426 
 
 The Special Commission, November 28, 188S. 
 
 or 9 o'clock at night. I was sitting with my family 
 around the fire. The men were disguised. When 
 they came in they asked me if I had paid my 
 rent, and I said I had. They then asked me whether 
 I preferred to be shot or to have my ears cut off. 
 They then shot me in the leg. There were five shots, 
 and one of them took effect in the thigh. 
 
 Cross 1 examined by Sir C. Russell.— Do you think 
 that your paying your rent was the reason you were 
 visited ? — I do not think it was ; I believe it was 
 not. 
 
 It was not because you paid your rent ; there was a 
 family dispute, was there not ? — Certainly. 
 
 I do not know who was in the right or the wrong ; but 
 tell us what the facts are. You had a brother who died. 
 Did he leave a widow or only children '! — Only children. 
 I had charge of the three orphans for a long time. 
 
 The mother and father were both dead ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you take the farm your brother had had ? — Yes ; 
 I took charge of the farm for the aid of the children. 
 
 Aye ; but that is just the point I am coming to. 
 You said it was for the aid of the children ; but your 
 neighbours, rightly or wrongly, suspected you of try- 
 ing to grab it ?— Yes. Oh ! I won't say that ; I don't 
 know that. 
 
 Perhaps your neighbours might understand you 
 better. Did you know that the relations and neighbours 
 of the mother of these children had a great deal of 
 ill-will and ill-feeling about it towards you ? — Yes, 
 quite so. 
 
 When you were visited on this night, were the men 
 , disguised or not ? — I think they wore some handker- 
 chiefs thrown over their faces. 
 
 How over their faces ; over their mouths or their 
 eyes ? — From the nose downwards. 
 
 So that you could not identify them. Were they 
 young men or old, or boys ? — I could not exactly tell 
 you that. 
 
 I hope no serious hurt was done to you ? — No ; I am 
 all right now. Am I to go now ? (Laughter.) 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — So far as I am concerned. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lords, I am anxious to ask this 
 witness as to a statement of his made to one of the 
 Irish constabulary. I do not know whether your Lord- 
 ships think I am entitled to ask him. 
 
 The President. — If it is of serious importance you 
 may put it to him — did he make such and such a state- 
 ment. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, has he in* any sense 
 proved himself a hostile witness ? 
 
 The President. — No ; that is why I am suggesting 
 whether there is any foundation for the question as to 
 this statement. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Do I understand your Lordships to 
 say I may ask him or not ? 
 
 Witness.— Well, Sir, ask me. (Laughter.) 
 
 The President signified his assent to the question being 
 put. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Did you speak to Head Constable 
 
 Huggins on the 10th of February, 1886 ?— I do not 
 understand you. 
 
 You gave me leave to ask you the question ? — Yes, 
 and if you will make it plain I will answer it. 
 
 Did you speak to Head Constable Huggins on 
 February 10, 1886 ? — I do not remember it. There are 
 many conversations which have taken place between 
 the head constable and myself ; but I cannot remember 
 now. 
 
 Did you say anything about joining the National 
 League ?— Never. 
 
 Did he tell you you were likely to be attacked ?— 
 At one time he told me I was going to be shot, and to 
 take police protection, and I said I would not. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, how, in any sense, does 
 this arise out of the examination in chief ? 
 
 The President. — I quite agree, it does not. 
 
 Sir H. James.— The witness attributed the attack to 
 a private quarrel, and the question arose whether he 
 had made a statement which would show that that 
 was not a fact. 
 
 The President. — If he was making a statement in 
 his examination which was contrary to what he had 
 stated to someone else, that would lay a foundation to 
 say that he was a hostile witness. 
 
 Sir H. James. — If the witness in cross-examination 
 says something inconsistent with what he has previously 
 stated, may he not be regarded as a hostile witness ? 
 
 The President. — I did not understand it was to 
 qualify something he had said in cross-examination. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The witness was asked by this 
 marauding farty whether he had paid his rent. In 
 cross-examination I asked him whether there did not 
 exirt certain other circumstances which entitled us 
 to suggest that there was any other reason for it. 
 
 The President. — Very well, then, the theory is this 
 — that he has made a statement contrary to that. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Well, my Lords, did he ever make 
 a statement ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lords, I will not pursue that 
 any further. (To witness.) Did you claim compensa- 
 tion ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you make a statement when you claimed com- 
 pensation ? — I did. 
 
 How much did you obtain ? — I do not understand 
 you. 
 
 How much did you get, I will say, then ? — Yes, that 
 is the way to put it. (Laughter.) I do not wish to 
 answer a question I do not understand. I got £300. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — My Lords, we have taken this 
 objeotion before, and your Lordship has already held, I 
 think, if my recollection is right, that inasmuch as 
 these informations were laid at the time 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, I am inclined to think 
 my friend is in error in this case, which is one of 
 a different character. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell — Is Head Con- 
 stable Huggins the gentleman standing at the end of 
 the Queen's counsel's row, close to counsel ? 
 
 Witness (looking in that direction). — Yes. 
 
 Thomas Galvin. 
 
The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 427 
 
 You have had a great many conversations with him ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 About your evidence here ? — No. 
 
 What about ? — It was previous to the sitting of this 
 Court altogether, five or six years ago. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— You did not get the whole of this 
 £300 compensation, you say ; how much of it did you 
 get P — I could not tell you ; it was only a few pounds 
 short. 
 
 Did any of it go for rent ? — Part of it did. 
 
 Edmund Horgau, examined by Mr. Ronan, said, — I 
 had a brother called Michael. He had land near 
 Listowel, and on it was a tenant named Macnamara, 
 who was evicted in 1880. 
 
 After that, were you put in possession of his house 
 and land ? — Yes. I paid up arrears of rent. 
 
 Now, do you remember the morning of the 28th of 
 June, 1880 ? — Yes. I was in bed, and about 3 o'clock 
 1 heard some noise outside the house. A party of men 
 surrounded the house and came in, breaking in the 
 door. 
 
 Was anything done in the house ; was a shot fired ? 
 — No, it was before they came in that they fired 
 a shot. They took me out into the yard. They ill- 
 used and beat me, and my head was cut. I was put 
 on my knees, and they gave me something like a book 
 and made me kiss it and swear not to interfere with 
 the house or farm any more. 
 
 Had you clothes on when you were taken out ? — 
 No ; they were brought out. 
 
 Did you see your brother come out ? — No ; I saw 
 him outside. 
 
 Where did you both go then ? — On to the public road 
 which was convenient to my house. That brother was 
 John. We went to his house for a quarter of an hour 
 Dr so, and then went to my elder brother's house, a 
 couple of small fields off. I got police protection 
 then. 
 
 Were you ever a member of the Land League or 
 National League ? — Well, I know nothing of it. 
 
 Your brothers have died since ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— You did, I 
 think, want to be a member of the League, but were 
 refused ?— Yes. 
 
 You say these men came in June, 1880 ; was there 
 any branch of the League then in Listowel ? — I did 
 not hear anything about it. 
 
 Your Lordships will remember that it has been given 
 in evidence that the first local branch of the Land 
 League was established in October, 1880. (To 
 witness.) Your brother bought this property with 
 sub-tenants upon it, and with them this man Mac- 
 namara ? — Yes. 
 
 When was Macnamara evicted by your brother P— I 
 could not tell you exactly when my brother took the 
 property ; I had nothing to do with it. 
 
 Try to tell us about the time ? — I am no scholar, and 
 f kept no accounts. 
 
 When do you say this party visited you? — Some time 
 about last June eight or nine years, I am not sure which. 
 
 Then we may assume it was about June, 1880 ; how 
 long before that was Macnamara evicted ? — Some- 
 thing about seven or eight days. 
 
 That is what I wanted. Now, I think the same party, 
 or at all events a party, put Macnamara in possession 
 again ? — So I think ; yes, he was put in again. 
 
 And you and your brother put him out again ? — Yes. 
 
 By force ? — Yes. 
 
 Then there was a regular " ruction " ? — Yes. 
 
 After that occurred was there this eviction of Mac- 
 namara ? — Yes. 
 
 How much rent did Macnamara owe ? — To the best 
 of my memory two years' rent. 
 
 Was that for 1'879 and 1880 ?— 1 declare I could not 
 tell you. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — You say you were 
 refused admission to the Land League ; was any 
 reason given for that refusal ? — I did not press too 
 hard in joining it at all. 
 
 Never mind that ; was any reason given for not 
 allowing you to join ? — No, indeed. 
 
 You never asked ? — No. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Your Lordships will remember that I 
 asked one of the witnesses whether he had applied for 
 compensation amounting to £300. I wish to refer to 
 the 19th section of the Act of 1882, under which the 
 application was made. The Act is the 45th and 4Cth 
 Victoria, ch. 25. The section runs : — " Where it 
 appears from information on oath and in writing that 
 any one has been murdered, or maimed, or injured, and 
 that such murder, maiming, or injury is a crime of the 
 character commonly known as agrarian, or arising out 
 of any unlawful association, and an application is made 
 for compensation," &c. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — It seems to me doubtful whether 
 it was under this Act that the witness did make his 
 application. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — It was made after the passing of 
 the Act, which had a retrospective effect. 
 
 Head Constable Stretton, examined by Mr. Ronan, 
 deposed, — I visited the scene of the outrage on Horgan. 
 It was on June 23, 1880. I found the furniture 
 broken up, the bed cut up, and the feathers of the 
 mattress strewn about. I found Macnamara, the 
 evicted tenant, in possession. 
 
 The President.— What is the necessity for this ? I 
 do not understand that any doubt is cast upon the 
 statement of the last witness. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— None at all. 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — I wish to show that part of the outrage 
 consisted in taking forcible possession of the farm. 
 (To witness.) Look at this notice (produced) and at 
 the endorsement on it. — Yes ; the endorsement is in 
 the handwriting of a man I knew. He is dead. 
 
 When he wrote that endorsement was he a police- 
 man ? — No, he had ceased to be a policeman. 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — I propose to read the notice. 
 
 Edmund Horgan. 
 
 Head Constable Stretton. 
 
428 
 
 The Special' Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— Why ? 
 
 The President.— The act of writing does not appear 
 to have been done in his character of police officer. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — It is not worth opposing. 
 
 Mr. Ron AN then read :— 
 
 " Notice. — I hereby give notice to any person not to 
 buy publicly or privately any farm in the lands of 
 Moybella whilst the present tenant occupies it, or for 
 ten years after. I give you this caution for self sake. 
 And if any person shall persevere, I trust in God I will 
 not change my mind, nor fear, as we are not getting a 
 right Land Bill. Oppressors, I am sure, are the first 
 we'll kill. I tell you, Lopp, to mind yourself. Let 
 no man pull down this notice." 
 
 You found that notice in the police office at Listowel? 
 —Yes. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Edmund Brown, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — 
 In 1880 I lived near Castleisland. I knew a woman 
 named Mrs. Horan, who had a farm near mine. 
 
 Was she evicted in June, 1880 ?— No, I think it was 
 before, in November or December, 1879. She was 
 evicted for non-payment of rent. I took the farm 
 about the 24th of June, 1880. In the month of October 
 of the same year shots were fired into ;my house in the 
 night time. I was not hit. It was grain shot that 
 was used. I reported the matter to the police on the 
 following day. Next morning I found Mrs. Horan in 
 possession of the farm from which she had been 
 evicted. I had some conversation with her, but I do 
 not remember what was said. I put her out of 
 possession afterwards. I held on to the farm 
 for a short time. I was not a member of the 
 League. There was a branch of the League at Castle- 
 island. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — Not at that time. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — We shall see presently.(To witness.) 
 Did you go before the League yourself ? — I did. I 
 could not tell you the day. 
 
 The next witness will fix the day. At all events, 
 you went before the League ? — I did. I received 
 word to go from Father Murphy, who sent a messenger 
 tome. I got* a letter from Timothy Horan. I have 
 cot the letter. I could not tell you what I did with 
 it, but I suppose I burnt it. 
 
 Who was Timothy Horan ? — He was a member of the 
 League, I suppose, Sir. 
 
 What was in the letter ? — Whatever was in it.it was 
 in it to go to the League. I could not say more about 
 it. 
 
 Was anything said as to the reason why you were to 
 go before the League ? — I forget. 
 
 Did you go ? — Not that time. 
 
 Afterwards did you get another notice ? — Yes, from 
 the priest. 
 
 Did you go then ? — I did, the very day. The meet- 
 ing was held in a house at Castleisland. Father 
 Murphy and Patrick Kenny were present. I do not 
 remember who were the others. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— Kenny, we know.was president. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Was anything said to you ? — Yes ; 
 Father Murphy asked me to give up the farm. I told 
 him I had paid money for it, £15. I said I would give 
 the farm up if I got the money back. 
 
 Did you give it up ? — I did. 
 
 Did Father Murphy give you the money ?— No. 
 
 Did you process him for it in the County Court ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Was Mrs. Horan living in the farm at the time ?— • 
 She was. 
 
 Had you put her in, or had she gone in ? — She had 
 gene in. 
 
 Did you interfere with the land in any way ? — I. 
 surrendered the land. 
 
 Had you a lease of it. — I had. 
 
 Did you give that document to the priest ?— I did. 
 
 Who was present when you gave it up ? — It was in 
 Mrs, Horan's house. I do not remember who were 
 present. The priest Was there, and there were others.- 
 I could not say whether they were members of the 
 League. I believe that Kenny was there. 
 
 Did Father Murphy pay you the £15 when you pro- 
 cessed him ? — No. 
 
 Did he go to Court ?— He did. 
 
 Did you get a decree against him ? — No, the action 
 was dismissed. Father Murphy said that the money 
 was only promised conditionally ; that if Mrs. Horan 
 got the land he would give the money, which was not 
 to be collected from the Land League. 
 
 Are you sure he said " not from the Land League" ? 
 — I am sure he said that. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — I wish to call attention to the 
 reference to this witness in the Attorney-General's 
 opening speech. My learned friend said that this wit- 
 ness had been shot. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I may have made many 
 mistakes, but I do not think that I made a mistake in 
 this case. I should like my learned friend to refer to 
 the passage in which. I stated that this man was shot. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — It is on pages 11 and 12 of the 
 transcript of the second day's proceedings. My learned 
 friend is referring to a speech by Father Murphy in 
 which he says, " I think that the cause has made great 
 progress." Then there is a reference to a small land- 
 grabber named Brown. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — That is another man. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My good friend, I know what I 
 am saying. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Oh, I beg your pardon. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell, continuing to read. — " Brown is a 
 man who was murdered by two men called Poff and 
 Barrett." But the Brown referred to by Father 
 Murphy is this Brown. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My learned friend sayai 
 so. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— I do say so. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — You are mistaken. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell (to witness).— Did you know the man 
 
 Edmund Brown. 
 
The Special Commissi©!!, November 28, 1888. 
 
 429 
 
 Brown for whose murder Poff and Barrett were hanged ? 
 —(The reply was understood to be in the affirmative.) 
 
 Was he accused of land-grabbing ?— Ho purchased 
 land, I believe. 
 
 Was he ever accused of land-grabbing ? — I believe 
 not. 
 
 Do you know how many years after the meeting at 
 which Father Murphy spoke the other Brown was 
 murdered ? — I do not. 
 
 Was it in 1882, or in 1883, or in 1884 ?— I could 
 not tell you. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— J am told, my Lords, that the 
 exact date of the murder was October 4, 1882. The 
 trial was in December, and the execution in January, 
 1883. The speech from which I have read part of my 
 learned friend's citation was delivered on September 11, 
 1881. 
 
 The President.— From your point of view, at any 
 rate, the Attorney-General made a mistake. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes ; I think my learned friend 
 will see. that it was a clear mistake. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have made many mis- 
 takes, I am aware ; but I think it will turn out 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I assure my learned friend it is not 
 important. Everybody has made mistakes, and I have 
 no doubt that we shall commit a number before the 
 case is over. (To witness.) You had a farm on 
 which you lived ? — Yes. It contained about a hundred 
 acres, good and bad. 
 
 Probably most of it was bad ? — There was some good 
 and some bad. 
 
 How far from your own farm was that of Mis. 
 Horan ? — It was adjoining it. 
 
 And how many acres had she ? — Twenty-eight. 
 
 Had she a family ? — Yes, a long one. 
 
 Was she a widow ? — No. 
 
 Was her husband living ? — Yes, he was ; but he was 
 in America. 
 
 When was she evicted — turned out of her holding ? — 
 I cannot tell you the date of the year. 
 
 When about ? You must try and get as near as you 
 can to it. — It was eight or nine years ago. 
 
 You say that these shots were fired into your house ? 
 •—Yes ; I have not the least doubt about it. 
 
 The eviction took place some time in October, 
 1880 ?— In October, 1879. 
 
 Am I to take it that this attack was made upon you 
 in October, 1880 ? — I do not know the date of the 
 year. 
 
 How long after the eviction was it F— About a year. 
 
 Then may I take it that as far as you can tell the 
 eviction took place in November, 1879, and the shots 
 were fired about a year after ? — Yes. 
 . How long had you been in possession before the 
 attack was made upon you ? — About six months. / 
 
 You say you paid £15 ? — I did. 
 
 To whom ? — To Sir Maurice O'Connell. 
 
 To himself or to his agent ? — To himself. 
 
 Was the £15 the amount of Mrs. Horan's arrears ?— 
 t believe her arrears were more than that. 
 
 You did not occupy her house ? — No. 
 
 You merely held the land ? — I tilled it. 
 
 Was the house vacant or was it pulled down ? — 1( 
 was vacant. 
 
 How long after the shots were fired was it that you 
 got the letter or message to go to the Land League 
 branch at Lixnaw ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Was it a year ? — I could not tell how long. 
 
 Was it one or two months after ? — It was about a 
 month. That would be towards the end of 1880. 
 
 Near Christmas time ? — About Christmas time. 
 
 You know that the Land League branch was esta- 
 blished in Lixnaw about Christmas time, 1880 ? — It was 
 at this time established. 
 
 You had not heard of it before you got that 
 message ? — I heard it was there before I got the 
 letter. 
 
 How long before — a few weeks ? — About that. I can- 
 not exactly tell you. 
 
 You went and saw Father Murphy at the League 
 meeting among others ? — Yes. 
 
 Did Father Murphy say that if you would give up 
 the land to the widow he would make a colleetior 
 among the neighbours to pay you back your £15 ?— 
 That is what he said. 
 
 And you promised to do it ? — I did. 
 
 You afterwards processed Father Murphy for tha* 
 £15 ?— I did. 
 
 And was not his defence this — that instead of giving 
 up the possession of the land to Mrs. Horan you 
 surrendered it to the landlord ? — That was the promise 
 I made him, to surrender it to the landlord. 
 
 That is what you say, but, rightly or wrongly.did not 
 Father Murphy set up the defence that he made the 
 promise to pay you conditional upon your giving up 
 the land to Mrs. Horan ? — I beg your pardon ; I never 
 promised to give up the land except to the landlord. 
 
 Bat did not Father Murphy say that that was the 
 condition ? — He said he only promised to pay me the 
 money on the condition that she got the land. 
 
 Did he call any witnesses ? — There was plenty about , 
 him besides himself. 
 
 What was the name of the County Court Judge who 
 tried the case f — I do not know. 
 
 You gave your evidence ? — I did. 
 
 And you were cross-examined by some solicitor ?«■" 
 I was. 
 
 And Father Murphy was examined ? — He was. 
 
 And he called some witnesses ? — I believe so. 
 
 And the Judge decided against you ? — Yes. 
 
 And dismissed your process ? — Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Do you remember the great famine 
 of 1848 ?— Indeed I do, well. 
 
 There was a great deal of suffering, and a great 
 number of people died of starvation daring that famine ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 And following the famine there were a great number 
 of evictions in Kerry, were there not ?— Yes ; and there 
 are still. 
 
 Edmund Brown. 
 
430 
 
 The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 In 1848, 1849, and 1850 the landlords encouraged 
 the creation of large farms, did they not ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it not a rule in Kerry that when a number of 
 evictions on small farms were carried out it led to a 
 great deal of disturbance and crime ? — Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — How long 
 before you got the notice to attend the Land League 
 branch at Lixnaw did you hear of there being a branch 
 there ?— About a month or two, I think ; but it might 
 have been more. 
 
 Now, you have been asked what bargain you made. 
 Did Mrs. Horan ultimately again get into possession of 
 the land ?— She did. 
 
 She got back into possession of the land which she 
 had formerly occupied ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That was long afterwards. 
 
 By the Attorney-General. — How long had she been 
 out of possession when you took the farm ? — From 
 November to June. 
 
 And then you took the farm from the landlord and 
 gave him £15 ? — Yes. 
 
 How long after the process was it that Mrs. Horan 
 got possession of the land ? 
 
 The President. — I understood the witness to say 
 that Mrs. Horan got possession of the land before the 
 process. 
 
 By the Attorney-General. — Did Mrs. Horan get 
 possession of the land again before your process 
 against Father Murphy ? — No. 
 
 How long after was it ? — I cannot say. She was in 
 the house about that time, but Bhe had not got posses- 
 sion again of the land. 
 
 The President.— I do not see the relevancy of this 
 communication with Father Murphy. 
 
 Sergeant O'Brien, examined by Mr. Atkinson. — I 
 am a sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary. I was 
 protecting the last witness from October to December, 
 1880. I was living in his house. 
 
 Do you remember while you were protecting him four 
 gentlemen coming to see him one day ? — Yes. 
 
 Who were they ?— Father Murphy, Patrick Kenny, 
 Timothy Horan, and Terence Brosnan. 
 
 What date was this ? — On the 20th of December. 
 
 Did you go with Brown to the Land League meeting 
 at Lixnaw ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you present when Brown received any message 
 before you went with him to meet these persons ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 When yon went to meet them did you continue 
 present at the interview which took place between 
 them ?— I did. 
 
 Had any of these gentlemen Baid anything as to 
 their business with Brown before you went to the 
 meeting? — Yes, they said that it was to make arrange- 
 ments between Brown and Mrs. Horan. 
 
 Was any reference made to the Land League then? — 
 There was not. • 
 
 Was any agreement come to ? — The arrangement was 
 
 that Brown was to be paid the £15 he had paid the 
 landlord for the farm. 
 
 Was it said in what respect the £15 was to be paid ? 
 — For the money he had paid to his landlord. 
 
 Was any mention made of arrears ? — No. 
 
 Did they agree to that ? — They did if Brown gave uj 
 the lease of the land. 
 
 Had Brown the lease with him ? — He had. 
 
 Was there any writing "between them ? — There was. 
 
 Who drew up the writing ? — Father Murphy. 
 
 Did Brown then give up the lease ? — He did. 
 
 Did you continue protecting Brown after that ? — For 
 three weeks. 
 
 The President. — I cannot see the relevancy of all 
 these details. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — You understood 
 that the meeting was held for the purpose of settling 
 the dispute between Brown and Mrs. Horan ? — Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— Had there 
 been any dispute between Mrs. Horan and Brown as 
 far as you know ? — There was some dispute between 
 them about the land. 
 
 Except that Brown had got into possession of the 
 land do you know of any ground of dispute between 
 them ?— No. 
 
 Patrick Donoghue,examined by Mr. Murphy, Q.C.— 
 In 1881 was there a man named Edward Barry, a 
 tenant on Lord Kenmare's estate ?— Yes. 
 
 Did he give up his farm and go to America ?— He 
 did. 
 
 Did you buy his interest in the farm and go into 
 possession of it ?— I did ; for £90. 
 
 How long were you in possession before anything 
 happened ? — About three weeks. 
 
 Do you remember your house being visited on the 
 night of the 18th of December ?— I do. 
 
 Did the men come to your house about 10 or 
 11 o'clock that night ?— They did. 
 
 You say that you gave Barry £90 — was any of that 
 for arrears ? — No, not that I know of. 
 
 What was it for ? — To enable Barry to go out of the 
 country. 
 
 It was dark when the men came, I suppose? — It was." 
 
 Did they pull you out of bed and take you into the 
 yard ? — I was getting up — I was up in the kitchen at 
 the time they got in. 
 
 What led you to get up ? — I heard them getting in- 
 breaking the door open — and I got up in consequence. 
 
 What did they do ? — They took me into the yard and 
 fired at me. 
 
 Were you beaten ?— Yes. 
 
 With sticks ? — I do not know ; it felt like sticks. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 You said they fired at you ; were you hit in the 
 ankle ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know whether they said anything to you at 
 the time they fired at you ? — Never a word. 
 
 Did you report the outrage to the police ? — I had no 
 need to go to the police. 
 
 Sergeant O'Brien. 
 
 Patrick Donoghue. 
 
The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 431 
 
 Why did not you report the outrage to the police ? — 
 Because the police were in my house in ten minutes 
 or a quarter of an hour after the outrage was com- 
 mitted. 
 
 And I believe that you got police protection for 
 some three months afterwards ? — I did. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. RusaELL. — Where did you 
 pay the £90 ?— To Barry. 
 
 I asked you where ? — At Lord Kenmare's office. 
 
 You paid it to Barry himself ?— Yes. 
 
 What did he do with it ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you know what became of that £90 ? — No. 
 
 Who was present ia the office at the time ; was Mr. 
 Leonard present ? — He was. 
 
 Did Barry take the money away with him ? — He did ; 
 he took it from me. 
 
 Ay, ay, I know that, but did he take it away with 
 him or did he pay it over to the agent ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 Had Barry been processed ? — I do not know. 
 
 Had he been served with an ejectment notice ? — I 
 do not know. 
 
 Sib C. Ecssell. — There had been process of eject- 
 ment against Barry. Mr. Leonard, in his evidence, 
 says, " There was an ejectment out for non-payment 
 of rent, and before it was executed he asked me to be 
 allowed to sell his interest, and he sold it to a man 
 named Daniel Donoghue for £90." 
 
 Constable Dennis Blake, examined by Mr. EoNA!f . — 
 You accompanied a man named Brown to a meeting of 
 the Lixnaw Land League in 1885 ? — I did. 
 
 He was under police protection ? — Yes. 
 
 Had he taken an evicted farm belonging to a Mrs. 
 Scanlan? — Yes. 
 
 He was boycotted ? — Yes. 
 
 Could he get goods where he was known ? — No. 
 
 On a Sunday in June, 1885, did you go with him 
 and Sergeant O'Brien to a meeting of the Land League 
 branch at Lixnaw ?— Yes. 
 
 Did he go into the League room ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he come out after about an hour ? — He did. 
 
 When he came out did the people cheer him ? — They 
 did. 
 
 Did you see a man named Doolan there ? — Yes. 
 
 Who was he ; was he a member of the League ? — I 
 believe he was the secretary of the branch. 
 
 What did Doolan say ? — He said, jocosely, " You 
 need not remain with Brown any longer, as he is after 
 becoming a Christian." (Laughter.) 
 
 You had been protecting him before that ? — For three 
 weeks. 
 
 After that did Brown voluntarily give up the farm ? — 
 He did. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Is Brown here? — No, Sir. 
 
 The Attokney-GenEbal. — Iamnowgoing to connect 
 this with what was said at a Land League meeting, 
 the proceedings at which are reported in the Kerry 
 Sentinel of the 10th of November, 1885. It was a 
 meeting of the Listowel branch of the League, at 
 
 which Mr. Fitzpatrick spoke and Mr. John Stack was 
 chairman. It is not very long, and I suppose I had 
 better read it all. The learned counsel then read the 
 report as follows : — 
 
 " Mr. Fitzpatrick said the council had had the case 
 of Mr. Denis Lyons under consideration just before the 
 meeting was commenced, and they were of opinion that 
 Mr. Lyons had not been guilty of what was known as 
 land-grabbing, but they thought he had done an in- 
 justice to the struggling and overrented tenants of that 
 neighbourhood in offering the Knight of Kerry a rent 
 which was exorbitant and which it would be impossible 
 for any person to pay who was depending solely on 
 the land, and that Mr. Lyons ought to surrender the 
 farm. The council were further of opinion that men 
 who offered fancy prices for land were injuring the 
 general welfare of the country, that tenants' interests 
 ought to be disposed of openly, and that it would be 
 well if the local branch of the National. League were 
 consulted beforehand in such matters. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 ' ' Mr. Lyons signified his intention of giving up the 
 land in question. ♦ 
 
 " Mr. Michael J. Flavin was selected unanimously 
 secretary to the branch in room of Mr. Murphy, re- 
 signed. 
 
 " Mr. Fitzpatrick now came forward, amid great 
 cheering, and said : — Now, gentlemen, before we com- 
 mence the business of the League I wish to refer to a 
 matter to which reference was made on this day four 
 weeks ; we then protested against the action of certain 
 traders and shopkeepers in the town for supplying land- 
 grabbers. (Hear, hear.) I have been speaking since 
 to some shopkeepers, and they have very candidly 
 acknowledged the reasonableness and necessity of our 
 action — in fact they said that we had not taken action 
 in the matter soon enough. (Hear, hear.) There may 
 be some exception, some who do not see matters in the 
 same light that we do, but I think they are in a small 
 minority (hear, hear), and I think it is easy to convert 
 them to a sense of their duty, not by arguing or 
 quarrelling with them, but by leaving them to their 
 lonely reflections. (Cheers and laughter.) We do n't 
 want to put a pressure on the shopkeepers, but if they 
 identify themselves with the Husseys and the Sandes 
 they incur our displeasure, and I think it will be but 
 a small compensation to them for provoking the anger 
 of the people to receive a fortnightly visit of condol- 
 ence from a Brown, a Gallinan, or a Foran. (Cheers 
 and laughter.) It is the interest of us all to forward 
 the welfare of the country, but it is especially incum- 
 bent on the business classes of the country to dis- 
 courage land-grabbing, for land-grabbing leads to the 
 eviction of the people. (Cheers.) Of what use are shops 
 and stores if the people are turned out of the country ? 
 (Hear, hear.) What does land-grabbing mean ? What 
 are land-grabbers ? They are the instigators of the 
 crowbar brigade (hear, hear) ; they 6et that infamous 
 brigade hi motion, and if the shopkeepers supply such 
 rersons they can scarcely fail to see what a close con- 
 nexion there is between their conduct and the action of 
 the crowbar brigade. (Cheers.) Is it to be wondered 
 at that business should cease, that mills and shops are but 
 little wanted in a country sparsely peopled by a few 
 land agents and grabbers, or at least by a lot of 
 farmers in a state of perennial bankruptcy, who never 
 think, or indeed can think, of paying anybody but the 
 rack-renting landlord ? (Cheers. ) Now, my advice to 
 you, gentlemen, is to carry out legitimate boycotting 
 in a determined and stem spirit ; but you must draw 
 a distinction between private boycotting and lcgiti- 
 
 Constable Dennis Blake. 
 
432 
 
 The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 mate boycotting. A case of the former kind occurred 
 since we met here the last time, which leads me to 
 make these remarks. Legitimate boycotting is 
 founded upon and justified by the necessity that exists 
 for saving the people and saving the country. (Cheers.) 
 But private boycotting is promoted by private animosi- 
 ties and trade jealousy, and is for that reason un- 
 justifiable and contemptible. (Hear, bear.) It impairs 
 the usefulness of such an organization as this, it rusts 
 and blunts the keenness of the weapon in the armoury 
 of the National League. (Applause.) As an article in 
 the Freeman lately observed, it converts into a common 
 woodchopper an instrument which should have the edge 
 of a razor. (Loud cheers.) Carry on your legitimate boy- 
 cotting in a determined way to the bitter end, but let 
 it be directed against exterminators and against those 
 who are the right-hand men, against the aiders and 
 helpers of the evictions of the people." (Cheers.) 
 The remainder of the speech I need not read, as it re- 
 lates to the candidature of Mr. John Stack at| the then 
 ensuing general election. 
 
 Arthur Gloster, examined by Mr. Mukphy, said, — 
 In 1880 I was bailiff on the Kenmare estate in county 
 Kerry. I live at Longfield, a mile from Firies. I re- 
 member a meeting of the Land League being held at 
 Milltown towards the end of 1880. Up to that time I 
 had been on good terms with my neighbours. On the 
 night of that meeting — the 21st of November — a party 
 of men attacked my house. The doors and windows 
 were broken, and stones were thrown into the house. 
 From that date up to the present time I have been 
 under police protection. I have seen threatening 
 notices about me posted up in different places. In Sep- 
 tember, 1885, a meeting took place at Firies. As the 
 people returned home, and as they passed my house they 
 hooted and groaned at me. In November, 1885, I had 
 occasion to accompany the sheriff to seize some cattle 
 on behalf of rent due to Lord Kenmare. The cattle 
 were placed in the pound and subsequently put up for 
 sale. At the time of the sale Mr. Sheehan, M.P., was 
 present, and there were between 400 and 500 people 
 there. When the cattle were put up for sale the crowd 
 booed and shouted, and insulted the sheriff, the agent, 
 and myself. 
 
 Mr. LoCKWOOD. — I should like to ask my learned 
 friend whether he is going to tender any evidence 
 with regard to any speech of Mr. Sheehan, who is one 
 of those for whom I appear, inasmuch as he is at 
 present in gaol, and it would only be fair that I 
 should have an opportunity of communicating with him. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I am not going to prove any speech 
 of Mr. Sheehan — only the fact that he was there. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — Any evidence directed against Mr. 
 Sheehan individually I would ask my learned friend 
 to postpone until he can instruct me with regard to 
 any view which he wants to present to your Lordships 
 as to his conduct on any occasion that may be referred 
 to. 
 
 Mr. Muepht. — I am not in a position to give any 
 evidence, except to the effect that Mr. Sheehan was in 
 
 the crowd when there was booing. If my learned friend 
 wishes me to postpone that part of the examination, I 
 have no objection. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Not for that, if it does not go 
 further. 
 
 Examination continued. — I did not hear Mr. Sheehan, 
 M.P., speak. Two weeks after that I sent my horse to 
 be shod at the usual place, but the smith said he was 
 afraid to shoe it, and I had to send it to Killarney, ten 
 miles away. On going over the estate of which I was 
 bailiff the people, when they 6aw me, blew horns and 
 called after me. Before 1880 I was able to go about the 
 estate and do my business without interruption. On the 
 7th of June there was an explosion at my house. 
 
 Mr. Reid (interposing). — My learned friend is simply 
 repeating evidence already proved at length in the ex- 
 amination of Mr. Maurice Leonard. 
 
 Mr. Mukphy. — There is a difficulty in dealing with 
 my learned friends. If we take it that the proof of 
 the outrages and the alleged cause of the outrages has 
 already been given, I should be satisfied ; but my 
 learned friends should not be allowed to say that the 
 real cause of the outrages is not what we allege. If 
 so, we must give further proof. 
 
 Mr. Rbid. — My learned friend has not been dealing 
 with the cause of the outrages and the connexion of 
 the Land League with them. He merely repeats what 
 already appears at length. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — We would wish to take your Lord- 
 ships' opinion as to whether this class of evidence is to 
 be excluded or not. 
 
 The President. — I may rely on you, Mr. Murphy, 
 not to repeat the evidence unnecessarily. If you base 
 it on the ground you suggest you are justified. As I 
 understand, you are seeking to show what the real 
 cause of the outrages was. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — With reference to what 
 Mr. Murphy has said, I may say that we entirely fall 
 in with what your Lordship has said with regard to 
 shortening the evidence as much as possible. Sir C. 
 Bussell has, very properly from his point of view, made 
 observations with regard to the " motive " column. 
 While we wish to shorten the inquiry, the responsi- 
 bility devolves upon us of bringing forward certain 
 cases which will support and justify the motives stated 
 in the " motive " column. We desire to shorten the 
 inquiry as much as possible, and what we are endeavour- 
 ing to do is only to take such Cases as have a direct 
 bearing on the action of the League, or as to injury to 
 people for non-payment of rent, for taking evicted 
 farms, or for serving processes in the ordinary way. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My only comment is that the evidence 
 has not been directed to motive. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— We will do our best ; that Is all 1 
 can say. 
 
 Examination continued. — I know Jeremiah M'Mahon, 
 the Secretary of the Firies branch of the League. About 
 a year or a year and a half ago he insulted me very 
 much at a railway station, Be called me names, and 
 
 Arthur Gloster. 
 
The Special Commission, November 28, 1838. 
 
 433 
 
 told the people that I was a bailiff, and that they 
 should not speak to me. He was drunk at the time. 
 He was summoned before a magistrate and bound 
 over to keep the peace. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C- Russell. — I have been 
 from 18 to 20 years upon the Kenmare estate, and I 
 have been bailiff for eight years. I had been game- 
 keeper before. 
 
 Is that a popular calling ? — I have never been insulted 
 before. 
 
 Are you a farmer yourself ? — Yes. I farm about 30 
 acres. 
 
 Do you recollect whether the years before 1878 and 
 1879 were prosperous years ? — 1879 was a bad year. 
 
 Were there many evictions in the years before 1879 ? 
 — I was not bailiff on the estate at the time. I do not 
 think there were. 
 
 Were there a good many notices of eviction in 1879, 
 1880, and 1881 ? — There were not many on my part of 
 the estate. There were other estate bailiffs besides 
 me. 
 
 Have you yourself on your part of the estate for 
 which you were acting served distress notices ? — I have, 
 and I have distrained, but not in 1880. 
 
 When first ?— I think in 1885. 
 
 But you had served ejectment notices before that ? 
 —I had, a good many. 
 
 And seized cattle ? — Not before 1885. 
 
 Have you seized potatoes for distress for rent ? — I 
 do not recollect doing so. I have seized cattle, corn, 
 and hay. 
 
 Have not you seized potatoes in the house ? — I do 
 not remember doing so. 
 
 Let me understand. In November, 1880, at the 
 meeting held at Milltown, do you recollect who the 
 speakers were ? — I could not say. I did not go to the 
 meeting. 
 
 Do you know who attended the meeting in September, 
 1885 ?— I cannot say. 
 
 You said something about an explosion ? — Yes, on 
 the night of June 7, 1886. 
 
 What was it ? — I could not say. A gun and a revolver 
 were found near my house by the police. The place 
 where they were found was about 20 to 25 yards from 
 the house. There was a deep hole in the ground about 
 2ft. square from 20 to 25 yards from the house. Two 
 pairs of shoes and a hat were also found close to the 
 spot. That was in a field near a corner of the garden. 
 
 Was that near any bailding ? — No. 
 
 Did not it strike you as a very odd thing ? — I did not 
 know what it was for. 
 
 Was it the same time you found the gun and the 
 revolver ? — About half-an-hour afterwards. 
 
 So that the ruffians who had done this had left a 
 hat, two pairs of shoes, a gun, and a revolver, and no 
 one could be seen ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you go out ? — As soon as I was dressed. 
 
 How many police had you at your house at the time? 
 —Three. They were boarding and sleeping, not in 
 my house, but in anothei quite close by. 
 
 And were these three policemen all taking rest at the 
 same time ? — They were all in bed. I could not say 
 whether any of them were about the place. 
 
 Did you hear the sound of the explosion ? — Yes. I 
 got up and dressed. The police came to my door and 
 asked me if I had heard it. It was about 2 o'clock 
 in the morning of June 7, and was very nearly day- 
 light. We could not see anybody. The police went to 
 look and found some tracks of feet. The gun was 
 found about 15 yards from where the explosion took 
 place and about ten yards from the house. The 
 revolver was quite close. There were traces of men's 
 bare feet on the spot where the gun was found, just 
 outside the ditch. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — Would there be 
 grass about the place where the gun and revolver were 
 found ? — There was. There was the impression of a 
 foot near. The side of the ditch was of clay. 
 
 By Sir C. Russell. — Had you any grown-up sons 
 sleeping in the house ? — Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — With 
 regard to the processes you served, did you serve what- 
 ever was given you by Mr. Leonard ? — I only served 
 what I got from him. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — With reference to your 
 Lordship's observations as to the cause of the outrages 
 being proved, I must ask you to take note of the case 
 of Edmond Brown. In that case a woman named 
 Horan had previously been in possession of the farm 
 of Brown. The suggestion made by Sir Charles Russell 
 was that the outrage on him was the result of a private 
 grievance. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I made no such suggestion. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I desire to prove the 
 cause of the outrage from the Kerry Sentinel of Dec.21, 
 1880. I put in the whole of the report, but will only 
 read a portion : — " Castleisland branch of the Land 
 League. — At a special meeting of this branch, held on 
 Tuesday to consider some urgent cases, Mr. P. Kenny 
 in the chair, the chairman said, ' The Rev. Father 
 Murphy has to inform you that Brown, of Scartaglin, 
 has come before you to-day, and I believe it is the 
 united action of the Land League that has forced him 
 to give up.' Then BrOwn entered the room, guarded 
 by two constables, and accompanied by a large crowd. 
 Then followed a discussion at the Land League meet- 
 ing about Brown's case." I only desire to supplement 
 the case with the report. 
 
 Johanna Brown, examined by the Attorney-General, 
 said, — My husband was tenant to Colonel Rowan, and 
 he bought some land from him. There were two 
 tenants named Fitzgerald on the land he purchased. 
 My husband was never a member of the Land League. 
 My husband was shot on October 3, 1882. On that 
 day he was at work in his field next the land he had 
 bought. I heard some shots fired, and I ran out to 
 see what was the matter, and saw two men running 
 away. My husband died almost immediately. Two 
 men, Poll and Barrett, were afterwards tried and con- 
 
 Arthur Gloster. 
 
 Johanna Brown. 
 
434 
 
 The Special Commission/ November 28, 1888. 
 
 dieted of the murder. My husband had always been 
 on good terms with his neighbours. Except his having 
 bought land, I never heard anything said against him. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— Barrett was 
 a neighbour of ours, but Poff was not. I do not know 
 where Poff lived ; he was a stranger to me. 
 
 Has if; ever been iu any way suggested that any 
 complaint was ever made by the Land League or any 
 members of the Land League of anything your hus- 
 band had done ? — I do not remember anything. 
 
 Did you ever know or hear of your husband being 
 directly or indirectly referred to by any member of 
 the League ? — I do not know. 
 
 So far as you know did anything of the kind ever 
 occur ? — I never heard of it. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— After 
 the murder I was under police protection. I had no 
 difficulty in getting food. I got it where I always 
 got it. 
 
 District-Inspector William Henry Rice, Royal 
 Irish Constabulary, examined by the Attorney- 
 General, said, — I am at present stationed at Castle- 
 island. From August, 1SS6, to May, 1887, I was at 
 Listowel. In November, 1886, I took charge of the 
 prisoners sent from Tralee Gaol to Cork City Winter 
 Assizes. There were 43 prisoners, the majority of whom 
 were charged with moonlighting offences. When we 
 got to Cork there was a large Crowd there. I saw 
 Mr. John O'Connor, M.P., there. I did not know him 
 at the time, but I knew who he was afterwards. Mr. 
 J. O'Connor appeared to me to- be the leader of the 
 crowd. He continually shouted and took off his hat 
 and waved it over his head before the crowd. I saw 
 him standing at the corner of a street, and I heard him 
 shouting " Down with British law," " Down with 
 Cork juries," and cheering for Poff and Barrett. I 
 distinctly heard him cheering for Poff and Barrett, and 
 shouting " Down with Cork juries " and " Down with 
 British law." The crowd repeated the same cry. 
 When I heard him shouting " Down with British law " 
 I told him that he should be cautious and mind what 
 he was about. I knew who Poff and Barrett were. 
 They had been executed at the beginning of 1883 for 
 the murder of the husband of the last witness. I 
 understood they had been tried in Cork. Mr. J. 
 O'Connor and the crowd followed the prisoners and 
 their escort all the way to the gaol, a distance of over 
 a mile. Mr. J. O'Connor rode on in a car in front of 
 the prisoners, cheering and shouting. When a mob 
 gathered round him he would address them till the 
 prisoners had passed. I had some apprehension that 
 there would be interference with the prisoners. I 
 was in charge of the escort and responsible for the 
 safety of the prisoners. 
 
 The President. — How were the prisoners being con- 
 veyed ?— Marching two by two. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — With police escort ? — Yes. 
 
 What did you take to be the number of the crowd ? — 
 Thousands. 
 
 How many police were there ? — I really could not 
 say ; .about 40, perhaps. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lock-wood.— Prom first to 
 last, was any hand raised against the police ? — No. 
 
 Was there generally a demonstration on the part of 
 the people when prisoners were being taken through 
 the town ?— I have never taken prisoners through Cork 
 before. 
 
 When did you first see Mr. John O'Connor ? — Soon 
 after leaving the railway station. I did not notice him 
 on the platform . 
 
 Did he go up and shake hands with one of the persons 
 you had in custody ? — I did not see him. 
 
 Was one of the persons you had in custody Dr. 
 Brosnan fW Yes. , He was not chained to another 
 prisoner. He was not handcuffed until he got to Cork. 
 I did not see Mr. O'Connor shake hands with him. 
 Brosnan was charged with firing shots at the police. 
 To the best of my belief he was acquitted owing to 
 some technical flaw. 
 
 How far was John O'Connor when you first saw him ? 
 — Not far. , 
 
 You did not know him before ? — No. 
 
 Ypu say there were thousands of people gathered 
 round the prisoners in the streets. Were they all shout- 
 ing ?— A great many were. 
 
 You say you went close up to Mr. O'Connor and told 
 him to be cautious ? — Yes. I was passing close to him 
 at the time. He was standing at a corner of a street 
 as I passed him. 
 
 Did he say anything in answer to you ? — He did not, 
 but he called out " Three cheers for a fair trial," 
 and I remarked " That is something better." 
 
 Where do you say Mr. John O'Connor was when he 
 said " Three cheers for Poff and Barrett " ? — He was 
 not far from me. 
 
 How many persons were between you and him ? — 
 
 Sometimes a few, and sometimes more ; they were 
 passing and repassing. Mr. O'Connor appeared to be 
 the leader. He was a very tall man. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — You are well ac- 
 quainted with the popular feeling in Kerry ? — I do not 
 quite know what you mean by popular feeling. 
 
 Is it not part of your duty to ascertain what people 
 are talking about around you ? — Yes. 
 
 Then I assume yon are acquainted with the popular 
 feeling ?— I know what you call popular feeling. 
 
 Do you know that there was a widespread feeling 
 that Poff and Barrett were hung innocently ? — I have 
 heard so. 
 
 Have you heard that both these men left written de- 
 clarations of their innocence ? — I have heard some- 
 thing to J that effect. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biggar. — These, were prisoners 
 under the coercion law whom you were bringing to 
 Cork;? — No, not at all. Some of them were charged 
 with moonlight offences and some with murder. 
 
 Was not the venue changed? Were not the prisoners 
 moved to an adjoining county to be tried at great in- 
 convenience to the parties ? — To what parties ? 
 
 District-Inspector William Henry Rico 
 
The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 435 
 
 To the prisoners and their friends ? — I should not say 
 that there had been any great inconvenience. 
 
 Do you mean to say that it is as convenient to per- 
 sons in poor circumstances to have to bring their wit- 
 nesses to an adjoining county as it would be if they 
 only had to bring them to the county in which they 
 lived ? — Their witnesses are paid if the venue is 
 changed. 
 
 Do you mean to tell me that the witnesses are paid 
 beforehand, and that these poor people have not the 
 expense of the witnesses in the first instance ? — I am 
 quite aware in the case of witnesses both for the pro- 
 secution and the defence the expenses are paid by the 
 Crown. 
 
 Do you mean to swear that the witnesses' expenses 
 are paid in advance by the Crown ? — I do. 
 
 In advance, before the trial takes place ? — Before 
 they leave the railway station of their town. 
 
 The Attorney-General (to Sir Charles Russell, 
 who had made an inaudible remark). — You have no 1 
 right to say it is a mistake, Sir Charles. (To witness 
 in re-examination.) Was this a winter assize ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 And are the persons who have been charged with 
 offences in several counties charged at one assize 
 town ? — Yes. 
 
 Had there been any change of venue at all in these 
 :ases ? — No. 
 
 Under these circumstances the expenses of witnesses 
 ire paid by the Crown ? — Paid by the Crown. 
 
 Had they got a ticket for their travelling expenses 
 "n the first instance and their maintenance afterwards ? 
 —Yes, Sir. 
 
 You were asked by Mr. Lockwood whether people 
 were passing backward and forward between you and 
 Mr. O'Connor when you saw him. I think you said he 
 was on a car and went on for about a mile ? — Oh, 
 yes. At the gaol door he was making a very wild 
 sort of speech to a large mob. 
 
 Sergeant Faussett was next called and examined by 
 Mr. Murphy. — I was in the streets at the time the 
 prisoners were passing through Cork. I did not see 
 Dr. Tanner ; I saw Mr. John O'Connor. Mr. O'Connor 
 sat on the outside of the car and several times shouted 
 " Down with the Cork jurors," " Groans for the Cork 
 jurors," " Cheers for Poff and Barrett," " Cheers 
 for the Kerry prisoners." 
 
 Was this done once or more than once ? — Several 
 times between the Examiner office and the corner of 
 Great George-street. Mr. O'Brien, now Mayor of 
 Cork, got on the car with Mr. O'Connor. These 
 phrases were shouted several times between that and 
 Great George-street. 
 
 Was the car stopped before any houses where jurors 
 lived ? — Yes ; I saw Mr. O'Connor put his hand on the 
 reins of the car and stop the horse quite convenient to 
 the place where Mr. Hunt and another juror lived. I 
 4o not know that they were on that jury, but I know 
 they were on several other juries before that. 
 
 Do you know the number of prisoners that were con- 
 victed at this assize ?— I cannot say that. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — Were there a 
 great many people shouting out ? — Yes, immediately 
 behind the car of Mr. O'Connor there were a number 
 of rowdies — one of them named Doyle. 
 
 I was not asking you about that, but whether there 
 was much shouting ? — Yes ; groans and cheers in re- 
 sponse to Mr. O'Connor. 
 
 Were a great many shouting out as to the conviction 
 of Poff and Barrett ? — No, I heard nothing. 
 
 Were not a great many of the persons who were 
 shouting out making allusions to the conviction of 
 Poff and Barrett ?— No. 
 
 But you heard persons in the crowd calling out the 
 names of Poff and Barrett ? — No, not except Mr. 
 O'Connor ; that I swear. 
 
 Do you know that there was a strong feeling against 
 the conviction of Poff and Barrett in the south of 
 Ireland ? — No, I could not say that. That was the 
 only occasion on which I heard the conviction of Poff 
 and Barrett alluded to in crowds. I had nothing to do 
 with the trial of these men. 
 
 How far were you on this occasion from Mr. Eice ?— 
 Part of the time I was immediately beside Mr. Eice, 
 and another part I followedMr. O'Connor's car further on. 
 
 I ask you where you were with regard to Mr. Eice ? 
 — Quite close to him ; not during the whole time. 
 
 Were you near Dr. Brosnan ? — 5Tes ; be was pointed 
 out to me by one of the escort. 
 
 Did you see Mr. John O'Connor go up and shake 
 hands with him ? — No. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Witness, have you ever heard any 
 opinion expressed by any one in county Cork that 
 these Cork jurors at these special assizes were packed 
 to secure a conviction ? — No ; I have seen it stated in 
 the papers. 
 
 And you have not heard it in private conversation ? — ■ 
 I have heard it stated in private conversation that they 
 performed their duties faithfully. 
 
 Yes, in finding verdicts, no matter what was the 
 evidence ; and on the other hand from another set of 
 people that they acted dishonestly and unfairly ? — No, 
 I did not hear that. (Laughter.) 
 
 You have seen that opinion expressed in newspapers ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Ee-examined by the Attorney-General. — In what 
 papers ? — I saw it in United Ireland and the Cork Daily 
 Herald. 
 
 Was Hurley a prisoner there ? — No. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, are we to go into 
 Hurley's case ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My learned friend has for- 
 gotten one part of the opening I addressed to your 
 Lordships. I am putting this forward as action of Mr. 
 O'Connor. 
 
 The President. — How does it depend on particular 
 charges against the prisoners ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — No, my Lords, I quite 
 agree with that. 
 
 ■Sergeant Faussett. 
 
436 
 
 The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Will your Lordships ask about 
 Hurley ? 
 The Attorney-General.— No, my Lords. 
 The President. — No, not under the circumstances. 
 
 George Agnew was next called and examined by 
 Mr. Atkinson. Witness said, — I am a shorthand writer, 
 and was in Cork on December 1, 1886. I was not 
 present at what took place when the prisoners were 
 being escorted a few days before. I was present at a 
 meeting which was held on December 1, 1886. It was 
 held opposite the Court-house in Cork. I was there 
 and took notes. I remember who was the speaker — 
 Mr. John O'Connor. I was taking notes in the crowd 
 Grst. and I was interfered with, and Mr. O'Connor 
 gave me a seat on the car from which he was speaking. 
 While I was taking notes the crowd prevented me, and 
 would not allow me to continue. I took a note of 
 part of what he said at the time. I have not got it with 
 me. I do not know where it is. I supplied a transcript 
 of it to the Government. That meeting was dispersed 
 by the police, and up to the time it was dispersed no 
 person had spoken but Mr. O'Connor. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Perhaps your Lordships will allow 
 me to delay the cross-examination of this witness until 
 the transcript is produced. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Certainly, my Lords. We 
 are willing that Mr. Loekwood should do so. 
 
 The President (to the Attorney-General). — I suppose 
 you have not got the transcript ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If I can get it, I will do 
 so at once, my Lords. 
 
 The President. — My only object was to bring the 
 cross-examination as close as possible to the examina- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Eice, recalled. — Do you know whether Cronin 
 and Macmahon had served on any Cork juries ? — I do 
 not know the names of any Cork jurors. 
 
 i Maurice Kennedy was next called and examined by" 
 Mr. Atkinson. Witness, whose answers were fre- 
 quently unintelligible, said, — I live at Anniscaul ; that 
 is about 16 or 17 miles to the west of Tralee, and nine 
 from Dingle. 
 
 Was there any Land League in Anniscaul, or any 
 League of any kind, np to the year 1885 ? — I think so, 
 Sir. 
 
 What is your business ? — I am a smith and farmer, 
 and I carry goods, butter and other things, from Dingle 
 to Tralee. I attended an auction of some hay on the 
 property of Mr. Blennerhassett in August, 1885. I was 
 not aware that that auction was boycotted. I heard 
 afterwards that it was. I bought some of the hay at 
 the auction and took it away with me. I got it all 
 right. A short time after that part of the ear of my 
 horse was cut off. I cannot say whether it was cut 
 off at night or in the day. 
 
 Up to that time had you been on good terms with 
 your neighbours ? — I was, Sir, with some of them. 
 I cannot say whether I joined the League before or 
 after my horse's ear was cut off. I did join it. I 
 
 George Agnew. 
 Maurice Kennedy. 
 
 cannot say at all about what time. I cannot say who 
 was the secretary when I joined it. 
 
 Try and remember now. Was there a man of the 
 name of Pat Herlihy ? — I cannot remember, Sir ; I 
 cannot indeed. 
 
 Did you attend meetings of the League ? — I did, 
 sometimes. 
 
 Once a week ?— Any time I might like to call in 
 there, Sir. 
 
 How often would you like to call in ? Did you not 
 attend on Sunday ? — Sometimes, Sir. 
 
 How many years did you continue your attendance ?— 
 I cannot say. 
 
 Did you attend during the whole of 1886 up to 1887 ? 
 ■ — (The first part of the answer was unintelligible.) The 
 man who cut off the ear of my horse was a man named 
 Thomas Cruikshank. 
 
 Were you fined by the League eighteenpence ? — (The 
 answer was unintelligible.) 
 
 , Did you pay when you were admitted as a member ? 
 — I did. I don't know at all what I paid, whether it 
 was a pound or a shilling, or £5 or a shilling. I can- 
 not tell you what was the fee for admission. 
 
 Did you pay the sum of Is. 6d. after you bad been 
 admitted ? — For the subscription, I think ; I could not 
 say whether it was for breaking a regulation of the 
 League. I knew a man of the name of Tom Boler. 
 
 Was it for speaking to him that you were fined 
 Is. 6d. ? — I could not say, Sir. 
 
 Did you know a man named Justin M'Carthy ? — I did. 
 
 Did you work for him ? — Yes. 
 
 At the League meetings was M'Carthy's name men- 
 tioned as a " roaster " ? — I cannot remember, Sir. 
 
 Did you ever hear the name used at the League ? 
 — That is a funny word. 
 
 Did you hear it used at the League ? — What do you 
 mean by " roaster, " Sir ? 
 
 What did you understand was the meaning of the 
 word " roaster " ?■ — It is a cant word. 
 
 What is the meaning of your cant word " roaster " ? 
 — I cannot say, Sir. 
 
 Who was it applied to ? — I cannot say, Sir. 
 
 Did you ever hear a man called a " roaster " ?— -Of 
 course. 
 
 What was the meaning of it, Sir ? — I cannot say- 
 Have you not often called a man a " roaster " f— 'Of 
 course, Sir. 
 
 What did you mean by it ? — I cannot tell yon. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Did you not mean a man that was boycotted by the 
 League ? — I cannot say, Sir. 
 
 Do you see this gentleman here (touching Mr. Shan- 
 non) ? — Yes. 
 
 Was Boler called a " roaster " ? — Many a time I 
 have heard people called " roaster." 
 
 Did you hear Boler called a " roaster " ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you hear a man named Cournihan called a 
 " roaster " ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you hear a man named Kennedy called a. 
 " roaster " ?— (No answer.) 
 
The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 437 
 
 Did you hear a man named Tom O'Donnell called a 
 *' roaster " ?— Perhaps, Sir. 
 
 Did yon see a list of men put up at tho Land League 
 meetings you had attended yourself— a list of " roasters " 
 — on the wall ? — I cannot say I did. I cannot give any 
 of them. 
 
 Did you see a list hung up ? — I did not find any 
 meaning. 
 
 Did you attend any meetings of the committee of the 
 League ? — Perhaps I did sometimes, Sir ; I do not 
 know. 
 
 At these committees did any of the persons present, 
 members of the League, tell you what was the meaning 
 of the list of ' ' roasters " that was hung up ?— No, 
 Sir. 
 
 SlE C. Eussell. — He did not say there was a list of 
 " roasters " hung up. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — I propose, my Lords, with your 
 Lordships' permission, to examine this witness out of 
 the proof that he gave to Mr. Shannon. 
 
 Witness. — The man who took down my statement, I 
 could not understand what he said. I told him in my 
 statement that perhaps I would not understand. 
 
 What was it you knew beforehand you would not 
 understand ? — I told him I would not understand his 
 voice. 
 
 Did you tell him that Boler was boycotted ? — I told 
 him that rumour outside said so. 
 
 Did you tell Mr. Shannon that you were fined Is. 6d. 
 by the League for speaking to Boler P — I told him it 
 might be. 
 
 And that the committee brought a charge against you 
 for speaking to Boler ? — I don't know whether I 
 understood that ; I did not understand his voice. 
 
 But did you say that a charge was brought against 
 you ? — I might have said it. 
 
 When you said it, was it a true statement ? — I paid 
 Is. 6d. 
 
 Did you tell him that when you were fined 
 by the branch League the president was present, as 
 well as O'Brien, the secretary, and Moriarty P — They 
 were present, but I did not know what was going on. 
 
 Were you not inside yourself ? — I could not tell you 
 why they were there. 
 
 Though you were in the room and they were con- 
 sidering a charge against you, you took no interest in 
 the charge ?— No interest in the world. (Laughter.) 
 
 When they were going to fine you ? — They asked me 
 Is. 6d., and I gave it them, of course. 
 
 What for ?— They did not tell me. 
 
 Did you ask them ? — No. 
 
 Do you know P — I heard outside the" door that I had 
 to pay on account of Boler. 
 
 You did not believe it p — No. 
 
 Did you also tell Mr. Shannon that men who worked 
 for Justin M'Carthy and Boler were called " roasters" ? 
 —It might be ; I do not know. 
 
 Was it true P — There are a good many called 
 " roasters." 
 
 Did,,you tell him that Boler was boycotted before you« 
 
 were fined for speaking to him ? — I might, Sir, but 
 perhaps I did not. 
 
 Did you tell him that Boler's name was read out as a 
 " roaster " ?— I did not hear it inside the League room. 
 
 Were you told by members of the League ? — I do not 
 know by whom. 
 
 Did you tell this gentleman that people leaving the 
 League room told you outside that Boler was boycotted 
 and his name read out as a "roaster" ? — I may have said 
 it ; I may have told a lie. 
 
 Don't you know the difference between a lie and 
 truth ? Was it true P — It may be. 
 
 Did you tell this gentleman that some members of 
 the League outside told you that Boler was boycotted ? 
 Did you say that P — I may have said it. 
 
 Did you tell this gentleman that you heard a list of 
 names was kept by the Land League of those who 
 were boycotted, and that you heard that at the League 
 rooms ? — I don't think I told him that. 
 
 When were you speaking to him ? — About eight days 
 ago — it may be over that. 
 
 You are not able to remember whether you told him 
 that ? — Yes, I told him I was told outside the doors. 
 
 Did you tell him that outside the League room you 
 heard there was a list kept by the League of those 
 who were boycotted ? — Yes. 
 
 And that you heard that at the Land League meet- 
 ings yourself ? — Yes, but it was outside the doors I 
 heard it. 
 
 Was it at the meetings, just as the people came out ? 
 —No. 
 
 Did you tell him that Boler was one of those names ; 
 that you heard he was a " roaster," and that every 
 " roaster " was to be boycotted ? — I may. 
 
 And that the Land League boycotted them ? — I did 
 not say the League boycotted them at all. 
 
 Did you tell him that you used to hear discussions as 
 to whether names should be placed on the list of per- 
 sons boycotted ? — I do not understand that word at all, 
 Sir. 
 
 Did you tell him that Cournihan, Sheehan, Justin 
 M'Carthy's son-in-law, Kennedy, and J. O'Donnell 
 were in that list ? — I was examined about those names, 
 and I said they may be, but I could not remember. 
 
 Was it not you who named those persons as being on 
 the " roasters' " list ? — I do not remember now. 
 
 Did not you yourself name Cournihan ? — I think it was 
 Mr. Gray asked me if I had heard about the name. 
 
 What did you say ? — I told him he might be, but I 
 could not remember. 
 
 Did you not tell this! gentleman that a man named 
 Griffin, whose name was on the list, was attacked and 
 beaten when coming from Tralee ? — I might have done 
 so. 
 
 Did not you yourself mention to this gentleman the 
 word " roaster " ? — I think it was Mr. Gray. 
 
 And this gentleman asked you what it meant ? — It 
 might be, but I could not say. 
 
 Did you say after you were fined by the Land League. 
 that you would not work for any person on the list of 
 
 Maurice Kennedy.. 
 
438 
 
 The Special Commission, November 28, 18ss. 
 
 " roasters " ? — Witness was understood to say that he 
 had said so. 
 
 Were you attacked yourself and beaten ?— If I was I 
 don't remeniber it ; I don't blame the League for 
 anything. 
 
 Who told you to say that?— My own brains. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Now, when were you beaten ?— I don't understand 
 the word at all ; is that to be struck ? 
 
 Yes. Were you struck ? — I do not know. 
 
 Were you knocked down one night going into Tralee 
 with your horse and cart ? — I was struck coming from 
 Tralee. I told Sergeant Shea that. 
 
 Did you tell this gentleman that Griffin was named 
 in the list, and that he was once attacked and beaten 
 coming from Tralee ? — If I did I could not account for 
 it. 
 
 Did you not tell this gentleman that three of the 
 men who attacked him were Land Leaguers ?— I may 
 have told him ; I could not know what happened to 
 him. 
 
 Did you tell him Keevan's name was on the list ? — I 
 could not say, Sir. 
 
 You heard it by word of mouth ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you tell him that the windows of a man named 
 Coen were broken ? — I do not know anything about it. 
 
 Did you tell him that one of the principal busi- 
 nesses in the Land League you attended was to con- 
 sider the boycotting of "roasters" ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Did you hear any talk about that at the League 
 meetings ? — I did not. 
 
 Did you say you did ? — I may have. 
 
 Was it among the people outside the doors after the 
 meeting was dissolved ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember the day you gave this statement to 
 this gentleman ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you given any statement to any body since ? — 
 No. 
 
 Have you been speaking to any one since ? — No, 
 except any man I might meet here. 
 
 Did you meet any person here to whom you have 
 spoken about the evidence you were going to give ? — 
 No ; I am keeping my talk to myself. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— As far as I am aware there is not 
 the least foundation for saying that any of those who 
 have instructed me have got any statement from this 
 witness. My learned friends may see any scraps of 
 information I have. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — There is one question more, my 
 Lord, which I wish to put to the witness. 
 
 The President. — Do you expect to get anything 
 from him, Mr. Atkinson ? (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Atkinson (to witness). — The other day were you 
 brought to any house or office in the Strand ? — I don't 
 see any office in the strand. 
 
 Were you brought to a house in a street leading off 
 the Strand ? — I was on toe strand. I had business 
 there. 
 
 What were you doing? — I was collecting seaweed. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — How far is the 
 strand from your house ? — Only about a mile. 
 
 Now, I want to ask you, "first of all, when were 
 you first told you would have to come here as a wit- 
 ness ?— What is that, Sir ? 
 
 When were you first told ? — I started on the very 
 day I was taking seaweed on the strand, when 
 someone served me with a paper. 
 
 With a £5 note, I suppose ? — Yes. 
 
 Who left it ? — It was left at my house with my 
 wife. I was not inside. 
 
 Do you know who it was ? — Oh, yes, to stand here 
 as witness. 
 
 Yes, for that purpose, but who left it ; what 
 person, what man ? — I could not say ; he was gone 
 before I came. 
 
 Now, before you got that paper requiring you to 
 come here, had you seen Sergeant Shea ? — I had. 
 
 At Anniscaul ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you seen District-Inspector Gray? — I have, here 
 in Court ; not till I came here. 
 
 Had you seen any other policemen besides Sergeant 
 Shea before you came here ? — Yes, to direct me in 
 the way to come here. 
 
 Did any come with you here f — No. 
 
 When did you see Sergeant Shea first ? — I went to 
 his barracks two or three days before I was told to 
 come here. 
 
 Did he send for you ? — No, it was myself went to get 
 him to direct me what course I would take to come 
 here. 
 
 Had you not seen Shea before that about what had 
 been going on in that neighbourhood ? — No. 
 
 Did you make any statement to Shea ? — No. 
 
 Or take anything from him ?— No. I asked him 
 what questions would be put to me here, and what 
 was the date of my horse's ear being cut. I thought 
 it was about that I was coming here. 
 
 Then you came over here ? — Yes. 
 
 How long ago ? 
 
 Witness then took out a paper from his pocket and 
 handed it to Sir C. Russell. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — This is the summons. 
 
 Witness. — I left the day I was served. 
 
 Now, when did you see this gentleman — Mr. 
 Shannon ? — I seen him a few days after I came here. 
 
 Who was present at the time you saw him ? — Mr, 
 Gray. 
 
 Is Mr. Gray here ? (Mr. Gray then stood up in the 
 Court and was recognized by the witness.) 
 
 Who else was there ? — I don't remember. 
 
 Was Sergeant Shea there ? — No, far as I seen him. 
 
 You mean as far as you did not see him. (Laughter.) 
 
 Had Mr. Shannon any paper before him ? Did 
 he read out anything to you, or what did he do ? — I 
 said I wanted to carry on my own business. 
 
 Did you give tho names to him first, or did he 
 mention them to you ? — He asked me about Boler, 
 and I told him what I was told outside the door. 
 
 Did you mention Boler before he asked you about 
 
 Maurice Kennedy. 
 
The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 439 
 
 him ? — I hardly remember. I could not remember 
 whether I mentioned Boler first or he. He asked me 
 about those " roasters." 
 
 Did he mention their names ? — Some of them, I 
 think. I said I could not account for them ; I had 
 my own business. 
 
 Did Gray put any questions ? — I don't remember 
 now. 
 
 Were any other witnesses there besides you ? — I could 
 not say ; there were a great many people there ; I 
 took no account of them. 
 
 The Commissioners then adjourned for lunch. 
 
 On resuming, the cross-examination of Kennedy was 
 continued by Sir C. Russell. 
 
 Just attend to me, Kennedy ; you say you are a 
 smith, a farmer, and a carter ; in August, 1885, did you 
 attend at this auction which you say. you afterwards 
 heard outside was boycotted ? — In August, Sir ? Yes, 
 I did, Sir. 
 
 And a piece of the ear of one of your horses was cut 
 off ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 And you got compensation ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 How much ?— £12. 
 
 Whom did you suspect of that ? — The caretaker of 
 Elennerhassett did not like me. 
 
 Is that Arthur Blennerhassett ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Was this auction of hay upon an evicted farm ? — On 
 Blennerhassett farm, Sir. 
 
 Had it been an evicted farm ? — No, Sir, not to my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Who is Tom Boler or what is he ? — He was supposed 
 to be a '* roaster," but I do not know what he was. 
 
 What business had he ? — He was a road contractor 
 sometimes, I think. 
 
 And what was M'Carthy ? — He was a strong farmer. 
 
 Had you anything to do with either Boler or M'Carthy 
 yourself ? — I am working for Boler myself. 
 
 Did you always work for him when he wanted you ? — 
 He cannot deny it. Sir. 
 
 I understood you to say you did not do his work 
 regularly. Was it not M'Carthy you worked for ? — 
 M'Carthy never gave me work. 
 
 Do you of your own knowledge know about Boler and 
 M'Carthy being boycotted ? — No, Sir, I do not of my 
 own knowledge. I did not see him boycotted. 
 
 Did you see them about the village and in and out 
 the public houses ? — I did, Sir. 
 
 Have you seen anything done to them ? — No, Sir. 
 
 And are they alive and well 1 — Yes, Sir, 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — Was 
 Cruikshank steward to Blennerhassett ? — He was, Sir. 
 
 Did you report the outrage on your horss p — I mads a 
 complaint. 
 
 Did you ever say one word about Cruikshank having 
 anything to do with it before you said so to-day ? — He 
 did not like me, Sir, and I did not like him at that 
 time. 
 
 Did you ever make a charge against Cruikshank be- 
 fore to-day ? — I made a statement that I suspected him. 
 
 Maurice Kennedy. 
 
 Did you tell Sergeant Shea you suspected Cruik- 
 shank ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 That you swear ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I propose now, my Lords, 
 to prove the witness's statement by calling Mr. 
 Shannon. 
 
 Mr. William Shannon was then called and examined 
 by the Attorney-General. He said, —I am a solici- 
 tor, practising in Dublin. I have been assisting Mr. 
 Soames and taking the proofs of some of the witnesses. 
 I took the proof of Maurice Kennedy. A shorthand 
 writer was present. His name is Holderness. The 
 statement was taken in Mr. Soames's office, 58, Lin- 
 coln's-inn-fields, upstairs. There were one or two 
 persons present when I took the statement. They 
 had nothing to do with the district from which Maurice 
 Kennedy comes. Mr. Gray came in later, but Sergeant 
 Shea was not at the office until some days after. 
 
 Will you tell us all that you knew about this man 
 Kennedy when you began to take his statement ? — 
 The only fact I knew about him was that an ear of 
 his horse had been cut off. 
 
 That is all you knew about him ? — That is all. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Now, the shorthand 
 writer ; if you please, Mr. Holderness. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— But I should like to ask Mr. 
 Shannon some questions. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — He can be recalled after- 
 wards, but I want now to prove the statement. 
 
 Mr. Holderness,examined by the Attorney-General, 
 said, — I am a shorthand writer, and have been taking 
 the statements of some of the witnesses. I took the 
 statement of the witness Kennedy. I have my note 
 h6re. 
 
 Will you read it please ? — Yes. — (Reading) " Cutting 
 off the ear of Maurice Kennedy's horse." (That is my 
 own head note.) 
 
 " Witness is a smith and farmer. He recollects bid- 
 ding for the hay at Mr. Blennerhassett's auction, in 
 August, 1885, in Inchisland. He did not see any 
 threatening notice. Up to the time of the auction he 
 had been on good terms with his neighbours. After 
 the auction his horse's ear was cut off. He joined the 
 Land League at that time and after he attended meet- 
 ings at the Land League house at Anniscaul. He 
 attended a meeting after this cutting of the horse's 
 ear. The secretary was at this meeting. He used to 
 cart pigs from Dingle fair to Tralee. At the fair after 
 the outrage on his horse he did not get any pigs. This 
 was the fair after the auction of the hay at Inchisland. 
 He always got the carting of the pigs before this. It is 
 the practice at these fairs that a certain number of 
 carters go to the fair and the jobbers will always give 
 the carting of their pigs to these carters. This is a 
 regular custom. ' I was fined Is. 6d. for breaking a regu- 
 lation of the Land League once. The committee 
 brought a charge against me for speaking to a man 
 named Boler, of Inch. I paid Is. 6d. I work for Justin 
 M'Carthy now. When I was lined the president of that 
 branch of the League was present as well as Mr. Bryan, 
 the secretary, also Moriarty. They said that the charge 
 
 Mr. William Shannon. 
 Mr. Holderness. 
 
440 
 
 The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 against me was for talking to T. Boler. They did not 
 say I knew he was boycotted. The men who worked for 
 Mr. Justin M'Carthy were called " roasters" ; the term 
 signifies a turnspit for landlords. Boler was called a 
 "roaster." Boler was boycotted about a year before 
 I was fined. About three or four months after my 
 horse's ear was cut off I paid the fine. I was not present 
 at the meeting when Boler was boycotted. Boler was 
 not present. He was read out as a " roaster." Over 
 20 people present when it was arranged Boler should 
 be boycotted. Some of the members of the League told 
 me outside that Boler was boycotted. I heard he 
 was called a " roaster " in the parish but not at the 
 League. I heard a list was kept for the names to be 
 entered of those who were boycotted. I heard this at 
 the League meetings. I know it was kept. The names 
 of all the " roasters " in the parish were kept on this 
 list and Boler' among them. Every " roaster " was to be 
 boycotted. The League boycotted them. Witness used 
 to hear discussions as to whether men named should be 
 placed on the list of the persons boycotted as 
 " roasters." The following I knew to be on the list : — 
 Cournihan, Shean, Justin M'Carthy's son-in-law named 
 Kennedy, T. O'Donnell, and J. O'Donnell. The Daleys 
 names also. I heard Cournihan was compelled to give 
 up working for M'Carthy. Griffins, whose name was 
 also on the list, was attacked and beaten once when 
 coming from Tralee. Three of those who attacked and 
 robbed him were Land Leaguers. Kevan's name was 
 on the list. A man named Cohee gave him lodgings 
 and his windows were smashed for it. Dan Dawley 
 had his gun taken away by moonlighters. Tom 
 O'Donnell's cow was killed. His name was on the 
 list. He got compensation. J. Kennedy Was on the 
 list and was fined by the League for selling a heifer to 
 Justin M'Carthy. The League devoted most of its time 
 to boycotting the " roasters." I attended the League 
 meetings some time. I heard that at one of the meet- 
 ings Pat Herlihy said if they went on boycotting Cour- 
 nihan he would make more money by it as all the 
 "roasters" would go to him. They left off boycotting 
 and boycotted those who went to him instead. I 
 heard this from the Land Leaguers and the " roasters." 
 When I went to the meetings I saw a list of " roasters " 
 on the wall. I was told it was the list. All men on 
 the list were boycotted. After being fined I could not 
 work for Boler, M'Carthy, or O'Donnell, or any of 
 these " roasters " on the list. I dare not. I work for 
 some of them now. This is since the suppression of 
 the League. I knew that because their names were on 
 the list I dare not work for them.' " 
 
 Was that taken down by yourself from the answers 
 of the witness ? — Well.the witness gave the answers to 
 ' Mr. Shannon and he repeated them to me. 
 
 Did you hear the witness give the answers ?— Yes. 
 
 And Mr. Shannon repeated them accurately ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by SlB C. Kr/SSELL.— Have you any 
 note in reference to the way in which the witness gave 
 his evidence ? — I have — " This witness was most 
 reluctant and tried to get out of giving his evidence." 
 
 Then it was in the nature of a cross-examination ?— 
 Well, hardly that, but he gave his evidence very 
 reluctantly. 
 
 Mr. Shannon was treating him as an unwilling wit- 
 ness and was cross-examining him ?— To a certain 
 extent. ■ 
 
 Suggesting names and topics to him ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Surely this should be put 
 to Mr. Shannon ? 
 
 The President. — This witness was present, you know. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Mr. Shannon has been 
 put in the box. I only call this witness to prove 
 the statement of Kennedy, which was taken down in 
 shorthand. Mr. Shannon will go back into the box for 
 my friend to cross-examine him. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (to witness). — Mr. Shannon put 
 questions to Kennedy ? — Yes. 
 
 He put names to him ? — Sometimes. 
 
 Frequently ? — Not frequently. 
 
 Mention one name you can charge your memory 'with 
 that this man himself volunteered ? — The names of 
 those on the list. 
 
 Mention one name you can charge your memory with 
 as having been mentioned in the first instance by the 
 witness ? — Cournihan. 
 
 Without any question being asked him ? — He was 
 asked the names of those on the list of " roasters," and 
 he gave Cournihan as the first one. 
 
 Without the name being suggested to him ?— -Yes. 
 
 You are clear as to that ? — Yes. 
 
 Would it be correct to say of this statement that it 
 is a translation of what took place between the wit- 
 ness and Mr. Shannon ? — Yes, it would. 
 
 I am sure you will tell us candidly — You have in this 
 statement a sentence, among others, " the men who 
 worked for Mr. Justin M'Carthy were called ' roasters.' 
 The term signifies a turnspit for landlords." Do you 
 suggest this man used that expression ? — He used an 
 expression to that effect. 
 
 To what effect ? — That the men who worked for 
 M'Carthy were called " roasters," and that the term 
 signifies a turnspit for landlords. 
 
 What did the man say on the occasion ? — I cannot 
 remember his exact words. He used words to that 
 effect. 
 
 What were the words he used ? — That the men who 
 worked for M'Carthy were called " roasters." 
 
 And then he was asked what the word " roasters " 
 meant, and he said a " turnspit for landlords " ? — No, 
 it was asked him, does it mean a turnspit for landlords, 
 and he said " Yes." 
 
 There is another expression to which I wish to call 
 your attention. " The League devoted most of its 
 time to boycotting the ' roasters.' " Do yon say the 
 man used that language ? — Yes. 
 
 The man said that the League devoted most of its 
 time to boycotting " roasters." Do you pledge your 
 oath that he used that language, that he said the 
 League " devoted most of its time " ? — Not word for 
 word, but to that effect. 
 
 What were the words he used to that effect ?— I 
 think he said they spent most of their time in boy« 
 cotting " roasters." 
 
 Why did you not take it down in that way ? — I took 
 it down from Mr. Shannon as he interpreted it. 
 
 You did not take down all the words the man said 
 in answer to the questions put to him ? — No, 
 
 Mr. Holderness. 
 
The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 441 
 
 Then Mr. Shannon put the questions and interpreted 
 the answers and you put that down ? — Yes. 
 
 Here is a statement I should lite to ask you about 
 — " I was fined Is. 6d. for breaking a regulation of 
 the Land League once. Boler was boycotted a year 
 before I was fined. About three months after " — turn 
 to your note, please — What have you got there ? — 
 " About three or four months after his horse's ear 
 was cut off." 
 
 Oh ! You did not read out the four when you read 
 the statement — ".I was not present at the meeting 
 when Boler was boycotted. Over 20 people present 
 when it was arranged Boler should be boycotted." 
 Do you notice that ? Did he use that language ? — Yes, 
 he did. 
 
 Did he use the word " arrange " ? — I think so. 
 
 Then the next sentence — " Some of the members of 
 the League told me outside that Boler was boycotted." 
 Did you see that ? Do you gather from that that he 
 himself had no knowledge of whether Boler was boy- 
 cotted or not, but from what he heard outside ? — Yes. 
 
 That he gathered what he knew not from being pre- 
 sent at the meeting, but from what he was told outside 
 by, I think he said, some members of the League ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you understand him to say that he was not pre- 
 sent or was present when Boler's name was read out as 
 a "roaster," or did he learn that outside ? — I think he 
 said he was not present. 
 
 When he spoke of its being arranged that Boler 
 should be boycotted and of over 20 people being pre- 
 sent, did you understand that he was speaking of some- 
 thing he had been told or of something he had wit- 
 nessed ? — Of something he had been told. 
 
 Had Mr. Shannon any paper before him when he was 
 putting these cross interrogatories ? — Yes, he had a 
 list. 
 
 A list ? — Yes, a list of information. I do not know 
 where it came from, and he reminded the witness or 
 aided his memory now and again, and gave him infor- 
 mation in the form of a question and asked him whether 
 it was correct or not. 
 
 What were the points as to which he reminded the 
 witness or aided his memory, as far as you can recol- 
 lect ? The names of the " roasters," for instance ? — 
 No. 
 
 What were the points ? — What happened at the 
 auction and whether he got the carrying of the pigs 
 after the auction. 
 
 What kind of statement did Mr. Shannon have before 
 him ? — It was in print, on one sheet of paper, I 
 think. 
 
 Can you say whether it purported to be a record or 
 memorandum of what this man could speak about ? — 
 No ; I only saw the document from a distance. 
 
 Had you a difficulty yourself, as we have had here, 
 in following this man's evidence ? — Yes. 
 
 His phraseology and accent were strange to your 
 ear ? — Yes ; but when he volunteered a statement, to 
 make sure that it should be taken down correctly, 
 
 Mr. Shannon repeated it to me, and then the witness 
 confirmed it. 
 
 Ho said " That is so " ?— Yes. 
 
 Who were present when the examination was being 
 conducted ?— Mr. Shannon, the witness, and myself, 
 and Mr. Gray came in. I think those were all. 
 
 Are you sure ? — Now and again persons passed in and 
 out of the room. 
 
 Who were they ? — They were persons whose faces 
 were familiar to me ; employts in Mr. Soames's 
 office. 
 
 Any policemen ? — No. 
 
 I notice that you have written the statement down 
 in the third person. — Sometimes I put it down in the 
 third person, sometimes in the first. 
 
 Then this does not purport to be a shorthand 
 note in the ordinary sense of what the witness said ? 
 —No. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attobney-General. — As far ae 
 you heard was anything repeated to you by Mr. 
 Shannon which was not the substance of what the wit- 
 ness said ? Did Mr. Shannon instruct you to put down 
 anything which the witness had not said ? — No. 
 
 Had you anything to do with the witness beyond 
 acting as shorthand writer on this occasion ? — Nothing 
 whatever. 
 
 Do you remember whether or not the witness was 
 the first to mention the name of Boler ? — I do not 
 remember. 
 
 Mr. Shannon then re-entered the witness-box and 
 said, in answer to the Attorney-General, — I took 
 the witness's evidence in order to prepare the proofs. 
 I dictated to the shorthand writer what I considered 
 to be material, repeating as nearly as I could the wit- 
 ness's words. 
 
 Down to what point in this statement were you, the 
 witness, and the shorthand writer alone ? When was 
 it that Inspector Gray came into the room ? — We 
 were alone together until the word " roaster " was 
 reached. 
 
 The President. — Do not you think that you might 
 both of you take the last witness's statement as fairly 
 representing what took place ? 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal. — There is one further 
 observation to make. 
 
 The President.— One would think that this was the 
 turning point of the case. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal. — Well, my Lords, I will 
 not proceed further. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Have you the 
 statement with you now that you had by you at the 
 time of your examination of this witness ? — I do not 
 think it is here, but I can get it. 
 
 Get it, please. — It contained instructions I received 
 from Mr. Soames. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I wish to see that statement. 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal.— I do not think my learned 
 friend is entitled to see it. 
 
 Sie C. Russell.— Is the statement in Court ? (No 
 
 Mr. Holderness. 
 
 Mr. Shannon. 
 
442 
 
 The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 answer.) I think the Attorney-General might 
 courteously answer that question. It is very material 
 that I should see this statement. It is very important, 
 with reference to the evidence which has been already 
 given, and with reference to other witnesses whose 
 evidence may be given, to understand how far the 
 action of this gentleman can be relied upon. He has 
 pledged his oath to one statement— namely, that the 
 only fact that he knew in connexion with this man 
 was that a portion of the ear of the witness's horse 
 had been cut off. I wish to test that statement. 
 
 The President.— What is the question ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— My question is, Where is that 
 statement ? 
 
 The President (to witness).— What is your answer ? 
 — The statement, I am sure, can be produced, but I 
 believe it is not in Court now. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— Is it in the hands of the Attorney- 
 General ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I will give the statement 
 to my learned friend, but he must undertake to refer 
 only to that part cf the statement which relates to 
 Kennedy, because in the same paper there are in- 
 structions with respect to other cases, which my 
 learned friend is not entitled to see. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Very well. Would your Lordship3 
 like to look at the statement ? 
 
 The President. — No. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am quite willing to 
 fhow your Lordships the whole of the statement. I 
 h ive shown my learned friend that part of it which 
 r.lates to Kennedy. I am quite willing that your 
 Lordships should see the rest. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed. — Who brought Kennedy 
 to your office ? — I think he came there by himself, but 
 hj may have come with other witnesses. I be- 
 lieve he came on the morning of his arrival and 
 ■ ated where he was staying, and he was then sum- 
 moned by letter. 
 
 Am I to take it that, excepting the fact that the 
 ear of Kennedy's horse was partly cut off, this evidence 
 was evidence you obtained from him in answer to 
 questions which you put to him ? Is that your state- 
 ment ? — Certainly. 
 
 The whole of it ? — Yes ; some of the names at the end 
 I put to him, asking him whether they were on the 
 list of " roasters " which he had mentioned. 
 
 Had you any statement in your possession as to this 
 list of " roasters" ? — I had never heard of it till the 
 witness mentioned it to me. I had never before 
 heard the expression " roaster." 
 
 Had you before made a list of persons supposed to 
 be boycotted ? — No. 
 
 Had you any statement from Shea ? — I had no state- 
 ment from him before me. 
 
 Have you had any statement from Shoa ? — Since 
 then I have. He arrived Borne days afterwards. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I beg pardon. I meant a state- 
 ment from Mr Gray. Had you any statement from Mr. 
 
 Gray ? — No ; I had no statement of his, but when he 
 came in he mentioned some of the names in the proof. 
 
 That is to say, he assisted you in the examination 
 of the witness ? — I had proceeded a good way in the 
 examination when Mr. Gray heard me, and I asked 
 him whether the witness did not come from his district, 
 and he said " Yes," and came over and mentioned 
 some of the names. 
 
 Can you tell us any names which he did not men- 
 tion ? — The first of them, Boler, was undoubtedly men- 
 tioned to mo by Kennedy. M'Carthy's name was also 
 mentioned to me by the witness. That the other names 
 were first mentioned by the witness I cannot take it 
 upon myself to say. I do not think, however, that all 
 of them were mentioned by Mr. Uray. Some of them, 
 I believe, were mentioned by the witness, but I cannot 
 take it upon myself to say which of them. 
 
 Your functions have not been confined to taking the 
 evidence of witnesses here. You have, I believe, been 
 travelling about Ireland in connexion with the case ?— 
 Yes ; I am not one of Mr. Soames's regular employis ; 
 I am employed for the purposes of this case. 
 
 By Mr. T. Harrington. — You had a paper before you 
 when you were asking these questions ? 
 
 The Attorney-General (handing a paper to Mr. 
 Harrington). — Here it is ; you can have it also. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington. — This is a short paragraph refer- 
 ring to Kennedy. Were there other paragraphs in the 
 same paper referring to other witnesses in the same 
 district ? — I think there was a paragraph referring to 
 one such witness. I do not think any one of the other 
 witnesses mentioned comes from the same district. 
 
 Look at the paragraph which immediately preceded 
 this one that has been torn off from the paper. Does 
 that refer to the same distriot ? — The witness mentioned 
 there certainly comes from the same district. He is 
 the witness whom I mentioned. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I will read the para- 
 graph which has been seen by my learned friends : — 
 
 " County of Kerry. — Atrocity committed on animals. 
 Cutting the ear of Maurice Kennedy's horse, West 
 Inch, 28th August, 1885. — Maurice Kennedy, farmer, 
 of West Inch, was the first to bid at the auction. On 
 the 26th August, 1885, the ear was cut off Kennedy's 
 horse. Kennedy was awarded £12 compensation at 
 Dingle Presentment Sessions on 6th November, 1885. 
 His claim was not opposed." 
 
 The witness was then re-examined by the Attorney- 
 General. — You have stated that Mr. Gray came in, 
 and you turned to him and said, " This man is from 
 your district," and then he suggested some names. 
 Had you any paper referring to Kennedy before you 
 except this which I have just read ? — No ; I had not. 
 
 Had you any statement Srom Shea, or from any one 
 else, to help you in questioning Kennedy ? — No ; I 
 had not. 
 
 You have stated that some of the names in the last 
 part of the proof may have been suggested by Mr. 
 Gray. Whether these names were suggested or not, 
 Kennedy gave the facts about the killing of the cow 
 and the breaking of the windows ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Shannon. 
 
The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 443 
 
 Had you any suggestions from any one else as to 
 that ? — I do not think I had. No. 
 
 John Kennedy, examined by Mr. Atkinson, deposed, 
 — I live near Anniscaul, in Kerry. In June, 1886, I 
 was a member of the National League. I know a man 
 named Justin M'Cartby who lives in the town. 
 
 Had he been boycotted by the League before June, 
 1886 ? 
 
 Sir C. Kitssell. — Does he know it of his own know- 
 ledge ? 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — I am asking him as to his own know- 
 ledge. To witness. — Did you know it ? — Whether he 
 was boycotted or not I do not know. 
 
 Did you attend the League meetings every Sunday ? — 
 No. 
 
 Did you attend at all ? — Yes, I did. 
 
 At any meeting which you attended was any resolu- 
 tion passed to boycott M'Carthy ? — The witness was 
 understood to say that he did not know. 
 
 In June, 1886, did you sell a heifer to M'Carthy ? — I 
 did. 
 
 Were you brought before the League for doing so ? — I 
 was. 
 
 Were you fined 3s. ? — Well, I was, Sir. 
 
 For what ? — Because I sold the heifer. 
 
 To whom did you pay the money ? — I paid it in the 
 League rooms. 
 
 To the secretary ? — I could not say. 
 
 Was it the League that fined you ? — Of course it 
 was ; but I do not know whether it was a fine or not. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 What had M'Carthy done that you should be fined 3s. 
 for selling him a heifer ? — I do not know. 
 
 Did you ever find out ? — No answer. 
 
 Do you know the expression " roaster " ? — I do. 
 
 Was M'Carthy a "roaster" at the time ? — He was 
 called one. 
 
 What is a " roaster " ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Were you expelled from the League ?— 'I was. 
 
 Why ? — Because I bought some straw from J. 
 M'Carthy. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. T. Harrington. — When you 
 paid the 3s. was anything said to you about your not 
 paying your subscription for the preceding year ? — No, 
 there was not. 
 
 Nothing was mentioned as to your not having paid 
 your subscription the year before P — I do not remember 
 that there was. I had paid my subscription some time 
 before. 
 
 Did you hear anything as to M'Cartby promoting 
 moonlight outrages ? — I did. I heard a rumour about it, 
 but that was all. 
 
 Did you hear of the attack on Dr. Kane's house ? — 
 It was rumoured that J. M'Carthy had something to do 
 with it. 
 
 What was your subscription every year ?— I paid only 
 Dne subscription. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — In what 
 year did the outrage take place in Dr. Kane's 
 
 John Kennedy. 
 
 house ? Was it a year after you were fined ? — I think 
 so. 
 
 Dennis Courniban, examined by Mr. Atktnson, said, 
 — I live at Anniscaul. I joined the National League. 
 I could not say when. 
 
 Were you called before the League for anything ?— 
 Yes, and I was asked why I was working for a certain 
 man. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Did your Lordship hear 
 that? 
 
 The President. — No, not a word. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — The witness said that he was asked 
 whether he had worked for a certain man, and that he 
 'replied, that he had, and would continue to work for 
 him. 
 
 What was the name of the man ? — Justin M'Carthy. 
 
 Was he called any name ? — Yes, a " roaster." 
 
 What does that mean ?— I could not tell. 
 
 Were you expelled from the League ? — I was. 
 
 After that what happened ? — My customers left me. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Andrew Griffin was next called and examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson. — Witness Baid, — I am a carter, and about two 
 years ago last July, in 1886, I was bringing soma 
 things from Tralee for Justin M'Carthy. I was attacked 
 upon the road and beaten and the goods were taken 
 away. I know some of the men who did it. They did 
 not say at the time why they did it. Except the carry- 
 ing of these goods, I had not done anything to anybody 
 to cause me to be attacked. I was laid up for some 
 time after being attacked. I got a message brought 
 me from one of the members of the National League 
 about the prosecution of these men. The man who 
 brought me the message was a friend of mine named 
 Farrell. The men were prosecuted and acquitted. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— They were tried 
 in their own country, at Tralee. 
 
 I do not quite understand this about the attack 
 upon you. You say someone attacked you when you 
 were carting some goods for M'Carthy from Tralee ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 You say there was a robbery upon you ? — There was 
 indeed, and worse than that. I knew four of the men. 
 
 You were asked if there was any other reason for 
 the attack than that you carted some goods for Mr. 
 M'Carthy ? — Yes, there was an affair over a drop of 
 drink. The policeman took us both to tha lock-up, 
 and wo were summoned before the petty sessions 
 court, and they were fined 2s. 6d. and Is. for the drop 
 of drink. (Laughter.) I was fined 2s. 6d., and the 
 other men were fined the same for the assault. Some 
 of the people I assaulted were friends of these men, 
 cousins. These other persons had nothing to do with 
 Mr. M'Carthy. 
 
 By the Attorney-General.— Had that previous 
 little trouble anything to do with Mr. M'Carthy ?— 
 No, except that I gave him a day's work— a day's 
 mowing. 
 
 Dennis Oournihan. 
 Andrew Griffin. 
 
444 
 
 The Special Commission, November 28, l 
 
 Was that what led to this dispute and quarrel ? — 
 Not at all, Sir. 
 
 Sib C. Kussell. — I understand you were carrying 
 your own goods in the cart ? — I was. Sir. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Just make this matter 
 clear. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson.— Had you not got some of McCarthy's 
 goods in the cart at the time ? — Of course I had. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Sergeant Shea, examined by Mr. Murphy. — I have 
 been stationed at Anniscaul for some years. There were 
 no outrages at all in that district until I went there 
 in 1880. They began to increase in December, 1880. 
 When I first went there the term " land-grabber" was not 
 known at all. I never heard the term before. There 
 were no moonlighters when I first went there. When 
 1 first went there people were not punished for 
 paying their rents, taking evicted farms, and 
 so on. There was no serious crime committed 
 there before 1880. Drunkenness and so on waa 
 the ordinary crime of the district. There was 
 no branch of the Land League there at that time. The 
 police force was a small one — five men. The first 
 meeting of the National League was held there on the 
 20th of September, 1885. Among those who formed 
 the committee were a man named O'Brien, others 
 named Pat O'Callerty, Thomas Foley, and some others 
 I do not remember now. After the League was started 
 Justin M'Carthy the elder was boycotted in the 
 following spring. I only know that from information. As 
 far as I know he had done nothing to cause him to be 
 boycotted. All the members of his family were boy- 
 cotted. People who communicated with him and 
 dealt with him were also boycotted. He and his 
 followers were booed and shouted at when they went 
 out into the streets. In consequence of that several 
 men were prosecuted and bound over to keep the 
 peace. I knew Thomas O'Connell, a farmer. He 
 handed me a threatening notice which he said he had 
 received, and which I have got here. On the 8th of 
 August, 1886, that was given to me. On September 
 10 following his house was attacked. In the following 
 November a cow of his was stabbed. I knew a man 
 named William Cohee. On the 12th of September, 
 1886, his house was attacked. I knew a man named 
 Kevan, who was in his house, and who had been care- 
 taking on the Townshend property. M'Carthy was 
 bailiff on that property. I know the Daleys also in 
 that neighbourhood. Their houses were attacked the 
 next year. I produce a notice which I received from 
 another constable, and which was found posted up, and 
 was intended for a man named Michael Devan. The 
 constable who gave it to me has now left the service. 
 There was a farm called Ballingarra. The police were 
 caretakers there. I cannot carry the notice further 
 than this, that I received it from the constable with 
 » statement as to where he found it. 
 
 Now, we have had a witness Kennedy examined ; do 
 you remember him ?— Yes. 
 
 1 Did he communicate with you with reference to an 
 outrage on his horse ?— Yes. 
 
 Is it true that when he communicated with you then 
 he told you anything about its having been done by 
 Cruikshank ? — It is perfectly untrue ; he never men- 
 tioned the name either of Cruikshank or anybody else. 
 
 What was the date of the outrage on Kane's house f 
 —The 11th of December, 1887. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Did Kennedy 
 say anything about whom he suspected ? — No ; I wanted 
 to get it from -him, but he said he suspected nobody in 
 particular. 
 
 You know he had quarrelled with Cruikshank ? — I 
 was not aware. 
 
 Dp you take your oath he did not tell you that ? — I 
 do not remember ; that is all I can say. 
 
 Now you have given us the date of the outrage on 
 Kane's house ? — Yes, the 11th of December, 1887. 
 
 Was there an investigation ? — Yes ; there was one 
 conducted by Mr. Shannon, a brother of the witness 
 who was in the box a few minutes ago. Mr. Shannon 
 came there on the Sunday to get an outline of the 
 case ; it was net a regular examination before a 
 magistrate. 
 
 Did anything come of that inquiry ? — Yes ; one man 
 got seven 3-ears' penal servitude, and another six months' 
 imprisonment. 
 
 Who were they ? — D. Donahoe. got seven years' and 
 John Buckley six months'. 
 
 Was either of these persons in any way whatever 
 connected with the Land League ? — I am not aware ; 
 they came from a distance of 30 miles. 
 
 Was it stated that M'Carthy had brought them from 
 a distance ? — There was a rumour to that effect. 
 
 M'Carthy was a kind of sub-agent to Mr. Hussey ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Was it said that he was getting up a party of moon- 
 lighters of his own ? — It was stated that he had brought 
 moonlighters in this case. 
 
 As far as you are aware those men had nothing to do 
 with the Land League ?— I am not aware ; they came 
 from 30 miles distant. 
 
 Do you know — I am not considering it an offence at 
 all — but as a matter of fact were those men defended 
 by Mr. Hussey ? — I do not know. He was defended 
 by a solicitor, Mr. Morphy, and afterwards by counsel. 
 
 That is the partner of the Crown solicitor in Kerry ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Now give me the names of the men who were mem- 
 bers of the Land League or the committee who were 
 hound over to keep the peace. — They were Pat Herlihy, 
 P. Connor, John Connor, James Flaherty, and Philip 
 Moriarty. I may say, however, that Philip Moriarty was 
 not bound over for this particular offence, but for 
 another assault on the same day. 
 
 What offenoe were these men charged with ? Was it 
 compelling or inducing certain persons not to do or to 
 abstain from doing some act they were entitled to do- 
 to wit, dealing with so-and-so ? — No ; it was being 
 guilty of conduct calculated to cause a breach of the 
 
 ■Sergeant Shea. 
 
The Bpecial Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 445 
 
 peace in throwing stones and booing at M'Carthy and 
 others, and they were bound over to keep the peace. 
 
 M'Carthy does not seem to have been popular ? — 
 No ; he was not. 
 
 Is it part of your duty as a policeman at all to con- 
 cern yourself with the causes of disturbance ? — I do 
 not identify myself with disturbance. 
 
 No ; but do you concern yourself with an inquiry 
 into the causes ? — Yes, that is part of my duty. 
 
 I do not mean inquiring into all offences that are 
 committed ; but do you make any report to your 
 superiors as to the state of the country ?— No, except 
 when an outrage is committed. 
 
 Not as to the general state of the country ? — Yes, 
 when it is in a disturbed state. 
 
 Have you sufficient knowledge to know whether 
 notices to quit and evictions do or do not cause dis- 
 turbance ? — I would not say notices to quit ; perhaps 
 evictions might lead to it. 
 
 You think that notices to quit would not ? — I am 
 not aware that they would do so until evictions took 
 place. 
 
 Or ejectments ? — I am not aware whether they 
 would in that district ; they might elsewhere. 
 
 You said you never heard of the word ■' land-grab- 
 bing " before 1880 ; but you know what the thing is ? 
 -Yes. 
 
 And that it is unpopular and condemned by the 
 people ? — I never heard it called by the name before. 
 
 But you knew the thing — taking land over the head 
 of another man from which that man bad been evicted 
 For rent he had not paid or could not pay ? — I am sure 
 It was unpopular. 
 
 Where do you come from ? — From Cork. 
 
 And you are a farmer's son, I suppose ? — Yes ; at 
 least at the time I joined I was an evicted farmer's 
 son. 
 
 Now, we have heard a good deal about Anniscaul ; 
 it is in a remote and mountainous part of the county, 
 between Tralee and Dingle ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, except this fuss about M'Carthy was there 
 anything wrong in this neighbourhood ? — Yes, there 
 were moonlighters. Subsequently maiming of cattle 
 took place. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — After the inquiry into the 
 outrage at Kane's liouse, do you know that M'Carthy's 
 licence for arms was revoked ?— Yes, subsequently, on 
 the 19th of July. 
 
 In consequence of the circumstances of that case ?— 
 I think so. 
 
 Had you been engaged in that district in collecting 
 evidence with regard to boycotting ? — No, I was not ; 
 not for this Commission. 
 
 No, I do not mean that ; I mean at all. Did you 
 send people yourself to persons in order to see whether 
 they would be dealt with ? — In one instance. 
 
 What was that ? — It was the instance of a man 
 named Walsh, a caretaker, who was very unpopular. I 
 wished to get evidence as to whether he was boycotted 
 or not, as I was not sure. I suggested to him to go to 
 
 a person for goods to see whether they would serve 
 him. 
 
 Irrespective of his wanting the goods ? To entrap 
 people ? What did you pay or offer him for that ?— 
 I paid him nothing and offered him nothing. 
 
 Did he not sue you for a sum which he said you had 
 agreed to pay him ? — That was with respect to the 
 hire of his car, for which I had never applied. 
 
 The hire of it during the time he was driving about 
 to see whether he was boycotted ? Was this a brilliant 
 idea of your o wn,or learnt from other constables ? — No, 
 my own. 
 
 Is it not a course that fs habitually followed by 
 constables in Ireland ? — No. 
 
 In many cases ? — I have never known an instance in 
 that place. 
 
 In any others ? — I am not aware. 
 
 Then, as far as you are aware, it was an original 
 idea of your own ? — No, it was suggested to me by my 
 superior officer. 
 
 What is his name ? — Mr. Gray. I should like to ex- 
 plain. It was alleged that, notwithstanding the sup- 
 pression of the League, boycotting was carried on as 
 vigorously as ever, and in order to see whether or not it 
 was 60 this was done. The officers said that nothing 
 would give them greater pleasure than to find it was 
 not the case. 
 
 You wished to clear the people from that imputa- 
 tion ? — Yes. 
 
 Ee-examined by the Attorney-General. — You 
 have spoken about boycotting. What had M'Carthy 
 done to make him unpopular p — TSie witness was 
 understood to reply that it was alleged that M'Carthy 
 had allowed his house to be used for the collection of 
 rents. 
 
 Before 1880 were there evictions in any districts 
 in which you were ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they cause any outrage or increase in crime ?— 
 No. 
 
 Was it necessary to protect the sheriffs in carrying 
 them out ? — No. I have known the sheriff to be accom- 
 panied only by one man besides myself. 
 
 You have said that there wa6 a feeling against 
 taking an evicted farm. Did evicted farms remain 
 vacant, or were they taken up ? — They never remained 
 vacant. They were not in the hands of the landlords 
 for more than 24 hours. 
 
 The Attorney-Genebal.— I have now to mention 
 to your Lordships a matter affecting Mrs.Curtin. She 
 is not here, but her son and daughter are, and she is 
 anxious that there should be a correction of the state- 
 ment made by Mr. Leonard in auswer to Mr. Lock- 
 wood as to the circumstances under which a distress 
 was put into her house. I have said that I would ask 
 your Lordships to allow the correction to be made. 
 It has reference to the statement that Mrs. Curtin was 
 anxious to gain the popularity of the League. 
 
 The President. — If this is to reopen the whole 
 matter, I should be very unwilling to oonsent to 
 
 Sergeant Shea, 
 
446 
 
 The Special Commission, November 28, 1888. 
 
 your application. Bat if it is to be confined to a 
 denial of the statement referred to, we will allow 
 it. 
 
 The Attorney-General then re-called Mr . George Cur- 
 tin, who said, — I managed my mother's farm. The dis- 
 tress was put in in December, 1887? Mr. Leonard 
 has stated that my mother desired to gain popularity 
 in the district. He said that we wanted him to evict 
 us or serve us with a writ in order to curry favour 
 with the League. That is not correct. We were not 
 able to pay the rent out of the proceeds of the farm. 
 
 Had you been able to sell your stock ? — Yes, but at 
 lower prices than we had given for it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — It is a case of 
 Bxcessive rent, then ? — I did not say that. 
 
 It was a rent you could not make out of the land ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Now, I want to ask you another question now you 
 are here. 
 
 The President.— Ah ! That is exactly what I said 
 would happen. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — May I not have the opportunity of 
 correcting another mistake, my Lord ? 
 
 The President. — Oh, yes, of course ; but I wish you 
 had told me you were going to do so. Do not let us 
 reopen the cross-examination. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not desire to reopen the 
 cross-examination at all. 
 
 The President. — When the Attorney-General asked 
 me to allow him to make this one correction, I said 
 that if that was to be all I had no objection to that 
 being done. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (to witnessl. — Did you know Mr. 
 John M'Mahon ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see him at your father's funeral ? — I really 
 forget. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— Did your 
 mother ever suggest that her rent was excessive ? — No, 
 but she wanted to get a reduction. She did 
 eventually get a reduction of 20 per cent. 
 
 And she afterwards sold her interest ? — Yes. 
 
 Daniel Cronin, examined by Mr. MURPnY, said, — I 
 am a tenant on Lord Kenmare's estate. In November, 
 1881, I paid my rent in secret. 
 
 Why was that ? Why did you pay your rent in 
 secret 1 — I do not know, Sir. (Laughter.) The rent 
 was not entered in my pass-book. My wife got a 
 separate receipt for it. On November 27, 1881, my 
 house was visited. I went to the back door and 
 met two men. They asked me to come into 
 the house. When they came in they put the 
 lamp out, which was on the table, and turned my 
 wife and daughter out of the kitchen. They asked me 
 whether I had paid my rent, and I said. " No." They 
 asked me to show them the pass-book. They then told 
 me to turn my face to the wall, and shot me in the 
 
 George Curtin. 
 Daniel Cronin. 
 
 thigh. I reported the matter afterwards to Sergeant 
 Drphan. I was attended by the doctor, and was laid 
 up for some time. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Did you apply 
 for an abatement of rent ? — I do not think I did, Sir. 
 
 Did you go with the tenants when they went to ask 
 for an abatement ? — I heard about it. 
 
 What family have you ? — Five at home. 
 
 Do any of your children earn money ? — One was 
 married. 
 
 That, I am afraid, is not the way to get money. 
 (Laughter.) Did you ever pinch yourself very hard to 
 pay your rent ? — I do not understand at all, Sir. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Did you find it easy to pay your 
 rent ? Had you plenty of money ? — Oh, I had, Sir. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Then you never complained about your rent ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 Did you go to the Land Court ? — No ; I got Govern- 
 ment money. 
 
 Did you go into the Court in reference to arrears ?— 
 No, Sir. 
 
 Did you get an abatement ? — No, Sir. 
 
 What rent do you pay ? — £10. 
 
 For how much land ? — I do not know. I could not 
 tell you. 
 
 You do not know the extent of your farm ?— No. 
 
 Do you know who were the men who visited your 
 house ? — They were black, Sir. 
 
 That is, they were disguised ? — Yes. 
 
 You do not know who they were ? — No, Sir. 
 
 By Sir C. Russell. — Do you happen to know that 
 the same party visited other places the same night ? — I 
 do not know. 
 
 Did you hear about it ? — Oh, I heard about it. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Murphy. — Did you hear that 
 your brother was attacked the same night ?— He was, 
 Sir. 
 
 Was he injured or not ? — No, Sir. 
 
 David Drohan, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I 
 am a sergeant in the constabulary. I was stationed in 
 the neighbourhood in which the last witness lives from 
 1877 to 1882. I visited his house immediately after 
 the outrage. Prior to the attack on this man I found 
 a threatening notice posted in the neighbourhood. It 
 was about 20 days before the outrage. That was the 
 No-rent Manifesto issued by order of the executive 
 and signed "Charles S. Parnell, president, Kilmainham 
 Gaol ; Thomas Brennan, secretary, Kilmainham Gaol ; 
 Michael Davitt, Portland Prison ; John Dillon, head 
 organizer, Kilmainham Gaol ; Thomas Sexton, head 
 organizer ; Patrick Kgan." I heard there were several 
 notices posted in the neighbourhood, but I only found 
 one. 
 
 There was no cross-examination of this witness. 
 
 The Court adjourned at ten minutes to 4 o'clock. 
 
 •Sergeant David Drohan. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 447 
 
 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 22d sitting to-day 
 at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of the 
 Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On the Commissioners taking their seats the examina- 
 tion of witnesses called on behalf of The Times was 
 resumed. 
 
 Jeremiah Sullivan, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, 
 — In 1880 I was a tenant on Lord Ventry's estate in 
 Kerry at a rent of £37 a year. I remember the tenants 
 on the estate going in a body to ask for a reduction of 
 rent. It was about the present time of the year in 
 1880. I went with the rest of the tenants. We did 
 not get a reduction. The following day I sent my 
 wife with the rent. She • got a receipt, but the pay- 
 ment was not entered in the pass-book. On the night 
 of the 2d of December in the same year t-wO shots 
 were fired through my bedroom window while I was in 
 bed. They lodged in the curtains of my bed. The 
 following morning I found a notice posted on the door 
 of my house. 
 
 ■ Mr. Murphy. — The original notice is in the hands of 
 the police and is being searched for. 
 
 Witness. — The notice was as follows : — " The cause 
 why we came to you is that you paid your rent, and 
 we swear by our God that if you ever pay it again you 
 will be shot. Take-notice that but for the very large 
 family depending upon you you would have been shot 
 for payiug your rent against the will of the people. 
 There are more black sheep in the neighbourhood. — 
 F.ORY OF the Hills, Moonlight Ranger. God rest his 
 soul." Then there was the picture of a coffin. 
 
 Did you after thin become a member of the Land 
 League ? — I did. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — I gave the 
 notice to the police. 
 
 How long have you heard of Rory of the Hills ? — I 
 have never heard of him. 
 
 Before this time in 1880 had there been to your 
 knowledge any secret societies in your neighbour- 
 hood ? — I never heard of any. 
 
 You never heard of moonlighters ? — I have heard of 
 them, but I knew nothing about them. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Asquith. — I was a tenant of 
 Lord Ventry's, and lived near Milltown, county Kerry. 
 I joined the Milltown branch of the Land League, I 
 think, in 1880. I ceased to be a member aliout a 
 year later ; the League broke up. I was also a member 
 of the National League. 
 
 Is the National League broken up there now ? — It 
 is. Sir, now. 
 
 That was last year ?— Yes, Sir, I think so ; and I 
 continued a member of the National League iintil it 
 was broken up. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You say the tenants demanded a 
 reduction of rent in 1880 and that yob went with 
 them ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you encourage them ? Did you believe you 
 were entitled to a reduction in justice ?•— Yes. 
 
 Jeremiah Sullivan. 
 
 Then you went or sent the following day and paid 
 the whole of your rent ?— No, a part. 
 
 I misunderstood you. — No, Sir ; I said a part. 
 
 The times were rather bad in 1879 and 1880 ?— Yes. 
 
 In 1880 your fellow tenants found it impossible to 
 pay the old ront ? — Yes. 
 
 About this party that fired shots into your house ; did 
 you see any of them ? — No. I do not know who they 
 were and I never learnt who they were. 
 
 Have you a son ? — Yes. 
 
 Can he write ? — Yes. 
 
 Had he anything to do with the writing of that 
 threatening notice ? — He did not, of course. I do not 
 believe he had. 
 
 By Mr. Keid. — You say you have only paid part of 
 your rent ?— Yes ; £13 out of £17 17s. 6d. 
 
 What was the reduction that the other tenants were 
 asking at that time ? — Griffith's valuation. £13 was 
 less than Griffith's valuation. 
 
 When you paid your part of the rent you paid leja 
 than the other tenants were willing and desirous to 
 accept ? — What question did you put to me, Sir ? 
 
 The other tenants were willing that Griffith's valua- 
 tion should be paid ? — Yes. 
 
 And you paid less than Griffith's valuation 1 — I did. 
 
 How then do you attribute this outrage to the fact of 
 your having paid your rent ? Do you think it was due 
 to your having paid rent ? — It was in the notice. 
 
 The only thing you go by as the cause of this out- 
 rage is the notice you received ? — Just so, Sir. 
 
 The Attorney-General, in re-examination. — Ex- 
 cept paying the rent had you done anything you know 
 of to offend anybody ? — Never in my life, Sir. 
 
 Now, Mr. Sullivan, did you get abatements of your 
 rent from time to time ? — I did. 
 
 Were you satisfied with them ? — I owed two or three 
 years' rent. I never took the matter into Court ; I 
 had no occasion to. 
 
 Constable Kelly, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was 
 next called and examined by Mr. Murphy. Witness 
 said, — Mr. Sullivan gave me a threatening notice, of 
 which you have just read a copy. 
 
 Mr. Murphy (to Mr. Lockwood). — Mrs. Sullivan is 
 here if there is any question about it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My Lords, there was a 
 suggestion made that the copy omitted something th&t 
 was in the original. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I did not mean to suggest any 
 omission. 
 
 Patrick Murphy was next called and examined by Mr. 
 Murphy. Witness said, — In 1880 I knew Mrs. Lenihan ; 
 she was a tenant on the estate of Mr. Chute ; she 
 was evicted and I took possession of her farm. On the 
 night of the 15th of November of the same year some 
 men came to my house. They were disguised. They 
 knocked at the door, said they were police, and wanted 
 to come in. I refused to open the door. They said 
 they would set fire to the house if I did not open the • 
 
 Constable Kelly. 
 Patrick Murphy. 
 
448 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 door. They broke the door open and got in. They 
 fired shots before they broke the door open. When 
 they got in they seized me, dragged me abont the 
 yard, and struck me with a gun. They pat me on my 
 knees and made me take an oath to give up the farm. 
 I said if I got what I had paid for it I would. They 
 said they would get it for me ; they then fired a shot 
 at me which missed me, and then out off part of my 
 ear with a knife and threatened to crop me with 
 shears. I knew none of them. I afterwards found 
 Mrs. Lenihan in possession of the house. There was a 
 man named Connor, a caretaker, I had put there ; he 
 was not in the house when I came back, his furniture 
 was thrown outside. I took legal proceedings and 
 afterwards resided in the house and had protection. 
 In July, 1882, I was with two constables, going to 
 Tralee upon the car. On my way home a man jumped 
 out from the wood close to the roadside, fired at me 
 and went back to the wood. There were three boys 
 with me ; one of them named O'Eady was shot. I 
 heard there was one of the boys hit. 
 
 Were you boycotted after this ? Did your men leave 
 you ? — I was not boycotted, but I could get nobody to 
 work for me. I could not get my horses shod without 
 going a long distance for a couple of years. A man 
 Kane worked for me, but left me. Five head of cattle 
 were taken from the place. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell.— When was that ?— I forget now ; 
 it was after I was fired at. 
 
 Examination continued. — Did you find out anything 
 about these cattle ? — Yes ; I found the hides by the 
 road. Four sheep were also stolen, the carcasses of 
 which were afterwards found. 
 
 After Mrs. Lenihan got into the house, did Father 
 Murphy come to see you ? — Yes. 
 
 Was Father Murphy connected with the Land League in 
 that part ? — I could not tell you whether he was or not. 
 
 Have you never seen him going into the League ? — 
 I never saw him going in. 
 
 My Lord, I think we have already proved the con- 
 nexion of Father Murphy with the League, though I am 
 afraid I cannot at the moment put my finger on the 
 occasion ; at all events, I hope afterwards to be able 
 to prove his connexion. I propose to ask this witness 
 what was said by Father Murphy. (To witness.) 
 What did Father Murphy say to you ? You were 
 taking proceedings against Mrs. Lenihan ? — He came 
 to me and said I would get what I paid for the farm. 
 I 6aid if I got all I paid for it I would have nothing 
 more to do with it. 
 
 Did you ever get the money ? — No, not a penny ; if 
 I had got half I would have taken it. (Laughter.) 
 
 Before these outrages, on what terms were you with 
 your neighbours 1 — I was not on good terms with some 
 of my neighbours ; I never did anything wrong to 
 them ; I do not know what it was. 
 
 Where did Father Murphy live ?— In Castleisland. 
 
 Then, my Lord, this is the same Father Murphy whose 
 Connexion with the League has been proved. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid.-t-I suppose you re- 
 ported all these outrages to the police ? — Yes. 
 
 Then I suppose they appear in the police reports ? — 
 I suppose so. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — Was Father Murphy your parish 
 priest ? — He was the curate. 
 
 How long had he been there ? — I eould not tell you. 
 
 Were the people in the habit of consulting the 
 parish priest in any difficulty or trouble with reference 
 to their farms and so on ? — I do not understand you. 
 
 I will try to make myself understood. You say 
 Father Mnrphy called upon you ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he in the habit of calling upon you ?— I had 
 never spoken a word to him. 
 
 How long had he been there ?— About 12 months ; I 
 could not say more. 
 
 But did you attend his chapel ? — Certainly. 
 
 How far off did he live from you ? — Within two 
 miles. 
 
 And yet you say you had never spoken a word to him 
 before that day ? — I do not recollect it if I did. 
 
 By Mr. Asquith. — Where do you live ? — In the parish 
 of Castleisland, within a couple of miles of the town. 
 
 'By Mr. Davitt. — Was Mrs. Lenihan a widow ?— Yes. 
 
 How many children had she ?— I am not sure of that, 
 my decent man. (Laughter.) Six or seven. 
 
 Then eviction would mean to her something very 
 serious ? — Yes. 
 
 She would have to live on the charity of friends ? — 
 I believe so. 
 
 Had you a farm of your own when you grabbed this 
 one ? — Yes. 
 
 Then you were not in any actual necessity to take 
 this second farm ? — I did not want it at all, but I had 
 the other side of it, and the landlord said he would 
 put me out of it when my term was up if I did not 
 take the other side as well. 
 
 Oh ! then it was the landlord who induced you to 
 take the second farm ? — His agent. 
 
 Has widow Lenihan any sons ? — Yes. 
 
 About what age ? — I think some are about 20 years. 
 
 Then they would naturally resent your taking their 
 mother's farm ? — There was no agitation or anything. 
 • Did her sons come and thank you ? — They did not say 
 anything at all. 
 
 Has Mrs. Lenihan a great number of friends in that 
 neighbourhood ? — Yes. 
 
 A strong faction ? — Yes. 
 
 And they would resent your taking the farm over her 
 head ? It would not make them think more kindly 
 towards you ? — No, it would not. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — How long 
 had the land been vacant when you took it ? — I got it 
 the same day she was put out of possession. She 
 shook hands with me and said she was glad that I had 
 the land, and that it was not her brother-in-law. 
 
 Was there any ill-feeling between you and Mrs. 
 Lenihan ? — No ; we were the best of friends. 
 
 People were taking farms ?— They were ; every 
 one. 
 
 Patrick Murphy. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 449 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — He has said something about a 
 brother-in-law of Lenihan. Might I ask him what it 
 was he said ? 
 
 The President. — What did you say ? 
 
 Witness. — The day when I gained possession she 
 said that she would be very glad I had the farm were 
 it not for her brother-in-law, who wanted the farm and 
 had been watching it for five years. This brother-in- 
 law lived within 400 or 500 yards. 
 
 The Attobney-Genebal.— I wish to read a passage 
 from the Kerry Sentinel of April 26, 1881, with refer- 
 ence to the presidency of Father Murphy : — 
 " Castleisland Land League. 
 
 *' A special meeting of this branch of the Irish 
 National League was held on Sunday in their rooms 
 to consider the attack made by some bailiffs — bum- 
 bailiff and law messenger — on their late respected pre- 
 sident, Eev. A. Murphy, C.C., the particulars of which 
 have appeared in the Sentinel. The< chair was taken by 
 the Rev. D. M'Gillicuddy, C.C., president. Among those 
 present were Messrs. John Eoche, Jeremiah Eoche, 
 H. W. Knight, Eev. T. O'Callaghan, T. Horan, T. 
 Moore, J. K. O'Connor, M. Murphy, D. T. Coffey, 
 J. F. Eiordan, &c. The following resolution was 
 passed unanimously : — 'That we condemn in the strongest 
 terms the conduct of those who, by affidavits, trumped 
 up against the Eev. A. Murphy, C.C., a charge which 
 has been proved in open Court to be false — namely, 
 that Father Murphy tried to bribe M'Auliffe, a process- 
 server, not to serve ejectments.' " 
 
 John M'Auliffe, examined by Mr. Eonan, said,— I 
 have a brother named Michael. He is a process- 
 server. 
 
 Did you aid him to serve processes on Mr. Herbert's 
 estate in 1881 ?— No ; nn Mr. Meredith's estate I 
 did. Up to 1879, the Land League time, we were on 
 good terms with the people. When we went to serve 
 processes it was not necessary for us to have police 
 protection. 
 
 Do you remember a night in the summer of 1881 
 when your brother's house was attacked ?— Yes ; I 
 was in his house that night. A party came and broke 
 in the doors and windows. They asked for " that 
 rogue of a bailiff " and fired shots. My brother and I 
 got out of bed. One of the shots hit me in the arm, 
 and the limb had to be amputated in consequence. My 
 brother was also hurt, and my sister's head was cut so 
 that it had to be stitched. 
 
 Except- for the process-serving, had the people any 
 cause of complaint against you or your brother ? — No, 
 none. 
 
 After the outrage and your return from hospital were 
 the people friendly to you ? — They were not altogether 
 too friendly. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD. — How long had 
 you acted as a process-server ?— I never served pro- 
 cesses. It was my brother who was process-server. 
 When he was tired I used to lend him my jennet to 
 take him to serve processes. 
 
 Had your brother any disputes with his neighbours ? 
 •—Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Have you ?— No ; never. 
 
 Had you any land ? — About three-quarters of an 
 acre. 
 
 Did you know the curate of your parish, Father 
 Scollard ? — Yes ; Father Lynch was the parish priest. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I wish to read from the Kerry 
 Sentinel the observations made upon this outrage by 
 Father Scollard. They are reported in the Kerry Sentinel 
 of July 1, 1881 :— 
 
 " On Tuesday night about 20 men attacked the house 
 of one M'Auliffe, a bailiff. Shots were fired and one 
 of them broke and lacerated the arm of the bailiff's 
 brother. Some money was taken out of the house. At 
 an early hour the police, under the command of Sub- 
 Inspector Davis, Castleisland, surrounded the house. 
 Three men named T. Brosnan, Hugh Connor, and 
 He.rlihy were arrested on suspicion. The patient was 
 attended by Drs. Griffin and Brosnan, also by the Eev. 
 P. Scollard, who afterwards at Mass denounced the 
 outrage. He said he was sure every one of the con- 
 gregation was sorry that such a crime occurred in 
 their midst. He believed that no parishioner was 
 implicated in it. He had reason to believe that from 
 the spirit of piety which was amongst them. On that 
 morning he had the happiness of admiuistering the 
 Holy Communion to more than 100 people. That said 
 a great deal for the religion of the parish. Having 
 dwelt at some length on the evils of outrages to person 
 and property to the soul and body of the offender, as 
 well as to the evil doer himself, and the obligation of 
 making restitution, he said those crimes turn public 
 opinion against us and alienate the sympathy of other 
 nations. He said that those who committed the 
 outrage may be Land Leaguers, but, if so, they did it 
 on their own responsibility, not on the responsibility 
 of the Land League, as that body always dis- 
 countenanced and condemned such evil doings. He 
 exhorted the parents to watch over their children, to 
 see that they be at home at the proper hour and not to 
 let them out at night. Finally, he exhorted the con- 
 gregation to pray earnestly that God of His mercy may 
 direct our rulers to give a good Land Bill, one which 
 would fix the farmers firmly in the soil, in order that 
 friendly relations may be once more restored between 
 landlord and tenant. He was sure the Irish people 
 were a justice-loving people. They wanted only 
 honesty and fair play. They acted on the principle of 
 ' live and let live.' He hoped, then, that when real 
 justice would be established between landlord and 
 tenant peace and harmony would be restored to this 
 distracted country. — Communicated." 
 
 By Mr. T. Haeeingtoit. — What was the dispute 
 between Father Murphy and your brother ? — I never 
 heard of a dispute. 
 
 Was there not some case in Court between them ? 
 — I knew nothing about the business. 
 
 Did you ever hear that your brother was dismissed 
 by the barrister from the occupation of serving pro- 
 cesses because he had stated that Father Murphy had 
 asked him not to serve a process ? — He was dis« 
 missed. 
 
 Was it because Father Murphy swore before the 
 Judge that he had never spoken to your brother on the 
 subject ? — I know nothing of that. 
 
 Ee-examined by the Attobney-Genekal.— Was thia 
 Eev. P. Scollard minister at your own chapel ?— He 
 
 John M'Auliffe. 
 
 15 
 
450 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 Had he anything to do with the Land League ?— I 
 know nothing of that. I do not, indeed. 
 
 The Attobney-Gekebal.— That will do. My Lords, 
 I hopo that we shall not have to trouble your Lord- 
 ships at any great length with further details as to 
 Kerry. I cannot, however, undertake that all the 
 details have been disposed of. The evidence of Mr. 
 Hussey I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to 
 postpone until to-morrow, when Sir C. Russell will 
 be present. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — My learned friend is detained to- 
 day on public business, my Lords. 
 
 The Attoeniy-Gemeax. — I have some other police 
 evidence from Kerry relating to other parts of the 
 county. 
 
 Charles Patrick Crane, recalled by the Attoeney- 
 General, said, — I am a district inepector in the 
 Royal Irish Constabulary. I am an Englishman, and 
 was educated at Oxford. I joined the constabulary in 
 June, 1879. I went to Dingle in February, 18S0, and 
 remained there until December, 1881. I then went to 
 Listowel and remained there until October, 1882. I 
 then went to Killarney and am stationed there still. 
 Lord Ventry was the principal landlord in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Dingle. When I went there he was 
 extremely popular with the people. I alwayR heard 
 him spoken of in the highest possible terms and as 
 being a very good landlord. 
 
 You know, I suppose that there had been distress 
 in 1879 ?— I heard it. 
 
 In 1S80 what was the condition of the people ? — In 
 the Dingle district there was a good deal of distress 
 in the west, but it was not so bad as it was generally 
 supposed or represented to be. In the east the condi- 
 tion of the people was rather better. 
 
 Was there any abnormal crime in 1880 ? — There was 
 no serious crime wbeD I went to Dingle. 
 
 At what time did you notice any change in the cha- 
 racter of the people or in the nature of any resistance 
 to the law ? — During the whole of 1880 there was no 
 trouble at all, and there was no resistance to the law 
 until the beginning of 1881. 
 
 Was there any necessity for an increased police 
 force in the case of carrying out evictions ? — No, a 
 sergeant could go on patrol with one man. I had 
 nothing to do with evictions until the beginning of 
 1881, when they began to establish a Land League 
 branch at Castle Gregory, which was one of their out- 
 lying stations about 15 miles from Dingle, where 
 another branch was established. Castle Gregory is 
 situated just to the west of Tralee Bay. Shortly after 
 the establishment of these branches of the League I 
 went with a party of constabulary to protect the 
 bailiffs who were carrying out evictions at a place 
 called Spurs, which was seven miles from Dingle. 
 
 Was any person there doing anything to encourage 
 the people to resist the bailiffs ? — No person in 
 particular that I saw. The people were massed, but 
 there was no one I noticed, 
 
 Was anybody connected with the Land League there 
 at that time ? — Not on the occasion of the eviction. 
 Previously to the eviction, however, a meeting of the 
 Land League was held at Dingle. The first eviction 
 to which I have referred occurred on the 30th of June, 
 1881, and the Land League meeting was held on the 
 26th of March, 1881. 
 
 Now, do not answer this question unless you know 
 the fact — who was present at that meeting ? — A man 
 named Boyton. ' 
 
 By Mr. Lockvyvood. — Were you present at that meet- 
 ing ? — I was. 
 
 Examination continued. — Did you know Boyton ? — I 
 knew him when be was speaking. 
 
 Do you know where he came from ? — From Dublin, I 
 believe, but I do not know. 
 
 He was not a local man — a person living in the 
 neighbourhood ? — No. He was a stranger to the dis- 
 trict. 
 
 Was any one else there that you knew ?— I think Mr. 
 T. Harrington was present also. 
 
 Did you take notes of any of the speeches ? — No, I 
 did not. 
 
 Cannot you tell us anything that was said at the 
 meeting ? — No ; I was so far away from the speakers 
 that I scarcely heard anything they said. 
 
 What happened at the eviction that took place after 
 the meeting ? — There was a great deal of disturbance 
 and of resistance to the bailiffs. The house was 
 barricaded, and the people threw all sorts of things 
 after the bailiffs, and men with pitchforks pushed 
 them at the bailiffs when they got near the house. 
 
 Was there a man named Kellelier living in the dis- 
 trict ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you know his Christian name ? — No, I do not. 
 
 Had he anything to do with the Land League '{■ — He 
 was the secretary to the Dingle branch. 
 
 Did you see him at any of the evictions ?— Only at 
 his own eviction from his holding on Lord Ventry's 
 estate. 
 
 When was that ?— On the 1st of September, 1881. 
 
 Was be evicted ? — No. he settled. It was the case 
 that in all evictions on that day the people who had 
 previously refused to pay, settled when the sheriffs 
 went round. 
 
 Did you see him at the other evictions on that day ? 
 — No ; only at his own. I had 40 men there. 
 
 Was there a bailiff named Moriarty in the district ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Was he under police protection ? — He was after this 
 eviction. 
 
 For how long ? — During the whole of the time I was 
 in the district — up to December, 1881. 
 
 How long had he been bailiff ? — He was bailiff to 
 Mr. Hussey as long as I can remember. 
 
 Then his was not a new appointment ? — No. 
 
 When you first went into the district was he receiv- 
 ing police protection ? — No. 
 
 After these evictions you say that he did receive 
 police protection ? — Yes 
 
 District-InsDector Crane. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 451 
 
 Was that protection in your opinion necessary ? — It 
 ■was absolutely necessary. He had been threatened on 
 several occasions. 
 
 Did you see any of the threatening notices which 
 were sent to him ? — I did ; he handed them to mo, and 
 on one occasion a little wooden coffin was hung up 
 outside his door. 
 
 Now, speaking of the ordinary crime in the district in 
 the year 1880, had you any difficulty in obtaining 
 evidence against the offenders when offences were com- 
 mitted in that year ? — Very few offences were com- 
 mitted. 
 
 Had you yourself to go to a place called Denequin to 
 make inquiries about the. distress which was said to 
 exist there ? — Yes, I had. 
 
 I will take this very shortly. You made such 
 inquiries as you could as to the existence of distress in 
 that district. Did you come to the conclusion that the 
 reports with regard to that distress were exaggerated 
 or the reverse ? — I went down in consequence of very 
 exaggerated reports, which had appeared in a news- 
 paper, to ascertain whether they were really true, and 
 I found that they very much exaggerated the distress 
 that existed there. The distress was not nearly so bad 
 as had been represented. 
 
 Now, I will take you to Listowel. When did you go 
 there ? — In December, 1881. 
 
 What condition was it in when you went there ? — It 
 was very disturbed indeed. The chief duties we had 
 to discharge during the first month were trying to stop 
 what are known as the Land League hunts. 
 
 Had the police force to be increased at Dingle during 
 1881 ?— Yes. 
 
 By how much ? — When I went there first there were 
 only some 30 men stationed in the whole district, but 
 when I left there were 40 or 45 men stationed there, 
 there were several protection posts established, and 
 two stations, the force of which was increased accord- 
 ing to the disturbed condition of the district. 
 
 Had the Listowel police force to be increased ? — 
 Yes, before I went there. 
 
 To what extent was it increased ? — I cannot tell 
 you. 
 
 Were there many outrages taking place there when 
 you went ? — Yes, a good many raids for arms and 
 money, threatening letters, intimidation, and a man 
 Darned Costello was shot. There were also two or 
 three riots. 
 
 Was anything done to cattle ? — I do not recollect 
 any injuries being done to cattle at that time. 
 
 What meetings were held in Listowel during the 
 time you were there ? — One was held on the 2d of July, 
 1882. 
 
 Who were present at that meeting ? — Both the Mr. 
 Harringtons and a Mrs. Moore. 
 
 Who was Mrs. Moore ? — She was a member of the 
 Ladies' Land League. 
 
 Did the condition of the district improve after that 
 meeting was held ? — No, it did not. The meeting was 
 
 dispersed, it having been proclaimed. There was a 
 considerable riot in the town. 
 
 Did any special outrages occur at Listowel during 
 the time you were there which you had to investi- 
 gate ? — There was the shooting of Costello. 
 
 Let us take this shortly. When was that ? — In 
 March, 1882. 
 
 As far as you were able to ascertain from your in- 
 vestigation, what Was the alleged cause of that out- 
 rage ? — As far as I could make out in the discharge of my 
 duty the cause of the outrage was his having paid his 
 rent. 
 
 You could not trace the outrage to any other cause? 
 —No. 
 
 Were there any other outrages committed in Listowel 
 during the period you have mentioned ? — There were 
 a lut of other outrages, but I have not a list of them 
 with me. 
 
 What I should like would be for you to tell us 
 generally whether there were any other outrages which 
 you investigated, and, if possible, what in your opinion 
 were the causes of those outrages ? — There were 
 numerous raids, which I always found followed these 
 meetings of the League — raids for arms and money. 
 
 Speaking of Dingle, did you find any secret societies 
 existing there ? — No, it was a very quiet district, 
 especially in the west. I only heard of one outrage, 
 and that occurred in the very worst part of the 
 district. 
 
 Did you find that the outrages occurred chiefly in 
 the poorest parts of the districts ? — No, they prin- 
 cipally occurred in the more prosperous parts of the 
 districts. In the extreme west, where you have the. 
 Celtic population, the people are extremely quiet. 
 
 Then the poorest districts are not the worst in the 
 matter of outrages ? — No, in my experience it is quite 
 the contrary. 
 
 Now, with regard to Listowel, were there any 
 secret societies there ? — The only secret society I 
 knew of there was the society of the moonlighters. 
 
 Was that, as far as you could gather, an independent 
 society, or was it connected with the Land League ?— 
 All through Kerry I have always found that wherever 
 you had a local branch of the Land League active and 
 working there you always have moonlighters. 
 
 Were there any other secret societies in Listowel ?— 
 There was a secret society of moonlighters in a part of 
 the country known as the Red Road Country. 
 
 Have you found, at either Dingle or Listowel, an> 
 moonlighting society where there was no Land League i 
 — I have never heard of any. 
 
 Nor found any ? — No. 
 
 Now, it is necessary to go back a little. You went 
 to Killarney about when ?— In October, 1882. 
 
 And have remained there ever since ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the condition of Killarney when you wenl 
 there ?— It was disturbed. 
 
 Had the police force there been increased ? — Yes. 
 
 By how much ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 What was the normal state of things when you went 
 
 District-Inspector Crane. 
 
 15-2 
 
452 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 there ? — It was so very bad at Killarney that I some- 
 times had to take 170, sometimes 150, and sometimes 
 140 men with me, as the circumstances of the case 
 rendered necessary. 
 
 What was the character of the offences during the 
 first parb of the time you were there ? — In the first 
 part of my time they were chiefly raids, threatening 
 letters, and notices, and intimidation of various kinds. 
 
 I believe that you investigated many of these out- 
 rages yourself ? — Nearly all. 
 
 Speaking of the majority, what did you find to be the 
 cause of those outrages ? — A great many of them were 
 caused by people working on evicted farms and taking 
 land from which people were evicted, and there was 
 also a lot of maiming and killing cattle placed on 
 evicted farms as grazing stock. 
 
 Was there any organization which was preaching or 
 teaching the non-taking of evicted farms except the 
 Land League and the National League ? — No, I never 
 heard of it. 
 
 Just give us the number of outrages from the time 
 you went to Killarney ? — I have the figures here, which 
 are taken from the outrage book. 
 
 Has that list been verified ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — Let us have the outrage book, and 
 we can check the figures as you read them. 
 
 The witness. — In the year 1883 there were 53 out- 
 rages in the Killarney district, in 1884 there were 39, 
 in 1885 there were 68, in 1880 there were 80,and in 1887 
 there were 54. I only went there in October, 1882, 
 but I have the figures also for that year, in which 
 there were 66 ; in 1881 there were 70, in 1880 there 
 were 50, and in 1879 there were 19. 
 
 Xn reference to your being able to trace the causes of 
 the ontrages, were you able to obtain evidence as to the 
 causes of the outrages?— Sometimes, when I got private 
 information ; but, speaking generally, I was unable to 
 get any information whatever. I could get at the right 
 people in only a few cases and then with great diffi- 
 culty. 
 
 What was the percentage of cases in which you were 
 able to get information and to obtain convictions ?— I 
 do not think that there were more than ten or 12, 
 certainly not more than 20 convictions during the sis 
 years I have been there. 
 
 To what do you attribute the difficulty of getting 
 information as to the evidence in these cases ?— To 
 the terrorism in the district, to the fear of being seen 
 talking to a policeman. 
 
 Was it in your opinion sympathy with crime or 
 terrorism that prevented evidence as to the outrages 
 from being got ? — Terrorism, decidedly. 
 
 Have you any doubt about it ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Looking at the fall in the number of outrages from 
 54 in 1883 to 39 in 1884 and the rise agaip in 1885 to 
 68 was there in your opinion any cause for that fall 
 and rise in the number of outrages dffring those 
 years ?— In 1884 the Coercion Act of 1982 was in 
 force. 
 
 .lust refer us to any particular outrages which came 
 
 under your notice in Killarney while you were there ? 
 —First, there was the shooting of a man named Joseph 
 O 'Sullivan, who was shot in the back on the 27th of 
 May, 1883. 
 
 What was the cause of that outrage ? — Simply be- 
 cause he was a bog ranger as far as I could gather. 
 Then there was the shooting of a man named Bream at 
 Craughmore, 15 miles from Killarney. He was a bog 
 ranger to a Mrs. GleDn. 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — Surely in these cases, where we 
 have had the details and all the surrounding circum- 
 stances, this gentleman is now taking upon himself what 
 should be the duty of the Court. 
 
 The President. — I cannot tell that he is not going 
 to give some additional fact. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.' — Of course, if that be so I have no 
 objection ; but I understood that the Attorney-General 
 was desirous of obtaining this gentleman's views. 
 
 The Attorhey-Ueneral. — I do not intend, where I 
 can avoid it, to go into the details of cases which 
 have been already proved ; but, having a responsible 
 witness here, I thought it important to have his 
 evidence of the cases he has investigated. 
 
 Examination continued. — There were two cases of 
 threatening letters. What was the cause of them ? — ■ 
 One was because the man was about to evict a tenant, 
 and the other was because he had evicted a man. 
 One was named Orpeu and the other Eahilly. On the 
 30th of March, 1885, occurred the murder of Mr. 
 Curtin. 1 was at the time in charge of the police of 
 the district. That case came under my personal 
 inquiry. 
 
 Was application made to you for police protection 
 for them? — Yes, by Mrs. Curtin. We had to protect 
 them in going to chapel with a force of 40 men. 
 
 What is the next event of importance ? — On the 
 night of December 1 the house of Williams, of Brew- 
 sterfield, was attacked. On December 13, 1885, 
 Kaley, a caretaker on an evicted farm, was murdered 
 in broad daylight about a quarter of a mile from 
 Killarney, in the public road. On February 27, 1886, 
 a man named M'Sweeney was shot. He was on an 
 evicted farm. Two men came to him and demanded 
 his gun, and because he refused to give it up they shot 
 him. 
 
 Did you yourself examine into the Gloster case ?— 
 
 Yes. 
 
 It is suggested that it is a very extraordinary case. 
 Did you come to the conclusion that there had been 
 an attempt to blow up his house ? — Yes, certainly. 
 there was a large hole in the ground about 20 or 
 25 feet from the house, which I believe was caused 
 by an explosion of dynamite. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— How can he tell ? 
 
 Examination continued. — Do you know yourself 
 whether dynamite would cause such a hole ? — Yes. I 
 have always heard that it has a downward force. 
 
 It has been proved over and over again. You have 
 no doubt that it was a direct attempt to blow up his 
 house ? — No. Then there was the case of Michael 
 
 District-Inspector Crano. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1 
 
 453 
 
 Tangey, who was shot in the leg. Ho had been a bog 
 ranger and had given up the bog, but he was suspected 
 of haying taken it back again. 
 
 Who was Pat Ryan ? — He was secretary of the 
 National League at Ballyduff. 
 
 How many branches of the League were there in 
 Kerry ? — There were branches at Firies, Ballyduff, 
 Ballyhare, Rathmore, Glenfesk, and there was one at 
 Currans, which ceased to exist about the end of 1886. 
 
 Did anything happen to Ryan ? — He was arrested for 
 the murder of a man named M'Oarthy, in June last. 
 
 Was hs brought to trial ? — No, he was never brought 
 to trial. I have frequently seen notices of the resolutions 
 passed at the meetings of the branches of the League 
 published in United Ireland. On the 26th of January, 
 1886, I saw in United Ireland a notice referring to the 
 meeting of the Ballyduff branch of the National 
 League. There was another in United Ireland in 
 February, 1883. I have frequently seen in United 
 Ireland notices of proceedings of League branches in 
 which Williams was condemned. On the 17th of 
 January, 1886, a threatening notice was brought to 
 me. I have a considerable number of these threatening 
 notices and letters brought to me. I have heard the 
 names of Michael M'Mahon and Jeremiah Leary as 
 treasurer and secretary of the Firies branch of the 
 League. In this part of Kerry — in the Killarney dis- 
 trict — I have always found that where there was a 
 branch of the National League there was a branch of 
 mooDlighters also. In places where there was no 
 branch of the League I did not find evidence of any 
 secret organization. Moonlighters were usually given 
 some local name. People living up in Rathmore used 
 to call them the " Red Road " boys. I knew the 
 Land Leaguers in my district by name or reputation, 
 but no Land Leaguers ever gave me the slightest 
 assistance in finding out the moonlighters. I never 
 had the slightest assistance from the Land League 
 organization in detecting crime. There was a great 
 deal of intimidation in this part of Kerry, In 1887 I 
 went with a party of 100 men to assist the sheriff 
 in carrying out the eviction on Lord Cork's pro- 
 perty. When I went back to Dingle, in 1887, I found 
 that the people, who used to be the quietest, had quite 
 changed, and that the place was very disturbed. There 
 was a great deal of boycotting going on. When I was 
 there in 1880 I had never heard of boycotting. During 
 the last few years there has been a great deal of boy- 
 cotting in the Killarney district also. The Curtins were 
 boycotted, and the national school was boycotted 
 because the son of a murdered man went there. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. LoCKWOOD. — Was it your 
 first visit to Ireland when you joined the constabulary 
 in 1879 ?— Yes. 
 
 And you had no knowledge of the country or con- 
 nexion with it ? — None whatever. I went over for the 
 purpose of joining the constabulary. 
 
 And your only experience of Ireland is in connexion 
 with your police duties ?— I know a good deal of Ire- 
 land privately, outside my police duties. 
 
 You have said you attended an eviction at Listowel 
 on June 13, 1881 ? — Yes ; it was the first eviction I 
 attended. 
 
 Things were pretty quiet in the district ? — Yes. I had 
 only 15 men of the constabulary with me, some of 
 whom were armed and some were not, and I think only 
 two were actually employed in the eviction. I think 
 it was the case of Mrs. O'FIaherty. 
 
 Did there seem ,in June, 1881, a very strong feeling 
 of sympathy with an evicted person ? — I do not think 
 there was a very strong feeling. The immediate 
 neighbours only were there. There were not more than 
 100 people altogether. 
 
 Did not the people by their demeanour demonstrate 
 their sympathy ? — They did not show much sympathy. 
 There was a good deal of cheering going on whenever, 
 the pitchfork appeared out of the window, and when< 
 ever boiling water was thrown on the bailiff. 
 
 Well, that was not cheering for the bailiff ? — No. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 What did you do at that eviction ? — I went to the 
 house, and told the people they were rendering them- 
 selves liable to prosecution ; and they desisted and 
 opened the door. 
 
 This was the first eviction you were present at ia 
 the district which was so quiet in 1881 ? — Yes. There 
 had been a good many outrages between January and 
 June, 18S1, but it was not what I should call a dis- 
 turbed district. 
 
 I put it to you whether at the time this eviction 
 took place that part of the country was quiet ? — Yes. 
 I am not aware that an outrage ever took place there 
 except the outrage on Moriarty, the bailiff. 
 
 You were in the district in September, 1880. Do you 
 remember the eviction of a man named Kennedy ? — I 
 do not. 
 
 Have you not heard that Moriarty was a man em* 
 ployed by the authorities to fire Kennedy's house ? — I 
 do not remember ever having heard that before. 
 
 You are not prepared to deny that was the case ? — I 
 am not. I never heard of it. Moriarty, it is very pos- 
 sible,may have been so engaged without my knowing it. 
 
 I take you now to Listowel. You say you found thai 
 disturbed when you got there ? — I did. 
 
 Raids for arms ? — Yes, and raids for money. 
 
 Have you sufficient experience of Ireland to say that 
 raids for arms have not been a common form of out- 
 rage in Ireland for many years before 1879 ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 What do you mean by raids for money ? — I mean men 
 going round to people's houses and intimidating them 
 to give them money for what they called " the cause." 
 
 What is called here robbery with violence ? — We call 
 it raids for money, and levying contributions. 
 
 With regard to the threatening notices, have you 
 sufficient knowledge of Ireland or of that district to 
 know that long before 1879 threatening notices were 
 constantly being posted in the district of which you 
 have spoken ? — I do not know it. I have not heard of it. 
 
 What proportion of the figures you have given repre- 
 
 District-Inspector Crane. 
 
454 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 sents threatening notices ? — I have not got that, but I 
 could easily get it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The proportion of threat- 
 ening notices in each county appears in the Parliamen- 
 tary returns. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — But not the proportion in parti- 
 cular districts. (To witness.) I take it that all the figures 
 you have given us with regard to outrages in your dis- 
 trict have been supplied either by you or by some other 
 person connected with the district for the purpose of 
 the Government return ? — Yes. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Part of our evidence, my 
 Lords, will bo calculations based on the Parliamentary 
 returns to which my friend is referring. 
 
 The President. — It will be convenient if sufficient 
 indication be given to the secretary to enable him to 
 obtain the returns. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — I want to refer to the 
 figures relating to Killarney. Were you in the district 
 when the Coercion Act of 1882 came into operation ? 
 — No, the Coercion Act came into operation in the 
 spring, and I did not go there till the middle of 
 October. 
 
 You did not bring coercion with you ? — No. 
 
 You found it there ? (Laughter.)— Yes. 
 
 Therefore it would be having effect when you went 
 there. Just follow these figures. You began in 1879 
 with 19 outrages ; in 1880, 50 outrages ; in 1881, 
 70 outrages ; in 1882, half of that year coercion 
 being in force, 66 ; in 1883, coercion for the whole 
 year, 53 outrages ; in 1884, coercion still for the 
 whole year, 89 ; in 1886, coercion up to the time the 
 Condervative party came into office, 68. How do you 
 account for that ? — I account for it in this way. The 
 demoralization of the country in 1880 and 1881 was so 
 great. You cannot cure a district in a couple of 
 years. 
 
 If your theory is correct, coercion had driven out- 
 rages Jown to 39 in 1884. The good work, as you 
 would call it, of coercion had gone on through 1882, 
 1883, and 1884. How, then, do you account for there 
 being 68 outrages in 1885 ?— Because if you take the 
 half of the year when there was no coercion you will 
 find the majority of the crimes of the more serious 
 kind ocourred after the Coercion Act had lapsed. 
 
 I shall be glad to test that. You say that after 
 September, 1885, the majority of the more serious kind 
 of outrages occurred. Can you give me the numbers ? 
 —I cannot. There is the book. Certainly most of the 
 serious crimes occurred in the latter half of 1886 and 
 in 1886, when there was no coercion. 
 
 With regard to the branches of the Land League at 
 the various places in your district, are you able to tell 
 me the dates when they were established ? — No ; they 
 were established before I came into the district. The 
 National League was established there in 1885. 
 
 Was the Killorghn branch in your district ?— No ; 
 Killorglin was taken from the Killarney district in 
 1882, and I am not acquainted with it. 
 Who could tell us about that district ?— Mr. Morrisson. 
 
 You said generally there were raids which followed 
 meetings of the League ? — Yes. 
 
 Take Listowel. What meetings do you refer to in 
 Listowel ? — I was only at one, on July 2, 1882. 
 
 Then the opinion you have expressed with regard to 
 raids following meetings had relation only to that 
 meeting ? — Chiefly to Killarney. 
 
 In the answer you gave I understood you referred to 
 Listowel ? — No ; to Killarney. 
 
 Then you don't say it with regard to Listowel ? — 
 No, only with regard to Killarney. 
 
 What meetings do you refer to in respect of Kil- 
 larney ?— To the one at Firios in November, 1885. I 
 was present at it. 
 
 Who were the speakers ? — Mr. Sheehan, M.P., and 
 Father O'Connor. 
 
 Is that the only meeting you can tell me of in the 
 Firies district ? — I think there was another one after 
 that, but I forget the date. I cannot call to mind any 
 in the Firies district except the one in November, 
 1885. 
 
 Now with regard to Ballyhar, do you speak of any 
 meetings there ? — I never was at a meeting there. 
 
 Nor Rathmore ?— No. 
 
 Ballyduff ? — I was present at some meeting at 
 Ballyduff in the winter of 1885. 
 
 You have made a serious allegation with regard to 
 these meetings. I must trouble you for the date of the 
 Ballyduff meeting ? — I cannot remember the date. 
 
 Can you tell us nothing about it ? — I remember now 
 that I went to it with a force of the police, and that 
 it was not allowed to be held. 
 
 That is an unfortunate illustration. Were you ever 
 at a meeting at Irlenflesk ? — No. 
 
 Kilcurnin ? — No. 
 
 What others ? — One at Killarney on the 30th of 
 August, 1885, at which Mr. Timothy Healy, M.P , Mr. 
 W. O'Brien, M.P., and Mr. Sheehan, M.P., were 
 present. There was another on the 23d of January, 
 1885, which I did not attend. 
 
 It comes to this — that there are two meetings of 
 • which you have spoken, one on the 7th of November, 
 1885, and the other on the30lh of August, 1885 ?— Yes. 
 
 And those are the two meetings to which you referred 
 when you said that the raids which took place followed 
 the meetings of the League ? — Those are not all the 
 meetings of the League. Every week or every fort- 
 night there were meetings of the League. 
 
 The President. — We have already seen that he was 
 not speaking of public meetings of the League only, 
 but also of the ordinary meetings of members of the 
 League. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I understood him to refer to public 
 meetings of the League. I am obliged to your Lord- 
 ship for reminding me. 
 
 Do you refer to the weekly meetings of the 
 branches ? — To the weekly or fortnightly meetings. 
 
 Then you say that the meetings you refer to took 
 place before and after the outrages were committed ? 
 — Yes, the meetings went on in regular course. 
 
 District-Inspector Crano. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 455 
 
 As Mr. Healy has been alluded to as having been 
 present at a meeting, it is only fair I should ask you 
 whether you heard him denounce outrages ? — I was not at 
 the meeting. I was in the barrack in charge of the police. 
 
 Mr. LocKWOOD.— With your Lordships' permission, 1 
 will now read an extract from the Ker.-y Sentinel 
 referring to this district, although it does not arise in 
 the examination of this witness. The article, which 
 is one denouncing outrages in this very district, ap- 
 peared in the Kerry Sentinel on June 11, 1SSC. It is 
 as follows : — 
 
 " The spectacle of the South of Ireland peacefully 
 abstaining from any demonstration of hostility to those 
 resident there who may be of the samo political 
 kidney as the Orange demonstrators of the North will 
 not be without its useful lesson here as indicating the 
 temper of a future Irish Government elected by that 
 majority. Pray God, for higher reasons than merely 
 this, it may continue so, and that not retaliation may 
 occur. The single stain on the political escutcheon of 
 the south is in connexion with the inexplicable outragos 
 of an agrarian character which are committed princi- 
 pally in Kerry. They are a hellish work, no doubt, but 
 it seems as if the Devil's ingenuity were always 
 devising not merely the commission of them, but the 
 particular juncture for the commission of them, which 
 is most fatal to the peaceful or progressive prospects 
 of the country. There is no use in my continuing in 
 this strain, for I know how humiliated all decent 
 people in Kerry feel over these frightful occurrences." 
 I may add that what I have read appears in the 
 letter of the London correspondent, and was written, 
 as a matter of fact, by Mr. Edward Harrington. On 
 August 23, 1885, a leading article appeared in the Kerry 
 Sentinel, entitled " Baptizing in Blood," which, with 
 your Lordships' permission, I will also read : — 
 
 " Among the things unaccountable to ordinary 
 intellects must be reckoned the devilish instinct of mis- 
 guided and malii.ious men for contriving by repulsive 
 aids to hinder the progress and mar the prospectB of 
 every good causa they affect to cherish just at the time 
 when there could be the least possible need for their 
 extravagance apart from its repugnant wickedness, 
 which often disgusts the best men from a movement 
 abetted by such foul meaus. Perhaps there never was a 
 juncture in our history when the pure unsullied name of 
 the sacred cause we all have at heart required a more 
 watchful care and zealous guard than at this very time 
 we are slipping through. Nor is this merely so in order 
 that we may present a holiday aspect to the English 
 people or to the gazing nations of the world ; but it is 
 mainly that the excesses committed by evil-motived or 
 foolish men by way of a bloody burlesque of our 
 national movement may not cause a doubt to arise in 
 the minds of the best and the bravest among us of tho 
 wisdom of striving so strenuously for a liberty which 
 may be undervalued or misused by a considerable sec- 
 tion of those for whom it is sought. Great social 
 movements should never be sullied by the blood stains, 
 though they invariably are. But the present Irish 
 movement is more of a national than a social move- 
 ment, and history would yet condone, and in fact 
 applaud us, if, with a good opportunity offering, we had 
 asserted our rights from the lips of the rifle, and hewn 
 our way to freedom with the sword. There are com- 
 paratively few among us believe in the opportuneness of 
 such effort, and the vast majority, to say the least. 
 
 firmly hold a daily increased conviction that in a little 
 while the same effect can be produced by an earnest 
 unity in peaceful means. However, it is no secret 
 that there are Irishmen, young and old, the world 
 over as well as here at home, who would willingly 
 fling craft and caution to the winds to-morrow, and 
 leading or following in the trusty band would 
 readily face a patriot soldier's death on their native 
 heather to risk the avenging blow for Ireland. Never- 
 theless, these very men, the purest, and the most 
 ardent of them especially, as thoroughly detest th© 
 vile practices which we chronicle and condemn to-day 
 as even the man of peace or the priest of God could do. 
 The horrid habits that are now revived of moonlight 
 visits and mutilation of cattle in a portion of this 
 county are the occasion of this earnest, and we trust 
 successful, call which we make with all the might of 
 our souls to-day to all true lovers of Ireland within 
 this county and to all natives of Kerry to assist in 
 allaying this foul demon, whose evil visage it would 
 seem is to be the beacon of their hopes to some wrong- 
 minded men through the settling gloom of the coming 
 winter. On the lowest ground that such an appeal 
 could be made we first put it. The Crimes Act, which 
 pressed with noisome torture on the people's liberties, 
 has lapsed, and if it would not be too much to credit 
 these miscreants with any intelligible object, it would 
 seem as if they now wanted an improvement on it in 
 the shape of martial law. There is no need for out- 
 rage, even if in the imagination of the wildest it 
 were defensible ; and the man who fancies he is 
 shortening tho period of our national servitude by 
 cutting six inches off the tail of a Causeway cow is 
 not the most desirable disciple to have in our 
 national movement. But far over and above the low- 
 level grounds of error and inexpediency is the reason 
 that we hope animates the people in condemning 
 these outrages because they are cowardly and 
 criminal, and sinful and abominable, and that neither 
 the class nor the. nation that would wink at them 
 could hope for, much less deserve, that Divine blessing 
 on their efforts which alone sweetens the success it 
 insures. If the strong discountenancing voice of tho 
 people be not brought to bear on the suppression oi 
 this tendency to crime and outrage now during our 
 efforts for liberty and justice, it would strike its 
 unholy roots deep into the soil of our hereafter national 
 life, and with overshadowing growth blast the fairest 
 fruits thereof. It is these sort of men through all time 
 " ' "Who at death's reeking altar, like furies caressing 
 " ' The young hopes of freedom, baptize it in blood.' " 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Asquitii. — When did you first 
 become aware of tho existence of moonlighters in 
 Kerry ? Were there any in Dingle r 1 — I do not think 
 there were any real moonlighters there. 
 
 Were they already organized in Listowel and Kil- 
 larney when you got there ? — Yes. 
 
 I understand you to say from the result of your 
 inquiries that where there are no moonlighters there 
 arc no brauchos of the League 'i — I said that I had 
 never heard of any. 
 
 Wherever there was a branch of the League thero 
 was also a branch of moonlighters ? — Invariably. 
 
 Do you refer to both Leagues ? — 1 referred chiefly to 
 the National League, but in Listowel I referred to 
 the Land League as well. 
 
 Do you suggest that the branches of the National 
 
 District-Inspector Crane. 
 
456 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 18S8. 
 
 League and the moonlighters are connected together ? 
 —I do. 
 
 And that it is not a mere coincidence that the two 
 exist ? — That it is not a mere coincidence so far as 
 my observation has gone. 
 
 How are they connected ? — Whenever the League 
 passes laws saying men shall not take evicted farms 
 the moonlighters invariably carry them out. 
 
 Are the persons members of both bodies 1—1 do not 
 Bay that every National Leaguer is a moonlighter, but 
 the majority of the moonlighters are National 
 Leaguers. 
 
 Do you say that the majority of the National 
 Leaguers are moonlighters ?— I do not say that. 
 
 Are the moonlighters organized in the sense of having 
 officers and an executive ? — They are under a captain 
 —each band is under a captain. 
 
 Is there any further organization ? — I do not know. 
 They go by numbers — 1, 2, and so on, and never 
 by their own names. 
 
 The organization, such as it is, is of a secret 
 character ? — Yes. 
 
 There have been a great many prosecutions, have 
 there, for moonlighting in your district during the last 
 two years ? — Two men were prosecuted for the Curtin 
 murder and two men were prosecuted for a raid in 
 1885. Several have been prosecuted. 
 
 Do you look upon the Curtin case as a case of moon- 
 lighting ? — Decidedly. 
 
 Can you point me to any resolution of the League 
 before an outrage which was carried out by moon- 
 lighters ? — I can point to the report of the meeting at 
 2?iries, where Father O'Connor said that any man that 
 went behind his neighbour's back and paid his rent— 
 what should they do with him ? and a voice said 
 " Shoot him." 
 
 I asked you whether you could point to any resolu- 
 tion of the League, or any branch of it, with relation to 
 that case ? — With relation to the general paying of 
 rent ? 
 
 You have made a statement that the moonlighters 
 were engaged in carrying out the resolutions of the 
 League ? — I cannot point to any resolution of the 
 League pointing to Mr. Curtin by name. 
 
 You know that Mr. Curtin was an officer of the 
 Firies branch of the National League ?— I did not 
 know it ; I knew he was a member of the League. 
 
 Do you know it now ?— I will take your word for it. 
 
 Will you give me, please, some other cases in which 
 there have been prosecutions for moonlighting within 
 the last two years ? — A prosecution for the shooting of 
 Cornelius Murphy. There are two men in penal servi- 
 tude for it — 14 years. I think that was on February 
 21, 1887. 
 
 Where did that happen ?— At Coole, near Killarney 
 —five miles from Killarney. A man named Burke and 
 a man named Dwyer were convicted. I think Burke 
 was a member of the League. I do not know whether 
 Dwyer was. I will only say that I believe he was a 
 member of the League. 
 
 Was there any resolution of the League with refer- 
 ence to- this case of Murphy prior to the murder ? — 
 No. I am not aware that Murphy was ever mentioned 
 by the League. 
 
 Will you give me another ? — A man was prosecuted 
 for moonlighting at the Winter Assizes in Cork in 
 1887. I forget his name. It was a raid at Shandrock. 
 The police overtook them, and identified them on their 
 way to the place. 
 
 Whose house were they going to ? — They were going 
 to several farmers' houses. 
 
 How was that proved ?— I knew it from private 
 information. 
 
 From whom ?— I will not tell you. 
 
 You think you knew it. Was there any resolution of 
 the League, or of any branch of the League, with 
 reference to these persons whom you say the men were 
 going to attack ? — I cannot remember. 
 
 Just tax your memory, because you have made a 
 statement of a very serious kind about the League. — I 
 cannot remember. This was on October 1, 1887. 
 
 Is it or is it not a fact that the branches of the 
 League had been suppressed by the Government in 
 October, 1887 ?— I think they were suppressed in 
 November. 
 
 Can you point to any branch or any resolution of any 
 branch in your district with reference to that case ? — 
 Not in reference to that case. 
 
 You mentioned in your evidence to-day a man named 
 M'Sweeney, who was visited — raided ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you suggest that that was in consequence of any 
 resolution of the League ? — I am not aware that I can 
 point to any resolution of the League with reference 
 to him. At one time I believe he was a prominent 
 member of the League. I do not know whether he 
 was at this time. I believe he was before. 
 
 I want another case, please ? — There were a lot of 
 cases where William Williams was condemned, but I 
 cannot point to any one in the papers, except in 
 January, 1886. The Ballyduff branch, reported in 
 United Ireland, called upon the people to shun him. I 
 cannot tell you the words. 
 
 Is that the only case which you are able to give me 
 in which you can point to a resolution of the League ? 
 —No. There was a report in United Ireland in Feb- 
 ruary, 1888, which said that people should produce 
 their National League cards ; and then, three days 
 after that report in United Ireland, there was a raid in 
 that district, and the people who were raided were 
 told to produce their National League cards 
 
 That is the connexion you suggest ? — I say it is a very 
 extraordinary thing that the occurrence should have taken 
 place just after the appearance of that report. 
 
 Will you givg me another ? — I have not got any at 
 hand. 
 
 I must ask you to tax your memory. — It is perfectly 
 impossible to tax my memory for the words which 
 appeared in the newspapers so long ago. 
 
 You said that moonlighters were engaged in carrying 
 out the resolutions of the League. Can you give mo 
 
 District-Inspector Crane. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 457 
 
 any other case in which a moonlight visit has followed 
 a resolution of the League ?— If you take the case of 
 Rahilly, this man Eahilly was murdered in broad day- 
 light on December 13, 1885. 
 
 People taking evicted farms have often been con- 
 demned ? — Over and over again. 
 
 That is all you are able to tell me ?— I think that is 
 about all. 
 
 How many people have been convicted during the 
 last three years for moonlighting cases in your 
 district ? — I think about eight or ten. 
 
 Of those eight or ten people can you mention any 
 one who was shown either to be an officer or a member 
 of any branch of the League in your district ? — I heard 
 that Casey, who was convicted for the Curtin raid, was 
 a member of the National League. 
 
 Was not Curtin himself ? Is there any other case 
 except this of Casey ? — I cannot remember. There 
 was a man who was convicted last Cork Assizes ; I 
 forget his name, I could tell you in a minute if I 
 could refresh my memory. It was a raid near Headfort 
 on October 1 — the one I have already mentioned. 
 
 Do you mean the man Burke ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— No, no, that is not the 
 case at all. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — Was more than one person convicted ? 
 — Only one was identified by the police, and Only one 
 convicted. I believe he was a member of the 
 National League. 
 
 What grounds have you for that belief ? — I was told 
 he was. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am told his name was 
 Murphy ? — Yes ; Murphy. 
 
 What ground have you for that belief ? — I cannot 
 give you the name of the man who told me. 
 
 Some anonymous informant told you, that is what it 
 comes to ? — That is what it comes to. 
 
 By Mr. Harrington. — I suppose from your know- 
 ledge of the district yon are aware that the greater 
 proportion of the people belong to the National 
 League ? — Yes ; the greater proportion. 
 
 I suppose you have found that if you made an arrest 
 for drunkenness you would be likely to hit occasion- 
 ally on a member of the National League, too ? — Very 
 likely. 
 
 All the people of the district, or th,e great majority, 
 are members of the National League, and you arrested, 
 or you did occasionally call upon, a member of the 
 National League ? — Yes. 
 
 In all your experience of Dingle, Listowel, and 
 Killarney have you ever arrested for a serious offence 
 a person who had a National League card in his 
 possession ? — Yes ; not personally, my head-constable 
 has done so. 
 
 For what offences ?— For murder. 
 
 A National League card in his possession ? — Yes. 
 That was a case of a man called Ryan, the secretary of r 
 the Ballyduff branch of the National League. 
 
 Will you swear that Mr. Healy is not the secretary j I 
 of the Ballyduff branch ?— I do not know ■ 
 
 Do you know a man named Denis Healy ? — Yes, he 
 was secretary of the Ballyduff branch of the National 
 League, as far as I know, when I left Killarney. 
 
 What became of the case in which the man waa 
 arrested ? — We could not get any evidence against 
 him ; he was discharged. 
 
 Exactly ; in all your experience in Kerry can you 
 point to a single case of a man arrested in which ha 
 had a National League card in his possession ? — Well, 
 you were arrested for being in a row once, I remember. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Was I found guilty of the offence ?— As far as I 
 remember you were returned for trial, and I cannot 
 remember whether you were tried or not, whether 
 you were prosecuted or not. 
 
 I was not found guilty of any offence, at all events ? 
 — I do not think you were, before a jury. 
 
 In all the arrests that were made in Kerry can you 
 give me any instance where you directly traced the 
 National League to the person found guilty of the 
 offence ? — I cannot say I traced the connexion of those 
 who were found guilty of an offence. I do not think 
 any officer of the National League was convicted in my 
 district, that is as far as I know. 
 
 Pass from the officers. Any one against whom you 
 can by evidence establish membership of the National 
 League ? — Yes, Casey was one. 
 
 Can you by evidence, now, establish Casey to be a 
 member of the National League ? — I understand he was 
 generally to be seen attending meetings. I saw him 
 at a Firies meeting ; but I did not see him going into 
 the League room. 
 
 Are you aware that the constable who gave evidence 
 with reference to Casey did not swear he was a 
 member of the National League, but that he saw him 
 at public meetings ? — I was told he was. 
 
 Do you remember on what estate Faherty was a 
 tenant?— I think it was Mr. Hickson's. The agent at 
 that time I think was Mr. Hussey. I am not sure it was 
 Mr. Hickson's property ; but I believe it was. 
 
 Did it come to your knowledge at the time of the 
 eviction that at the expiry of the lease in 1872 Mr. 
 Hussey increased Faherty's rent from £60 to £100 ?—• 
 That did not come to my knowledge. It is a very long 
 time ago. 
 
 Do you know whether shortly after that eviction Mrs, 
 Faherty died in a very humble place in Dingle ? — I did 
 not hear that. I heard that she had been prosecuted for 
 trespassing. 
 
 So often that the fines amounted to £8 ? — No; I 
 never heard it. I think she was prosecuted for tres> 
 passing on the farm. 
 
 You mentioned the name of Kelleher ; did you 
 hear anything of the circumstances of his hold- 
 ing ? He was a tenant of Lord Ventry's. Did 
 it come to your knowledge that his rent had 
 been increased on account of his having voted for the 
 Homo Rule candidate, Mr. Blennerhassett ?— No ; I 
 never heard it in my life. I never heard it. It might 
 
 District-Inspector Crane. 
 
458 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 1SSS. 
 
 have been mentioned in some speeches ; but I never 
 beard such a thing. 
 
 I suppose you know nothing of the reductions of rent 
 by the Land Court on Lord Ventry's estate ?— I know 
 nothing about that. 
 
 It is not a portion of your duty to be present at the 
 decisions of the Land Court ? — No. 
 
 You have quoted the evidence of Sergeant Meehan ? 
 —I referred to it. 
 
 I will read that portion of the evidence, page 935, 
 question 13,814 : — " Did you know of your own know- 
 ledge whether he was a member of the Land League at 
 Firies or not ? " 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The previous question is 
 — " Had you known Casey ?" Answer — " I had." 
 
 Mr. Harrington. — The answer to the question I 
 have read was — " Yes. I saw him attend the meeting 
 where the National League was established, riding on 
 horseback, and wearing a green sash across his 
 breast." 
 
 Beyond that had you any reason to know that Casey 
 was a member of the National League ? — Not of my 
 own knowledge. I tell you I have never attended the 
 meetings. 
 
 Will you pledge your oath that you got private in- 
 formation with reference to this man Casey ? — Yes, I 
 did. 
 
 Can you remember the date on which you got that 
 private information ? — No, I cannot. It was in 1885, 
 after the arrest for the Curtin murder. 
 
 Were you aware that the members of the Curtin 
 family were also members of the National League ? — 
 Mr. Curtin was, and so was Mr. George Curtin. I do 
 cot know if Mr. Dan Curtin was. 
 
 You never asked the Curtins whether Casey was a 
 member of the League ? — I do not think so. 
 
 Whether they saw Casey at a National League meet- 
 ing? — I do not think I ever did. I do not remember 
 even having mentioned such a subject to them. 
 
 When did you first go to Killarney district ? — October 
 13, 1882. 
 
 I see a number of threatening letters were sent to 
 Mr. Orpen. I am referring to one under the head of 
 October, 1883. Do you know Mr. Orpen ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you any reason to believe that members of his 
 family were playing on his fears, his prejudioes, or his 
 fancies ? — No." 
 
 You had no reason to believe that members of his 
 family had been deceiving him as to anything ? — Not 
 that I am aware of ; no. 
 
 Were you aware of an action entered against him by 
 Ins son-in-law ? — I heard of that action. 
 
 I do not want you to mention the circumstances of 
 the action ; but do you know anything about it Jr— No, 
 I do not. 
 
 Do you know that the action resulted from false 
 information given to him by hie granddaughter ?— I do 
 not think I ever heard that. I could not really tell you 
 what the circumstances were. They were. , of .a very 
 private nature 
 
 Yes ; but at the same time it might have come to 
 your knowledge. There were threatening letters„to 
 Mr. Orpen ? — A large number of them. 
 
 Did you learn during the course of any of your visits 
 there that Mr. Orpen was under the impression that 
 his son-in-law resided in the neighbourhood, and visited 
 the neighbourhood, when he was really in England ? — 
 Sometimes Mr. Orpen told me that. 
 
 Were you aware that he was told that by members 
 of his family ? — I am not aware of that. 
 
 Had you any reason to believe that his son-in-law 
 was about the place ? — I never heard that he was. 
 
 Did you not ascertain that that was pure hallucina- 
 tion ? — I never paid any attention to it. 
 
 But these private family matters are frequently the 
 subject of threatening ? — I dare say they are. I never 
 had any suspicion that these letters related to a. 
 private family matter. 
 
 Did Mr. Orpen make any allegations about his son- 
 in-law ? — No, not one. 
 
 In what cocnexion did he mention that his son-in- 
 law was about the place ? — I do not think I could 
 mention that. 
 
 Was it in connexion with these threatening notices 
 or in connexion with any annoyance of his family that 
 he said this to jou ? — No. 
 
 , Was it in connexion with annoyance to his family or 
 himself ? — It might have been to himself, but not to 
 his family. 
 
 That is all I ask you. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt.— Before you went to Ireland you 
 knew nothing about the condition of the Irish pea- 
 santry ? — No, except what I had read from history. 
 
 You have read about previous agrarian movements ? — 
 Yes, I have read of the rising in 1848. 
 
 That was not an agrarian movement ; have you heard 
 of the Whiteboys, Rockites, and Ribbonmen ? — Yes. 
 
 I suppose you learned that outrages similar to thoso 
 you have described, and worse, were connected with 
 those agrarian uprisings ? — I am aware that the White- 
 boys did something like moonlighting. I do not know 
 much about Ribbonmen. 
 
 You say Lord Ventry was very popular with his 
 tenants. I believe you were on terms of intimacy with 
 the family ? — I know them very well. 
 
 Have you dined at Burnham-house ? — Yes. 
 
 I suppose you found there was a considerable differ- 
 ence between the bill of fare there and that of the 
 tenants ? — Naturally ; I suppose there would be a 
 similar difference all over the world. 
 
 Tell us something about the ordinary food of the 
 tenants in that district ? — Well, they seemed to me to 
 have plenty of potatoes and milk, and what they call 
 bread, a sort of flat cake. 
 
 Not much of the roast beef of old England ? — They 
 never seemed to want it. 
 
 Would you say that their social condition is an ideal 
 one for tenantry ? — I could not say about that ; I do 
 not know exactly what you mean by an ideal social 
 condition. 
 
 District-Inspector Crano. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 459 
 
 Do you know how English farmers live ? How do 
 these tenants live as compared with them ? — I know 
 about Yorkshire ; certainly, the farmers there live a 
 little better. 
 
 Would you say that the normal condition of the pea- 
 santry in Kerry is calculated to promote happiness ? — 
 From what I saw they seemed a most contented and 
 happy people, and you could not meet a nicer people. 
 They were very cheerful, and the farmers were well-con- 
 tented with their position in 1880. I used to compare 
 them, making allowances for the difference of the 
 country, to the tenantry of Yorkshire. 
 
 They did not get much roast beef and plum pudding ? 
 — I think it would not do them any good if they did. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 You have spoken of the Celtic blood ; I think you 
 said that the Colts were quiet ? — I say that, taking a 
 line from Tralee to Millstreet and going south, the 
 district where the League has never got hold of the 
 people, they have always been quiet, and there has 
 been very little crime. I said I always found the 
 Celtic people very quiet. 
 
 Was it where English blood wns mixed with the 
 Celtic that there were disturbances 'I — I could not tell 
 you that. I always found the prosperous parts of the 
 country were the worst. For instance, in Kerry, there 
 was more crime in Castleislacd, where the land is 
 good. 
 
 Is not that a place where there is less Celtic blood ? 
 —I do not know. 
 
 Did you say that every village in Kerry has a Land 
 League ? — I did not say that. 
 
 Did you swear that nearly every village in Kerry had 
 its secret society ? — Yes, almost every one, as far as I 
 know, but there are parts of Kerry I have not been 
 in. Where there was a branch of the National League 
 there was a branch secret society. 
 
 But you say that there is not a branch League in 
 every village ? — I do not know about the branches in 
 the whole county. 
 
 But if every village has its secret society and every 
 village has not a branch of the League, then there 
 must be some places where there is a secret society 
 without any League existing ? — What I say is that in 
 every village where there is a regularly organized 
 branch of the League there is this inner circle. They 
 went chiefly by villages. 
 
 I suppose you found very little crime associated 
 with the question of Home Eule ? — I cannot say any. 
 
 Or with the question of the franchise ? — No, I think 
 not. 
 
 Or with the question of education ? — No, I think 
 not. 
 
 Were all outrages and disturbances associated with 
 the land ?— Most of them. 
 
 Arising out of the system of land tenure ? — No, not 
 so much that. As far as I could make out most of the 
 outrages came simply when a poor man wanted a day's 
 work and worked on an evicted farm. Then an out- 
 rage took place. 
 
 Now, with regard to the case of Gloster, where (be 
 hat and boots were found, would you consider those 
 very good clues to the perpetrators '/ — Well, very guod 
 if followed up, but not much good of themselves. 
 
 What steps were taken to follow them up ? — We 
 arrested some people. 
 
 Did they claim the property ? (Laughter.) — No, they 
 did not. 
 
 Have you any knowledge of bogus outrages in Kerry ? 
 — I believe there were one or two ; not many. 
 
 Only one or two ? — I could not give the number 
 exactly ; there were not very many. I have had a couple 
 of cases where people did not want to pay their rents 
 and got friends to send them threatening letters. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar.— I understood you to say that in the 
 case of Gloster the explosion took place in a garden 
 or field ? — Yes, just outside his house, 20 yards or so 
 off. 
 
 Is it your experience with regard to explosions 
 generally that an explosion would have very little 
 effect if it took place on eaith or sand or anything of 
 that sort ? — Well, I suppose it was about 20 yards off. 
 Dynamite may often explode when you do not expect 
 it. 
 
 But if an explosion takes place on saDd or earth it 
 has very little effect ? — I believe that is the fact. It 
 depends upon how close it is to the building. 
 
 How far could you reasonably expect an explosion 
 would spread if it was on sand or earth ? — I could not 
 really tell you. 
 
 In this particular case did any effects seem to show 
 this ? — Only about two or three yards round. 
 
 Do you seriously mean the Court to believe that a 
 person who wished to do material injury to the building 
 of Gloster's house would cause an explosion 20 or 25 
 yards from the building ? — No, I do not think so. 
 
 Then this is the sort of evidence upon which your 
 usual results have been founded ?■ — No, you have mis- 
 understood me. Dynamite sometimes explodes when 
 you do not expect it. 
 
 Yes, but in that case the person who was carrying 
 it towards the house would be burnt, would he not, 
 and you would find some of his remains ? — I should 
 certainly think so. (Laughter.) 
 
 Have you any further reason why you suppose any 
 one seriously intended to injure Gloster's house ? — 
 There are two theories. The gable of the house faces 
 opposite that where the rifle was found, not further 
 than from this to the wall of the Court. One man 
 evidently lay down in the ditch facing the window, 
 and the dynamite was exploded either accidentally or 
 in order to call Gloster's attention and to get him to 
 put his head out. 
 
 Then the theory is that it was not done for the pur- 
 pose of injuring Gloster's house, but to get him to put 
 his head out ? — I never said that ; there are two 
 theories, and you can accept whichever you like. 
 
 You have given two theories ; they are both exceed- 
 ingly vague, and about the same value as all the other 
 evidence you have given. 
 
 District-Inspector Crane. 
 
460 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 1888 
 
 Ke-examined by the Attorney-General. — You have 
 spoken of the League being active ; in what way ? — 
 Meeting constantly and passing resolutions condemning 
 the action of various persons for " grabbing " farms, 
 working on evicted farms, or working for obnoxious 
 landlords, and in various other ways. 
 
 They did not always refer to these persons by name ? 
 ■ — No, but there was always sufficient evidence to let 
 persons in the neighbourhood know whom they meant. 
 
 You have spoken of Kelleher ; is that the same man 
 you spoke of as being a member of the League ? — Yes, 
 in Dingle. 
 
 Did you yourself try to trace how many moonlighters 
 in various parts of Ireland were members of the 
 League ?— I have not, but I got a great deal of know- 
 ledge from private information ; not otherwise. 
 
 You spoke of the murder of Eahilly, who was 
 murdered in broad daylight ; were you able to get 
 evidence in that case ? — Not one bit. 
 
 Did you find that even in such cases you could get no 
 information ? — None whatever. 
 
 Now, you referred to Ryan, who was secretary at 
 Ballyduff ; I think you said he was acquitted ? — They 
 did not bring him to trial ; I could not get any evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Now, you were asked about a man's rent being raised 
 because he had voted for Mr. Blennerhassett ? — I do 
 not believe anything of the kind was done ; I do not 
 believe that Lord Ventry would do such a thing. 
 
 Now, with regard to stopping an outrage at Shand- 
 rock, you say you received information ? — Yes, and I 
 sent out police and intercepted them — intercepted part 
 of them. 
 
 You mentioned a man Murphy. Had you any reason 
 to believe he was a Land Leaguer '{ — I do not think he 
 was. 
 
 I am speaking of the Murphy who was arrested in 
 the Shandrock raid ? — Yes, I believe he was. 
 
 I am going to follow that up afterwards. (To wit- 
 ness.) Do you know what branch ? — I believe Glenflesk. 
 
 Now about the Coercion Act ; could the mere 
 passing of an Act of Parliament suppress disturbances ? 
 —No, it takes a long time to bring a district back 
 into a state of peace, or comparative peace— some 
 months. 
 
 Was or was not this district, from a Land League 
 point of view, strongly organized in 1885 and 1886 ? — 
 It was strongly organized. 
 
 You have been asked about secret societies ; do you 
 know with what county Ribbonmen were connected ? — 
 Sea, with Westmeath. I never heard of thorn in any 
 part of Kerry. 
 
 Now, with regard to bogus outrages, were any 
 of these reported by you as real ?— No ; I always 
 took very good care to inquire into cases myself, and 
 if information came to me subsequently that they were 
 aot real, even a month afterwards, I used to get those 
 outrages cancelled. 
 
 So the returns are of genuine and not bogus out- 
 rages ? — Exactly. I think I have omitted one thing 
 
 — namely, the return of outrages in 1888. From Janu- 
 ary 1 to October 31 I think the number was 36 in the 
 Killarney district ; but I believe a great many have 
 happened since. 
 
 My Lords, my learned friend has read an article 
 from the Kerry Sentinel of the 28th of August, 1885, 
 called " Baptism in Blood." I propose now to read 
 from the same paper of the 18th of September, 1885. 
 It is also a leading article, and is headed " Brilliant 
 Moonlighting " : — 
 
 " There are occasionally some very dark deeds that 
 go by the name of moonlighting committed in this 
 country ; but once in a while an incident in that way 
 transpires which would make people wish that the 
 moonlighters, if they considered themselves a national 
 necessity, would always confine their efforts to crimes 
 as pardonable as that which we have to chronicle 
 to-day. Some 17 acres of oats standing on an evicted 
 farm in Ballymacelligott was cut and carried off on 
 Tuesday night, and all trace of it is lost to the rueful 
 landlord since. Now this, of course, may be quite 
 as much opposed to the law as more repulsive crimes ; 
 but we do not think that many outside the landlord 
 circle will look upon it in any other light but a 
 ' smart ' affair in the Yankee acceptation of the word ; 
 and the expression of condolence with the aggrieved 
 will, outside that aforesaid little circle, be few and 
 far between.'*' 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington,— I understand that this article 
 does not refer to the district which is now under con- 
 sideration ; I would suggest that it would be better to 
 read it in connexion with some witness who belongs to 
 the district. 
 
 The President. — The previous article was admitted 
 because we thought it right that something written at 
 the time should be allowed to be read showing depre- 
 cation of outrage, and this, I understand, is being read 
 as being in the opposite sense to it. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington. — Yes, my Lord ; but we are 
 proceeding by different districts. I have no objection 
 to this being read ; but I merely suggest that it would 
 be more convenient that it should be read when a 
 witness was to be examined who came fromthe district, 
 and who could tell us, for instance, whether the oats 
 belonged to the evicted tenant or the landlord. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I think my learned friend need not 
 press his objection. 
 
 The President. — I understand the language is used 
 with regard to the whole thing, and not merely to a 
 district. 
 
 The Attorney-General then resumed the reading 
 of the article, as follows : — 
 
 " The police, we are told, are diligently searching 
 for the corn, but they have not succeeded in tracing 
 it. This is not surprising, as they may be half- 
 smothered in it and yet not have the slightest suspicion 
 that they are within the bray of an ass of it. We are 
 not among those who devoutly hope they may find it, 
 for there is something wholesome, though, perhaps, 
 technically dishonest, in the lesson conveyed to land- 
 lords generally who may be meditating war with their 
 rack-rented tenants rather than recognize the necessity 
 of the times and deal fairly with them. This property 
 
 District-Inspector Crano. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 461 
 
 belongs to some maiden ladies named Chute, and to a 
 Major Chute, a brother of theirs, who for harmony is 
 usually called Lady Chute. It was rack-rented un- 
 doubtedly, and since the Land League agitation com- 
 menced the relations between them and their tenantry 
 have been the greatest cat-and-dog squabble in the 
 county. A young fellow, by name Goodman, a nephew 
 of the Chutes, acts in the variable capacities of agent, 
 bailiff, rent-warner, and general emergency man to the 
 " estates," and though he seems to have resigned all 
 ambition for any other trade or calling, and is seconded 
 in his efforts to extract rents by sundry shake-hands 
 with the tenants from his aunts and uncle, and gracious 
 inquiries for their welfare, the total amount realized out 
 of this tenacious tenantry for the last few years would 
 hardly suffice to float the Munster Bank. Had these 
 people bowed to the inevitable, and made some fair 
 compromise with their tenants long ago, they would be 
 quite as well off and much easier in their minds." 
 
 The Commissioners then adjourned for lunch. 
 
 On the Court's resuming, 
 
 The Attorney-General said, — My Lords", in the 
 course of Mr. Crane's evidence he was asked about a 
 resolution which he saw in United Ireland, and of 
 which he had not a copy. We have now got it, and I 
 propose to recall Mr. Crane. 
 
 District-Inspector Crane was then recalled, and 
 examined by the Attorney-General. He said, — In 
 United Ireland there is an account of the following 
 resolutions passed by a meeting of the League at Bally- 
 duff ou the 16th of January, 1886. It is as follows : — 
 " Ballyduff, County Kerry. 
 
 " Mr. Timothy Kournihan, P.L.G., vice-president, 
 in the chair. The following resolutions were passed 
 unanimously : — 
 
 " ' We condemn in the strongest terms possible the 
 action of those landlords who are evicting their tenants 
 in our locality for the non-payment of impossible rents 
 in these depressed times, and we earnestly call upon 
 the Government to protect Her Majesty's subjects 
 from their nefarious action. And we also in emphatic 
 terms condemn the action of a farmer for working on 
 Garrett Fitzgerald's evicted farm, and furthermore we 
 condemn those persons who hold intercourse with him 
 and aid him in his unmanly action.' " 
 
 Who was the man who was working on the evicted 
 farm ? — William Williams. 
 
 Is that the resolution you referred to in your exami- 
 nation in chief ? — That is the resolution. 
 
 Was that followed by a threatening notice ? — Yes, 
 on the 17th of January a notice was posted on the 
 Glenflesk chapel door. Glenflesk is the neighbouring 
 parish. The notice was handed to me by one of the 
 constables. The following resolution was also passed : — 
 
 " Resolved, that any man who brings a charge 
 against another without due foundation is liable to ex- 
 pulsion ; that we call upon all members to pay the 
 defence fund to the collectors appointed for it before 
 next meeting, in order to strengthen us in the battle 
 which is waged against us by the landlords. That we 
 hold up Mr. A. Herbert and Lord KeDmare to all Irish- 
 men as instruments of the most heartless tyranny, 
 while we applaud the conduct of their respective 
 tenants who are not breaking the ring which they have 
 so nobly maintained up to the nresent." J 
 
 Did any other man come to you in this district after 
 this ? — Yes, a man named Culloty. 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — This was all given in the evidence 
 of Williams. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I do not think this about 
 Culloty was given. (To witness.) What did he do ? — 
 He asked me for protection ; I gave it to him, and a 
 month afterwards he said he did not want any more 
 protection, he had joined the National League. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I pat in now, my Lords, 
 the Kerry Sentinel of September 13, 1881. It gives an 
 account of a meeting of the Land and Labour League 
 held under the auspices of the Castleisland Land 
 League. Among the persons present was the Bev. J. 
 O'Bearden, treasurer. Of course my learned friend can 
 read anything he wishes. I only read the Rev. Jeremiah 
 O'Rearden's speech. The extract is as follows : — 
 
 " He came there to unite with the people in wel- 
 coming the ' suspects ' who were so cruelly incarce- 
 rated for being peaceful citizens and advocates of 
 land reform. (Cheers.) He was glad to see that the 
 seed he helped to sow was now bearing fruit in the 
 shape of the Land Act, and when they would be thresh- 
 ing it they would leave very few grains to the land- 
 lord. (Laughter and cheers.) But a great deal more 
 remained to be done before the farmer owns the land 
 he tills. They should fight a peaceable fight, and no 
 man should go in by the back stairs to the rent office. 
 (A voice — ' They are going in after nightfall.') He 
 should think there were plenty of ' night boys ' out to 
 see tnem. (Cheers, and a voice — ' They are guarded 
 by police.') In the meantime the farmer should help 
 the labourer by every means. They were before the 
 walls of a citadel, and they had got 15 years to storm 
 it, but he thought 15 months would be enough. In 
 that time they ought to be able to drive the landlord 
 off the scene, and he knew well Irishmen would never 
 stop until they drove the landlords and the English out 
 of Ireland. (Cheers.)" 
 
 Mr. Harrington.— That is not Father O'Rearden's 
 speech ; it is Father Murphy's. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I thought it was Father 
 O'Rearden's. I am much obliged for the correction. 
 My Lords, the speech I read appears to be a sneech of 
 Father Murphy's after the meeting. 
 
 Mr. Harrington. — That speech has been mentioned 
 several times. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Yes, it was opened by my learned 
 friend, and it was referred to in the evidence of 
 Huggins. 
 
 District-Inspector Rice was then called and 
 examined by the Attorney-General. He said, — I 
 am in charge of the Castleisland district in county 
 Kerry. I have been 18 years in the constabulary—' 
 since 1870. In 1880 I was in the north of Ireland, in 
 county Down. In 1886 I was in county Down and in 
 Dublin at the depot. I remained in the stores from 
 August, 1886, to 1887. From 1870 to 1880 I was in 
 county Down all the time. 
 
 Prior to the Land League organization, did yon evet 
 hear of persons being denounced for land-grabbing ?— • 
 Never. 
 
 District-Inspector Crane. 
 
 District-Inspector Rice. 
 
462 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 Or of persons being outraged for paying their rent ? — 
 No ; not to the best of my recollection. 
 
 Nor for taking evicted farms ? — Not to my know- 
 ledge. 
 
 Prior to 1880 was there any difficulty experienced in 
 obtaining evidence to convict criminals ? — Oh, no. 
 
 I do not suppose you were able to discover all 
 criminals, but you were always able to get a clue to 
 the commission of crimes ? — Yes, generally. 
 
 In what state did you find the Listowel district when 
 you went into it ? — It was in a very disturbed state. 
 
 What should you say of the National League at that 
 time, was it powerful or not ? — I found it very power- 
 ful, particularly about Listowel. 
 
 Had you to protect the sheriff in his duties ? — Oh, 
 yes, I had up to as many as 16 men protecting the 
 sheriff on some occasions. 
 
 Did you see anybody gather crowds together at evic- 
 tions with a horn ? — Yes. 
 
 Who ? — Maurice Murphy. 
 
 Was he secretary of the Listowel branch of the 
 League ? — He was. The way it was done' was this — 
 he used to watch the barracks very sharply, and when 
 he found out that the constabulary were getting ready 
 for duty, he mounted a horse and rode to the locality 
 the bailiffs were going to and blew his horn to collect 
 the people. 
 
 Have you seen Murphy do that more than once ? — Oh, 
 yes. 
 
 Was there anybody else connected with the National 
 League who did the same kind of thing ? — I am not able 
 to say they were members of the League. 
 
 Did you ever arrest anybody for this ? — I arrested 
 Murphy once in the very act. I believe I have got 
 the horn at home yet. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did the people collect after the horns were blown ? 
 —They did. 
 
 When the horns were blown was any other signal 
 given ? — I heard the char el tell rung at the same time 
 the horns were blown. 
 
 And then the people used to gather together ? — Yes, 
 they gathered together in large crowds. Sometimes 
 they rescued the cattle that had been seized by the 
 sheriff. 
 
 How long did the National League keep its hold in 
 the district ?— When I left the district in 1887 it was 
 losing ground. 
 
 You investigated several outrages yourself ? — I did. 
 
 Do yon remember on August 10, 1886, anything 
 happening to the dwelling-house of a man named 
 Murphy ? — I do. He lived at Finuge. The house was 
 burned to the ground. 
 
 What was the cause of that, so far as you can give 
 it ? — Well, I had a long conversation with Murphy 
 himself, and he told me 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD objected. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — What, as far as you could 
 ascertain, had he done ? — He had lent a mowing 
 machine to a neighbouring farmer. I do not know who 
 that was. 
 
 Do you know whether any members of the National 
 League had done anything with regard to this machine ? 
 — I was told (The witness was again Btopped.) 
 
 With the exception of leLding this mowing machine, 
 had he done anything else ? — No, he had done nothing 
 else. On the night of August 15, 1886, the dwelling- 
 house of a farmer named Edmund Kinnelly was burned 
 to the ground. He had been guilty of the same offence 
 — namely, that of lending a mowing machine to a 
 neighbour. On the night of September 22, 1886, the 
 houses of four farmers were entered by an armed 
 party, all four on the same night. 
 
 What did you ascertain that these men had done ? — 
 Nothing, except that they had been warned not to pay 
 rent. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood again objected. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— This is really all taken 
 from the outrage book, Mr. Lockwood. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood (reading from the book). — This is the 
 last matter referred to : — " On the morning of August 
 23, 1886, a party of about 12 men, some armed and all 
 disguised, entered the houses of Pat Finnieane and 
 Michael Carnody and warned them not to pay rent 
 unless they got 35 per cent, reduction. They took a 
 single-barrel gun from the house of Thomas Lyons and 
 Mary O'Connor. The guns were given up peaceably 
 to them on demand." That is the entry. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I will take nothing but 
 what is in the entry, if you will lend me the book. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — As I say, this is one of the books 
 my learned friends and I have always admitted. Is it 
 necessary that this gentleman should read it over 
 now ? 
 
 The President. — I was observing that you, Mr. 
 Lockwood, had possession of the book. 
 
 The Attorney-General (handing the book to the 
 witness). — Now, Mr. Rice, will you go back to August 
 15 ? Read the right hand column, if you please. 
 
 Witness (reading). — " August 15, 1886. — Edmund 
 Kinnelly. Burning of dwelling-house." 
 
 The Attorney-Ueneral.— Now the motive column. 
 — " He lent a mowing machine to a neighbouring 
 farmer, contrary to a resolution of the Listowel branch 
 of the National League forbidding it. Although Kinnelly 
 is a member, four nights afterwards his dwelling-house 
 was set on fire, and was consumed with much furniture. 
 He had the house insured for £290. Awarded £100 at 
 Listowel Presentment Sessions on November 2, 1886." 
 
 Did you, in the month of August, observe a quantity 
 of hay uncut in several farmers' fields ? — I did, Sir. 
 
 I do not know whether my learned friend will 
 object, but did you have conversations with these 
 farmers as to why their hay had not been cut ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Of course I object, and I do not 
 think it is fair that my friend should put me to the 
 objection. 
 
 The President. — You have on many occasions facili- 
 tated the course of the evidence, and this is rather 
 an appeal to you in that sense. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I can. of course, bring 
 
 District-Inspector Eice. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 463 
 
 the people over here if necessary. All I propose is to 
 give you the option of taking the evidence in this 
 way. (To witness.) Now, August 23, 1886. — " A three- 
 year-old bullock, the property of the Land Corporation, 
 found to be missing off their land at Cloughboola. It 
 was seen by the caretaker on the previous evening. 
 The police searched the Listowel mountains and bogs 
 for several days, but found no trace of it until August 
 31, 1886, when Sergeant Drohan, of Knocknagoshil, 
 found some skin and bone in the townland of Meen- 
 banavin which are supposed to belong to tho missing 
 animal, which, it is believed, was driven off and 
 slaughtered. The Land Corporation hold evicted 
 farms. Awarded £10, Nov. 1, 1886." " September 
 13, 1886. — About two acres of oats on the farm of 
 Bart. Flahire were found to have been cut down and 
 about half of them carried away. The police searched 
 the country,and found the oats stooked in fields belong- 
 ing to a neighbouring farmer. The landlord, by his 
 ageat, laid informations, and has claimed £18 com- 
 pensation.. Awarded £15." 
 
 Were the oats taken from an evicted farm belonging 
 to Mr. Wilson Gann ? — Yes. 
 
 On September 23, 18SC, did the police meet an 
 armed party of moonlighters ? — Yes. They were called 
 upon to surrender, but refused, and opened fire on 
 the police, who returned the fire. Two of them 
 were captured. 
 
 Who were they ? — A man named Mahony and a man 
 named Griffin. 
 
 Were they men belonging to the district ? — Mahony 
 belonged to Castleisland and Griffin lived about two 
 miles from where they wore captured. 
 
 Were they members of the League ? — I cannot say. 
 
 October 3, 1886. — Two more bullocks, the property 
 of the Land Corporation, driven off and slaughtered ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 October 20, 1886. — Large number of cattle were 
 seized by the sheriff's bailiffs near Listowel. That 
 won't be in the book ? — No. 
 
 The President. — Why won't it be in the book ?-It 
 was not considered an outrage at the time. 
 
 Tho Attorney-General.— The crowd rescued the 
 cattle seized by the sheriff ? — Yes. 
 
 Had Maurice Murphy been out on that occasion ? — I 
 cannot say. On December 18, 1886, a rick of hay was 
 burnt. It was on an evicted farm, the caretaker of 
 which was under the protection of tho police. On 
 March 12, 1887, there was a moonlight attack on the 
 house of Maurice O'Halloran. A police patrol observed 
 a large party in the yard of Maurice O'Halloran. The 
 police opened fire, and the moonlighters returned the 
 fire and wounded Head Constable Conoannon and Con- 
 stable Kelly. One of the moonlighters was captured 
 and returned for trial. He was tried at Tralee on July 
 14 and acquitted. The party entered O'Halloran's house 
 and asked him if he belonged to the National League. 
 He said he did not, but that he had belonged to tho 
 Land League. 
 
 Were John Cnrtin and his wife fired at later on ? 
 
 —They were, and both were wounded. They were 
 driving to Mass on a Sunday in December, 1887, when 
 this happened. He had to have polico protection, and 
 is still under protection. A police hut was erected by 
 his house. On April 17, 1887, a plantation, the pro- 
 perty of Mr. Charles Drummond, was burnt. The 
 total number of outrages from August, 1886, to May, 
 1887, were : — Threatening letters, five ; incendiary 
 fires, five ; firing into houses, three ; raids for arms, 
 12 ; intimidation, six ; firing at police, three ; mali- 
 cious injury, five ; cattle stealing, five. I was in 
 Castleisland from May 17, 1887. 
 
 I think I ought not to go into the outrages in detail 
 after that date, but there were a large number of out- 
 rages in the district in 1887 ? — Yes. 
 
 And you are prepared to give evidence of them if 
 necessary ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, Mr. Rice, you have been in the force 18 
 years. Did you know, except the National League and 
 the Land League, any organization that preached 
 against the payment of rent or the taking of evicted 
 farms, at any time ? — Never. 
 
 What is your opinion as to the commission of these 
 outrages ? In your opinion — listen, Mr. Lockwood, if 
 you please, as you may object to the question — in 
 your opinion were they connected or not with the 
 National or Land League ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Of course I object. I understood 
 your Lordships to rule in favour of my objection 
 before. 
 
 The President. — You can put it in another way, Mr. 
 Attorney. 
 
 The Attouney-GenerAL.— I will put it in another 
 way. Was there any secret society in Listowel uncon- 
 nected with the Land League or the National League ? 
 — The moonlighting society was the only one I know 
 of. 
 
 In your opinion were the moonlighters connected 
 with Land League or National League organization ? 
 — I always believed and understood them to be 
 so connected. 
 
 Will you tell us, please, your grounds for that 
 belief and understanding ? — I saw them carrying out 
 the behests 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Saw what ? The witness was not 
 present at these moonlighting raids. 
 
 Witness. — Some of them. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I must object to this. The witness 
 is now telling us merely the conclusion he came to 
 after the outrages. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Sir Charles Russell has 
 asked a number of police officers whether they did not 
 believe that the moonlighters were independent of 
 the Land League or the National League and com- 
 mitted the outrages, and I humbly Bubmit that I ought 
 to be given an opportunity of showing that the moon- 
 lighters were connected with the League. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — And I as humbly submit that ray 
 learned friend is not entitled to give this in evidence. 
 I am sure I am very anxious indeed, if I can, to save 
 
 District-InsDector Eice. 
 
464 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 time in this matter, but I cannot permit my learned 
 friend, without objection, to put Buch a palpably 
 irregular question as that. 
 
 _ The Attorney-General.— My Lords will decide 
 whether it is palpably irregular or not. 
 Mr. LOOKWOOD. — I am sure you agree with me. 
 The President. — The last witness gave substantially 
 the same answer and without any objection. He said 
 that the moonlighters carried out what he called the 
 resolutions of the League. This witness has substituted 
 the word " behests." That may be a statement of 
 fact, though it involves in his mind a cause and 
 effect. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — You investigated these 
 things as well as you could. Did you find any trace of 
 any organization independent of the National League ? 
 — No ; I considered the moonlighters to be part of the 
 system. 
 Were there any Ribbonmen in Kerry ? — Not in Kerry. 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — You have said 
 that in your opinion the moonlighters engaged in out- 
 rage were carrying out the behests of the Land League. 
 Do you suggest that ? — I do. 
 
 What ground have you for that suggestion ? I want 
 to get the ground upon which you have formed your 
 opinion. Give me, if you can, the names of the 
 persons and the dates of the outrages which you think 
 justify your conclusion. — I cannot, perhaps, at this 
 distance of time refer to any particular case, but the 
 general question remains the same in my mind. 
 
 That is the best information yon can give me as to 
 the grounds for your opinion. Remember you have 
 made a very grave accusation. I want to know 
 whether you can substantiate it by giving me either 
 names of persons or dates of outrages ? — Well, take this 
 case (indicating one in the outrage-book). This is a 
 case of an evicted farm. We know that persons having 
 anything to do with evicted farms have been denounced 
 over and over again, and here is the case of a man who 
 took an evicted farm and whose hay was burnt. How 
 was it that the hay was not burnt on the adjoining 
 farm ? 
 
 Is that all you can say ?— I could give you 20 more 
 instances. 
 
 Of the same kind ? — Yes ; there were the cases of 
 the evicted farms on the property of the Land Corpora- 
 tion. The cattle were taken off the farms and 
 slaughtered. I have myself traced them for a distance 
 of six or seven miles. How was it that the cattle of 
 the adjoining farms were not slaughtered ? 
 
 Do you wish to add anything more on this point ? — 
 If you wish it. (Laughter.) 
 
 I wish you to give the grounds for your opinion. — 
 Well, I think I am getting on very well. (Laughter.) 
 Take the cases of the two farms on which the hay was 
 burnt. You could not have a better illustration. I 
 cannot say of my own knowledge that there was a 
 resolution of the League passed with reference to the 
 occurrence, but I was told something of the kind by 
 persons who seemed to me to have a very keen know- 
 
 ledge of the matter. Then there is the case of James 
 Murphy, whose house was burnt down. He told me — — 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — I am not asking you what anybody 
 told you. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Pardon me. You have 
 asked for the grounds of his opinion. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — The witness is not entitled to foist 
 upon me a conversation regarding a supposed resolution 
 of the League. If he says that any outrage is the 
 direct result of a resolution I am entitled to ask for 
 the resolution itself. 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — How is he to get at it ? 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Resolutions were passed from time 
 to time and published. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — Certain resolutions were 
 published, undoubtedly, but we do not know that they 
 were all published. 
 Mr. Lockwood rose and sat down again. 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — I do not want to say 
 anything more. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — The resolutions of the League were 
 published from time to time. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — There is no admission on 
 our side that all the resolutions were published or any- 
 thing like all. 
 
 The President.— I do not think that the witness 
 ought to be restrained from giving his explanation. I 
 understood you (Mr. Lockwood) to ask upon what 
 ground he thought himself justified in ascribing this 
 action to the League. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I asked him for names of persons 
 and dates of outrages ; but if your Lordships think 
 that he is entitled to give this explanation by all means 
 let him give it. (To witness.) Go on. — I had a con- 
 versation with Murphy himself, and he told me that 
 this resolution had been passed — " That no farmer was 
 to lend his mowing machine to a neighbour." He said 
 they went so far as to assert that a man who had a 
 mowing machine was not to let it on hire. Then his 
 house is burnt down because he does lend his 
 machine. 
 
 16 that the whole conversation ?— That is the kernel 
 . and substance of it. 
 
 Now, with regard to moonlighting, did you know 
 that moonlighters existed and carried out raids long 
 before the formation of either the Land or the 
 National League ?— I never heard the word " moon- 
 lighters " before the existence of the Land League. 
 
 By what names did you know these secret societies 
 before the establishment of the League ? — I remember 
 hearing of Ribbonmen when I was a little boy, and of 
 Fenians later on. 
 
 Did you never hear the term " moonlighting " 
 applied to these raids before the establishment of the 
 League ? — Never in any of the districts in which I 
 have been. 
 
 Are you acquainted with the district of Killorglin ?— ■ 
 No. 
 Is there any constabulary officer here who is ac- 
 
 District-Inspector Rice. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 465 
 
 quainted with Killorglin ? — I cannot say ; I do not 
 know. 
 
 Can you tell us that in that district there existed 
 one of the strongest and most influential branches of 
 the Land League ? — I am not able to say that. 
 
 I put the question also with reference to the 
 National League r 1 — I cannot say, but I have seen 
 plenty of moonlighters from that district tried in 
 Cork. 
 
 Do you suggest that there has been outrage in the 
 district of Killorglin ? — I am sure that there have 
 been outrages in that district, because I have seen 
 men from there on their trial at the Cork assizes. 
 
 Do you know of cases of men who have been con- 
 victed of outrage in Killorglin ? — I have seen men on 
 their trial in Cork, and some who came from that 
 district were convicted. 
 
 Give me the names of any such persons ? — I cannot 
 do that. I only saw the men in the dock. 
 
 Can you give me the date of any trial which 
 resulted in the conviction of persons for outrage at 
 Killorglin ? — I think there was a trial of that kind at 
 the winter assizes of 1886. 
 
 Whs were the principal landlords in Listowel ? — 
 Lord Ormathwaite, Lord Listowel, Mr. C. Sands, and 
 others. 
 
 Did you know a Mr. Sands who was a land agent in 
 the district ? — Yes, he was one of the principal land 
 agents. He acted for Lord Ormathwaite, I know. He 
 was acting as agent when I went to the district in 
 1886. 
 
 Had Lord Ormathwaite's tenants taken advantage of 
 the Land Courts ? — I believe some of them had. I 
 cannot recall them by name. 
 
 I will read you some names — James Lynch, of Tulla- 
 more, Cornelius Keen, of Tullamore, Daniel Lyons, 
 Michael Rahilly. — (The witness was understood to say 
 that he could not recall the names.) 
 
 The President. — What is the object of this ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I want, if I can, to get from him 
 information as to the reduction of rents. 
 
 Witness. — I could not give you any. I know nothing 
 about the matter. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Please do not interrupt. Allow 
 me to answer his Lordship's question. I was anxious 
 to obtain some information with regard to the reduc- 
 tion of rents. But now, however irregular the wit- 
 ness's interruption was, I cannot lose sight of his 
 statement that he knows nothing about the matter. (To 
 witness.) You must not think because I accept your 
 statement that I approve of your interruption. 
 (Laughter.) I shall not trouble you further. 
 
 By Mr. Asquith. — You went to Listowel in August, 
 1886, and were only in the district nine months ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Had you had any previous experience of Kerry and 
 the south of Ireland ? — No, I had been in Ulster. 
 
 By Mr. HARRINGTON. — You stated that you knew no 
 organization except the National League, to pass re- 
 
 solutions against the payment of rent ? — I did not usa 
 those words. 
 
 The President. — The expression which the witness 
 used was, I think, " preaching." 
 
 Mr. Harrington. — Did you say that you knew no 
 organization except the National League to preach 
 against the payment of rent ? — I did say so, and I say 
 the same again. 
 
 Can you give me any instance of this preaching by 
 the League ? — I have known resolutions to be in the 
 newspapers announcing that rents were not to be paid 
 unless reductions were given, and, of course, I remember 
 the No-rent Manifesto. 
 
 You are aware, I suppose, that the National League 
 was not established at the time of that manifesto ?—• 
 I cannot say that. I have no record by me. 
 
 But I suppose you know something of what goes on 
 in the country. Do you know whether or not the 
 National League was established before the No-rent 
 Manifestb ? — I do not. 
 
 Taking any district in Kerry, can you point to any 
 instance of a resolution adopted at a League meeting 
 preaching against the payment of rent ? — No, I 
 cannot. 
 
 Can you point to any resolution adopted at a meet- 
 ing of a branch League, as distinguished from a meeting 
 of tenants on a particular estate — can you point to any 
 such resolution preaching against the payment of rents 
 without reduction ? — I am not able to recall a resolu- 
 tion at the present moment. You see, I have no 
 record. 
 
 When you went to Listowel, you found the district 
 disturbed ? — It was. 
 
 Do you know Mr. George Sands, of Listowel ? — Yes. 
 He was under protection before I went to Listowel, 
 and he was under protection when I left. I could not 
 say whether or not he was under police protection in 
 1871. 
 
 You have spoken about " the execution of the be- 
 hests of the National League." Can you give any single 
 definite ■ instance in connexion with which you heard 
 that the National League directed moonlighters or any 
 other persons to commit outrages ? — No. 
 
 You have no instance either from Castleisland or 
 Listowel in connexion with which you learnt the fact 
 that the National League directed outrage ? — Oh, no. 
 
 And the inference you have drawn has been drawn 
 altogether from thi6, that outrage has been connected 
 with the agrarian question, while the National League 
 meetings were also connected with that question ?— 
 Well, the outrages followed so regularly in accordance 
 with the usual lines of the resolutions and speeches 
 and their general drift. They followed in that path. 
 
 It is then merely an inference of your own and not 
 founded upon information ?— It is an inference founded 
 upon my own observation. 
 
 You were asked whether you ever heard of persons 
 being injured because they had taken evicted farms 
 before the establishment of the Land League or 
 National League. Do you know any case of the 
 
 District-Inspector Rice. 
 
466 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 kind ? — I can only remember one case. I remember 
 hearing, when I was a little boy, of one man taking a 
 farm which had been occupied by his brother. The man 
 was shot. That occurred in Longford. 
 
 Do you remember the shooting of Mr. Young in 
 1878 ?— No. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You were in county Down in 1880? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Did you attend any meeting I addressed in county 
 Down in 1880 ?— No. 
 
 Did you hear before you left county Down that I had 
 established the Land League there ? — No. 
 
 You do not deny that the League did exist there ? — I 
 have heard and read of it. 
 
 As to Kerry, you say you attribute lawlessness to the 
 number and activity of the members of the League ? — 
 No ; I did not use those words. 
 
 I understood you to say so ; if not, I beg your 
 pardon. With reference to this house that was burnt, I 
 think you said it was insured ? — One of the houses was 
 insured. 
 
 And the man got £90 from the Presentment Sessions? 
 —£100. 
 And he also got the insurance ? — I cannot say. 
 Did you make inquiries about it ? — I think I inquired 
 at the time. 
 
 Was the inquiry you made due to any suspicions you 
 had that there was a personal motive in the affair ? — 
 [t came to my notice at the time it was insured, and I 
 made inquiries. 
 
 Did you suspect the owner or any of his relatives 
 with having anything to do with the firing of the 
 house ? — I did not. 
 
 What would be the value of the house ? — It was a 
 very fine house. , 
 
 For a farm ?— I think it had previously been in- 
 habited by some gentleman. 
 
 You have told us that some cattle were on one occa- 
 sion taken from the sheriff by the crowd, and that you 
 called this an occurrence, not an outrage. What is 
 the difference between an outrage and an occurrence ? 
 ■ — At one time there were many similar attempted 
 rescues and squabbles of this kind, and we did not 
 look upon them as very grave. 
 
 What ! not an attack upon the sheriff ? — No, a 
 rescue of what the sheriff's bailiffs would have under 
 seizure. 
 
 That means an attack upon the officers of the law ? 
 -Yes. 
 And you call that an occurrence ? — Yes. 
 Did you know anything of the district before you 
 went there ? — No. 
 You say that the outrages increased after 1880 1 — 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Did not the increase of the outrages follow the in- 
 crease of the police force ?— No, the reverse. 
 
 It is a fact that the outrages increased, and the 
 police force increased at the same time ? — It is a 
 fact that the increase of police followed the increase 
 of outrages. 
 
 Did you ever read the constitution of the Land 
 League ? — Never. 
 
 Did you ever read its rules ? — Never. 
 
 You did not take the trouble, then, to understand 
 what the real object of the League was ? — I nevtr 
 read its constitution. 
 
 I suppose you are aware, Mr. Rice, that the Legis- 
 lature has passed some remedial laws for the tenant 
 farmers of Ireland during the last ten years ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you think this legislation was brought about or 
 hastened by the League at all ? — I think the League 
 made the crisis more acute ; in that way, I think, the 
 League had something to do with it. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Is Moybella in your district ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Did anything take place there in June, 1880 ?— Two 
 outrages, I am told. I see an outrage here (in the 
 book) recorded in June, 18S0. 
 
 Read it, if you please. 
 
 Witness (reading). — " Firing into dwellings, admin- 
 istering unlawful oaths. Agrarian. On June 22 
 Michael Horgan evicted Patk. M'Namara for non-pay- 
 ment of rent. Edmond Horgan and his brother John 
 went to live in the house. On morning of 28th June a 
 party of 20 men, three or four of them armed and dis- 
 guised, visiteci the house, fired two shots into it ; an 
 admittance being refused, they burst in the door, 
 dragged out the Horgans, tying John with a rope, 
 placed them on their knees, and swore them not to 
 enter the house again or take possession. John re- 
 ceived three wounds on the head. Edmond was severely 
 beaten about the head and body. When the Horgans 
 were expelled the party replaced M'Namara in posses- 
 sion, after which the party left, taking Horgan's gun 
 and ammunition with them. Accused acquitted at 
 Cork Winter Assizes." 
 
 Do you happen to know, Mr. Rice, when the first 
 Land League branch was formed in the county of 
 Kerry ?— I could not tell you. 
 
 Do you not know that in October, 1880, five months 
 after these outrages took place, the first branch was 
 formed ? — I really could not tell you when it was 
 formed. 
 
 You used the expression here to-day, " carrying 
 out the behests of the League." That is to say 
 the moonlighters carried out the behests of the League. 
 Did you hear the evidence of Inspector Davis yester- 
 day ?— I heard some of it. 
 
 Did you notice that he used exactly the same words ? 
 — No, I did not. 
 
 Then you and he did not arrange beforehand what 
 your evidence would be ? — No. (Laughter.) 
 
 Is it not the case that the members of the Land League 
 are principally confined to the farming class and shop- 
 keepers ? — I had nothing to do with the Land League. 
 
 No, the National League. Are the members not usually 
 belonging to the farming and shopkeeping classes ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Not labourers, as a rule ?— I could not tell you that. 
 I know they attended the meetings. 
 
 District-Inspector Rico. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 467 
 
 Open-air meetings 'i — Yes. 
 
 But your evidence gave the idea that they went more 
 in the capacity of a deputation to the League ? — I could 
 not say that or not. 
 
 With regard to the mowing machines, do you think 
 that is more a question in which the labourers would 
 be interested or the farmers ? — The farmers whose 
 houses were burnt would be deeply interested, I think. 
 (Laughter. ) 
 
 But as a class, do you think the farmers would not 
 be desirous of getting cheap labour for cutting their 
 crops, and that the labourers would be desirous that 
 these machines should not be used ? — I dare say ; the 
 men who had the machines would not encourage it, at 
 all events. 
 
 There was a good deal of agitation among the 
 labourers as a class upon this subject of mowing 
 machines ? — Not that I heard. 
 
 One question with regard to a question asked you 
 yesterday. You contradicted my allegation with regard 
 to the payment of witnesses in favour of prisoners. 
 Is it not the case that the custom is to pay the rail- 
 way fare to the assize, and then pay the maintenance 
 —the other expenses— after the assize is over ? — The 
 sustenance is paid when the particular case as far as 
 the witness is concerned terminates. You asked me 
 was the maintenance paid afterwards — certainly. 
 
 Then, in point of fact, if the assize lasts a consider- 
 able time the witnesses have to be supported either by 
 the prisoners or some one in their behalf, or by them- 
 selves, until the case comes on for trial ? — No ; the 
 lodging-house keeper is aware of the arrangement and 
 takes them at a certain sum a head. 
 
 Ke-examined by Sik H. James. — The date of the 
 outrage I have read is June 27, 1880. The first 
 mowing machine outrage is August 21, 1886. Up to 
 that time I had not heard in any county in Ireland of 
 labourers destroying mowing machines. I cannot say if 
 there was a meeting at Beaufort in 1880. If personal 
 violence were not used in the rescue of cattle the 
 case would not be reported as an outrage. 
 
 Juhn Shea was next called and examined by Mr. 
 Mukphy. Witness said, — I have been employed as a 
 workman for Mrs. Mary Rice, who held a farm at 
 Ballymacquin, county Kerry. She was evicted by her 
 landlord, Mr. Timothy O'Connor, in 1883. He kept me 
 on as a workman. In June, 1886, when I was in bed, 
 I heard a rapping at the door. The door was opened, 
 and two men came in in disguise. They had a gun 
 and a revolver with them. They asked me why did I 
 work for Mr. O'Connor. I said I had to Bupport 
 myself. I had worked all my life on the farm. 
 
 What further did they say to you ? — I asked them to 
 leave me alone, and they told me not to leave the 
 house. They then fired a shot at me, and walked out 
 of the house. They did not hit me. 
 
 There was no cross-examination. 
 
 Eugene Sheehy, examined by Mr. Muephy, said, — I 
 
 John Shea. 
 Eugene Sheehy. 
 
 live at the Causeway, Dromartin, in the comity of 
 Kerry. I know a man named Daniel O'Connell. He 
 was evicted. There was an auction at his place, and 
 I bought some hay. Shortly after this a party of 
 men came to my house in the morning. This was in 
 July, 1886. They called me by name. I was in bed. 
 They told me to give over the hay. They fired into 
 the house ; I wa3 not shot, but two bullets were 
 found next day. On the same night my horse's ear 
 was cut severely. 
 
 Did you see any notice posted about the house ?— 
 Never. 
 
 I think after this you joined the League ? — I joined 
 before. (A laugh.) 
 
 I hear some of my learned friends laugh at this ; but 
 is it not one of the rules of the League that nobody is 
 to buy hay on an evicted farm ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — I understand you 
 belonged to the League before, and since, and at the 
 time ? — Yes. 
 
 As far as you know, you and the Land League are 
 good friends ? — Oh, certainly. 
 
 And always have been ? — Always have been. 
 
 And I hope always will be. (Laughter.) 
 
 By Mr. LocKvroon-. — Was Daniel O'Connell evicted 
 by a cousin of his ? — He was evicted by Tom Kearney ; 
 I don't know what relation he was. 
 
 Do you remember that after the eviction O'Connell 
 was frequently hanging about the premises ? — Yes. 
 
 Was the feeling in the district at the time with 
 Kearney or with O'Connell ? — I could not say, but some 
 took one side and some the other. There were more 
 for Kearney's side. 
 
 Did party feeling run pretty high ? — I saw no differ- 
 ence between them. 
 
 What do you mean ?— The neighbours liked both 
 sides, Sir. (Laughter.) 
 
 When the hay was sold who was the auctioneer ? 
 —Mitchell. 
 
 Is he a National Leaguer ? — I suppose he is ; I 
 don't know. 
 
 Don't you know he is vice-president of the Tralee 
 branch ? — I know nothing about it ; that is ten miles 
 off. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — When did yon first 
 join the League ? — I do not remember. 
 
 What year was it ?— Four or five years ago. It was 
 the National League I joined. I paid Is. 
 
 One question more, if I may be allowed, which does 
 not arise oat of cross-examination. Did you give up 
 your hay after you were shot at ? — I did, of course. 
 
 Did you get your money back ? — No. 
 
 How much did you pay for it ? — Oh, I paid no money 
 for the hay. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mary Regan, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — I 
 live at Lahanaght, Drumleague. I remember two 
 farmers, Bryan and Sullivan. Sullivan was evicted. 
 My father had a part of the farm and Bryan held 
 another part. My father had resided on Sullivan's farm 
 
 Mary Began. 
 
468 
 
 The Special Commission, November 29, 1888. 
 
 before. Up to the time my father took some of the 
 land We had been on good terms with our neighbours, 
 and my father was popular in the district. When he 
 got this land there was a change in the demeanour 
 of the people. 
 
 Do you remember one night seeing fences knocked 
 down ? — I did not see them, but my father told 
 me a few days before he was shot. I saw about 
 30 men shouting at him and calling him " land- 
 grabber," It was on Christmas Day. I was in 
 the house when he was shot ; he was outside 
 at the end of the house, within a few yards of 
 the door. It was about 5 o'clock in the evening. 
 It was dusky at the time. When I heard the shot I 
 ran out and found my father lying on the ground. It 
 was on the Tuesday after Christmas Day, 1885. 
 
 Do you know the head of the League in your dis- 
 trict ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you know the Eev. Mr. Murray ? — Yes ; he was 
 there at the time. He was president of the League 
 and parish priest. 
 
 On the night when your father was shot, did your 
 mother go to Mr. Murray ? — It was I who went to him. 
 
 What for ? — That he might como to my father. 
 
 Did he come ? — No ; his curate came. 
 
 Was the crowd which you saw on Christmas Day 
 composed of your neighbours ? — Some of them were 
 neighbours. 
 
 Had your father any cause of quarrel with any of 
 them, excepting the fact that he had taken this land ? 
 -No<. 
 
 Was your mother an old woman ? — Not very old. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lookwood. — Is she alive ? — 
 Bhe is. 
 
 The curate saw your father ? — Yes. 
 
 And whatever consolation he could give you he did 
 give you ? — Yes. 
 
 What is his name ? — Father Collins. 
 
 Is he in your district still ? — Yes. 
 
 And you, are you living there still ? — Yes, with my 
 mother. 
 
 By Mr. Reid. — When people are sick is it not the 
 duty of the curate to attend, and not the parish priest ? 
 —The parish priest was nearer at the time than the 
 eurate was. 
 
 Was it long before the curate came ? — It was about 
 12 o'clock, Sir. 
 
 BYour father was dead, was he not ? He died the 
 same night ? — No, Sir ; he did not die till about 12 
 , days after. 
 
 Michael Hayes, examined by Mr. Konan, said, — I 
 am a caretaker for Mr. Beamish on the farm from 
 which Sullivan wa3 evicted. After Sullivan was 
 Bvicted I remember a party of men coming to my 
 house one night between 10 and 11 o'clock. I could 
 not say exactly how many there were. I think there 
 were about 20 men in the house, and I saw as many 
 more when I got outside. They told me to leave the 
 place. They gave me a week's time in which to leave 
 
 the place, and said that if I did not do so they would 
 visit me again. After I went indoors again I heard a 
 shot fired in the yard. The men then left the place. 
 
 Did you leave the place within the week ? — No, nor 
 will I. 
 
 After that did you get notice ?— I did. I do not 
 know what it contained, for I cannot read. After I 
 got the threatening notice I had police protection. 
 
 Some time after that did another party come to your 
 house ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you see any of them ? — I never saw them, for I 
 got out of the house by the back window. (Laughter.) 
 
 And you left your wife and children to receive the 
 visitors. (Laughter.) Were there any shots fired that 
 night ? — They told me there were. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Oh ! come, come. 
 
 Mr. R(MAN. — Did you hear the noise of shots ? — I 
 did, Sir ; I think about two, Sir. 
 
 On the occasion of the first visit did the men ask 
 you if you had a Land League card ? — They did, Sir, 
 but I had not got one. 
 
 Who was head of the League in the place at that 
 time ? — I cannot say. Father Murray was the parish 
 priest. At the time I was caretaking there were 
 " stations " held on the land. " Stations " are 
 religious services held at the houses of farmers in the 
 different districts, and it was the custom to call 
 all the people in the neighbourhood to these stations. 
 Before I became a caretaker I was called to the 
 stations, but afterwards the priest did not call me to 
 the stations that were held in the neighbourhood. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. HakeINGTON.— What do you 
 mean by saying that the priests call to the stations ?-— 
 The priests call the names of the people on the land. 
 
 You attended Mass and went to confession at the 
 station ? — Yes. 
 
 And the priest took no subscription from you ? — No. 
 He did not ask me for money, and I did not give it 
 him. 
 
 There was nothing done to you at the station ?— 
 No. 
 
 No injury ? — No. 
 
 And no kind of insult ? — No. 
 
 You had no farm of your own ? You were merely a 
 caretaker at this time ? — Yes. 
 
 And you had no other way of earning a living ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 And you did not, I suppose, think it very strange 
 that the priest did not ask a poor man in your posi- 
 tion for a subscription ? — He never asked me for it. 
 If he had asked for it he would have got it. 
 
 The list read at the station is a list of those who 
 give money ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 By Mr. Lookwood. — As to this second visit. Did 
 you apprehend great danger on the occasion of the 
 second visit ? Were you afraid when they came the 
 second time ?— Well, I was half afraid. If I had no! 
 been afraid I would not have gone away. 
 
 If you had not been afraid you would not have gone 
 
 Michael Hayes. 
 
The Special Commission, November 29 and 30, 1888. 469 
 
 out at the back window and left your wife and family 
 unprotected ? (Laughter.) — No answer. 
 
 Were you afraid, or not ? — I was afraid, Sir. 
 
 Was that why you got out of the back window ? — To 
 save my life, Sir. 
 
 You thought there was danger ? — I thought there was 
 danger. 
 
 And you got out of the back window and left your 
 wife and family in the house ? — Yes. (Laughter.) 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Did you report the first visit to the 
 police ?— I did. 
 
 What was the name of the policeman ? Was he a 
 sergeant or was he a constable ? — A constable. 
 
 Living in the place ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it he that paid a call to you about the Land 
 League card ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Did you tell him ? — I did not, I think. 
 
 When did you mention the fact of the Land League 
 card being referred to ? Was it since you came to 
 London ? — It was not, Sir. It was at home. 
 
 Are you sure you mentioned it, or did the policeman 
 ask you about it ? — I do not know which. 
 
 Have you any suspicion it was the policeman ? — I 
 have not. 
 
 Re-examined by Sie H. JAMES. — About this station. 
 Were you summoned to the station before you became 
 a caretaker ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you ever summoned after you became a care- 
 taker ? — Never. 
 
 When you went to the station before you were a 
 caretaker did you pay any money to the priest ? — I 
 did, Sir. 
 
 After you became a caretaker, how many times did 
 you go to the station ? — I do not know how many 
 times. 
 
 When was it that your name was not called ? — It was 
 often the case. They used to come on the land, and 
 they did not call me. 
 
 Did you ever pay any money after you went on the 
 land ? — I did not. 
 
 Did they ask for it before you went on the land ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 And you paid ? — Yes. 
 
 And they never objected, and alwayj took it ? — Yes. 
 
 What did you say about the Land League ? — I do 
 not know anything at all about the Land League. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 At the conclusion of the examination of this witness 
 the Court adjourned. 
 
 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30. 
 The Special Commission held their 23d sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court 
 Df the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 The Commissioners having taken their seats, 
 Sie C. RTJSSELli said,— I have to make application to 
 your Lordships for leave to serve notice upon the 
 printer and publisher of certain documents of which I 
 have samples bef ore* me, in order that he may attend 
 here and appear before your Lordships, if you should 
 
 think it right, on Tuesday or whatever day. may be 
 thought convenient. The document which I hold in 
 my hand (unfolding a large poster) is an advertisement 
 purporting to be an announcement of a political meet- 
 ing under the auspices of a public body at Radcliffe, 
 and the document is printed and published by Thomas 
 Gormann, of Blackburn-street, Radcliffe. It is headed 
 " Hear both sides," and is as follows :— 
 
 " The inhabitants of Farnworth are invited to a 
 public meeting to be held in the parish church school, 
 Farnworth, on Wednesday evening, the 5th of Decem- 
 ber, 1888, to hear Mr. Charles Mitchell, an Irish tenant 
 farmer, make a plain statement of how he was boy- 
 cotted by the agents of the National League, and to 
 hear Miss Norah Fitzmaurice give a thrilling account 
 of how her father was brutally murdered through the 
 instrumentality of the National League on the 21st of 
 January, 1886." 
 
 The placard gives the name of the chairman. There 
 is a second placard, which is dated the 3d of Decem- 
 ber, the one I have read being dated the 5th, and it is 
 suggested that the meeting announced, is one of a 
 series. 
 
 Sib H. JAMES.— They are headed " Hear both 
 sides." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have read that. Whatever your 
 Lordships' opinion may be as to a publication of this 
 kind, there can be no doubt that it is certainly desir- 
 able that the printer and publisher of it should be 
 called upon to appear before your Lordships. My ap- 
 plication is that the secretary may have liberty to 
 serve a notice on the printer and publisher to appear 
 before your Lordships. 
 
 The President. — It is scarcely necessary for me to 
 say that nothing can justify an announcement of this 
 bind. Of course, as I have had occasion to say earlier, 
 when you are dealing with a case of this kind, which 
 is not beiug tried by a jury, it is not of the same 
 importance. Nothing can, however, justify this pub- 
 lication, and if you ask it, Sir Charles, of course I 
 shall accede to your request. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Then the secretary will serve a 
 notice on Mr. Gormann to attend here on Tuesday. 
 
 The examination of witnesses called on behalf of 
 The Times was resumed. 
 
 Samuel Murray Hussey, examined by the Attorney- 
 General, said, — I have been a magistrate for the 
 counties of Cork and Kerry for 37 years, and I have 
 lived almost entirely in Kerry, near Tralee, since 
 1840. I was a Government inspector in Kerry over land 
 improvement works during the famine years, and I 
 was personally acquainted with the distress which 
 prevailed from time to time in various parts of the 
 country. Up to the year 1880 Kerry was as peaceful 
 as any place could be. I never heard of agrarian 
 crime at all there. In the period of distress previous 
 to 1880 there was no outbreak of crime in Kerry. So 
 far as I heard there was up to that time no difficulty 
 in obtaining evidence with regard to the commission 
 of crime. Between my own property and the estates 
 
 Michael Hayes. 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
470 
 
 The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 I managed I had the management of one-fourth of the 
 whole county of Kerry. The properties with which I 
 was connected were situated near Tralee, Castle- 
 island, and Killarney. In 1879 there was great dis- 
 tress in Kerry ; so much so that I spent a very large 
 sum of money on labour. The distress, however, 
 did not then produce outrage. With regard to some of 
 the people the distress had passed away in 1880 , and in 
 the summer of 1880 the condition of the population in 
 Kerry generally was much better than it had been in 
 1878 and 1879. The people were then quiet and 
 peaceable. 
 
 When did the change begin ? — In the summer or 
 autumn of 1880, as far as I remember. 
 
 Now, up to the summer or autumn of 1880, what 
 terms had yon been upon with persons among whom 
 you went ? — I was on the most friendly terms. I was 
 very popular with the labouring classes especially, on 
 account of the employment I gave. 
 
 Speaking of the tenant farmers and people you had 
 to do with generally, what terms were you on with 
 them ? — I conceive I was on the most friendly terms. 
 
 Did you stand for Tralee in. 1880 'I — Yes, against the 
 Parnellite member. 
 
 Had there been any public or widespread unpopu- 
 larity against you in any part of the county of Kerry 
 up to 1880 ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Had you any farm or estate of your own 'I — Yes, 
 with a rental of about £3,200 a year, and about 160 
 tenants. The estate was scattered in various parts. I 
 was on very friendly terms with my own tenants. They 
 all presented me with an address when I stood for 
 Tralee. 
 
 Have you had, in the course of your extensive busi- 
 ness as a land agent, to evict persons in the years 
 before 1880 ?— Yes ; I had not had a great number of 
 evictions before 1880. There had been no disturbance 
 caused by these evictions. 
 
 Had these evictions produced crime '/ — No. 
 
 Were the evicted farms let again ? — Yes. 
 
 Had any outrage been committed upon the people 
 who had taken evicted farms before 1880 ? — Not that I 
 know of ; of course I am speaking of Kerry. 
 
 Before 1880 had you heard of any organization 
 against the payment of rent or punishing persons who 
 took evicted farms ? — No. 
 
 What was the first meeting of the Land League in 
 your neighbourhood ? — October, 1880. It was on 
 October 10 in Castleisland that my name was first 
 mentioned. 
 
 I do not know whether you know who were the 
 speakers at that meeting ? — I read the report in the 
 newspaper. Mr. Biegar was the principal speaker. I 
 do not remember anybody else. There were a good 
 many other speakers. I think Mr. Arthur O'Connor 
 was present. 
 
 Are you able to state whether there had been any 
 Land League meetings before October 10, 1880 ?■— Not 
 that I know of. 
 
 Did you find after that Land League meeting 
 
 a difference in the attitude of the tenants towards 
 you ? — Yes, reports reached me, and I immediately 
 applied for police protection. A day or two after that 
 meeting I received communications which led me to 
 apply for police protection. 
 
 Did you believe that at that time police protection 
 was necessary to you ? — I am quite certain that it was. 
 
 Did you find a difference as regards payment of rent 
 after these meetings as compared with before ? — Oh, 
 yes. 
 
 Had you to carry out some evictions in the years 
 1881, 1882, and 1883 ?— Yes. I am able to give the 
 Court particulars of these if necessary. 
 
 Were they evictions for non-payment of rent ? — Yes. 
 
 Now I must ask you, Mr. Hussey, were they not in 
 very many cases occupied by people in your opinion 
 able to pay ? — Yes. 
 
 Are there any parts of your district in which you 
 were acting as agent where the Land League was more 
 active than in any other parts ? — Yes. 
 
 Where would you say that the Land League and 
 National League displayed most activity ? — I think 
 about Killarney and Castleisland. 
 
 Was there any difference in the relations with your 
 tenants where the Land League was active and where 
 it was not ? — Yes, there was no Land League in 
 Dingle. 
 
 Up to a much later date there was no establishment 
 of the Land League in Dingle. Did your relations 
 continue as before, friendly with the people in 
 Dingle ? — Yes. I do not remember when the National 
 League was established in Dingle. 
 
 After the establishment of these Land Leagues did 
 any tenants come to you secretly ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they pay you their rent secretly ? — Yes. 
 
 Were they tenants who had previously paid you 
 openly ?— Yes. 
 
 Have any tenants sent you your rent through other 
 channels ? — Yes. 
 
 What kind of channels ? — Through clergymen and 
 friends. 
 
 Were these persons who had paid you openly them- 
 selves before '/— Yes. 
 
 Have you been asked by tenants to serve process 
 upon them — ejectments upon them ? — Well, I think so. 
 I cannot give you a case in point, except in 
 Killarney when I was the agent there. 
 
 And had you conversations with tenants who were 
 solvent when you applied to them for payment ? — ■ 
 Yes. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I propose to ask Mr. Hussey what 
 reasons the tenants gave him for not paying. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I do not at all object ; bnt for 
 reasons which will be apparent hereafter it will be 
 necessary to have some particularity about this, in con- 
 sequence of statements made by Mr. Leonard and 
 counter-statements. 
 
 Tho President (to Sir C. Russell).— I think you 
 ought to ask for particulars as t8 the tenants who 
 would not pay openly. 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 471 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I know what has happened, 
 and that is why I ask this question. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Pray do not make suggestions ; 
 state what you know to the Court. 
 
 Examination continued. — Now, Mr. Hussey, a general 
 question first. Will you state the reasons given you by 
 solvent persons, not merely people who were too poor 
 to pay, for not paying their rent openly ?— They were 
 afraid they would be shot. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I object to that. 
 
 The President.— The question has been put, and I 
 have intimated that it may be put ; it will be for you 
 to ask particulars. 
 
 Examination continued. — Now, speaking of the 
 general feeling in the district, as far as you can tell 
 fr jm moving about among the people, were there any 
 other organizations affecting the relations between 
 landlord and tenant except the Land League ? — Not 
 that I ever heard of. 
 
 It has been suggested that there are secret societies 
 in Kerry ; as far as you know from your own ex- 
 pedience, were there secret societies ? — I do not 
 bjlieve it. 
 
 When did you first hear of moonlighting in Kerry ? — 
 About the end of 1880. 
 
 Was moonlighting known in Kerry before that ? — 
 No. 
 
 Was the expression " land-grabber " as a term of 
 reproach known to you before 1880 ?— I never heard 
 of it. 
 
 Now, did things continue to get better or worse in 
 1881 and 1882 ?— Worse. 
 
 Was there anything in the condition of affairs, from 
 what I may call a distress point of view, to cause 
 things to get worse ? — No. 
 
 Now, you know this district, the character of the 
 land, the rents, and the persons who occupy the farms ; 
 did you find there was more difficulty among the poorer 
 or the better off ? — Rents were always better paid in 
 the poorer districts. 
 
 Speaking of outrages and things of that nature that 
 occurred, did you find that more occurred in the poorer 
 or the richer districts ? — There was hardly any crime in 
 the poorer districts ; it was chiefly confined to Castle- 
 island, which is some of the richest land in Ireland. 
 
 Taking a radius of some miles round Castleisland, is 
 the land there, practically speaking, grass land ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you only know of outrages as proved from reports 
 in the papers or coming before you as a magistrate ? — 
 No. 
 
 Was any attempt made on your house ? — Yes, in 1884. 
 
 What month ?— On the 28th of November, 1884. 
 
 What occurred ? — A dynamite outrage. All the 
 windows and part of the wall were blown out. 
 
 How many persons were in the house at the time ? — 
 Including myself, there were 15, the majority of them 
 women and children. 
 
 Was anybody brought to justice for that ? — No. 
 
 You made a claim for compensation ? — Yes. 
 
 Was that claim opposed ? — Yes, at all stages. 
 
 Who opposed it ? — There were a number of persons 
 and members of the Land League in that body. 
 
 Who were the solicitors who opposed? — First, Roche 
 and Moore, of Tralee ; and, secondly, O'Connor Horgan, 
 also of Tralee. 
 
 Were these claims narrowly watched ? — Yes, both 
 at the Presentment Sessions and befd"re the grand jury 
 and then before a Judge. My case was finally decided 
 by Chief Baron Palles. 
 
 Now, in 1885, were you residing at Aghadoe-house ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Were you being guarded by police ? — Yes. 
 
 Were they fired at ? — The sentries outside were fired 
 at. 
 
 Were any of your cattle killed in that same year ?— 
 Yes, and in 1886. 
 
 Now, I should just like to ask you with regard to 
 your own habits. Previous to the meeting of October, 
 1880, did you drive out at all times of the day and 
 night ? — Yes, and through Castleisland at all hours of 
 the night, and I never carried any weapons of 
 defence. 
 
 And no outrage or insult was offered to you ? — No, 
 except in 1866, when a stack of hay was burnt ; that 
 is the only thing. 
 
 Up to 1880 you had lived unprotected and requiring 
 no protection ? — Yes. 
 
 Will you just tell us, has there ever been any Ribbonism 
 in Kerry ? — Never that I heard of. 
 
 What was the county, if any, in which Ribbonism 
 was particularly active ? — Westmeatb. 
 
 You probably do not know anything about the crime 
 in Westmeath yourself ? — I paid a visit to Westmeath 
 at the time and heard about it then. 
 
 Was there any Fenianism in Kerry at any time ?— 
 Oh, yes, in 1866, the year I built my house. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — You know a 
 great deal about Kerry, Mr. Hussey ?— Yes, I think 
 so. 
 
 You are the largest land agent, I think, in the 
 county ? — Yes. 
 
 And your statement I understand to be that up to 
 the end of 1880 there was no such thing practically 
 as agrarian crime known in the county ? — Yes. 
 
 No secret societies of any shape or kind ? — I never 
 heard of any, except the Fenians in 18b6. 
 
 And you were about the most popular man in the 
 county ? — No, I did not say I was the most popular 
 man. 
 
 Well, a very popular man. I will not put you on too 
 high a pinnacle. (Laughter.) You adhere to these state- 
 ments ?— Yes. 
 
 Now I will call yeur attention to a Parliamentary 
 return for 1879 :— 
 
 " March 18.— Incendiary fire. An outhouse, Mr. 
 Denny's property, was maliciously burnt on a farm 
 from which a tenant was about being evicted owing to 
 his insolvency. Mr. Denny was awarded £25 compen- 
 sation at Tralee Summer Assizes, 1879. March 31. — 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
472 
 
 The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 James Delaney. — Incendiary fire. The injured man's 
 forge was maliciously set on fire, but it was scon ob- 
 served, and little or no harm done. The supposed 
 motive was a dispute about land. April 3.— James 
 Deane. — Intimidation by threatening letter. A threat- 
 ening letter was addressed to and received by Mr. 
 Deane, which was signed by the writer, ' R. Emperor 
 L. O'Neill,' and dated from No. 18, Charles-street, 
 London. Some years ago Mr. Deane got possession of 
 a farm from which O'Neill's father was evicted. April 
 19. — J. 0. Neligan and Patrick Sullivan. — Intimida- 
 tion otherwise than by threatening letters or notices. 
 Mr. Neligan evicted a tenant named Michael Quinlan, 
 senior, for non-payment of rent, and let his farm to 
 Patrick Sullivan for six months, subject to redemption 
 by Quinlan, in consequence of which his son, Michael 
 Quinlan, junior, threatened the lives of the injured 
 persons in a publichouse in Tralee." 
 
 Neligan ; is that the County Court Judge, by the 
 way ? — Yes. 
 
 And a member of the Cowper Commission ? — Yes. 
 
 " J. C. Neligan. — Taking and holding forcible pos- 
 session. This case is connected with the last one. 
 Young Quinlan broke the lock on the door of the dwell- 
 ing-house from which his father and family were 
 evicted and retook possession. The whole family went 
 again to reside there, where they have continued since, 
 having paid the arrears and settled with the landlord. 
 Jeremiah Carmody. — Maiming cattle. Supposed motive, 
 a family dispute about land. James Brosnan.— Murder. 
 Deceased was murdered in his own house by his wife 
 about 11 o'clock p.m., supposed by a hatchet, and his 
 remains removed to an adjoining field, where it was 
 found on August 21, 1879. A jealous feeling and a 
 dr ead that deceased was going to sell his interest in 
 his farm, of which he got possession on his marriage, 
 in February, 1879, on payment of £140 debt due on 
 jt, but the latter in particular, was the supposed 
 motive. Thomas Brown.— Injury to property. Sup- 
 posed motive, dispute about land. John Fitzgibbon and 
 Catherine Fitzgibbon, his wife.— Intimidation other- 
 wise than by threatening letters or notices. Some 
 persons broke into the house at 11 p.m., assaulted Mrs. 
 Fitzgibbon, and threatened the lives of herself and 
 husband. Supposed motive, a dispute about land. John 
 Harrington, James Harrington, and Denis Houlihan. — 
 Dispute about a quantity of sheaf oats. Supposed 
 motive, family dispute about land. Denis Tuohy. — Kill- 
 ing cattle. He was supposed to be about taking a farm 
 from which a neighbour was about to be evicted." 
 
 The President.— You began by giving the month, 
 Sir Charles. 
 
 Sib. C. Russell.— I beg your Lordship's pardon. We 
 have got to the month of September, 1879. (Reading.) 
 '* Richard Cussen.— Intimidation by threatening letter. 
 Received a letter by post threatening him if he went 
 to Listowel Quarter Sessions to have some ejectment 
 cases tried there. Julia O'Connor. — Intimidation by 
 threatening letter. Received a letter by post threaten- 
 ing her. Supposed motive, dispute about land." 
 Now, Mr. Hussey, it is not a matter of controversy 
 here that there was a large increase in crime— the 
 question of how it arose will be discussed hereafter — 
 in 1880, 1881, and 1882, and in point of fact up to the 
 Arrears Act, when there was a diminution of crime. 
 Do you now, after what I have read, adhere to the 
 statement you made just now— that up to the end of 
 
 1880 there was no such thing practically as agrarian 
 crime ? — Well, you mentioned a murder which I did 
 not recollect just now ; but as to threatening letters, 
 we consider them mere bagatelle now, as well as small 
 burnings and malicious injuries to property. 
 
 Oh, you regard them as mere bagatelle. Do you 
 regard them as agrarian crimes ? — I suppose so. 
 
 You have also stated that up to the end of 1880 or 
 the beginning of 1881 there was no difficulty what- 
 ever in getting witnesses to prove and bring home to 
 offenders the crimes that had be«n committed ? — It is 
 not my province to speak to matters of that sort. I 
 did not hear that there was any difficulty. 
 
 Now I want to draw your attention to the list 
 under the column of the number of persons made amen- 
 able, the first three cases of which are all agrarian. 
 The first three cases also which are agrarian, nil. The 
 next case, Michael Quinlan, " bound over to keep the 
 peace." The next two cases, which are for taking 
 forcible possession and maiming cattle, nil, nil. The 
 next, the murder of Brosnan, conviction of one woman 
 of manslaughter. Three other persons not put on trial, 
 and they were discharged by the magistrate. 
 
 Sib H. James.— For want of evidence. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — Yes, for want of evidence. The 
 next, injury to property, dispute about land, nil. The 
 next, intimidation, three persons taken up were dis- 
 charged at petty sessions, having proved an alibi. 
 The next, a number of persons mentioned bound over to 
 keep the peace. The next, the same as the last. The 
 next, killing cattle, nil. The next, threatening the landlord 
 or agent if he proceeded with ejectment cases, nil. The 
 next, nil ; in fact, only in the one remaining — namely, 
 that of Michael Horgan — was any one made amenable. 
 So that you see that in the great majority of cases in 
 this short return there was apparently no evidence 
 forthcoming ? — Yes ; but this is not within my province. 
 I do not think one of these cases occurred in my dis- 
 trict. 
 
 Then am I to understand that your evidence relates 
 to your district only and not to Kerry generally 1— I 
 am speaking of what I know personally of my district 
 and of what I know generally of Kerry. 
 
 You have stated that your experience has shown you 
 that resistance by tenants to what they rightly or 
 wrongly conceive to be injustice does not commonly 
 proceed from the very lowest and weakest of the class ? 
 — It does not. 
 
 But, if there is a combination of stronger men, that 
 they join and assist in the combination ? That is your 
 experience ? — Yes. 
 
 Your experience also tells you this, does it not — that 
 crimes following resistance or entailed by it do not 
 commonly proceed in the first instance from the lowest 
 and weakest of the tenants ?— Yes, not in the poorest 
 districts. 
 
 Now I want to ask you this. It is perfectly true, is 
 it not, that a more quiet and patient people do not 
 exist in the world than the Kerry peasants ? — Yes, up 
 to a certain time that was so. 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey, 
 
The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 473 
 
 There is a not inconsiderable class of what you might 
 call strong tenants in Kerry, is there not ?— Yes ; 
 there are a number such in the neighbourhood of Tralee 
 and Castleisland and Listowel. 
 
 And are they tenants to a large extent in possession 
 of the best grazing land ? — Yes. 
 
 Is it the peculiarity of Kerry as well as other parts 
 of Ireland that you lind the most crowded and congested 
 parts of the district are very frequently the worst and 
 poorest parts of the land ? — It is very often so. 
 
 Has that resulted from the bygone system of clear- 
 ances which has driven the people up the hillsides ? — 
 No, not in my lifetime. 
 
 But from your historical knowledge do you not know 
 that that is so ? — No, I cannot say that I do. A small 
 man would get a living on the hills where a large 
 farmer would not. 
 
 Does it occur to you that the man with the spade 
 would get a better living if he worked the lowland 
 land instead of the mountain land ?— I do not think he 
 could compete with the lowland farmer. 
 
 Ah ! that is not the point. However, what do you 
 make out to be the entire agricultural rental of Ireland 
 in 1886 ? — I could only make a conjecture as to that. 
 
 You are a man of very general information. Surely 
 you can give me some idea ? — Well, I should think 
 that the total of agricultural rents in Ireland in 1886 
 would be about £11,000,000. 
 
 Would it not be nearer £|3,000,000 ? 
 
 The President. — Are there any Parliamentary 
 returns on this subject ? 
 
 Sir G. Russell. — Not what one might call strictly 
 accurate returns, my Lord. They are only approxi- 
 mate. 
 
 The President.— Because I would suggest that if 
 there are any they would probably be a safer basis to 
 go upon. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— They would, no doubt. (To wit- 
 ness.) You know that, after the Land Act of 1881 was 
 passed, for several reasons a considerable number of 
 tenants did not go into the Land Court ? — Yes. 
 
 One was that the public leaders advised them 
 against rushing into the Land Court ? — Yes. 
 
 Whether it was right or wroDg we will discuss here- 
 after ; but the suggestion was that the desirable course 
 would be to have a number of test cases ? — I think I 
 heard that stated. 
 
 Did the existence of arrears hanging over the 
 
 tenants ? — Not to my knowledge. I have never 
 
 prevented any man from going into the Land Court. 
 
 I never suggested that, Mr. Hussey. You rather 
 anticipated me. — I understood you to say " Did the 
 arrears prevent the tenants going into Court ?" 
 
 I did not say so, but that is what I was going to 
 say. (Laughter.) Were you not aware that the fact that 
 there were hanging round the necks of the tenants 
 considerable arrears in many cases operated to prevent 
 their going iDto the Land Court ?— I cannot say it did. 
 
 I am not saying that the landlord said in express 
 terms " Do not go into the Land Court, or I will take 
 
 steps to proceed against you for the arrears "; but do 
 you not know that the dread of that did keep a largo 
 number of tenants out of the land Court '{— I caunot 
 say that it did. 
 
 Can you say that it did not ?— No. 
 
 Were there not also in connexion with the great 
 mass of .tenants in Kerry turbary rights claimed in 
 respect of their holdings ? — Yes. 
 
 Which were of the greatest importance to the in- 
 dividual tenants? — Of course in some cases they were. 
 
 Without which, in point of fact, they could not 
 provide themselves with fuel ? — With difficulty in 
 some instances. There are a number of bogs in parts 
 of Kerry for public sale. I have a great many myself. 
 People come in for ten miles round and buy turf. 
 
 Are you aware that the Courts have decided that the 
 existence of the turbary rights attached to a holding 
 could not be taken into account in fixing fair rents ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— There is a statute dealing 
 with the matter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I know that the statute has made 
 an alteration in the law upon the point, but that is 
 not the question. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Are you aware that 
 there are cases in which the Courts have decided that 
 turbary rights cannot be taken into account in fixing a 
 fair rent ? — In some cases the tenants got their turbary 
 rights included in their fair rent. 
 
 I ask you whether there are not many cases in which 
 the Courts have held that turbary rights are not a part 
 of the holding ? — There may be. 
 
 And you know that an Act of Parliament passed by 
 the present Government, to their credit be it said 
 
 The Attorney-General.— We are much obliged tr 
 you. (Laughter.) 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — An Act of Parliament 
 has been passed for the very purpose of giving the 
 tenants relief in this respect ? — Yes. 
 
 The President.— What is the date of the Act ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— 1886 or 1887 I believe, my Lord. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— It is the Act of 1887. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Have you known 
 cases — I am not speaking now of you yourself person- 
 ally — in which landlords have sought to recoup them- 
 selves by increasing the turbary charges for the re- 
 duction in their tenants' rent made by the Land Court ? 
 — Not one. 
 
 You have not known of one such case ?— No. 
 
 Have you known cases in which tenants who have 
 gone into the Land Court and have obtained a reduction 
 in their rent have been deprived of their turbary 
 rights ? — Do you mean in consequence of their having 
 gone into the Land Court ? 
 
 No, after. — No. 
 
 You have suggested that the agricultural rental of the 
 whole of Ireland in 1876 was about 11 millions. How 
 much was it reduced to in 1884 ?— I think that the 
 reductions under the first Land Act averaged about 20 
 per cent., and the further reduction under the sub- 
 sequent Acts has averaged from 15 to 25 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
474' 
 
 The Special Commission, November 30, 1888, 
 
 Which in many cases amounted to the whole of the 
 landlord's margin ? — In many cases it left the land- 
 lords without any margin at all. The residue of the 
 rent is in many instances entirely swallowed up by 
 family charges, jointures, and settlements. 
 
 In other words, the landlords before the reduction 
 were living on the rack rental ? I am not saying that. 
 I am not suggesting that there are not many hard cases 
 among the landlords ; but was not the system of deal- 
 ing with land this — to carve out of the property large 
 sums for widows and younger children and daughters, 
 and then to leave the landlords to live on the margin 
 as best they could ? — That is so, and they only got it 
 where the rent was punctually paid. 
 
 Up to the year 1881 was there anything in point of 
 law effectively to prevent the landlord from screwing 
 out of the tenants increased rent ? — Yes, the Land Act 
 of 1870. 
 
 " Do you know in how many cases in the county of 
 Kerry the Land Act of 1870 had practical effect ? — In 
 very few. 
 
 Do you know one ? — I think I do. 
 
 Mention it ? — It was a case which occurred on Mr. 
 Crosbie's estate, but I cannot give you the name. 
 
 And that is the only one you can remember ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you agent for Mr. Crosbie ? — No, I was not. 
 
 Then I may take it upon your statement that there 
 was only one case to your knowledge that occurred in 
 the county of Kerry ? — There never was a claim lodged 
 against me under the Act of 1870. 
 
 As far as your experience goes, the Land Act, of 1870 
 never was put into operation on any estate you were 
 interested in, and did not operate for the protection of 
 the tenant ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — That is not correct in 
 our view. * 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — There I agree with you. It may 
 not be a matter of inference, but a question for dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 The President. — That will be a question by-and-by. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That will be one of the questions, 
 my Lords. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — You said that the 
 average of the rental reduction in Ireland was about 
 20 per cent, up to 1884 ? — Yes. 
 
 Can you tell the Court what is the proportion of the 
 agricultural tenants who have never been in the Court 
 at all ? — I cannot. 
 
 Now let me ask you a further question. Did not 
 there exist in Kerry to a very large extent a class of 
 tenants who could not go into the Land Court at all 
 under the Act of 1881 ?— Yes, the leaseholders. I 
 always advocated the admission of the leaseholders 
 under the Act. 
 
 That may be so, but I want to get the facts from 
 you. That is one point at all events, then, on which 
 you were agreed with the popular leaders ? — Yes. 
 
 One of the few ?— One of the few. 
 
 You know they strongly insisted upon that ?— Yes. In 
 my own case I mads voluntary reductions in their cases. 
 
 You are speaking of your own particular estate ? — 
 No. 
 
 Now as regards the leaseholders. The great majority 
 of the leaseholders were men of the same class a3 the 
 small agricultural tenants, were they not ? — No ; the 
 leaseholders were generally large holders ; they were 
 the pick and the best of the tenants. 
 
 Their holdings were of 10, 20, 30, to 40 acres, were 
 thoy not ? There were a great number of such lease- 
 holders, were there not ? — Yes. 
 
 There was great distress in 1879, was there not ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 General distress ? — General distress. 1878 was a bad 
 year too. 
 
 You are quite right. It is quite true. You had two 
 bad years ? — Yes. The bad harvest of 1878 reacted 
 upon the year 1879. They had to pay in 1879 their 
 rent out of the proceeds of the bad harvest of 1878. 
 
 1878 was a bad harvest year and 1879 was worse ?— 
 That is so. 
 
 Therefore the tenants were suffering under the 
 accumulated evils of two bad harvests ? — Yes. 
 
 Now we have heard that, as regards the great mass 
 of these poor creatures, their whole existence depends 
 upon the potato crop ? — Yes ; the poorer class depend 
 almost entirely upon it. 
 
 Can you tell the Court what was lost in millions 
 sterling in the potato crop of 1879 as compared with 
 187C 'I — I never made a calculation. It varied in 
 different parts of the country. Thus, in Kerry they 
 made more of their potatoes in 1879 than they had 
 ever done before — double. 
 
 Yes, I can understand that when the supply is small 
 the price is high. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lord, there are actual figures 
 on this point contained in returns made to Parliament, 
 but I cannot lay my fingers upon them for tho 
 moment. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Should I be within 
 the mark if I said that the loss upon the potato crop 
 of 1879, as compared with that of 1876, represented 
 about two-thirds of the whole agricultural rental of 
 Ireland ?— I cannot tell you, unless you tell me how 
 many acres were under that crop. 
 
 Acres have nothing to do with it. I am asking you 
 whether the crop of 1879 was not of less value than 
 that of 1876 by about two-thirds of the whole 
 agricultural rental of the country ?— I do not know. I 
 could not say until I got the exact figures. 
 
 The Joss, at all events, was very large, was it not ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Now in your opinion did the competition produced by 
 American importation, particularly of meat stuffs, and 
 that from Australia affect the price of produce in 
 Ireland ? — The foreign importation had very little 
 effect upon the prices of Kerry produce, because our 
 mam produce is butter, pork, and young cattle. 
 
 But pork and cattle are two of the articles of 
 produce that I am referring to as being affected by 
 importations from America and Australia. Are young 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 475 
 
 cattle sold in the towns of Kerry to be consumed there, 
 or are they shipped elsewhere ? — They are shipped 
 elsewhere. 
 
 Then, of course, the price of young cattle in Kerry 
 would be affected by the prices at the places to 
 which they were going, which would be largely 
 affected by the importations from America and from 
 Australia ? — That would undoubtedly be so. But you 
 must recollect that young cattle in 1879 were fonr 
 times the price in Kerry that they were in 1850. 
 
 That is going back 40 years ? — American cereals 
 began to be imported in 1845-6. 
 
 I am not talking of cereal stuffs— it is meat stuffs 
 to which I am referring ? — I cannot say when American 
 meat staffs began to be imported, or what their effect 
 was upon the prices of Kerry produce. 
 
 To what do you attribute the serious fall in the 
 prices of agricultural produce that took place in 
 1S85-6 1 — What fall ? 1885 was a fairly prosperous 
 year. 
 
 Was there no fall in prices in 1886 ? — The price of 
 butter came down. 
 
 Was there a serious fall in the price of agricultural 
 produce in that year or not ? — There was a fall, but 
 not a serious fall. 
 
 That answer of yours leads me to ask you this ques- 
 tion — You were examined before the Cowper Commis- 
 sion, were you not ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you not state before that Commission that, in 
 your opinion, a reduction in rents was called for ? — Id 
 judicial rents p 
 
 Yes.— I then stated that, in my opinion, a small 
 reduction in judicial rents was called for, assuming 
 that those judicial rents were fair. 
 
 Did you not then think that the reduction was 
 needed by the country ? — I do not assume the fairness 
 of the judicial rents ; but, assuming that they were 
 fair, a reduction was needed. 
 
 In other words, you were then of opinion that there 
 was such a fall in the price of agricultural produce in 
 1886 that, assuming the judicial rents were fair, the 
 tenants were justified in demanding a further reduc- 
 tion ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you think that the judicial rents were fixed too 
 high or too low ? — In my opinion they were fixed too 
 low. 
 
 Well, the tenants thought that they were fixed too 
 high ? — Naturally they did so, and now they begin to 
 think there should be no rents at all. (Laughter.) 
 
 Oh ! they are now beginning to think that there 
 should be no rents at all, you say ? — Yes. 
 
 A propos of that, Mr. Hussey, I will now put the 
 figures to you accurately. I think that I was not 
 exaggerating, but was under the mark, when I asked you 
 whether the ioss on the potato crop in 1879, as com- 
 pared with that of 1876, was equal to two-thirds of the 
 total agricultural rental of the country. These figures, 
 my Lord, are taken from the Registrar-General's returns. 
 In 1876 the value of the general crops was £36,000,000. 
 Of course, I am merely giving the round numbers. In 
 
 1877 it was £28,000,000, in 1878 it was SS^OOO.OOO, 
 and in 1879 it was £22,000,000. So you see that it 
 appears that there was a drop, comparing 1876 with 
 1879, in the value of the general crop of the country 
 of no less than £14,000,000. — According to that there 
 was. But I may remind you that the potatoes are 
 cheaper now than ever they were. 
 
 That is not the point we are now on. What I want 
 to ask you is whether, comparing those two yoar», the 
 fall in value of the general crop was riot £14,000,000, 
 or £3,000,000 more than the estimate which you made 
 of the entire agricultural rental of the' country ? — It 
 would appear to be so. 
 
 That is a startling statement, is it not ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know that that fall represents a loss of 
 £2 10s. per head of the estimated population of the 
 whole country ? — Yes. 
 
 Now as to the potato crop, which we are told is the 
 main subsistence of these poor creatures. I am reading 
 from the same returns. In 1876 the value of the potato 
 crop was 12 millions, in 1877 it was five millions, in 
 
 1878 it was seven millions, and in 1879 it was three 
 millions. That is a fall, comparing the same two 
 years, of nine millions in value ? — Yes, Sir Charles, 
 but the landlords met that by importing champion 
 potatoes. 
 
 So they did. I have no objection to your saying 
 anything in favour of the landlords, but so did the 
 Land League, did they not f — Yes. 
 
 Do you know that Mr. Davitt, with public funds, 
 subscribed for the purpose, imported £10,000 worth of 
 champion potatoes into the country ? — I do not know 
 that he imported any into Kerry. 
 
 Kerry is favoured by your presence. It cannot 
 expect to have all the blessings? — The question is, 
 what is a blessing ? (Laughter.) 
 
 Well, do you call champion potatoes a blessing ? 
 Well, comparing 1879 with 1876, you have a fall of 
 £9,000,000. Would that be far off about two-thirds of 
 the entire agricultural rental of the country ? — No. 
 
 The President. — Are all these figures taken from 
 the Registrar-General's returns ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — They are, my Lord. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Now as to evictions. 
 In 1876 they were 1,269 ; in 1877, 1,323 ; in 1878, 
 1,749 ; and in 1879, 3,893. Are you or are you not 
 aware that there is no machinery by which you can 
 ascertain with accuracy the total number of eviction 
 processes issued ?— I am not aware of it, but I can 
 give you my own return of evictions now. They 
 average one per thousand of the tenants. 
 
 You are quite justified in defending yourself when 
 you are attacked, but at present I am not upon that 
 point. I want to follow up this machinery. Can you 
 explain how it is that there is machinery for ascer- 
 taining the exact number of actual evictions ? Is it 
 this, that notice has to be given to the Poor Law 
 guardians before an eviction takes place ? — Yes, in the 
 case of a farmer. 
 
 We are talking of agrarian evictions ? — Yes, but 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
476 
 
 The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 evictions are not necessarily carried out to the end 
 after notice is given. 
 
 First of all, has notice to be given to the Poor Law 
 guardians that an eviction is about to take place ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 That is because it is known that, unless the neigh- 
 bours take pity upon them, these poor evicted 
 creatures have no refuge but the workhouse ? — I do not 
 know that. 
 
 In addition to that, notice has to be given to the 
 police in the ease of an actual eviction ? — Yes. The 
 returns of actual evictions can always be obtained 
 from the sheriff's book. The record, however, is not 
 always accurate, because in the case of a number of 
 evictions steps are taken towards an actual eviction 
 and yet the actual eviction is not carried out. 
 
 With reference to evictions, let me ask 
 you this question. 1 will take it up to 1880 
 first, because everything was changed in 1880 
 according to your account. But up to 1880, at 
 all events, was there anything in the world that the 
 tenants dreaded as much as eviction ? — I do not think 
 that there was. 
 
 - Do you think that their feelings have changed in 
 that respect, or do you think that they still dread it ? — 
 Well, they do, but not so much. 
 
 Is that because now 'they know that they have 
 friends who will help them if they are evicted ?— No, 
 it is because they do not fear emigration as much as 
 they used to do . 
 
 The Peesidebt. — I do not quite understand that last 
 answer. You are asked whether they do not dread 
 eviction as much as ever they did, and you give some 
 reason for saying that they do not. What is it ? — They 
 do not look with so much horror upon going to 
 America, my Lord. 
 
 The President.— I see. It is because they do not 
 object to emigration so much ? — They do not. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Do you not know, 
 speaking generally, that they will make any sacrifice 
 rather than be evicted ?— No. They would up to 
 1880. 
 
 Then up to 1880 they would make any sacrifice 
 rather than be evicted ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you known them to meet, or to try to meet, 
 their rents by borrowing money at 10 per cent, from 
 banks and shopkeepers, or from the gombeen man ? — 
 There are very few gombeen men in Kerry. 
 
 Now, as a general indication of the state of the 
 country in 1879, does not the report of the Royal Com- 
 mission — the Cowper Commission— furnish figures that 
 will serve as a test of the state of the country in that 
 year, and which show that there was a large increase 
 in the number of bills of sale and the issue of writs, 
 civil bills of ejectment, civil bill decrees and of eject- 
 ments executed, and that the number of those docu- 
 ments in that year exceeded that of those in previous 
 or in subsequent years ?— I do not know. 
 
 You were in 1879 agent for Lord Kenmare ? — Yes. 
 
 You succeeded to that post in 1876 ?— In 1874. 
 
 Mr. Leonard came to you in 1876 ? — Yes. 
 
 You succeeded Mr. Galway ? — Yes. 
 
 He had the name of being a very considerate agent ? 
 — I thought so until I heard the attack made upon 
 him the other day about the way he raised the rents 
 one year. 
 
 He made a general reduction of rents to all the 
 tenants ? — Yes. 
 
 You thought it your duty to raise the rents upon a 
 certain number of tenants ? — Yes, some had leases, 
 and some paid fines, and those who would not pay fines 
 had their rents increased. 
 
 Did you also think it right to make certain charges 
 for turbary that had not been made before ? — Yes, 
 these were spent on the property and yielded no 
 revenue. They were spent in making roads and in bog 
 drainage. 
 
 Was Lord Kenmare's the only property upon which 
 you raised the rent at that time? — I think so. 
 
 When did the tenants on Lord Kenmare's property 
 come to you and ask for a reduction of rent ?— I do 
 not think they asked for it in 1880. I think they asked 
 for it in 1879. 
 
 You have told us that 1878 was a bad year. Did not 
 you think that there ought to be a reduction in 1879 ? 
 — As well as my recollection serves me they did get a 
 reduction in 1879. I have no reason to doubt that an 
 application for reduction of rent was presented to Lord 
 Kenmare in the autumn of 1879. 
 
 I must press you, now, in justice to yourself. I am 
 not aware thrt any one thought Lord Kenmare other 
 than a humane man, but his circumstances at that time 
 were very difficult ? — Yes. 
 
 He had spent a large sum of money, among other 
 things, in building a mansion ? — And among the poor 
 tenantry. He spent £300 a week in giving employ- 
 ment in 1879. 
 
 He was one of those who had borrowed on the terms 
 of paying no interest for two years, and then £3 8s. Gd. 
 per cent, principal and interest ? — Yes. 
 
 In other words — no interest for two years and after 
 that £3 8s. 6d.— £1 being for interest, and £2 8s. 6d. 
 for repayment of principal ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you not yourself expressed the opinion that in 
 1879 the tenants ought to have had a reduction ?— I 
 think not in that year. 
 
 Did you think they ought to have a, reduction ? — ■ 
 They ought to have had, except for the enormous 
 amount of money spent upon them. 
 
 We will discuss that later ; but now, apart from that 
 expenditure, did you think they ought to have had a 
 reduction of rent ?— No ; not while the expenditure 
 was going on, 
 
 I asked you whether they ought, apart from the 
 expenditure ? — Yes, I think so. 
 
 What reduction did the tenants ask for ? — I forget. 
 
 But, Mr. Hussey, this is very important, and I must 
 ask you to try and recollect ? — There were a great 
 many applications for reductions ; some asked for 20 
 per cent, and some wanted no reduction, 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 477 
 
 What was the employment that the tenants got ? 
 Principally draining and fencing and road-making ?— 
 Yes. Public road-making. 
 
 Was the largest amount expended upon that ? — No, 
 the largest amount was expended upon drainage. 
 
 And thus you think the tenants got relief by having 
 employment on the roads, fences, and drains ? — Yes. 
 
 And so enabled them to pay their rents ? — Yes. I 
 need not say that the labour was given to tho poorer 
 classes. The richer farmers did not get it. 
 
 Was the part of Kerry for which you were agent, or 
 the greater part of it, included in the Distressed 
 Unions Act schedule ? — Yes, otherwise they would not 
 have got the money. 
 
 I think there was a subsequent Act — that for reducing 
 judicial rents — in which Kerry wa3 also scheduled ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Can you give me the evictions in Kerry, beginning in 
 1879 ? — I can only give you those on the property for 
 which I was agent, which represents one-fourth of the 
 county. 
 
 Give them me. — You have had from Mr. Leonard 
 that the evictions on Lord Kenmare's property were 
 17. On the properties for which I am at present agent 
 there were 28 for the ten years 1879 to 1888. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith. — Of what properties are 
 you speaking ? 
 
 Witness. — Of all the properties for which I am agent, 
 exclusive of Lord Kenmare's. The number of tenants 
 on the estates was 2,018. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — The figures given of the actual 
 evictions by Mr. Leonard were largely in excess of 
 that, but the greater proportion, as he says, were re- 
 admitted as caretakers ? — Yes. 
 
 What were the total number of evictions, including 
 those re-admitted as caretakers ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Do you wish to convey to the Court? that all those 
 who were re-admitted as caretakers have been sub- 
 sequently re-admitted as permanent tenants ? — I say 
 all that were permanently put out, but with the great 
 majority of those re-admitted as caretakers some 
 settlement would be come to. 
 
 You have not the total number of eviction decrees. 
 —No. 
 
 Have you the total number of civil bill processes for 
 ejectments ? — No. 
 
 Have you the total number of writs for ejectment ? — 
 No. 
 
 Have you any account of tho number of writs in 
 actions for debt against the tenants ? — No. 
 
 Have you any account of ejectments upon title — 
 evictions upon title ? — No, I have no return except of 
 those tenants who were permanently put out. 
 
 Let us understand, first of all, you exclude all re- 
 admitted as caretakers ? — Yes. 
 
 And you have not taken into account those ejected 
 on title ? — I have included all ejected permanently, 
 whether for non-payment of rent or for anything else. 
 
 Was one mode of proceeding to sue in the Superior 
 Courts in an action for debt, then sell the tenant's in- 
 
 terest by the sheriff, buying it in for a nominal sum, 
 and then ejecting for title ? — Yes. 
 
 How many cases were there of that kind ? — I do not 
 recollect ; but not more than ten. 
 
 Will you undertake to swear there were not more 
 than ten ? — I will not. 
 
 Did I understand you to say that the number of 
 tenants evicted in that, fashion, permanently evicted, aa 
 you say, are included in the figures you have given ?— < 
 Yes, in the 28. 
 
 Can you give me the figures for Kerry evictions as 
 distinct from your own property for the years 1877, 
 1878, 1879, 1880, and 1881 ?— No. 
 
 About this meeting of October, 1880. Mr. Biggar 
 was the principal speaker ? — Yes, I believe so. 
 
 That was on October 10, 1880. Did you know that 
 Mr. Biggar, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, and the other 
 speakers had just come from seeing a man on a property 
 half a mile from your own house, on part of Mr. 
 Arthur Blennerhassett's estate — a man called Patrick 
 Shea ? — I do not know. There was sueh a man about 
 two miles from my house. 
 
 I want to tell you a story about that man. 
 
 The Attobney-Generai,. — My Lord, I submit my 
 learned friend is not justified in telling a story, but he 
 must ask questions. 
 
 Sib C. Bussell. — Of course, I am going to ask a 
 question. You do not think I am goiDg to stop the 
 proceedings to tell stories. (Laughter.) Shea 
 occupied a small piece of cut-away bog ? — Yes. 
 
 The valuation of which was 10s. ? — That was the 
 valuation of the land, but not of the bog upon it. 
 
 Was he not paying £10 a year ? — Yes, but the ground 
 was valued at £10. 
 
 Was it not cut-away bog ? — Not when he took it. 
 Quinn, the original tenant, made a considerable 
 revenue by selling the bog. He paid £20 a year rent. 
 
 What was the original rent Shea paid for it ?— £10 a 
 year. 
 
 TheD Quinn made his money by selling the bog and 
 Shea succeeded to a cut-away bog ? — It was not all 
 cut away. 
 
 There was not even a good habitation for a snipe ?— > 
 The house was very bad. 
 
 He was evicted and you re-admitted him ? — Yes. 
 
 That was the time when you were candidate for 
 Tralee ? — It was very near that time. 
 
 Did you give Shea permission to till the holding ? — ■ 
 Possibly. I do not recollect, but I dare say I did. 
 His friends offered me £6 a year for the land. I 
 thought it a fair rent and took it. 
 
 If you had given him permission to till the hold- 
 ing, one would have thought that created a fresh 
 tenancy. Did you obtain a magistrate's order against 
 him as a caretaker and turn him out ? — I think he was 
 turned out. I am not agent for the estate now. 
 
 Do you know that your bailiffs not only turned him 
 out, but tore down the roof of the house ? — I believe 
 the house was partially pulled down. 
 
 Do you know that on the way to the meeting on 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
478 
 
 The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 October 10, 1880, these two members of Parliament, 
 Messrs. Biggar and O'Connor, visited this man, where 
 he had put up some boards against one of the remain- 
 ing walls of the house to shelter himself and his 
 family ? — I do not know it. 
 
 Did you know Shea was there ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you read the speeches ? — Some of them. 
 
 Do not you know the great theme of the speeches was 
 the condition of this man Shea ? — I do not think it 
 was. I say that eviction was in consequence of the 
 subdivision of the land. 
 
 Is not the thing tho people greatly dread, when an 
 eviction takes place, the demolition or burning of the 
 . house ?— Yes. 
 
 Is that a thing calculated to raise very bitter feeling? 
 — Yes. They know they have no chance of going back. 
 There is always hope as long as the house stands. 
 
 Do you know that it was at an eviction on the pro- 
 perty of which you were agent ? — On my own pro- 
 perty. 
 
 On your own property that the first burning of a 
 house took place at an eviction in Kerry ? — Possibly. 
 
 I do not wish to say it was by your own direction 
 that it was done. — Certainly it was not. I should 
 like to explain the circumstances. 
 
 You are entitled to do so. — The tenant was a man 
 named Patrick Kennedy. He held a piece of town- 
 land on lease at £45 a year. One of bis sons was to 
 be married, and the other promised to go. Kennedy, 
 however, divided the farm and gave half to his second 
 son in the teeth of my orders that I would put a 
 penal rent on him. The farm was eminently unsuit- 
 able for subdivision. I put the penal rent and evicted 
 him for it. I have since reinstated the eldest son in 
 the farm, and he is there now with a good house. I 
 see no hardship in that. 
 
 Who built the house ? — He built it! I contributed 
 slates, and spent £100 on it. 
 
 Were you also a borrower under the Act ? — I was ; 
 to my sorrow be it spoken. 
 
 Was that the only case of burning on your estate ? — 
 That is the only one I know of. 
 
 Then let me remind you of another you must have 
 seen discussed in the papers. Was there not another 
 case at Eath ?-You referred to that this minute. Mr. 
 Leonard gave evidence about it. 
 
 You know the statement in the public Press was 
 that your own clerk Perrott was sent by yon to set fire 
 to the house. Were you not there P — No. I did not 
 authorize him to set fire to it. Moreover, it was 
 not Murphy's house at all, but his brother-in-law 
 Callaghan's. 
 
 Was he not evicted ? — Callaghan had put Murphy out 
 and Murphy had retaken possession. 
 
 The point is whether you authorized the burning of 
 the house ?— I did not. I knew nothing of it till it 
 was all over. 
 
 Has your attention been drawn to the report of the 
 only tenant-farmer on the Cowper Commission ? — I do 
 not know if I have read it. I do not recollect it. 
 
 You say yon know nothing of any secret societies in 
 Kerry ? — Only the Fenians. 
 
 Did they continue in Kerry ? — I don't think they 
 did. 
 
 Then you, a magistrate, living in county Kerry, 
 believe there was no secret society, whether Fenians 
 or not, until 1880 ?— No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid.— I understood you to 
 say that before 1880 there had been no outrages to 
 speak of in Kerry ? — Yes. 
 
 That you say deliberately P — Yes. 
 
 Let me read you this from your own evidence before 
 the Cowper Commission (page 548, question 17,895) : — 
 
 " Sir J. Caird. — When did the Land League begin ? 
 —I think in 1877 or 1878. 
 
 "And about that same time outrages began ? — Yes. I 
 will connect them in this way. When the Land Act 
 of 1871 was passed it gave the tenants a sum equal to 
 from three to five years' compensation for disturbance. 
 In other words, if the landlord wished to change for 
 an improving tenant he had to pay five years' com- 
 pensation, and that, I think, encouraged the tenants 
 into the idea that the land was practically their own. 
 
 " And this indirectly was the cause of the outrages ? 
 — Well, it tended to it. 
 
 " Then they began in 1877 ?— Yes, Sir, and they had 
 very good years from 1870 to 1877, and then they kept 
 quiet. 
 
 " And when the bad years came the outrages began ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 " And that from 1877 until now it has existed ? — Yes ; 
 outrages existed, with very little chance of their 
 ceasing. 
 
 ' ' You have already told us that the Land League is 
 not decreasing ? — The Land League is not decreasing in 
 power now, not in my opinion." 
 
 How came you to state that in your opinion out- 
 rages began in 1877 ? — I was wrong ; I could not trace 
 them out. 
 
 But you gave reasons. You say " Yes, Sir, they had 
 very good years from 1870 to 1877, and then they kept 
 quiet," and when the question was put, " And when 
 the bad years came the outrages began ?" you say 
 " Yes." Is not that evidence that you gave before 
 the Cowper Commission true— that they kept quiet when 
 the years were good, and if the years were bad and 
 distress came they began to be disturbed ? — Distress in 
 those years was co-existent with the founding of the 
 League. 
 
 Do you dispute that the distress, and the misery con- 
 sequent upon it, was tho main cause of the outrages ? — 
 I do. The outrages were not so serious in 1879 as 
 later. 
 
 Do you mean to say that the 1884 outrages were 
 nothing like the nuynber they were in 1879 and 1880 
 — I believe they were not. 
 
 Whatever may have been the cause of the outrages in 
 1879 and 1880, 1881, and 1882, until the Arrears Act 
 was passed, were they not two or three times as 
 numerous as in 1884 ? — I have heard that stated. In 
 1884, when my house was attempted to be blown up, 
 the year was a good one. 
 
 It is natural vou should attach importance to 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 £79 
 
 that ? — I naturally attach importance to an attempt to 
 kill 15 innocent persons to get at one. 
 
 You have told my learned friend Sir Charles Russell 
 about Pat Shea's house, and you have given your ex- 
 planation. Was that in September, 1880 ? — It may 
 have been. 
 
 Was not the burning of Pat Murphy's house within 
 three days of Pat Shea's ? — I do not remember. 
 
 And was not Maurice Kennedy's house burnt in the 
 same week, so that all three occurred within seven 
 days ? — They may have done. I have not the dates. 
 
 Was not that before the Land League was started in 
 the neighbourhood of Killarney at all ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Have there been any burnings or levelling of tenants' 
 houses since in Kerry ? — No, I have not heard of any. 
 
 Do you not consider the levelling of a house or evic- 
 tion a cruel thing ?— Yes ; but in some cases there was 
 then no other way of keeping tenants from going back. 
 Now they can be prosecuted. 
 
 Am I to understand that at that time you approved of 
 the practice ? — Yes ; it was necessary if you wanted to 
 keep possession after an eviction had taken place. You 
 had either to put in a man or level it. 
 
 Do you consider burning a house or levelling a house 
 justifiable and proper ? — It was necessary if you wanted 
 to keep possession. 
 
 Did you express that opinion at the time ? — I- cannot 
 say. 
 
 These three eases in one week in 1880 occurred 
 under your management ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you think that had nothing to do with your un- 
 popularity ? — No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — I understand 
 that the cases where you resorted to these harsh 
 measures of burning and levelling houses were before 
 the establishment of the Land League ? — I deny 
 having given any instructions about burning houses. 
 
 I understand you justified burning houses on the 
 ground of necessity ? — I said in some eases it was a 
 necessity, but I did not authorize it directly or 
 indirectly in those two cases. 
 
 But you regarded it as a necessity ? — If you wished 
 to keep possession of the house you had either to put 
 a man in or level the house. 
 
 Then may I take it that before the establishment of 
 the Land League there was such a strong feeling 
 occasioned by evictions that these harsh proceedings 
 were, in your, opinion, necessary ? — If you takaj pos- 
 session of a house, as soon as you walk away, the 
 tenant, who is close by, would go back. 
 
 I understand you to suggest that every one before 
 the establishment of the Land League treated an 
 eviction as an ordinary matter, and did not resist ? — 
 The man himself did not. 
 
 And was he not supported by his friends and neigh- 
 bours ? — No. 
 
 Do not you know that he was ? — No. 
 
 And yet you think, under the circumstances, these 
 harsh measures, were justifiable ? — I say it was neces- 
 sary if you wished to keep possession. 
 
 . Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt.— According to the 
 report referred to by Sir C. Russell, there would 
 bo a loss of about nine millions between the 
 crop of 1879 and 1876, would there not ?— Yes. 
 
 Assuming there are 500,000 poor tenants in Ire- 
 land, that would represent a loss of about £18 on 
 each holding, would that not P — I do not think there 
 are 500,000 poor holdings. 
 
 Then you differ from Sir James Caird. You say that 
 Castleisland was a populous district, do you not ? — 
 Not so much as some, such as Kenmare. 
 
 Most of the land there is grazing land, which did not 
 give much employment for tillage ? — Yes. 
 
 Then in the district of Castleisland there would be a 
 large number of young men who had little or nothing 
 to do in the winter months ? — It is not a densely popu- 
 lated district. 
 
 But there would be a large number of young men with 
 little or no work to do ? — Yes. 
 
 You have no theatres or music-halls or social clubs 
 in Castleisland ? (Laughter.) — No. 
 
 Then under these circumstances there would be 
 every inducement to these young men to take part in 
 nocturnal raids ?— I do not think there was any induce- 
 ment to them to shoot their neighbours. 
 
 Do not you think that if there were better means of 
 employment there would be less outrage ? — Castle- 
 island is past redemption, I am afraid. 
 
 You have spoken of your popularity with the tenants 
 before 1880 P — I said that I got on fairly well with 
 them. I do not think that any agent was ever really 
 popular. 
 
 Relatively ? — Yes. 
 
 Pardon me if I ask you if this is 4rue — Did you ever 
 say, in reply to a question put to you by Mr. Townsend 
 Trench as to why you were not shot, that you had told 
 the tenants that if anything happened to you he would 
 succeed you as agent ? — Yes. I did say so, but it is 
 not original, because it is what Charles II. said to 
 James II. (Laughter.) 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — You told us that there were 50 
 publichouses in Castleisland ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know who granted the licences ? — The 
 magistrates of the county, I think. Nobody has the 
 power to grant the licences except the magistrates of 
 the county. The magistrates are usually the land agents 
 or the landlords. 
 
 In your evidence you said that up to a recent 
 date there was no criminal offence in taking forcible 
 possession of premises from which a man had been 
 evicted. Was it not possible to summon for tres- 
 pass at petty sessions, at which the local landlords 
 and agents were the magistrates, and impose cumu- 
 lative fines which, in case the fines were not paid, 
 would send the man to prison ? — Yes, but such cases 
 were very difficult to prove. 
 
 In point of fact tha landlords had a criminal 
 remedy P — In theory. 
 
 In point of fact and practice also, you thought the 
 most convenient way, Mr. Hussey, was to pull down 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
480 
 
 The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 the house or to burn it ? — I gave my answer before, 
 Sir ; but if you 'wished to keep the farm in your posses- 
 sion, it was necessary either to put a man in charge 
 or to remove the house. 
 
 You have said you were popular in the district up 
 to 1880 ? — I never had a serious threat until you 
 mentioned my name in Castleisland, and then people 
 told me, " Get police protection or you will be shot." 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Did not some of your sympathizers light a bonfire in 
 1878 in Castleisland on account of the triumph of your 
 buying the Harang estate, and did not the population of 
 Castleisland, who knew your character, scatter that 
 bonfire and put it out ? — I heard they had a row over 
 it. There were nine bonfires lighted in Kerry after I 
 succeeded. I was fairly popular until you held up my 
 name as a subject for murder in Castleisland. You 
 said Hussey might be a very bad man, but you would 
 take care of one thing, that if any man was charged 
 with shooting him or any other agent he should have 
 a fair trial. 
 
 The President.— We shall have this speech ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — What reduction of the rents was recom- 
 mended at the Castleisland meeting ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Is it not a fact that the recommendation was that 
 the tenants should combine to get a reduction to the 
 Government valuation and no more ? — I do not know. 
 
 You bought the Harang estate over the heads of the 
 tenants ? — No ; I did not . The tenants, some of them, 
 were very much dissatisfied with my buying it. 
 
 Did they not litigate to a great extent ? — Before 
 the matter went to the Court of Appeal I tendered 
 the property to two trustees for the tenants. 
 
 Why was that proposition not carried out ? There 
 was great excitement between you and those tenants, 
 I believe ? — Some of them, no doubt. 
 , Did you evict in 1880 a tenant named Kelly ? — Yes. 
 
 Was anybody shot ? — Nobody was shot. 
 
 In June, 1880, how many summonses had you for 
 trespass against Kelly ? — I cannot say. He is back 
 in possession now. He is very well satisfied. He 
 was the first tenant who paid me rent this year. 
 
 You spoke of Perrot's case. Did yoa keep him in 
 your employment afterwards ? — Yes. 
 
 You did not punish him in any way ? — I told him it 
 wa3 a very foolish thing to do. 
 
 That was rather a mild censure, was it not ? — If the 
 house had been Murphy's own I might have censured 
 him. 
 
 You did not dismiss or punish any of these people ? 
 —No ; Kennedy was not a tenant and had no business 
 to be there. 
 
 With regard to caretakers, is it not a fact that a 
 person put back as a caretaker cannot apply to the 
 Land Court for a reduction ? — He cannot apply while 
 he is a caretaker. 
 
 And if he enters into a compromise with the landlord 
 he can only apply ou terms the landlord agrees to ? — 
 Unless he cares to reconstitute himself a tenant. 
 
 How can he reconstitute himself a tenant after he 
 has been a caretaker ? — By paying up his rent within 
 six months after the date of the eviction. 
 
 You spoke about an address which you received 
 from the tenants when you were a candidate for 
 Tralee ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you any idea whether this address was got up 
 by the bailiffs on the property ? — I am quite certain 
 it was not, because I had no bailiffs on the pro- 
 perty. I had a rent-warner. He never acted as a 
 bailiff, and to my knowledge he had nothing to do 
 with it. I gave an immense deal of employment and 
 I believe that had something to do with it. 
 
 Did you read or hear the evidence of Mr. Leonard ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Do you agree in the main with his evidence ? — Yes. 
 
 Is there any part of it to which you raise an objec- 
 tion ?— No. 
 
 He gave some evidence with regard to malicious 
 injury, and he spoke of the ear of a working horse 
 being cut off. How much would that depreciate the 
 value of the horse ; the value of the horse before the 
 injury was £16 ? — I do not know. It was tried and 
 proved before the assizes of the grand jury that that 
 horse was unsaleable because he was known as a 
 maimed and boycotted horse, and therefore could not 
 be sold. 
 
 This unpopular man still kept his horse in his posses- 
 sion, and therefore he was as useful for working pur- 
 poses as before ? — I daresay the injury would be £3 
 or £4. 
 
 Well, now, the amount of compensation given was 
 £20. — I do not know the case at all. 
 
 That is the evidence of Mr. Leonard. 
 
 The President.— You made that point, Mr. Biggar, 
 which we fully appreciate, with Mr. Leonard. 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — My Lords, Mr - . Hussey, the present 
 witness, says he adopts in the main the evidence of 
 Mr. Leonard, and* that evidence was that £20 was 
 clearly the compensation given. Mr. Leonard also 
 swore that that is a typical case, and that it is the 
 ordinary practice of the county Kerry magistrates. 
 (To witness.) Do you agree with that doctrine also ? — ■ 
 I do not. I believe the county Kerry magistrates and 
 grand jury exercise the strictest supervision over these 
 injuries. But very often the plaintiff comes forward 
 and states the injury and there is no one on the other 
 side. 
 
 You do not exactly agree with Mr. Leonard that 
 this is a typical case, and in fact Mr. Leonard swore 
 that the county Kerry magistrates frequently give 
 more than the injury that had been done ? — That is not 
 my opinion. 
 
 That is all, my Lords. 
 
 The Attorney-General, in re-examination. — My 
 Lords, with reference to the cross-examination about 
 the fines, I 'would ask that the two pages, 29 and 30,of 
 Document 131, of which Sir C.Kussell was reading the 
 extracts, should be printed on the note. It will save 
 me a good many questions, my Lords. I want to refer 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 481 
 
 to the summary for the 13 months ending January 31, 
 1880. The total oE the agrarian outrages in all Kerry 
 was — murder, one ; assault, two ; incendiary fires, 
 four ; taking forcible possession, one ; killing and 
 maiming cattle, two. What I want to know is whether, 
 in your opinion, that return represented the normal 
 condition of Kerry ? — I do not know, I knew of 
 private quarrels with regard to land occurring, Where 
 there was private injury or quarrel, in many cases 
 complaint was lodged by the person who had bees 
 injured. I do not know of any case under my manage- 
 ment where a tenant has been prevented from 
 going into the Land Court because of his arrears. 
 I never had a claim lodged under the Act of 1870, 
 because there was a fair rent. I think Mr. 
 Leonard's evidence as to the extent to which I raised 
 Lord Kenmare's property was correct. Whenever I 
 wanted to adjust a holding I generally found the 
 tenant wanted to get it for less. Beyond that kind of 
 private discussion, there had been public discussion 
 against me. It had been said that I ought not to raise 
 the rents. My friendly relations with the people had 
 subsisted notwithstanding that I raised the rents. The 
 rents of 1880 were, on an average, 25 per cent, under 
 what they were in 1840. In {en years I had 28 evictions 
 in 2,018 tenants. With reference to the returns, I 
 think notice has not to be given except where there is 
 an inhabited house upon the holding. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— Do you say these 
 returns are notices of evictions or actual evictions ? — 
 Witness. — They must be notices of evictions. I believe 
 the returns do not show the cases where the tenants re- 
 mained in under some arrangement after notice had 
 been served. Latterly the tenants never settled until 
 they had received notice of eviction from the reliev- 
 ing officer ; they know nothing can be done until then, 
 and they then come in and settle very often. There 
 are very few people now who pay before they are com- 
 pelled. 
 
 Do you think the tenants, speaking of cash — the 
 whole of the tenants in your experience had more or 
 less money in 1885 and 1886 than before ? 
 
 The President. — We have not asked about 1885 and 
 1886 at all. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— What I want to know is- 
 this — whether or not the savings of many of these 
 people have increased during the time of this agita- 
 tion or not ? — Yes. I think they have largely. 
 
 You spoke about the publichouses. Has the amount 
 spent in drink increased or not P— I think so in Kerry. 
 I say that from my own personal knowledge, 
 
 Mr. Keid. — My Lords, this witness is not giving any 
 figures. All these matters are capable of proof. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My Lords, the last ques- 
 tion I asked was whether the money spent in drink 
 was greater, and the witness said " Yes." (To 
 witness.) As I understand, you charged for the cutting 
 of turf P — Yes, and the money charged was spent on 
 roads, and the tenant got the benefit of those roads ; 
 so that his labour was more remunerative and the turf 
 
 was of a much superior quality, because there were 
 drains. 
 
 My Lords, I will call attention to a mistake of my 
 learned friend Sir Charles Eussell with reference to tho 
 rents on Lord Kenmare's estate. I refer to page 1,001 
 of the minutes of evidence, question 15,196 — " Did Lord 
 Kenmaro, in answer to these representations, at that 
 time make any reduction ?— They got the reduction 
 on the rent. I could not tell you really, but I know 
 they got the reduction on the November, 1879, rent." 
 Mr. Leonard said that the tenants got 20 per cent, re- 
 duction. Do you remember, Mr. Hussey, whether or 
 not an abatement of 20 per cent, was made ? — I think 
 there was, There was an abatement, certainly, in 
 1880. 
 
 Now, with reference to the fact that tenants came 
 baok into their houses, was that known before in Ire- 
 land or not ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know whether houses had been occasionally 
 pulled down to prevent possession being taken ?— Very 
 seldom ; it was not often required. 
 
 Now I wish to ask you with reference to Mr. 
 Leonard's evidence. It is on page 964. With refer- 
 ence to the case of Murphy, Mr. Leonard says : — 
 
 " I brought a caretaker's summons against Murphy, 
 and my bailiffs and a young assistant named Perrot 
 went to execute it ; they met with every resistance ; 
 hot water, &c. 
 
 " Sir C. Eussell. — Were you there ? (Answer)— 
 No, except it was what was reported to me. 
 
 " The Attorney-General. — It was reported to you 
 that they met with resistance ? — Yes." 
 Then in question 14,946 Mr. Leonard was asked : — 
 
 " What was the next thing that happened to this 
 holding of Murphy's? (Answer) — The bailiffs got instruc- 
 tions from me to take out the doors and windows to 
 prevent Murphy retaking possession, and I am informed 
 that when they were proceeding to do so Mrs. Murphy 
 turned round 
 
 " Sir C. Russell.— No, no. 
 
 " The Attorney-General. — I will not ask you 
 anything further. A statement was made to you ; was 
 the house burnt '( — Yes. 
 
 " Without your knowledge or without your consent 
 in any way ? — Certainly. 
 
 " Quite independently of any action of yours or on 
 behalf of Lord Kenmare P— Certainly ; we never 
 heard a word of it till the police reported it at 8 
 o'clock at night." 
 
 Now, as far as you know, was that true P — Yes. 
 
 Had you any knowledge of the burning down of the 
 house in that case of Murphy's ? — No, not till two 
 days afterwards, I have explained the other two 
 cases. 
 
 Now you have been asked about there being less 
 crime in 1884 ; was there any reason, in your opinion, 
 with regard to the state of the law, that would prevent 
 crime in 1884 P — Yes, increased precautions were 
 taken. 
 
 Do you remember whether the Crimes Aot wo* 
 enforced in 1884 ?— I believe so. 
 
 Now about the Harang estate. After purchasing it, 
 did you subsequently make an offer to let the tenant* 
 
 Mr, Samuel Murray Hussey, 
 
 16 
 
482 
 
 The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 have it if your expenses were paid ? — Yes, and that 
 was previously to going into the Appeal Court, and 
 they would have had it £'500 cheaper. 
 
 Now, with regard to the particular outrage which 
 Sir C. Russell referred to, I think the murder of 
 Brosnau had nothing to do with agrarian outrage at 
 all ?— I forget all about it. 
 
 You do not remember it as connected with agrarian 
 outrage at all ? — No. There was one question asked me 
 about the payment of rent on my estate 
 
 Is this a particular case ? I am afraid we are not 
 entitled to go into it now. I may mention to your 
 Lordships that the statute under which notice has to 
 be given to the relieving officer of an eviction is 11 
 and 12 Victoria, c. 47, sections 2 and 3. (To witness.) 
 One question more ; you say one of the bonfires 
 lighted when you succeeded was put out ; I suppose 
 the Irish people are not very averse to a row at times ? 
 —Oh, no. 
 
 And bonfires do produce rows at times ? — Certainly. 
 
 Your popularity did not depend upon one bonfire ? — 
 No. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— There was one answer given in re-exa- 
 mination as to the comparison of rents in the years 
 1879 and 1840, and I should like to ask a question 
 upon it. 
 
 The PRESIDENT.— Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Reid (to witness). — I understood you to say that 
 rents in 1879 were 25 per cent, lower than in 1840. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— On his estate. 
 
 The President.— I do not think he did say 1879. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— I think it was 1880. 
 
 Mr. Reid (to witness). — Does that apply to your 
 own estate alone ? — Generally to the estates I 
 manage in Kerry. The comparison is founded on 
 isolated cases here and there. 
 
 Have you made any comparison in order to arrive at 
 that result ? — Yes ; I made it on individual cases. 
 
 You mean that in some cases there is a disparity, and 
 you inferred it in all ? — I founded it upon the estates I 
 manage. 
 
 But what I want is the ground of your statement. 
 Do you say that the grounds for it are isolated cases 
 taken here and there ? — Yes. 
 
 How many 1 — I will give you one estate. 
 
 I want the number on them all. — There are 60 cases 
 in one estate, Mr. Osborne's, right in the centre of 
 the county. 
 
 How many tenants are there P — Sixty. 
 
 Then you have taken the whole of the tenants there ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Are there any others ? — Yes ; these are some out of 
 many. 
 
 How many ? — I will give you three cases. 
 
 I do not want you to give cases ; I want to know 
 on what figures your calculation is based. How many 
 cases are there on your own estate ? — About 15, I 
 think . 
 
 How many tenants have you ? — I think 30. 
 
 Have you taken any more cases ? — Yes, some on 
 Lord Kenmare's estate. 
 
 How many ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Have you any table of the cases ? — No, I never 
 made a table of them. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — With reference to the number of 
 houses levelled, did you speak of Ireland or Kerry ? — 
 It was with reference to my own estate. 
 
 Do you not know, Mr. Hussey, that after the 
 famine thousands of houses were levelled ?— I know 
 of many instances from what appeared in the papers. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — 1840 was before the repeal of the 
 Corn Law, was it not ? — It was. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — As there has been a dis- 
 cussion as to the way in which turbary is treated in 
 Ireland, I may say that there is a case reported which 
 is in accordance with the view we have submitted. It 
 is " Ex parte Sir B. Huteheson," and is reported in 
 12 " Law Reports," Ireland, Common Law, page 79. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — May I interpose for a moment to ask 
 whether your Lordships have yet come to any decision 
 with regard to the letter of Mr. O'Kelly which we 
 desire to inspect ? 
 
 The President.— Oh, yes. We have with regard to 
 that letter ; bnt I wish to say something with regard 
 to some of the others. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — I only mention it now because if we 
 are to inspect it the interval between this and Tuesday 
 morning would give us a convenient opportunity of 
 doing so. 
 
 The President.— You may take it that you are 
 entitled to see that letter. I will say what I have to 
 say on the subject when we deal with the other 
 letters. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — Can we have it forthwith, my Lord. 
 
 The President.— Yes. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I may say, my Lord, that 
 we have not been able to cover by the witnesses who 
 are here the police evidence with regard to all Kerry ; 
 we could not get over the inspectors from all Kerry, 
 and I shall have to supply that afterwards, but I shall 
 endeavour to keep it separate and not mix it up with 
 other evidence. 
 
 Jeremiah Hegarty was then called. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I do not know whether 
 my learned friends require formal proof with regard 
 to the Cork Herald ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Mr. Hooper is not here in Court to- 
 day ; I believe he is in Ireland, but I have had com- 
 munication with a gentleman who is familiar with his 
 connexion with the paper. As far as I am able to 
 ascertain — and I particularly guard myself in making 
 this statement by saying that I am speaking only to 
 the best of my information — Mr. Hooper became pro- 
 prietor of the Cork Herald some time in 1885. I see 
 from the certificate of registration that he was an 
 original shareholder ; he is described as a journalist, 
 and I believe he had some subordinate position od the 
 
 Mr. Samuel Murray Hussey. 
 
 Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty. 
 
The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 483 
 
 paper, which would not make him responsible. It was 
 in 1885 that he became proprietor. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— That means you cannot 
 admit anything before 1885. It may prevent our being 
 able to refer to certain passages in the paper. You 
 do not deny that he was a shareholder ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — No. The date, I believe, of the 
 certificate is January, 1878. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I must ask you whether 
 he was not a director ? 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — You can put it in the form of an 
 interrogatory. I have done my best to meet you. 
 
 The witness Hegarty was then examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson. He said,— I reside at Millstrect, in the 
 county of Cork. I have lived there since 1857, and I 
 carry on an extensive business as a shopkeeper and 
 general merchant. I have also grazing farms, and am 
 connected in business with many people in the district. 
 
 Do you know when the branch of the Land 
 League was established in Millstreet ? — On August 1, 
 1880. 
 
 Up to that time had you been on good terms with 
 your neighbours and customers ? — Yes. 
 
 Shortly after the establishment of the Land League, 
 were you canvassed by any persons to join the 
 League ?— I was told generally I had to fall in with 
 persons who joined the League. 
 
 Had you any communication from any particular 
 individual with reference to it ? — I do not know ; I do 
 not think so. 
 
 Did two men call upon you ? — I do not remember that 
 they did with reference to joining the League. Notices 
 were posted up in the town with reference to traders 
 joining the League. 
 
 What were they ?— There was a resolution 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — We have already raised objection 
 to this form of question. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It is only with reference 
 to a resolution which we can prove. 
 
 Examination continued. — In December, did any mem- 
 bers of the League call upon you ? — No. 
 
 Did any person call upon you with reference to any 
 proceedings that had taken place at the League ? — 
 There was a. party who had a conversation with me 
 about what took place. He was a member ; I would 
 Dot tell his name. He was an official of the League. 
 
 After that visit did you see notices posted through 
 the town ?— There were notices posted in the town and 
 scattered all over the country. 
 
 What were the contents of them ? — They called upon 
 the people to have no dealings 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I object to that question. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Yonr Lordships ruled that 
 where there were public notices posted and a man read 
 them he was entitled to say what they were. 
 
 The President.— The only departure from that was 
 that where you have the notices they should be put in. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson (handing a paper to witness). — Is that 
 the notice to which you refer ?— That is one, but there 
 is another much more elaborate. 
 
 Is this the other one (handing another notice to wit- 
 ness) ? — Yes. 
 
 The following notices were then read : — 
 
 " Take Notice. — You are cautioned against having 
 any dealings with Jeremiah Hegarty or his family, 
 neither to buy nor sell them anything. Shun them as 
 you would lepers. If you disobey this order, may the 
 Lord have mercy on you." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The document is printed, 
 with a space left for the name of the person ; it is 
 filled up with the name Jeremiah Hegarty in writing. 
 There is no date. The second notice is as follows : — 
 
 " Proclamation.— Moonlight. — Whereas it now be- 
 comes known to me that in the town of Millstreet 
 and the parishes of Drishane and Cullen there are un- 
 grateful renegades of Irishmen to be found capable of 
 occupying the farms of the evicted, and in Millstreet 
 there are Irishmen to be found base enough to converse 
 with the bigoted and boycotted, and also in Millstreet 
 10 Irishwomen mean and contemptible enough to con- 
 verse both in public and private with the bloodthirsty 
 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, — Now we, 
 J. L., Captain Moonlight, Governor-General and 
 General Governor of this district for the time being, 
 with the advice, consent, and approval of my Privy 
 Councillors, do hereby make order and say that such 
 disgraceful and abominable work shall now cease. 
 This is the first and last warning to be given to those 
 concerned. I shall not hesitate now to use cold steel 
 in the upholding of my Government." 
 
 The Commissioners then adjourned for lunch. 
 
 On the Court's resuming, the examination of the wit- 
 ness Jeremiah Hegarty was continued by Mr. Atkin- 
 son. 
 
 After you saw that notice in December, 1880, did 
 two persons come and stand opposite yonr shop ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 What were their names ? — P. J. Murphy and Denis 
 Kelleher. The notices were posted on the night of the 
 21st of December, and the people came and stood 
 opposite to my shop ou the 22d. They interfered with 
 my customers, and took down their names in a book. 
 They offered violence to some customers, throwing 
 over a cart on one occasion. They remained there all 
 day. I remonstrated with them, and saw the police 
 speaking to them. 
 
 How long did this continue ?— Until the 10th of 
 January, 1881. The men came each day. 
 
 Were they members of the League ? — As far as I 
 know, they were. I used to see them entering the 
 League rooms, and I saw resolutions which purported 
 to bo passed by the League, and which were connected 
 with their names. I saw them enter the Land League 
 rooms frequently. 
 
 Were these men prosecuted and convicted in March, 
 1881 ?— Yes. 
 
 On December 2-i, 1880, did anything happen to yo'j 
 or your relatives ? — My brother-in-law's house wai 
 attacked. I was in it myself at the time. Stones 
 were thrown, and the windows were broken. There 
 was shouting, jeering, and booing. 
 
 Two days afterwards did you write a letter to Mr. 
 Davitt ?— Yes, on December 26. (Letter produced.} 
 
 Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty. 
 
 16-2 
 
484 The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I recolleot the correspondence, but I 
 have not a copy of the letter. 
 
 The President.— Yon will, of course, listen while it 
 is being read, and you can object to any portion which 
 you do not remember. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then read the letter : — 
 
 " Sir, — Though I do not agree in your general 
 politics or in the entire programme of the Land 
 League, of which body I am not a member, I am bound 
 to say I greatly admire your manly utterances as 
 regards coercion, and fully believe in the integrity and 
 sincerity of your convictions from your point of view, 
 and it is on this account that I feel it my duty to 
 inform you of the uses for which the name of the 
 League has been prostituted in this town; and probably 
 equally so in many other districts — viz., to gratify 
 spleen and private malice, and to annoy and ruin many 
 individuals against whom no charge could be adduced. 
 For instance, a meeting of the Land League was held 
 here on Tuesday last at which a resolution was carried 
 to boycott me. This was, I believe, opposed by the 
 chairman, &c. f and when he failed in his opposition he 
 insisted upon reasons being assigned for such an extra- 
 ordinary act. This they also declined to do, and pro- 
 ceeded during Tuesday night posting notices calling 
 upon the people to have no dealings with me or my 
 family in very offensive and unbecoming language, in 
 addition to which a sentry of members of the League 
 were posted opposite my business premises to intimidate 
 people from entering my house. They also have 
 attempted personal violence to myself, and on several 
 occasions during the past three nights have broken into 
 my brother-in-law's house in the public street at Mill- 
 street (and for which informations have been lodged 
 against them), for no reason except that they have 
 been active in my hour of trial on my behalf. 
 
 " I have no doubt that there are many active, 
 nseful, and honest members in the Millstreet Land 
 League. On the other hand, it contains a sufficient 
 number of members who, if looked at from any point 
 of view, are certain to bring disgrace upon all the 
 League organizations throughout this county. It is 
 needless for me to particularize their conduct here, but 
 I say without fear of contradiction that if every dis- 
 trict in Ireland is governed by the same reign of terror 
 b,s Millstreet that the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended in 
 its most hideous form. I know numbers of people who 
 are coerced into this business of the League by open 
 and defiant threats of violence, &c. Surely such con- 
 duct as this is likely to weaken, instead of being an 
 element of strength to the interests of the poor tenant- 
 farmers of Ireland, whose wants so sadly require 
 amelioration. Such cruel acts on individuals as have 
 been practised on me are sure to evoke the indigna- 
 tion of every honest man in the community, whether 
 in the Land League or out of it, and to produce the 
 fruits they so richly merit. 
 
 " I have carried on an extensive trade in this town 
 during the past 25 years, and have not during that 
 time injured a man in my business dealings. If I have 
 somewhat succeeded better than many of my neigh- 
 bouring traders, it is well known that it is by constant 
 toil, untiring zeal, and persevering industry that I 
 have so succeeded, and I fearlessly assert that I have, 
 in season and out of season, during that time never 
 lost an opportunity of advocating the interests of the 
 farming oommunity and an amendment of the Land 
 Laws. Even on selfish or personal grounds it could not 
 
 be otherwise, as probably I am among the highest 
 rented tenants in the community, my valuation being 
 £240, rent £596, and holding chiefly as a yearly teLant. 
 Every penny I ever made has been spent in procuring 
 employment for the labourers and artisans in the 
 district. During the last ten years I have given away 
 in employment annually £1,000. I have been endea- 
 vouring to educate and maintain fairly a large young 
 family, and because a number of insolvent rowdies 
 here have been enabled,under the auspices of the Land 
 League, to stop me in following my usual calling, I 
 am to be ruined and prevented from supporting that 
 family, though there be no charge advanced against rae. 
 
 " If trial, suffering, and deprivation of personal 
 liberty be the result of the teaching of the Land 
 League here, in the name of freedom, patriotism, and 
 all that is dear and sacred to Irishmen at home and 
 abroad I call upon the Government to exercise its pre- 
 rogative, and crush out once and for ever such 
 tyranny. " I am, Sir, yours truly, 
 
 " Jeremiah Hegarty, P.L.G-. 
 
 " To M. Davitt, Esq., Offices, Irish National 
 Land League, 39, Upper Sackville-street t 
 Dublin." 
 
 Did you get any reply to that letter ?— No. 
 
 Up to the time when you wrote that letter were 
 you able to procure provisions in the town ? — Yes. 
 
 After the letter did any change take place ? — Imme- 
 diately. We had difficulty in getting provisions, which 
 were sometimes brought to us secretly. 
 
 Had you given any cause for such treatment besides 
 your refusal to join the League ? — None whatever. 
 
 Had yon two men in your employment named 
 Kelleher and Buckley ? — Yes. They showed me some 
 threatening notices on the 14th or 15th of February, 
 1881. I took the notices and handed them to the 
 police. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — The original notices have been lost, 
 my Lord. (To witness.) Do you remember their con- 
 tents ? — I do. They said that the men should leave 
 my employment, and that if they did not do so of their 
 own accord they would be coerced into leaving in a 
 very unpleasant manner. 
 
 Did the men leave ? — Kelleher left at once. 
 
 Do you remember the trial in March, 1881, of the two 
 men whom you describe as acting as sentries at yom 
 door ? — Yes. When I was returning from the trial at 
 Cork I was insulted by a large crowd of people. 
 
 How large was the crowd ? — The witness was under- 
 stood to estimate the number at 700. 
 
 What did they do ? — On my way from the Millstreet 
 station to my home a very large crowd of people 
 hooted at me and jostled me, following me througn 
 the streets. Late that night a very large crowd, num- 
 bering probably 1,000 people, congregated near my 
 business premises and began wrecking the house with 
 stones. It was found necessary to disperse the mob by 
 the police. The attack lasted, I should say, about half- 
 an-hour. 
 
 After the mob had been dispersed, was anything done 
 to the thatch of your brother-in-law's house ? — A large 
 
 Mr, Jeremiah Hegarty. 
 
The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 485 
 
 number of people congregated round the house and set 
 fire to the roof. My brother-in-law and his family 
 were inside at the time. My brother-iu-law is now 
 dead. 
 
 Had you a farm at Kippagh ? — Yes, and a dairy con- 
 nected with it. I employed a caretaker named Sweeney 
 there. On April 18, 1881, I received a report from 
 Sweeney and went to the farm. I found the door and 
 windows broken ; a lot of ware had been destroyed ; 
 the dairy utensils had been knocked about and the milk 
 and cream spilt. A lot of meal had been destroyed. 
 
 At this time, had you a labourer in your employment 
 called James Twohig ? — Yes, he worked on the same 
 farm. 
 
 Was there also a man named Daniel Sullivan in your 
 employment ? — No. 
 
 Some short time after this riot, do you remember 
 being met on the road to chapel by two gentlemen ? — 
 Yes, outside the chapel. 
 
 Who were these men ? — Jeremiah O'Connell and 
 John Rearden. They were the secretaries of the 
 League. I do not know exactly the date of the occur- 
 rence, but it was shortly after March 25. They were 
 engaged in conversation, and appeared to be giving 
 instructions. I did not hear what they were saying. 
 
 When you entered the chapel, did you notice any- 
 thing ? — The side where my brother-in-law sat was 
 deserted. The people had left it. There were a great 
 many seats on that side. 
 
 Were they all empty ? — Excepting ten or 15 people, 
 the members of the congregation were on the other 
 side of the chapel. 
 
 Did you know a tradesman in Millstreet named 
 O'Mahoney? — Yes. He was a friend and tenant of 
 mine. 
 
 Was he a member of the League ? — I am aware that 
 he was not. 
 
 Had he any difficulty in obtaining provisions ? — 
 Great. 
 
 Has he gone to America ? — Yes. He left, I thiuk, in 
 1882. 
 
 Was a butcher named Hennessy a member of the 
 League ?— -Yes ; a very active member apparently. 
 The League rooms were immediately behind my own 
 house. 
 
 Was he an official of the League ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Is this (letter produced) in Hennessy's handwriting ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 The learned counsel then read the letter, which was 
 dated June 15, 1881. It contained a request to 
 O'Mahoney to send to Cork for his meat, as the writer 
 was compelled to stop supplying him. 
 
 Had Hennessy been in the habit of supplying 
 O'Mahoney with meat ? — Yes. 
 
 And yourself ? — Yes. He ceased to do so at Christ- 
 mas, 1880. 
 
 Do you know a Mr, Kelleher, a solicitor at Kanturk ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Are you a magistrate ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you seen a number of men prosecuted at 
 
 Quarter Sessions in Millstreet for assaults and other 
 offences ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you seen Mr. Kelleher defending those persons ? 
 — Invariably. 
 
 Have you seen who gave him instructions ? — Nearly 
 always the secretary of the Land League. 
 
 Did that gentleman sit beside him in court ? — Yes. 
 
 When you prosecuted Murphy and Kelleher for acting 
 as sentries before your house who defended them ?— 
 This solicitor, Mr. Kelleher. I am satisfied that it 
 was he. 
 
 Did you see the secretary of the League interesting 
 himself in the defence of these men ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you hear him challenging the jury ? — Oh ; I do 
 not know. 
 
 Do you remember driving home from your farm at 
 Clenhannon in April, 1885 ?— Yes. 
 
 Had the boycotting continued up to 1885 ? — Yes. 
 
 In the interval had you received any threatening 
 letters ? — I have only received one. That was in 1885. 
 
 Did you see any threatening notices posted in the 
 town in addition to those you have already mentioned ? 
 — There were notices posted up from time to time, but 
 without seeing them I could not recall the contents 
 with certainty. 
 
 Take this bundle in your hand. Did you see any of 
 these ? — Yes ; I have seen them ; but I cannot say 
 myself that they were posted up. They were shown to 
 me by the police. 
 
 The Attorney-General (to Mr. Reid). — Do you 
 object to their being read now ? I am going to call 
 constables to prove them all. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — If my learned friend undertakes to call 
 the constables, I do not object. Unless they are to be 
 called I really cannot consent. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson.— The difficulty is this. The notices 
 will have to be proved by a great many policemen. 
 One policeman can only depose as to one or two of 
 them. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If we are to be put to the 
 strict proof of every one of these notices we shall 
 have to call 20 or more policemen. 
 
 The President. — I am quite sure it can be arranged. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— We have the officer here 
 in whose custody the notices have been for several 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— We must have an opportunity of looking 
 at these documents, and then, when the officer is 
 called, we will decide whether wo can admit them. 
 
 Examination continued. — Do you remember returning 
 home from Clenhannon farm in April, 1885 ?— Yes. 
 
 Were you shot at ? — Yes, but I was not hit. 
 
 Did the smith in Millstreet continue to shoe your 
 horses up to 1885 ? — Yes. He then refused to shoe 
 them. He had worked for me for more than 20 
 years. 
 
 After you had been shot at, did your inability to get 
 provisions continue up to 1887 P— That was the 
 worst bit after that. 
 
 Mr, Jeremiah Eegarty. 
 
486 
 
 The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 Then after the firing in April, 1885, the boycotting 
 still continued ?— Oh, yes. 
 Did it continue up to April, 1887 ?— Yes. 
 In that month do you remember driving frcm the 
 Millstreet Railway Station with your son and a 
 manservant ? — Yes. 
 Were you fired at again ? — Yes. 
 
 Did the first shot miss you, and were you struck by 
 the second ? — Yes, I was hit on the shoulder and 
 head. 
 
 Are yon still boycotted ? — Partially ; but I do Dot 
 care much now. 
 
 Before the establishment of the League was Mill- 
 street a peaceable district ? — As peaceable a district 
 as there was in Ireland. There were only one 
 sergeant and four policemen there. After the esta- 
 blishment of the League the force was increased to 70 
 men under a district inspector. There are at preseut 
 two police barracks and three police huts. 
 
 In the interval between the suppression of the Land 
 League and the establishment of the National League 
 was there any cessation of the boycotting ?— I think 
 myself that things were quieter. 
 
 Did this boycotting affect your trade much ? — It 
 took away the whole trade. In eight years I must 
 have lost £16,000. 
 
 Before the establishment of the Land League you 
 knew something about the crime in the district ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you ever hear of a man being punished for pay- 
 ing rent ? — No. 
 
 Do you know what moonlighting is ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you ever know of the commission of the offence of 
 moonlighting before the establishment of the League ? 
 —There was not one moonlighter in the district. 
 
 It is not so now, I believe ?— I am sorry to say it 
 is not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid.— I understand that in 
 your view you were an exceedingly popular man until 
 December, 1880 ? — I was the most popular man in the 
 county of Cork. (Laughter.) 
 
 And your only offence was that you would not join 
 the Land League ? — That is the only offence that I am 
 aware I committed. 
 
 And from beiDg the most popular man in the district 
 you have been boycotted ever since 1880 and shot at 
 twice because you would not join the League ? — Yes, 
 that is the view which I take myself. 
 
 Have you ever had anything to do with evictions ? — 
 I have. Up to 1880 I had not. After 1880 I became 
 connected with the management of some properties in 
 the neighbourhood. 
 
 Did you not assist in carrying out the eviction of a 
 man named Lyons ? — Yes ; there was a tenant of that 
 name evicted, and I was present on behalf of the land- 
 lord . 
 
 What was the date of the eviction ? — It was in 
 February, 1886, I should say, speaking from memory. 
 
 Were jou connected with the eviction of Reardon ? 
 
 — Yes ; that was, I think, in January, 1887. It might 
 have been in 1886. I cannot be sure about the date. 
 
 Were you at the eviction of a man named Dennehy ? 
 — No ; there was no eviction there, properly speaking, 
 and I was not connected with the affair. 
 You had nothing to do with it ? — No. 
 Were you generally considered to have taken part in 
 that ? — I cannot account for all that is considered. All 
 that I can say is that I took no part in it. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith. — When was that evic- 
 tion ? — I should say that the change in the ownership 
 of the farm took place in May, 1880. 
 Who was the landlord ? — Dr . Thompson 
 Were you his bailiff ?— No ; I am not anybody's 
 bailiff. 
 Were you his agent ? — No ; I am his agent now. 
 Were you in any way connected with him at that 
 time ? — No. 
 
 Am I to understand, then, that you were not present 
 at and were not in any way concerned in Deanehy's 
 eviction ? — No, I was not. 
 
 You were in no way connected, directly or in- 
 directly, with this change of occupation in the farm ? 
 — I was in this way only — that I acted at the request 
 of the tenant as mediator between him and the land- 
 lord, and I used the little influence I possessed in 
 that way. 
 
 What did you do? Did you intercede for bin/ with 
 the landlord ? — I did. 
 
 What else did you do ? — I got the money from the 
 landlord and gave it to the tenant. 
 Did you take the land ? — No. 
 You did not become the occupier ? — No. 
 Did any relation of yours take the land ? — None 
 whatever. 
 
 Let me come to the eviction of Dennis O'Leary. 
 When was that ?— I should say, so far as I can re- 
 member, in February, 1886. 
 
 Well, I will pass from that. Was John R. Sullivan 
 evicted ? — He was not. 
 
 Was there a change of occupation in his farm ?— I 
 do not know that there was. The tenant went to 
 Australia, and left directions with the rector of the 
 parish. He left possession of the place to the land- 
 lord. In the meantime Sullivan stepped into the 
 place and took possession of it and cut the meadow, 
 and he had to be put out of it. 
 
 That is your own version of the story ? — That is the 
 true version of it. (Laughter.) 
 
 Oh '. you must not assume that we are going to 
 accept everything you say as gospel. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Surely the witness may 
 say that it is true. 
 
 Mr. Reid. —Certainly ; but I do not see why every 
 observation I make should be received with laughter 
 by a claque on the other side. 
 
 The President.— I do not like to interfere often, 
 but I strongly object to laughter. Do let us conduct 
 the case as quietly as possible. 
 Mr. Reid.— I am putting my question in a manner I 
 
 Wir. Jeremiah Hegaxty. 
 
The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 487 
 
 am entitled to pat it, and I do not think I ought to 
 be continually interrupted with laughter. It is most 
 indecent to my mind. (To witness.) Now let us pro- 
 ceed to business. Patrick Ford— do you know whether 
 he was evicted ? — There was such a case. 
 
 When was it ? — If I remember, it was about 1886. 
 Would you allow me to explain ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Certainly, if yoa think an explanation 
 necessary. 
 
 Witness. — Patrick Ford was evicted by the landlord, 
 I had a mortgage on the farm to a very large amount. 
 The man refused to pay the rent over to the head land- 
 lord or any interest on the mortgage, and from being a 
 debt of £67 it became one of £247. Having this mort- 
 gage, I offered Ford to let him off halt* the money if 
 he would give me possession. But no, he would not. 
 He stopped there. At last he gave up possession 
 peaceably. I put him back into the farm, but at last 
 I was obliged to evict him. 
 
 When did you first act as sub-ageut or bailiff or in 
 any way for landlords ? — I became agent to a very 
 small property in April, 1880. 
 
 That was the first ? — Yes. 
 
 Will you tell me the name of the landlord ? — Mr. 
 Singleton. 
 
 What was the next property you became bailiff for ? 
 — I did not become bailiff for any property. I do not 
 wish to answer insulting questions. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I was not aware that the term 
 " bailiff " was an offensive term in Ireland. It is 
 not so in England. I did not mean to be offensive. 
 
 Witness. — It is taken the other way in my country. 
 
 Well, when did you next become agent or sub-agent 
 to a property after April, 1880 ? — I think towards tho 
 end of 1881. 
 
 Did you serve, or take part in the serving, or direct 
 the serving, of processes at all in the year 1880 ? — No. 
 
 Or of writs of any kind ? — No. 
 
 Now, listen to this. Have you been charged with 
 or suspected of being a land-grabber in any sense ? Do 
 not be offended with me. — No, the term could not be 
 applied to me. There is no man the term could be 
 applied to with less truth. 
 
 Did you become possessed of a farm that had been 
 occupied by a man named John Flynn ?— I became 
 possessed of my father-in-law's farm under his will. 
 
 Is he your father-in-law ? — He was. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did he leave you this farm ? — Yes, by his will. 
 
 And you entered into it in that capacity ?— Yes ; it 
 is only 14 acres of land. 
 
 Were you his executor ?— No. It is a long time ago 
 now — 18 or 19 years. 
 
 Did you come into possession of a piece of land 
 occupied by a man named Howlett ? — No. 
 
 Do you know anything about this land ? — The sum 
 total of that piece of land was only about 20 perches. 
 It was a small piece of land at the baek of my 
 premises. He had been permitted on my owd applica- 
 tion to sell the interest in the tenancy of a farm he 
 held, for which he got the sum of £240. For doing 
 
 that he gave it to me. He said it was no good to him, 
 and he had never done anything with it. 
 
 Will you allow me to put to you what I understood 
 you to say — you will correct me if I am wrong. You 
 said that Howlett had been in the occupation of some 
 land, and on some change or settlement or other he 
 told you you might take this piece of land. Your 
 statement is that you took it with his consent ? 
 
 The President.— I think I understood him to say 
 that this was only a little bit of ground at the back 
 of his business premises. Does land-grabbing extend 
 to that ? (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Reid. — When was this incident ? — It was in 
 1S78 or 1879. 
 
 Now Cornelius Regan — was there any question 
 about some land of his ? — Never. 
 
 Was it llearden ? — Never. 
 
 Was it John Rearden or Regan ? — No, nor any name 
 approaching it. (To tho Court.) I will ask you to 
 permit me to explain. As regards the three evictions 
 I presume Mr. Reid referred to 
 
 What were the names — I will ask you ? — One was 
 Lyons, another Riordan, and the third O'Leary. In 
 every one of these cases there was about four years' 
 rent due. In the case of Riordan, he owed £340, and 
 I offered to take from him half a year's rent — £40 — 
 and to wipe out all the arrears but £100. That was 
 refused ; and I scarcely think it is fair to attack me 
 upon it. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Nobody has been attacking you. 
 
 Witness. — I made the same offer in the other two 
 cases. I would not be connected with any eviction 
 unless I had previously offered a very fair settlement. 
 
 I am asking you about your troubles of the last eight 
 years. You say you were attacked because you had 
 not joined the League. I want to ask you whether 
 these evictions — in fact, all evictions in Ireland— have 
 not been for a good many years a cause of great dis- 
 satisfaction and discontent ? — There were no evictions 
 whatever on the small property that I was connected 
 with until these troubles commenced. 
 
 Is it not the fact that these and all evictions have 
 been and are the sources of the trouble and discontent 
 in some districts in Ireland ? — I am very sorry to say 
 that it is and has been so. 
 
 When did the Land League first start in your district? 
 —On August 1, 1880. 
 
 I believe you were an opponent of tho Land League 
 from the start ? — Yes ; and I stated distinctly to Mr. 
 Davitt that I was not a member of that body and did 
 not intend to be. 
 
 You distinguished yourself by your opposition to the 
 League ? — Well, I saw very distinctly from the begin- 
 ning what would be the result of the teaching of the 
 Land League. 
 
 Is it not the case that you have distinguished your- 
 self from the commencement by your hostility to the 
 League ?— Yes ; 1 offered them hostility as well as I 
 could after their attack upon me. 
 
 Have you not constantly expressed your opinion 
 
 Mr, Jeremiah Hegarty. 
 
4S8 
 
 The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 about the League in strong terms ?— I have always done 
 
 BO. 
 
 Is it not a fact that the League embraces a great part 
 of the population of the district in which you live ? — 
 Apparently it does. 
 
 We are quite aware that you have always expressed a 
 strong opinion, and you have expressed it now ; but is 
 it not the case that the League embraces a great pro- 
 portion of the population ? — Yes. 
 
 And you belong to the Landlords' Defence Associa- 
 tion ? — No ; I belong to the Cork Defence Union. 
 
 That is a body which is in the habit of bringing 
 down emergency men into the district ? — They have a 
 large number of men in their employment. 
 
 Gentlemen called emergency men ? — They call them 
 &11 manner of names. 
 
 The President.— When did you become con- 
 nected with this Defence Union ? — In 1885. If 
 I may be allowed, I would explain that there is a 
 very large number of people connected with the associa- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — You tell me a great number of things 
 I do not ask you, you know. I asked you whether it 
 was not the case that they are an association that 
 bring down people called emergency men to the district ? 
 — They employ men locally to assist boycotted men. 
 
 And they are rather an unpopular body among those 
 who are Land Leaguers ? — As a matter of course any 
 one who opposes the Land League must be unpopular 
 with the members of it. 
 
 They cultivate evicted farms, do they not ? — To a 
 certain extent, if a farm is evicted and the person who 
 takes it is boycotted. They give their assistance to 
 any boycotted person. 
 
 You have been active in that interest for the last 
 four or five years f — I am one of the executive of the 
 Defence Union. 
 
 And, therefore, you actively take part in its work ? — 
 Not actively I am sorry to say, because my tim6 does 
 not permit. 
 
 The Secretary. — Will you kindly proceed a little 
 slower, as the shorthand writer can hardly take it 
 down ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Certainly. (To witness.) Kindly give 
 your answers a little slower. Before you joined this 
 Defence Union had you not been very busy in the same 
 interest for a good long time ? — I do not quite follow 
 your question. 
 
 Had you not busied yourself very considerably in 
 endeavouring to get evicted farms occupied, and in 
 assisting boycotted persons and dealing with boy- 
 cotted persons very largely ? — I have been very active 
 all along in trying to assist people who were suffering 
 through boycotting, and I have exerted myself as best 
 I could, and as in duty bound to do, to get evicted 
 farms protected. 
 
 I am not discussing the propriety or impropriety in 
 the least. I am only asking you for the fact. Ever 
 since 1880, ever since this Land League began, is it 
 not true that you have exerted yourself in favour of 
 
 persons who were boycotted, and in favour of en« 
 deavouring to get boycotted farms taken up ? — I have 
 assisted boycotted people from the commencement, 
 and I have endeavoured, of course, to get the farms 
 taken up. 
 
 Now, you have said that you lost £16,000. Will you 
 tell me how you make that out ? In eight years you 
 say you have lost £16,000 ; that is at the rate of 
 £2,000 a year. You were making a profit of £2,000 
 a year before 1880 ?— I should say so. I have arrived 
 at that by taking the basis of the profits of my busi- 
 ness for the years previous to those in which I waa 
 boycotted. 
 
 What was your business ? — I was in every descrip- 
 tion of business. I farmed very largely, and I still 
 continue farming. For a long time I have farmed 
 under very great disadvantages. I have been a general 
 grocer, have had a spirit and wine store, and a timber 
 store. 
 
 And you state you put down your profit before 1880 
 at £2,000 a year ? — I should say so. My business had 
 very much extended for two or three years previous 
 to that. The business since was a losing concern. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I will ask you a few questions. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — May I just ask you this, which I omitted ? 
 Do you know Archdeacon Bland ? — By repute. 
 
 In October, 1880, did he evict some families near 
 Millstreet who were in very poor lodgings ? — Person- 
 ally I do not know ; but I heard of it. 
 
 Had Archdeacon Bland omitted to give due notice 
 required by law to the guardians of the eviction ? — I do 
 not know that myself. It was a long time ago. 
 
 Were you a member of the Millstreet Board of 
 Guardians at that time ? — I was. 
 
 Do you remember its being proposed there to proceed 
 against Archdeacon Bland for a penalty for not giving 
 notice ? — 1 have some recollection that it so happened. 
 
 And do you recollect that you opposed pro- 
 ceeding against Archdeacon Bland ? — I did. 
 Will you allow me to explain though ? The 
 matter, so far as I recollect, was brought before the 
 Board at the time of an eviction carried out by Arch- 
 deacon Eland, with whose property I had no con- 
 nexion whatever. I was in favour of proceeding 
 against Archdeacon Bland, and subsequently the gentle- 
 man who was acting as his solicitor came before the 
 Board and stated the terms that the tenants were 
 offered. I asked him whether he would still hold to 
 the same statement, which was a very liberal one at 
 the time, and which I thought the Archdeacon was not 
 prepared to continue at the time, and seeing that he 
 was I did not feel it my duty to be a party to prosecut- 
 ing him. 
 
 He had given this notice ? — He had. It was proposed 
 to prosecute him for a penalty, and I ultimately 
 opposed it. 
 
 Was not that an extremely unpopular thing at that 
 time ? — No. It was a very popular thing at the time to 
 take the part of the evicted tenant, which I had done. 
 
 Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty. 
 
The Special Commission, November 30, 1888. 
 
 489 
 
 Did you not incur great unpopularity by ultimately 
 opposing the proceedings against Archdeacon Bland ? — 
 I do not think I did. 
 
 By Mr. Arthur O'Connor. — How many men did you 
 employ ? — About 15. 
 
 Have you a man named Killy in your employment ? 
 "—I have not. 
 
 Counihan ? — No ; but I had. 
 
 You have always had a misgiving with regard to the 
 character of the National League from the commence- 
 ment ? — I have. 
 
 You always anticipated that its proceedings would 
 lead to misconduct ? — I always thought it would lead 
 to a deal of mischief. 
 
 And if disturbances of any kind followed the meet- 
 ings of the National League your anticipations were 
 verified ? — I have not been at the National League 
 meetings. 
 
 If any meetings of the National League were 
 followed by misconduct in the neighbourhood what you 
 had looked for was realized ? — Just so. 
 
 Was there a meeting in Millstreet on August 15, 
 188e, on a Sunday ? — I do not remember. 
 
 I may help you to remember. Do you recollect that 
 the windows of the Protestant church were broken at 
 that date ?— Yes. 
 
 Listen to this : — " John Killy, jun., and Cornelius 
 Counihan, both of Millstreet, were charged for that 
 they did wilfully and maliciously break, damage, 
 destroy, and injure several panes of glass in the 
 windows of the Protestant church at Liscahane, Mill- 
 street, on Sunday, August 15, 1886." Were those men 
 fined ? — I never heard that they were. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Did I ever ask you to join the 
 League ? — You never did ask me. 
 
 Did I ever coerce you ? — No. 
 
 With reference to this very able letter of yours, 
 which you say you sent on December 26, 1880, did it 
 appear in the Daily Telegraph before it was sent to 
 me ?— No. 
 
 Are you sure of that ? — I am. I sent it to the Daily 
 News afterwards. It was in the Daily News on Decem- 
 ber 28, and it was also sent to the Cork Herald and the 
 Cork Examiner . 
 
 Was that written to me in consequence of anything I 
 had said ? — I wrote the letter to you because I believed 
 that you could use your great influence against such 
 cruelty to a man who had done nothing wrong. I 
 wanted to put before you the uses to which the League 
 had been prostituted in my district and, in my opinion, 
 many other districts. 
 
 Did you read anything I had written or spoken at 
 that time about people being coerced into joining the 
 League ? — I do not know, but I must have entertained 
 a strong opinion o£ you, or 1 would not have written 
 as I did to you. 
 
 Have you any recollection of anything being written 
 ty me expressly '■ on behalf of the executive of the 
 Land League against anything in the shape of coercion 
 
 or intimidation with regard to people joining the 
 League ? — I do not remember ; but I must have had 
 some such idea in my head when I wrote that letter 
 to yoa. 
 
 I remember having received a letter, and I thought 
 I had written a reply ; are you certain you got no 
 reply ? — Certain. 
 
 Did you hear of the local branch of the League 
 being reprimanded by me for its conduct towards you ? 
 — Never ; but your explanation now is very satisfac- 
 tory. If I had received a reply my previous experi- 
 ence of you would have made me expect that it would 
 be in that direction. 
 
 Now, in that same letter you said that the Mill- 
 street League had been used to gratify spleen and 
 private malice ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you never come to the executive for protec- 
 tion ? — My case ought to have been put before the 
 council ; it was sent up to Dublin. 
 
 Do I understand you to. say that you are under the 
 impression that your case was discussed in Dublin by 
 theLeague, and that they acquiesced in boycotting ? — 
 No, I do not exactly say that, but I thought you 
 might feel it your duty to lay it before the executive 
 in Dublin and put a stop to the boycotting. 
 
 I think the chairman of the local branch opposed 
 some resolutions directed against you ; so the local 
 branch would not be unanimous in going against you ? 
 — No ; I believe the chairman did as you say. 
 
 Now you say you have experienced a great deal of 
 trouble in' getting provisions ? — Yes, in Millstreet ; 
 I had no trouble elsewhere. 
 
 Are you not a provision dealer yourself ?— Yes, my 
 business was carried on for the purpose of providing 
 myself and sustaining people who were suffering from 
 boycotting. A deputation from the League went to 
 some wholesale provision merchants and asked them 
 not to supply me, and some had to send me goods 
 secretly. 
 
 That is not an answer to my question. You said you 
 had a great deal of trouble in getting provisions ; do 
 you mean meat and such things ? — I killed my own 
 sheep and got mutton. . 
 
 You deal in groceries ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, I do not mean it in any way to be disparaging 
 to 'you, but I suppose even wholesale dealers who sup- 
 plied meal and flour and other articles found them- 
 selves interfered with. I suppose there are in Mill- 
 street a large number of small shopkeepers ? — Yes. 
 
 They would be jealous of your large establishment 
 and the general character of your merchandise ? — 
 Very naturally they would, but I was always very 
 popular with Jihe whole neighbourhood. 
 
 What is the population of Millstreet ? — About 1,300 
 or 1,400. In 1880 it had four police and one ser- 
 geant j now it has 70 men. There are two barracks 
 in the town, and the police are scattered over the 
 district. 
 
 Do you think this large increase in the police force 
 may have something to do with the boycotting and 
 
 Mr, Jeremiah Hegarty, 
 
490 
 
 The Special Commission, November 30, 1S88. 
 
 annoyance to which you were subjected ? — I do not 
 think directly ; indirectly it may have done. 
 
 Was the district charged with the support of these 
 extra police ? — No. 
 
 Are you certain ? — I am. 
 
 Now, with regard to this £16,000, what does that 
 represent ? — General trade. 
 
 Including bad debts ?— Some, since the establishment 
 of the Land League. 
 
 Were there no bad debts before this wicked Land 
 League came along ? — I consider that in my district 
 there was peace and plenty until the Land League 
 came. 
 
 Was there no poverty ? — Every one was fairly content 
 and able to meet demands, and willing to pay rent. 
 
 There was no disturbance with regard to the land ? — 
 No. 
 
 How old are you ? — 56. 
 
 Then you remember the years before the famine ? — 
 Well, I was only a boy. 
 
 Your father would remember them ? — Oh, yes. 
 
 Did you never hear from him about the troubles — 
 murders and outrages — in consequence of the large 
 clearances ? — My father died when I was only a few 
 years old. 
 
 Then you can give me no information about it? — No. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Did you give evidence before the 
 Bessborough Commission ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the nature of that evidence with regard to 
 a Land Act ? — In favour of it. 
 
 If everything was as favourable as you s^y, why was 
 a Land Act required ? — People are always anxious to 
 be made secure in their farms. 
 
 Did you occupy a farm of a man called Toomey ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 In what way did you get it ? — From the Court of 
 Chancery. 
 
 Did the widow consult you with regard to this farm 
 before you took it ? — No, she was dead at the time. 
 
 What became of the children ?— There were only 
 two ; they are still in the district. 
 
 You hold the land ?— Yos. 
 
 You did not give the orphans any compensation ? — 
 No ; I had not "the slightest notion of it. That was 
 in 1876, I think. 
 
 Do you think your action was calculated to make 
 you popular in the community ? — Yes. I was one besides 
 several prominent Nationalists in the place who offered 
 for the land to the Court of Chancery. They would 
 not have given compensation. 
 
 You estimate your profits at £2,000 a yeai- up to 
 1879. Upon what sum did you pay income-tax 1 — I 
 cannot tell yon. There are a great many reductions 
 allowed in respect of income-tax. 
 
 Did you ever pay income-tax on £1,000 ? — I would have 
 brought my papers if I had known I should be asked 
 these questions. 
 
 Did you pay income-tax on £1,000 up to 1879 ?— 
 The witness was understood to reply that he did not 
 think he did. 
 
 You made a return in 1879 ? — I think the return was 
 made before that. 
 
 The return you made was not what you now say 
 your income was ? — Before 1879 it was less than £1,000 
 that I returned as my income to the Government. In 
 those years I made extensive alterations in my busi- 
 ness. 
 
 Will you swear that your return reached £500 a 
 year ? — I cannot tell you. I cannot recall every- 
 thing that occurred nine years ago. 
 
 Well, we will leave the Judges to form their own con- 
 clusions as to the value of your evidence with respect 
 to your income-tax. You were employed once by John 
 M'Carthy, were you not ? — Yes, 30 or 32 years ago. 
 
 Did you ever serve him with a writ ? — No. 
 
 Tell me ; have you ever received secret service 
 money from the Government ? — I have no hesitation in 
 answering the question, although I know it is only put 
 with the intention of insulting me. I never received a 
 penny from the Government. I am under no obligation, 
 with regard to money, to any one in the United King- 
 dom. I would scorn to accept it. 
 
 Have you ever been present at an eviction ? — I 
 have ; but not at many. I detailed the circumstances 
 to Mr. Eeid a short time ago. 
 
 You have told us you were in the spirit trade ? — I 
 was, I am not now. The licence is in my son's name. 
 He has been on a pleasure tour to New Zealand and 
 Australia. 
 
 Do you get the profit ? — I do not. It goes to his 
 account. I have not been connected with the business 
 for three years. I am out of it. 
 
 Is it customary in county Cork to make the sub- 
 agents of landlords magistrates ? — I am not aware that 
 it is. 
 
 Were you made a magistrate because you were the 
 pet of the landlords ? — No, I have property of my own. 
 
 Re-examined by SlE H. James. — Do you own con- 
 siderable property ? — I farm about 1,200 acres. 
 
 Are you estate agent for certain properties as well 
 as sub-agent ?— I am. 
 
 When did you first become subject to ill-treatment 
 at the hands of Land Leaguers ? — Towards the end of 
 December, 1880. 
 
 Before then did you ever hoar any complaint as to 
 any action of yours as agent for Mr. Singleton ? — I did 
 not hear a word of complaint. 
 
 Had you ever heard any complaint in respect of your 
 management of his property ? — No. 
 
 You were asked by Mr. Biggar as to some land 
 which you took in 1876 ? — Yes ; in that year a shop- 
 keeper in Millstreet became bankrupt, and the land, 
 which consisted of accommodation fields, was sold, the 
 Court of Chancery interfering, and I was declared the 
 tenant. 
 
 A question was put to you about two children in 
 connexion with a holding which you obtained. Was 
 there any reason why you should give these children 
 any compensation ? — None whatever. 
 
 Before 1880 did you ever hear any complaints as to 
 
 *&z Jeremiad Hegarty. 
 
The Special Commission, November 30 and December 4, 1888. 491 
 
 your condnct with respect to this holding ?— No, they 
 never complained of my conduct. 
 
 Now as to your popularity. In 1879 you lost a 
 daughter, I believe. Was the funeral attended by 
 2,000 persons ? — It was the largest funeral ever seen 
 in Cork. It was a mile and a quarter long. 
 
 That may be taken to be some proof of the estima- 
 tion in which you were held ?— Yes. 
 
 Did the local branch of the League ever communi- 
 cate to you that Mr. Davitt had remonstrated with 
 them ?— No. 
 
 If he did remonstrate with them, did it have any 
 effect ? — No. No beneficial effect as far as 1 was con- 
 cerned. 
 
 The letter which you wrote to Mr. Davitt was pub- 
 ished on December 28, 1880. Did the treatment to 
 which you were subjected increase in severity after 
 that or not ? — It increased iu severity. 
 
 The business, is it your son*s or your own ? — The 
 witness was understood to say that it was his son's. 
 
 Now as to income-tax. You made all the regular 
 deductions ?— Yes. 
 
 The return is supposed to be the averago of thru 
 years' takings ?— Yes. 
 
 It was in 1879 that your business profits reached the 
 sum which you have mentioned ?' — Yes, there had been 
 a very large increase up to 1880. It reached the maxi- 
 mum in that year. 
 
 Has the business fallen off to the extent which you 
 have described ? — Yes. 
 
 And cau you ascribe the falling off to any cause 
 except the boycotting ? — No. 
 
 You have spoken of the difficulty of collecting debts 
 andsaid that you were prevented from collecting them. 
 How was that ? — Simply because it was no use to get 
 decrees which would not be executed by the ordinary 
 officers. The statement applies generally to all kinds 
 of decrees. This state of things has existed more or 
 less ever since 1880. Before that year every man paid 
 his debts honestly as best he could. 
 
 Mr. Keid. — 1 understand that your Lordships directed 
 that the O'Kelly letter might be seen, and you staled 
 so to Mr. Asquith. Myself and my learned friend Mr. 
 Harrington appear for Mr. O'Kelly, and I presume no 
 are entitled to see the letter. 
 
 The President. — Certainly, it is intended that you 
 should. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — And so wc all assumed, and when the 
 letter was in the hands of Mr. Asquith we endeavoured 
 to see it, but we were denied possession. 
 
 The President.— Will you tell me of whom you are 
 complaining ? 
 
 Mr. Reid.— I do not complain of Mr. Ounyngbame, 
 my Lords. I complain of my learned friends on the 
 other side. 
 
 Sir H. James.— I can assure you there has been a 
 misunderstanding. There can be no objection on our 
 part to your seeing the letter. 
 
 The letter was handed to Mr. Reid, and the Com- 
 mission adjourned. 
 
 Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty. 
 
 TUESDAY, DECEMBER A. 
 The Special Commission held their 24th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On their Lordships taking their seats on the bench, 
 
 SIR C. Russell said, — In reference to the matter I 
 brought to your Lordships' attention on Friday, in con- 
 nexion with a placard uf a meeting that was objected 
 to, I understand that, in pursuance of the order of the 
 Court, Colonel Mellor, the chairman of the meeting, 
 and the printer and publisher of the placard, and one 
 other gentleman, Dr.Kershaw— I forget what his position 
 is — are represented here this morning by my learned 
 friend Mr. Horace Browne, and he will, 1 believe, 
 on their behalf make a statement to your Lordships. 
 
 Mr. U. Browne. — My Lords, I appear here for Colonel 
 Mellor, the chairman of the meeting, and the gentleman 
 who was represented as iutending to take the chair at 
 the meetings proposed to be held at Famworth and 
 other places, ami 1 believe my friend Mr. Macpherson 
 represents Mr. Uarnall, the printer. As far as Colonel 
 Mellot is concerned, be desires mo to say that he 
 wishes to take, and is anxious to take, upon his own 
 shoulders all and every blame that can attach to the 
 issue of this placard. He is the chairman of a political 
 association in the neighbourhood referred to, and he 
 does admit unreservedly that he gave instructions for 
 these placards to be published and for the meetings 
 to be held. He says on affidavit that at the time he 
 gave these directions he had not the slightest idea that 
 they could bo construed into any reflection upon the 
 action of the Special Commissioners, and he wishes 
 to say that before he knew he was to be cited hero on 
 Friday last be was iu Manchester, and learnt, from a 
 telegraphic summary I believe, that this application 
 had been made to the Court, and he at once took steps 
 to take upon himself whatever blame might fittach to 
 the issue of these placards. What he did was this. He 
 knew between 1 and 2 o'clock that the application had 
 been mado to the Court. He took the next train from 
 Manchester to Katclirf, went straight to the printer's, 
 and gave directions for an equal number of placards — 
 150 being the number published altogether of the 
 original placard for the three meetings — similar to this 
 (holding up a placard) to be printed. This placard in 
 effect says : — " In consequence of the President of the 
 Parncll Commission having announced that the meet- 
 ings proposed to be held at the three places named and 
 on the days mentioned, at which Mr. Richard Mitchell 
 and Miss Norah Fitzmaurice were to speak, would be a 
 contempt of Court pending the sittings of the Court, a 
 circumstance of which the promoters of the meetings 
 were not aware, the said meetings will not take 
 place." These bills, my Lords, were ordered to be 
 printed at once, and a proof was sent to Colonel Mellor 
 that evening, and with all possible despatch they were 
 circulated and posted in every case, or in every 
 , possible case, cither over or immediately contiguous to 
 
 Contempt of Court (Colonel Mellor, 
 Dr. Kershaw, and Mr. Garnall). 
 
492 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 the placards already published, so that the earliest 
 possible steps might be taken to stop the meetings. 
 The first meeting was to have taken place last night, 
 but of course it did not, as your Lordships are probabl 
 aware, take place. Colonel Mellor wishes me to say 
 that he deeply regrets that these proceedings should 
 have happened. He is an acting magistrate of, I 
 think, 21 years' standing, and of course his desire has 
 always been to uphold the dignity of legal tribunals 
 and generally to preserve law and order. Had he had 
 any notion that what he did, and now admits to have 
 done, inadvertently would have been construed into 
 contempt of your Lordships' Court he never would have 
 allowed this to be done. With these observations I 
 hope I have said sufficient to excuse Colonel Mellor' 
 for, what he has done. With regard to the other gentle- 
 man, he states upon affidavit that he was asked 
 through the same association to take the chair at 
 what he thought was an ordinary meeting. He did not 
 know what was proposed to be done, nor did he know 
 of the contents of the placards, and it was not until 
 four or five days afterwards that he saw them on the 
 walls, and even then it did not occur to him that 
 their contents in any way cast reflections on this 
 Court. I hope I have sufficiently expressed to the 
 Court the deep sense these two gentlemen have of the 
 regret they feel that this matter should have 
 happened, and I trust their apology will be accepted 
 by the Court. 
 
 Mr. Macpheeson. — I appear, my Lords, for the 
 printer of these placards, Mr. Garuall, and I have only 
 to endorse what my learned friend has said and to 
 express on behalf of my client his great regret for 
 having been an instrument in the publication of the 
 placards complained of. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — After the statements which have 
 just been made to the Court, I have only to make it 
 understood that a similar meeting to that already com- 
 plained "of has been announced, at which one Sir F. 
 Milner was to preside, at a place called Little Hulton, 
 also in Lancashire, and I have no doubt, after the 
 intimation that has been given, that meeting will not 
 be held. 
 
 Mr. H. Browne.— Although when I first rose I pur- 
 posely avoided making reference to the third meeting, 
 I may now add that I have instructions on behalf of 
 Sir Frederick Milner, in case the matter should be 
 mentioned, to express to your Lordships the same ob- 
 servations which I have made on behalf of the two 
 gentlemen whom I have already named — viz., that he 
 had no knowledge whatever that this matter would be 
 treated in the way it has been treated, and he wishes 
 to apologize to the Court for the fact that his name 
 appeared in the advertisement of the third meeting. 
 
 The President. — The duty has been imposed upon 
 " uo of inquiring into charges against certain persons, 
 and while the inquiry is pending before us it is incum- 
 bent upon all persons to abstain from calling meetings 
 to argue in favour of one side or the other. We must 
 be left undisturbed in the discharge of our duties, and 
 
 Contempt of; Court (Colonel Mellor, Dr. 
 Kershaw, Mr. Garnall, and Sir F. Milner). 
 
 I am happy to say that on this occasion we do not 
 ourselves think we are called upon to exercise any 
 severity towards the persons whose names have been 
 brought before us, because it is sworn that they were 
 not aware they were guilty of any impropriety, and 
 they have made the best atonement in their power. 
 Therefore the matter may pass without further observa- 
 tion, except that it will be taken as a warning by all 
 persons to abstain from a similar course. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — May I be allowed to mention another 
 matter ? Your Lordships made an order on October 16 
 for the inspection of certain bank-books at the Charing- 
 cross branch of the National Eank — some accounts 
 commencing in 1879 and going down to 1884, and 
 some commencing in 1880 and going down to 1887. 
 These accounts stand in the names of Mr. Biggar, Mr. 
 M'Carthy, and Mr. Mahony. There is another account 
 standing in the names of two of these gentlemen which 
 only began in 1886. That is the Parliamentary account, 
 and it relates to the expenditure upon contested elec- 
 tions, and has regard to certain members of Parliament 
 who received allowances from it. As I understand, 
 The Times desire to inspect this account. It seems to 
 me that this account is not included in the accounts 
 which are the subject of the order of October 16. It 
 only commenced in 1886, and it is a private statement 
 of allowances made to particular members and for 
 election expenses. We say that it has no bearing on 
 the questions before the Commission, because it only 
 commenced in 1886, and we are extremely averse to 
 particulars of election expenses being disclosed. I 
 would ask your Lordships, therefore, that, subject to 
 an affidavit being made, this account should not be 
 included in the order for inspection. Otherwise the 
 inspection might be made very offensive and disagree- 
 able to my clients. 
 
 Sie H. James. — I do not think that my clients 
 would be disposed to oppose my learned friend's appli- 
 cation. I think, however, it would be better if my 
 learned friend's clients would make an affidavit to 
 the effect stated by him, so that the application can 
 come before your Lordships on affidavit. 
 
 Mr. Reid assented, and the matter dropped for the 
 present. 
 
 Cornelius Kelleher was then called and examined by 
 Sie H. James. He said, — I live at Tullig, about 
 three miles from Millstreet. I worked for Mr. 
 Hegarty before May, 1881. I had worked for him for 
 about three or four years previously. I was working 
 for him in May, 1881. I was living at Tullig in 
 my own house. I recollect about 1 o'clock one night 
 in May, 1881, some people came to my house. I could 
 not say how many came. There was a rare lot of 
 them. They told me to open the door, and said that if 
 I did not do so they would burn the house. My 
 mother and father were living with me. My father 
 was an old man about 70 years of age. My brother 
 Daniel was also living with me. The door was opened 
 on that occasion by my mother. When the door was 
 
 Cornelius Kelleher. 
 
The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 493 
 
 opened the men came into the house. They pulled my 
 father out of bed. 
 
 What did they do then ? — He got a kick in the 
 forehead. There was a cut in his forehead. 
 
 Did they then go to you and your brother Daniel ? — 
 They did ; they put me on my knees and swore me 
 not to work for Mr. Hegarty any more. 
 
 Was anything said about the Land League ? — I think 
 they said something about it ; but I am not sure. 
 
 What do you think they said ? — That I should be loyal 
 to the League. 
 
 Was that in connexion with your swearing not to 
 work for Mr. Hegarty ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you take the oath or not ? — I did. 
 
 Did they beat you ? — They did, with whitethorn 
 briars. 
 
 Did they make your brother take the oath also ? — 
 They did. 
 
 Had Daniel done work for Mr. Hegarty ? — Yes. 
 
 Where did they beat you ?— In the yard. They told 
 me to walk Out before them into the yard. My brother 
 was beaten there too. The witness was understood to 
 add that he had only his nightdress on at the time. 
 
 Were any shots fired ? — Yes, outside the door, before 
 they came into the house and after they had left it. 
 
 After this, did you for a time leave Mr. Hegarty ? — I 
 did. 
 
 Why ? — I was in dread. 
 
 After a month had elapsed, did you go back to Mr. 
 Hegarty and work for him ? — I did. 
 
 Did you have the police to look after you ? — No ; 
 but they used to come at night in a patrol. 
 
 I suppose you attended Mass ? — Yes ; regularly. 
 
 How were you treated ? — People whistled at us and 
 hooted. 
 
 Who were they ? — I could not say. It was likely 
 that they were people who had attended chapel. 
 
 Did you prosecute anybody ? — I did not ; but my 
 brother did. I could not tell you what for. 
 
 Were the men who visited your house in May, 1881, 
 disguised or not ? — They were. They had blackened 
 faces. I did not know them. 
 
 Did you attend at the prosecution undertaken by 
 your brother ? — No. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Jeremiah O'Connor, examined by Sir H. James, 
 said, — I am a farmer and the relieving officer for the 
 district of Millstreet. I was well acquainted with 
 Mr. Hegarty. On December 23, 1880, I went into his 
 house, leaving my horse and cart outside. I had gone 
 to procure some provisions. 
 
 What happened ? — A crowd marched through the 
 streets and my horse was struck. I prevented it from 
 running away. 
 
 Was anything said to you ?— A man said I should not 
 be at Mr. Hegarty's, and I said I would. 
 
 You had, I believe, to drive home by a by-way ? — 
 yes ; I drove a distance of four miles. I did that 
 
 because the mob was very excited and seemed very 
 dangerous. 
 
 I believe you have never joined the League ?— 
 Never, 
 
 You stated openly to members of the League thai 
 you would not join?— Yes. 
 
 Did you continue after this to deal with Mr. 
 Hegarty ?— I did. 
 
 On March 16, 1881, was an attack made upon youi 
 house ? — Yes, at night. 
 
 Describe what happened. — I heard the noise of a 
 cart in the yard and then shots were fired into the 
 doors and windows. It was approaching day at the 
 time. A great many shots were fired. I could not tell 
 you how many. Some of the children's clothes were 
 shot through. 
 
 There was an election for guardians pending, I be- 
 lieve ? — Yes. Mr. Hegarty was a candidate. I had 
 expressed my intention to vote for him and I did vote 
 for him. 
 
 Were two men, named Murphy and Kelleher, prose- 
 cuted in March, 1881 ? — Yes. They were prosecuted 
 for watching Mr. Hegarty's premises and noting the 
 people who entered. 
 
 You have told us that on December 23, 1880, when 
 you were at Mr. Hegarty's some one said to you 
 ' ' You will not be there long. " Who was that ?— 
 Murphy, who struck the horse. 
 
 Did you give evidence againBt Murphy and Kelleher I 
 — I did. After this prosecution in the spring of 1881, 
 a blacksmith whom I employed and who was a tenant 
 of mine refused to work for me. He was a smith who 
 worked for the people round about generally. 
 
 Did he give any reason for his action ? — He said he 
 would lose all his customers if he continued ro work 
 for me. 
 
 Did he ever afterwards consent to work lor you r— 
 Yes, after the suppression of the Land League. He 
 worked for me then for a time. 
 
 How long did he continue to work for you ? — Until 
 about November, 1884, when he again refused. I had 
 taken a farm and he then refused. 
 
 Was the National League ever established in Castle- 
 island ? — Yes. 
 
 When ?— I should say it was in May, 1882, but I do 
 not remember the date exactly. 
 
 You have known Mr. Hegarty for a long time ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Until the end of 1880, when the Land League was 
 established, was he regarded as a popular man in the 
 district or not ? — Very popular. 
 
 Do you know of any reason why you should be 
 treated in the way which you have described, except 
 that you continued to deal with Mr. Hegarty ? — No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sik C. Russell.— I live about 
 a mile and a-half from Millstreet. 
 
 Were you popular yourself in the neighbourhood ? — I 
 was. 
 
 Had you taken a farm from which one Dennehy had 
 been evicted ?— Yes. In May, 1880, the landlord 
 
 Jeremiah O'Connor. 
 
494 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 bought the tenant out. The landlord occupied the 
 holding himself for two years, and then I took it. 
 
 Cornelius Dennehy was th6 previous tenant, and you 
 say the landlord bought him out. Do you know that 
 of your own knowledge ? — I do. I cannot say exactly 
 how much money the tenant was paid. 
 
 Who paid him ? — Mr. Hegarty. 
 
 Was Mr. Hegarty the landlord ? — No. Mr. Orpen 
 was the landlord, and he sent the money to Mr. 
 Hegarty, and Mr. Hegarty was to give it to Dennehy. 
 I happened to be at Dennehy's when the money was 
 paid. 
 
 Accidentally ? — No, not accidentally. 
 
 On purpose ? — I will explain. 
 
 Did Mr. Hegarty ask you to go to Dennehy's house ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Where is Dennehy now ? — He is living in Millstreet. 
 
 What is he doing ? — He is labouring, and some of 
 his children are in service. 
 
 What was the size of the farm ? — About two acres. 
 
 You cannot tell us what the tenant was paid ? — I 
 could not say. I do not know how much he was paid. 
 
 When was Dennehy evicted ? — He was not evicted at 
 all. 
 
 Rightly or wrongly, did the fact that you had taken 
 this farm make you unpopular ? — I think it was the 
 cause of the smith declining to work for me the second 
 time. 
 
 When was that ?— In November, 1884. Dennehy had 
 given up the farm in May, 1880. 
 
 When did you go with Mr. Hegarty to Dennehy's with 
 this money ?— It was on a road sessions day in May, 
 1880. 
 
 The President. — I thought you said the farm remained 
 vacant for two years ? — Yes ; the landlord occupied 
 the farm from May, 1880, to November, 1884. 
 
 Sib O. Russell. — Do you mean it remained vacant 
 for four years ? — Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — You are a relieving officer ? — Yes. 
 
 One half the guardians were ex-officio guardians, I 
 suppose ? — Yes ; as a rule the ex-officio guardians do not 
 attend. 
 
 Do they not usually attend when appointments are 
 to be made ?— The witness was understood to reply 
 that they attended occasionally. 
 
 If a charge were brought against you by the elected 
 guardians, do you not think that it is very possible that 
 the ex-officio guardians would attend and defend you ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — I do not like to object, but I think 
 this is going a little too far. 
 
 Witness. — They did try to establish a charge against 
 me, and when it was considered I did not see any ex- 
 officio guardians present. 
 
 What was the charge ? — The witness made a voluble 
 reply, whirih was only intelligible to persons close to 
 the witness-box. 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — In point of fact, yoQ made yourself the 
 champion of the landlords in opposition to ihe wishes 
 of the tenant farmers P— No ; I acted according to my 
 instructions. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — When these charges 
 were made against you the ex-officio guardians did not 
 attend ?— They did not. 
 
 The elected guardians inquired into the matter ? — 
 They did. There was a searching inquiry. 
 
 And you are still relieving officer ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you yourself anything to do with the Dennehy 
 farm until 1884 ?— No. 
 
 Did you ever hear yourself attacked in connexion 
 with the Dennehy farm until 1884 ? — No. ■ 
 
 The firing into your house was in March, 1881 ? — Yes. 
 I believe thoroughly that that occurrence was con- 
 nected with the election of Mr. Hegarty. I have dealt 
 with him since and am dealing with him still. 
 
 Ellen Fitzgerald, examined by Sir H. JAMES, de- 
 posed, — I live with my mother about four miles from 
 Millstreet. We used to deal at Mr. Hegarty's shop. 
 On June 10, 1881, a party of men came to our house. 
 It was dark at the time. The door was broken in and 
 several men came into the house. I did not go down- 
 stairs myself. 
 
 Did the men enter your bedroom ? — Yes, about eight 
 or nine of them. 
 
 Was any oath administered to you ? — Yes, not to deal 
 any more with Mr. Hegarty. 
 
 Did you take it ? — Yes. 
 
 Afterwards they went downstairs, I believe? — Yes. 
 
 Did you hear the oath administered to anybody else 
 in the house ?— Yes ; to my mother and sisters. 
 
 Notwithstanding that, did you continue to deal with 
 Mr. Hegarty ? — Yes. 
 
 Did yoa receive a second visit from men ? — Yes ; 
 about a month after the first visit. 
 
 Was it in the night time ? — Yes. 
 
 Was the door again broken in ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they come into your bedroom P— Yes ; my sister 
 was with me. 
 
 Was any attempt made to cut your sister's hair off ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 What was done, please ? — They had some shears and 
 were going to cut her hair. 
 
 Was your mother there too ? — Yes ; she would not 
 let them do it. 
 
 Did you see your mother's forehead after the men had 
 gone ? — Yes ; she had a cut on her forehead. 
 
 Was Mr. Hegarty put forward as a Poor Law 
 guardian at this time ? — I guess he was. 
 
 Did your father vote for him or not ? — He did. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — How does she know that ? 
 
 Sir H. James.— It is open voting, Sir Charles. 
 
 How did your neighbours treat you ? — They did 
 nothing to me, but they did not speak to me. 
 
 Before the end of 1880 — before this time had you 
 been good friends with your neighbours ? — With some 
 of them. 
 
 Not with all ?— No. 
 
 Did you find any of them speaking to you after your 
 dealing with Hegarty ? — Yes, a good many of them. 
 
 Jeremiah O'Connor. 
 
 Ellen Fitzgerald. 
 
The Special Commission, December i, 1838. 
 
 495 
 
 Sir Charles Russell.— I have no questions to ask 
 you. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biggar. — You still deal with 
 Hegarty ? — Yes. 
 
 And he conducts the business the same as he has for 
 the last ten years ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you aware that Hegarty had given up the busi- 
 ness to his son ? — No. 
 
 I would ask this question — is the whisky business 
 carried on in the same premises, in the same shop, and 
 place ?— Yes. 
 
 Then in point of fact there is no real difference in 
 the way Hegarty's business is being now carried on 
 and the manner in which it has been carried on during 
 the last ten years ? — Not that I know of. 
 
 Did you see any difference ? — Well, I don't see so 
 many there. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — Do you know who 
 owns the whisky business— Hegarty or his son. ? — I 
 guess it belongs to Mr. Hegarty's son. 
 
 Oh ! you are an Irishwoman, but still you " guess " 
 it belongs to Mr. Hegarty's son ?— Yes. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I understand that Sir 
 Charles Russell has to be elsewhere on public business, 
 and therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will 
 interpose a witness whose evidence is a little out of 
 the order to enable Sir Charles to cross-examine him. I 
 want a letter from Timothy Horan, which has already 
 been given in evidence. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor, examined by the Attorney- 
 General. — Is your name Thomas O'Connor ? — It is. 
 
 How old are you ? — I am 30 years of age. 
 
 Are you the son of John O'Connor ? — Yes. 
 
 He is a farmer, I believe ? — He is. 
 
 Where do you live ? — Near Castleisland. 
 
 Do you remember any meeting at Castleisland in 
 1880 ?— Yes. 
 
 Who were present at that meeting ? — A good many. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — What is the date of the meet- 
 ing ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am coming to that. At 
 what time in 1880 was the meeting held ?— On the 
 10th of October, 1880. 
 
 Who attended and spoke at that meeting ? — Mr. 
 Biggar and Mr. Arthur O'Connor. 
 
 At that meeting was anything said about the founding 
 of the Land League ? — There was. 
 
 Which branch of the League ? — The Castle- 
 island branch. 
 
 Did yon join that branch of the Land League ? — 
 Yes, but not that day. I joined in a week or two 
 afterwards. 
 
 Was it the first or the second Snnday afterwards ? — 
 I could not say. 
 
 At all events, it was within two or three after- 
 wards ? — Yes. 
 
 What branch did you join ?— The Castleisland branch 
 of the Land League, 
 
 Where were the meetings of the branch held ?— In a 
 house of the main street. 
 
 Do you recollect in whose house ? — I think that it 
 was in the house of John Culloty, but I am not sure. 
 
 What was the subscription to tbe League ? First for 
 farmers — what was the farmers' subscription ? — 3d. in 
 the pound of the valuation. 
 
 How much for the labourers and the young farmers ? 
 — What they could ; from a shilling upwards. 
 
 How much did you pay ? — I think 2s. or 2s. 6d. 
 Do you recollect what was the first business, after 
 the branch was started, about the middle of November ? 
 — They were discussing what reductions would be re- 
 quired to be made to the farmers. 
 
 Reductions from what ? — From their rent. 
 
 Now when any reduction was discussed was anything 
 determined upon with reference to the various tenants ? 
 —Yes. They used to agree to go in a body and demand 
 reductions — as much as 15 or 20 per cent. — of the 
 rents. 
 
 After these discussions took place and resolutions as 
 to reductions had been passed, did it work satisfactorily 
 at first or not ?— Not quite satisfactorily sometimes. 
 The tenants used not to act together, and some used 
 to go to work on their own hook and do what they 
 liked. 
 
 Was it a /act that the conduct of such tenants was 
 discussed at the meetings ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Do not lead him, please. 
 
 Examination continued.— How often did the general 
 meetings of the League take place ? — Every week. 
 
 On the same day as the general meetings took place 
 was thereanycommitteemeetingheld ? — Yes ; there was a 
 meeting of the committee in an inner room after the 
 general business was done. 
 
 Was that meeting held after the general business was 
 done ? — It was generally after. 
 
 Did you at that time go to those committee meet 
 ings ? — No, I did not go to them; I went to the general 
 meetings only. 
 
 Did you go to the committee meetings afterwards at 
 any time ? — No. 
 
 Now, at these meetings, when persons who had paid 
 their rent wero referred to, what was said about 
 them ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — He has not said that it was dis- 
 cussed. He said they used to go on their own hook. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — He has already said thai 
 the persons who had paid their rent wero referred to. 
 I do not want to get into a controversy upon the point, 
 but I must press the question. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — By what persons what was said ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Your Lordships have 
 heard the question, and the previous answer of the 
 witness. I will take care about the form of my ques- 
 tions, I assure you, and you can make your objection 
 to them formally if you think it necessary to do so. 
 
 The President. — He has said that the matter waa 
 discussed. 
 
 Examination continued. — You have said that the fact 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
496 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 of persons paying their rent on their own hook was 
 discussed. What was said about them when the matter 
 was discussed ? — It was said 
 
 Mr. Reid. — We are entitled to know all that took 
 place. This is a mere general statement. Who 
 spoke ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Pardon me, we are deal- 
 ing with the general course of proceeding at these 
 meetings, and therefore I am entitled to put the 
 question. 
 
 The President. — If he knows the names of the 
 speakers he can be asked that. 
 
 Examination continued. — Just repeat your answer. 
 What was said about those who paid their rent on 
 their own hook ? — It was said that they were vile 
 things, and should be banished off the land as St. 
 Patrick banished the serpents, and that they were not 
 fit to walk or creep on the ground. 
 
 Do yon recollect any persons who took part at the 
 meetings in that kind of discussion ? — I do. 
 
 Mention their names ? — There was Pat Kenny, 
 Thomas Ward, and Tim Horan, the secretary of the 
 League. 
 
 Was Tim Horan the secretary of the branch from the 
 beginning ? — He was. 
 
 Just answer my question, yes or no. Did you at 
 any time hear of an Inner Circle or body of the Land 
 League ? — I did. 
 
 Were you at any time invited to join it ?< — Yes. 
 
 Did you join it ? — I did in a - — 
 
 Sir C. Rr/SSELL.— In a what ? 
 
 Witness. — In a way. 
 
 Examination continued. — Well, now, get it all out. 
 When ? — Some time in December, 1880. 
 
 What was the Inner Circle called ? — It was known 
 at the time by the name of the " Boys." 
 
 How did you come to join it P — One or two of the 
 " Boys " told me they were members, and they often 
 used to ask me to join. 
 
 Who were they ? — One was George Twiss. 
 
 And who was the other ? — John Connor. 
 
 What did these men say to you ? — They used to say 
 that I ought to join — that it would be a fine thing, a 
 proud thing, to be a soldier of Parnell, and that we 
 would get a little pay for doing nearly nothing. 
 
 Now, answer yes or no. Had you heard anything 
 about the " Boys " being sworn ?— I heard they were 
 sworn. They told me they were sworn. 
 
 After you consented to join were you taken any- 
 where ? — I was taken into Tim Horan's — the secretary's 
 room at the secretary's house. 
 
 Was that at the same place where the general meet- 
 ings of the branch of the Land League were held — at 
 Tim Horan's ?— It was. 
 
 Who was there ?— George Twiss, John Connor, and 
 himself. 
 
 Who took you there P — George Twiss and John 
 Connor. 
 
 Did they go in with you ? — They did. 
 
 Now, when you went in did anybody say anything to 
 
 Twiss or Connor P — George Twiss said, " Tim, this 
 fellow is all right, and we want one or two like him in 
 his district." 
 
 What was your district— where were you living ? — la 
 the parish of Killientierna. 
 
 Now perhaps you can tell me was there any one of 
 the " Boys " or men who were members of the Inner 
 Circle who attended in your district at the time ?— 
 No, not to my knowledge. 
 
 What did Tim Horan say ?— He said, " All right." 
 
 Now I must go back again a little, if you please- 
 to a little before this December. Do you remember 
 any names being mentioned at the general meetings of 
 the branch in reference to their having paid their rents 
 upon their own hook ? — No. 
 
 Do you remember any people who were said to hav9 
 paid their rent before you joined the " Boys " 
 being named by anybody at the meetings, or in 
 the resolutions ? — Not at that time. 
 
 Are you quite sure ? I do not ask you for the names 
 of the people, but do you recollect that any names were 
 mentioned of persons who had paid their rent at 
 the meetings or in the resolutions ? — Oh, yes, there 
 were names mentioned. 
 
 What was said about those people when their names 
 were mentioned ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — You were present at those meetings ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Examination continued.- — Well, what was said about 
 them at those meetings P-^-It was said that they were 
 bad, and that they ought to be put off the face of the 
 earth. 
 
 Now, do you know whether anything was done with 
 reference to those people whose names were mentioned 
 at those meetings as not having paid their rents ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Of your own knowledge. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Yes, of your own know- 
 ledge 1 — Not at that time. 
 
 Do you know a man named Hugh O'Connor ? — I do. 
 
 Whom was he a tenant to ? — To Mr. H. A. Herbert, of 
 Muckross. 
 
 Where did Hugh O'Connor live ? — At Coolnagreagh. 
 
 Do you know two men named Flynn ? — I do. 
 
 Where did they live P— At Cool. 
 
 Whose tenants were they ? — They were tenants of 
 Lord Ventry, I believe, but I am not quite certain. 
 
 Just try and think in reference to what I was asking 
 you just now aB to what was said at the meeting with 
 regard to people who had paid their rents on their 
 own aocount. Did you hear of anything that was 
 done to the men you have mentioned ? — I heard that 
 they were visited by a party of the " Boys " for 
 having paid their rent. 
 
 Who told you that they were visited by a party of 
 the " Boys " for having paid their rent ? — Some of the 
 " Boys." 
 
 "Was that before or after you joined the " Boys "?-» 
 I think it was after. 
 
 Now, did you take part in any of the expeditions of 
 the "Boys " ?— I did. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor., 
 
 1 
 
The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 497 
 
 What was the first you took part in ? — Putting back a 
 woman into her place that was evicted. 
 
 What was her name ? — Mrs. Horan. 
 
 What farm or place did she occupy ? — I think it was 
 Mullan or Ardraville 
 
 Are you speaking of two places or are you not quite 
 sure of the name ? — I am not quite sure of the name. 
 
 Who was the landlord ? — Sir Maurice O'Connell. 
 
 Who had taken the evicted farm ? Who was in posses- 
 sion of the land f — Edmund Browne. 
 
 Are Mullan and Ardraville near to each other 1 — They 
 are nearly the same place. I know the place by the 
 two names. 
 
 Where was Mrs. Horan before you reinstated her ?— 
 She was in a house convenient. 
 
 How many "Boys " were engaged in putting back 
 Mrs. Horan ? — Between 30 and 40 of them. 
 
 Were any of them armed ? — About 15 of them. 
 
 What with ? — Some with guns and some with 
 revolvers. 
 
 Had you any arms at the time ? — No. 
 
 Did you know all the men who were there, or were 
 some of them strangers to you ? — The most were 
 strangers. 
 
 Tell us any of them whom you knew ? — George Twiss 
 and John Connor. 
 
 The same men who a6ked you to join ? — Yes. Tim 
 Connor was there also. 
 
 Is there anybody else whose name you know that 
 you remember as being present ? — Not one. 
 
 Having put this woman back, were you paid any- 
 thing ? I bog your Lordships' pardon, I have another 
 question to put first. Before you left the house in 
 which Mrs. Horan was put back was anything said to 
 her ? — They warned her at her peril not to leave again 
 except at the point of the bayonet. 
 
 Was any oath administered to her ? — She was not 
 sworn. 
 
 Who was the captain of the party ? There were 
 captains of the " Boys," were there not ? — They told 
 me that there were captains. I understood that there 
 were captains. 
 
 Do you know who was the captain on the occasion 
 of putting back Mrs. Horan ? — George Twiss. 
 
 Were you paid for the part you took in putting back 
 Mrs. Horan ? — I received 6s. 
 
 Who from ? — From the secretary, Tim Horan. 
 
 Were any others paid in your presence ? — Nine or 
 ten more. 
 
 The same amount or different amounts ? — The same 
 amount, I think. 
 
 As far as you know they got 6s. each ?— I think so, 
 I cannot tell. 
 
 Do you remember taking part in any expedition with 
 reference to Richard Meredith's estate ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the object of the expedition to Richard 
 Meredith's estate ? — It was first to warn the tenants 
 not to pay their rent, only at Griffith's valuation. 
 
 How many of you were engaged in that expedition ? 
 —I should think about 15. 
 
 Were any of the 15 armed on that occasion ? — They 
 were all armed. 
 
 What with ? — Some with guns, some with revolvers B 
 and some with bayonets. 
 
 Were you disguised ? — All were disguised or nearly 
 so. 
 
 How ? — Just with a shield on the face. 
 
 What arms had you ? — A revolver. 
 
 Where had you got it from ? — From George Twiss. 
 
 Did you keep it after that, or did you give it back 
 again ?— I gave it back some time after, but not on 
 that day. 
 
 Just tell us what you did on the occasion of this 
 expedition ? — We entered the houses and warned the 
 tenants not to pay their rent, and they mostly promised. 
 If they did not open their doors at once we generally 
 burst them in and fired some shots by way of terrorize 
 ing them. 
 
 On that occasion did you injure anybody or not P-» 
 There was no one injured — they all promised. 
 
 Now, you have said that if they did not open at 
 once the doors were burst in and shots fired to terrorize 
 them. About how many, as far as you recollect, did 
 you visit altogether ? — Well, about 10 or 12. 
 
 About how many times did you fire shots to have the 
 effect you referred to ? — We fired them about five ox 
 six times, Sir. 
 
 " Did you leave in any case before you got the 
 promise ; did you always get the promise before you 
 left ?— Always. 
 
 Now, do you know who the captain was on thia 
 occasion ?— Thomas Rourke. 
 
 Was he a Castleisland man ? — No. 
 
 Where did he come from ? — From my parish. 
 
 The President. — How is the name of that parish 
 spelt ? 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington.— Killientierna. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — In what year was that 
 visiting of the tenants on the Meredith estate ? — Soma 
 time in the spring of 1881. 
 
 When these persons promised was anything said to 
 them about the police or about telling the police ?— 
 They were told not to report the occurrence to the 
 police. 
 
 Now, did you see from time to time notices of some 
 of these raids or some of these visits in the newspapers, 
 or quotations from the police reports ? — Well, I used 
 to see some of them reported. 
 
 You have anticipated me. Did they all appear in the 
 newspapers or police reports, or not ?— Oh, no ; not 
 half of them. 
 
 Now, when the people were told not to tell the 
 police, was anything said to them as to what would 
 happen if they did ? — It was said that they would 
 come again to them and give them severer chastise* 
 ment. 
 
 When you went with Rourke, who used to speak to 
 these tenants ? Rourke or any one of the 15 ? — There 
 used to be one appointed to speak in the house. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
498 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4, 188a. 
 
 Before they got to the house one used to be chosen 
 to speak ? — Yes. 
 
 In the month of March, 1881, do you remember 
 any one going to Killientierna or Curragh ? — Those two 
 names are the names of one place. 
 
 Who was it who came in March, 1881 ? — Mr. 
 Timothy Harrington. 
 
 Did you yourself see him ?— I did. 
 
 Where ? — I saw him speaking at a meeting about 
 Mass time — after Mass time. 
 
 Did you hear what he said ? — He made a regular 
 speech. 
 
 What did he say ? — He said that he wanted to get a 
 Land Leaguer returned for the electoral division, and 
 that he wanted to tarn out the man who was there, 
 who was the landlords' man. 
 
 What was this electoral division for ?— For a Poor 
 Law guardian. 
 
 Who was the man who was representing it ? — Mr. 
 Richard Burke. 
 
 What was he ? — An agent for Mr. Meredith, or under 
 agent. 
 
 Do you remember Mr. Harrington saying anything 
 more at that meeting about the man who was then 
 representing them ? — Oh, he said that they ought to 
 work for his man, and that it was a shame for them 
 to return the landlords' strapper and lickplate. 
 
 Did he say anything about the people who voted or 
 would vote for Burke ?— I do not remember. 
 
 Did any one in the crowd call out anything ? — One 
 man in the crowd called, " Cheers for Mr. Burke." 
 
 Was there any response to that ? — There was ; the 
 people cheered. 
 
 Now, don't answer me unless you know. Did you 
 know whether he, Burke, was popular in the place or 
 not ?■ — He was generally popular in the parish. 
 
 After the meeting did you see Mr. Harrington ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. Timothy Harrington ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he come to you, or did you go to him ? — Oh, he 
 was speaking to two other men and I was with them. 
 
 Who were they ?— Thomas Brosnan and Michael 
 Brosnan. 
 
 What did Mr. Harrington say ? — He said he was 
 afraid that Burke would be returned, and that he 
 would not wish it for £200. 
 
 Did he say anything further ? — He said that two or 
 three of us ought to go around by night and get a few 
 of the farmers that would not otherwise vote for his 
 candidate to vote. 
 
 Who was his candidate ? Did he name his candi- 
 date ? — Jeremiah M'Sweeney. 
 
 How did they vote ? Did they vote by voting papers, 
 or how ? — By voting papers. 
 
 Well, now, what were you to do, or did he say what 
 vou were to do ? — He said that we wero to get them 
 to sign the votes, if possible, and not to sparo them, 
 not to kill them, not to hurt them too much. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Kepeat again, if you please, what Mr. Harrington 
 
 said you were to do. — He told us to frighten them a 
 good deal ; but not to kill them, not to take any 
 drink lest we should do something foolish. 
 
 The President. — I think it will be found that he 
 used the word " hurt." 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Yes, my Lord. Let the 
 shorthand writer read that. (The shorthand writer 
 thereupon read the answer, in which witness stated, 
 " He said that we were to get them to sign the votes, 
 if possible, and not to spare them, not to kill them, 
 not to hurt them too much.") 
 
 Was anything said about getting the voting papers, 
 or getting them signed ? — He said we were to hav? 
 them signed. 
 
 Did you go ? — I did. 
 
 How many of you ? — Two. 
 
 Armed or not armed ? — We were armed. 
 
 Was anything said at that conversation with Mr 
 Harrington about the pay ? — He said if he was elected, 
 we could name our hire or pay. 
 
 If who was elected ? — His candidate, Mr. M'Sweeney. 
 
 Did he say anything about going anywhere ? — About 
 what ? 
 
 About going anywhere — Castleisland or any place ? 
 — He said we were to go on to Castleis1and,as he himself 
 was going there, and that he would send some people 
 to canvass from there, perhaps. 
 
 Did you go ? — Yes ; we went on to Castleisland. 
 
 Do you know from what happened at Castleisland 
 whether Mr. Harrington did send any man down from 
 Castleisland ? — I do not know. 
 
 Now, you went round. How many men altogether 
 did you visit ?— Only two ; because there was no need 
 to. Another man or two canvassed in the daytime, 
 and they got sufficient votes to return Mr. 
 M'Sweeney. 
 
 Do you know who the man was who had gone round 
 the previous day ? — I do. 
 
 Who was he ? — His name was Joseph Murphy. 
 
 Was he a Castleisland man ? — No ; he belonged to 
 the parish, the electoral division. 
 
 Did you jo round with that man or not ? — I went 
 round to three or four houses with him in the morn- 
 ing. 
 
 Did you get the signatures ? — He did. I did not at 
 all. 
 
 Now, then ; after that, you went to two men, as I 
 understand ? — Yes. 
 
 That night. Now, on the occasion of going round 
 with this man in the daytime and his asking for 
 signatures, did you hear him say anything to the 
 people whom he asked for votes ? — He said he would 
 ask them for their votes for Jerry M'Sweeney and Mr. 
 Harrington in the name of the Land League, and who- 
 ever did not give it them might expect a visit from 
 Castleisland. 
 
 Now, O'Connor, how many men declined to give on 
 the occasion of that visit, when you went round with 
 this man in the day ?— While I waB with him no one 
 declined, 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 499 
 
 Did you visit any on the following night or the 
 night after ? — I visited two. 
 
 How did you come to visit these two ? — I disguised 
 myself and went to the houses. 
 
 Why did you go to these two ? — Because they refused 
 Murphy in the daytime. 
 
 How did you know they had refused Murphy in the 
 daytime ? — I met him in the afternoon. I called on 
 him and asked him how did he get on with the canvass 
 and he told me he got on well enough excepting these 
 two. 
 
 And those two you visited. With whom ?— With 
 Thomas Brosnan. 
 
 Were you armed ? — Yes. 
 
 With what ? — Revolvers. 
 
 What time did you go, in the daytime or at night f — 
 At night. 
 
 What are the names of the men you visited ? — 
 Thomas Walsh and James Dunleahy. 
 
 Those names had heen given you by Murphy. Bad 
 you yourself visited these men before or not ? — Not 
 before. 
 
 What did you do ? — Oh ; we just threatened them and 
 Baid we would do something to them if they did not 
 sign the votes for Mr. M'Sweeney. They promised us 
 faithfully they would, and we left. I was disguised 
 on that occasion. 
 
 Both these men promised you faithfully they would, 
 and you left. You had not to do anything to them — 
 to Cre any shots, or anything of that kind ? — No. 
 
 Now, the Sunday after that, did anybody call upon 
 you ? — No. 
 
 Was M'Sweeney elected ? — Yes. 
 
 Had M'Sweeney anything to do with the League ? — 
 I think he was the vice-president. 
 
 Castleisland branch ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you and Brosnan call upon Harrington — Mr. 
 Timothy Harrington ? — We did on the following week. 
 
 Where ?— In Tralee. 
 
 Did you see him ? — We did. 
 
 What did you say to him ? What did you ask him 
 f or p — Well, we asked him for what he had promised. 
 
 Can you remember what you said to him ? — No. 
 
 Was any amount mentioned, or did you only ask for 
 what he promised ; do you remember ? — I do not 
 remember. 
 
 What did Mr. Harrington say ?— Oh, he said he hadn't 
 it and told us to go away ; he was ashamed of us. 
 
 Did he say anything more ? — He said he would send 
 someone to see us in Castleisland soon. 
 
 Did somebody come to you on the next Sunday ? — 
 On the next Sunday a young man met me and Brosnan. 
 
 Did you know him ?— No. 
 
 Or did you know where he came from ? — I did not 
 know at all ; but he came up to us in the street. 
 
 Did he give you anything ? — He gave us £7, and 
 cautioned us not to annoy Mr. Harrington any more. 
 
 Did he give you £7 between you or £7 each ? — 
 Between us. 
 
 Now, as far as you knew them, were the *' Boys " 
 members of the League ? — They were. 
 
 Do you know whether persons were admitted " boys" 
 unless they joined the League ? — I thought not, and 
 they told me that no one could be admitted in unless 
 they ware members of the Land League. 
 
 Who told you that ? — Oh, the members or " Boys." 
 
 You mean some of the " Boys " themselves ? — Yes. 
 
 How were the orders given for this expedition you 
 have referred to — going out to the tenants, and going 
 out to put Mrs. Horan back ? — I got orders from the 
 members that I understood to be captains, and they 
 told me that they got them from the committee. 
 
 Then you received your orders from the captains, 
 and they got them from the committee. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — If you repeat anything, repeat tha 
 answers themselves. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — What committee did they 
 tell you they got the orders from ? — The committee 
 of the Castleisland branch of the Land League. 
 
 Now, after you joined the ' ' Boys " used you on any 
 occasion to remain on after the general meeting was 
 over ? I do not mean inside — outside ? — I generally 
 would remain for a quarter of an hour. 
 
 Did you see any of the members of the committee 
 Bpeaking to the captains or any you knew to be cap- 
 tains ? — I did. 
 
 Used the captains to remain after the general meet- 
 ing was over some little time ? — Yes. 
 
 What were they doing while they were waiting ?— 
 Oh, they would hang about, walk by the side of tha 
 door and about the other rooms of the house. 
 
 Now, do you remember the names of any of the 
 members of the committee you have seen come out 
 and speak to the captains while you and the captains 
 were hanging about there ? — I remember seeing the 
 secretary speaking. 
 
 Which secretary ? — The secretary of the branch, 
 Timothy Horan. 
 
 Now, after March, 1881, did you take part in any 
 further night expedition ? — No. 
 
 How was that ? Why not ? — I did not like to be 
 doing it ; I used to be invited but avoided it on 
 several pretexts. 
 
 What sort of excuses used you to give ? — I said I 
 had something else to do, and sometimes I would say 
 I would go and used not to go. 
 
 After that time did you go at any time to America ? 
 — I did, in June, 1882. I stayed there till December, 
 1882. 
 
 When you came back from America did you go back 
 to the same place — the neighbourhood of Castleisland ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Did you join the Castleisland branch ? — Yes. 
 
 As an ordinary member, or what ? — As an ordinary 
 member. 
 
 In 1885 was a branch of the National League started 
 at Currow ? — There was. 
 
 Were you secretary ? — No. 
 
 Who was ? — My brother was. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
500 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 What is his name ? — John. 
 
 Now after that branch was started did you attend 
 moetings ?— I did. 
 
 At any meeting was a proposal made for a circle of 
 " 3oys " being formed ? — Not at any of the meetings. 
 
 When or where was a proposal made that a circle of 
 ** Boys " should be formed P— People used to say it, 
 but not «at the meetings. 
 
 Did people say that a branch of the " Boys " should 
 be formed ? — They did not say it to me. 
 
 Who said it at all ? — The farmers used to say it. 
 They said the branch would be no good if there was 
 Hot a circle, as there had been at Castleisland. 
 
 Now, were you asked, or was the proposal to which 
 you have referred made to you by some one ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you oppose it or support it ? — I opposed it. 
 
 Now you said that your brother was secretary of the 
 League ? — Yes. 
 
 Were yon living in the same house with him ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, did you receive, or did there come to your 
 brother's house circulars or documents relating to the 
 National League ? — Oh, there did, a groat many. 
 
 A document was here handed to the witness. 
 
 Did you ever do any secretary business for your 
 brother ?— I did. 
 
 Where did you get that letter ? 
 
 Eie C. Rtisskll. — He did not say he did get it. 
 
 The Attokney-Gehekai,. — Have you seen that 
 before ? — Yes. 
 
 Where did you first see it ? — I first saw it in my 
 brother's desk. 
 
 This, my Lord, is addressed to the hon. secretary of 
 the Currow branch of the Irish National League. The 
 post-mark is June 9, 1886, and it is as follows : — 
 
 " Tralee. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — We beg to inform you that the follow- 
 ing resolution was unanimously adopted at a full 
 general meeting of the Tralee branch, held Sunday, 
 June 6th : — Resolved : ' That we condemn in the most 
 unmeasured terms the conduct of Cornelius O'Sullivan, 
 B. Boherbee, W. Brick, J. Delaney, and John White 
 for supplying carts to the police on the occasion of the 
 recent eviction in Listowel, and that of some mer- 
 chants in the town who supplied corn for their horses ; 
 and we consider their action in the matter further 
 aggravated by the fact that none of the Listowel car- 
 owners would supply cars for the occasion ; and we 
 maintain that it is perfectly unjustifiable and contrary 
 to the dictates of humanity for these parties to assist 
 in the wholesale extermination of the tenant farmers 
 in Kerry, from whom they have derived their principal 
 means of support,and through whom some amongst them 
 haye succeeded in growing rich and independent, and 
 we call upon every branch of the League in Kerry to 
 enter their indignant protest against such shameful 
 ingratitude towards numbers of suffering farmers in 
 this county. And we consider those parties that are 
 assisting in the baneful work of the crowbar as alto- 
 gether unworthy of progress, or of the support of any 
 members of the Irish National League.' 
 
 " Eesolved : ' That we strongly condemn the action 
 of John Teahan, cattle dealer and hotel proprietor, 
 John Lamb, senior, and John Lamb, junior, and J. 
 Dawson, butter merchant, for.dealing in cattle with the 
 
 Land Corporation, as the only effectual bar to the re- 
 instatement of the evicted men in this county in their 
 homes, and we will further adopt stringent rules 
 that any person dealing with or holding communica- 
 tion with these parties, or any other aider or abettor of 
 the Land Corporation, will be summarily expelled, and 
 we direct our secretary to return to Mr. Teahan his 
 subscription, as we consider him unworthy to be a 
 member of this League. Further, that a copy of these 
 resolutions be forwarded to every branch of the 
 League in Kerry.' 
 
 " We remain yours faithfully, 
 
 " W. Flynn, J. Leahy, hon. sees." 
 
 Now, O'Connor, do you remember the Sunday before 
 the day on which Culloty was shot ? — I do. 
 
 Were you at the meeting of the Castleisland branch 
 on that Sunday ? — I was. 
 
 What was said about — was anything said about Cul- 
 loty ? — Yes ; a tenant came in and showed a writ, 
 and said that Culloty came with the bailiff and pointed 
 out his house at the time. 
 
 Do you remember whether, beyond saying that Cul- 
 loty had pointed out the house, he said anything more, 
 or was anything more said ? — The committee retired 
 to another room — a private room. 
 
 Did anybody accompany the committee ? — Yes ; 
 Father O'Callaghan, but I think he was a member of 
 the committee ; he might have been chairman, but I 
 am not sure. 
 
 Do you remember the tenant's name ? — John Brosnan. 
 
 Did the committee come back into the room after 
 they had been a few minutes away ? — They did. 
 
 Did the chairman— did Father O'Callaghan — say any- 
 thing when they came back into the room ? — Yes, he 
 smiled and said that everybody knew Culloty was an 
 ugly man, and he would soon be uglier, and that 
 Brosnan would soon have satisfaction. 
 
 I call your Lordships' attention to the name at the 
 end of the letter, already mentioned in the evidence of 
 Mr. Davis, the letter of Timothy Horan to J. P. 
 Quinn, page 1,113. (To witness.) Now, do you re- 
 member, when you were helping your brother as secre- 
 tary of the Castleisland branch, application being made 
 to Dublin ?— I do. 
 
 On whose behalf P — On behalf of three evicted 
 tenants. 
 
 Do you remember their names ? — Yes. 
 
 Repeat them. — Mrs. Mary Russell, Mrs. Mary 
 Butler, on Mr. R. Meredith's estate, and Michael 
 Beardon, on the estate of Andrews and others. 
 
 By whom was that application made P — By the secre- 
 tary and chairman of the Currow branch. 
 
 Now do you remember some replies coming back ?— 
 I do. 
 
 Were there one or two P — Two. 
 
 Did they come by the same post ? — Yes. 
 
 Was one of them on official National League paper ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 What became of that one P — I do not know. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 501 
 
 What did it say ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell objected. 
 
 The President.— I would suggest that the witness 
 should be asked in whose hands he last saw it. 
 
 Witness. — I did not see it since I had it myself. 
 
 It came addressed to the secretary ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you got it now ? — I do not know ; it has 
 probably been destroyed. 
 
 Do you believe that document to be in existence or 
 not ? — I do not think it is. 
 
 Then, my Lords, I propose to ask the contents of 
 the document. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I will not press my objection, my 
 Lords. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— What did that document 
 say ? — That the district was too disturbed, and there- 
 fore they would not give any money to the evicted 
 tenants or anybody else until they got the country a 
 little quieter. 
 
 Was the Currow district disturbed at that time ? — 
 That parish itself was quiet, but Castleisland was very 
 disturbed. 
 
 You say that another document came by the same 
 post ; was that on official paper or plain ? — It was not 
 on official paper. 
 
 Was it in a separate envelope ? — Yes. 
 
 Whom was it from ? — From the secretary of the central 
 branch. 
 
 Who signed it ? — It had Mr. Harrington's name in it. 
 
 His name was in it, yon say ; was it signed by 
 him ? — How can I tell ? 
 
 I see ; the name of Mr. T. Harrington was in the 
 usual place for the signature ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it marked anything ? — No, I think not. 
 
 What became of that letter ; do you know where it 
 is ? — No ; I was often looking for it, but did not find 
 it. 
 
 What did that letter say, please ? — It gave some 
 reasons for not giving the grant to the evicted tenants. 
 
 What reasons did it give ? What did it say ? — I do 
 not remember. 
 
 What was its substance ? — The substance was that 
 the place was too dull— the branch was too dull there. 
 
 Was that the reason given for not giving a grant ? — 
 res. 
 
 Did it go on to say anything further ? — No, except 
 that it was not to be read. to the president. 
 
 Not to be read to the president ? Who was that ? 
 —The Rev. Father Fitzgerald. 
 
 Was there anything else in this letter that was not 
 to be read to Father Fitzgerald ? — I do not remember 
 in the least. 
 
 Was any other reason given in that letter either for 
 refusing the grant or for not reading it to the presi- 
 dent ? — No. I do not remember. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Your Lordships will perhaps not 
 be surprised to hear that we have had no intimation 
 either of the existence of this witness or his evidence. 
 It has been in no way referred to, and therefore my 
 
 application is that until we have an opportunity o£ 
 learning something about this gentleman the cross* 
 examination may be postponed. I would just like 
 merely to put one or two questions now. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— As far as asking the wit- 
 ness to come back there would of course be no objec- 
 tion, bnt I must ask that the cross-examination shall 
 be taken now. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I decline to be forced to cross- 
 examine the witness under the circumstances I have 
 mentioned. This is a witness of whose name or evidence 
 we have had no notice, nor was it mentioned in the 
 Attorney-General's opening, and I should have thought 
 that the Attorney-General, so far from resisting this 
 application, would have seen the reasonableness of my 
 request. If any reliance is to be placed on the evi- 
 dence of this witness, Mr. Harrington, again, was 
 surely entitled to have particulars given to him oi! 
 matters in which his name is sought to be incriminated. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— With regard to giving 
 the names of witnesses beforehand, I have already t6" 
 ferred to the reasons why it cannot be done. I have 
 said that if any particular gentleman was to be affected 
 by the evidence he should have an opportunity of being 
 present, and Mr. Harrington is present in Court. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am at present merely stating 
 the condition of things as regards my information. 
 
 The President. — I would suggsst that you should at 
 present simply go as far as you can with the cross-eX» 
 amination, and we will then consider the matter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— "Very well, my Lord. (To witness.J 
 Where are you living ?— In county Kerry. 
 
 Where ? — In the Castleisland district. 
 
 Where ? — I said in the Castleisland district. 
 
 Where do you live ? — In the parish of Killientierna. 
 
 Since you returned from America have you beea 
 living there ? — Yes. 
 
 You returned from America in December, 1882 ?•<» 
 Yes. 
 
 Am I to take it, then, that, except between Jane, 
 
 1882, and December, 1882, you have been living at 
 Killientierna ? — Yes. 
 
 What are you ? — A farmer's son. 
 
 What is your father's name ? — John. 
 
 Do you stay with him ? — Yes. 
 
 And your brother ? — Yes. 
 
 Is he living ?— Yes. 
 
 At Killientierna ?— Yes. 
 
 Are you aware that the man Timothy Horan, whose 
 name we have had once or twice mentioned, is dead 'i 
 — I know he is. 
 
 Since how long ? — I think since the summer oE 
 
 1883. I am not sure. 
 
 When did you first give information to the police, or 
 about what ? — I did not give information to the 
 police at all. 
 
 You have never given information to the poli ce ?— 
 Never. 
 
 Or made a statement to the police ?— No. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
502 
 
 The-' Special Commission," December 4, 1888. 
 
 Or to a district inspector ?— Oh, I might have told 
 him something, bat not about this. 
 
 What district inspector was it ? — District-Inspector 
 Bice. 
 
 When did you come here to London first ?— Last Sun- 
 day morning. 
 
 Did you before you arrived here give a statement 
 of your evidence to any one ?— Yee, I gave someone 
 a statement in Dublin. 
 
 Stand up, sir. Who told yon to go to Dublin ? — Oh, 
 well, a gentleman that belonged — — I made the 
 application myself. 
 
 Will you finish your sentence '/ You said that a 
 
 gentleman belonging ?— To the office of the Irish 
 
 Loyal and Patriotic Union. 
 
 What was his name ?— Oh, 1 do not know his name. 
 
 Did you have a letter ?— I had a letter from him. I 
 do not know where it i9. 
 
 Come, sir, how long ago was it that you had this 
 letter ? — Last week. 
 
 Search your pockets, and see whether you have not 
 got it ? — I know I have Dot got it. 
 
 How do you know you have not got it 1—1 do not 
 understand what yon mean. 
 
 You say you went to Dublin at the instance of a 
 gentleman belonging to the Loyal and Patriotic 
 Union ; I ask you for the letter ; you said you had a 
 letter.— Yes, I had it last week. 
 
 I am asking you where is that letter ? 
 
 Witness here produced a letter from hi3 pocket. 
 
 Is that it ?— Yes. 
 
 Then why did you say you had not got it ? — 1 did 
 not think this was it. 
 
 Give me the envelope as well as the letter ; hand 
 both to the usher, please. (The documents were 
 then handed to the learned counsel.) This letter, 
 my Lords, purports to be sent by Edward Caulfeild 
 Houston, secretary of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic 
 Union, Grafton-street, Dublin, and is addressed 
 to Mr. T. O'Connor, and says:— " Please call on 
 Sergeant Donaldson, Castleisland Barracks, who will 
 give you a ticket for DubliD and direct you where 
 to come to. — Yours faithfully (signed), EliWARb 
 Cad-lfeild HOUSTON." (To witness.) Was that Mr. 
 Houston's first communication to you 1 — No, Sir. 
 
 When was the first ? — I did not have any other letter 
 from him. 
 
 Did you have any other letter from anybody else ? — 
 No. 
 
 What do you mean by saying it was not the first com- 
 munication ?— I sent a letter to the office first ; that is 
 what I call a communication. 
 
 When was that ? — Some time in the beginning of 
 last week. 
 
 Have you a copy of the letter ?— No. 
 
 Was that the first communication you had with Mr. 
 Houston or the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union ?— On 
 that subject it was. 
 
 What had your first communication said ? — Something 
 about pamphlets and leaflets published by the Irish 
 
 Loyal and Patriotic Union. That communication was 
 sent in the summer of the present year. I saw an 
 advertisement in the newspapers about the leaflets pub- 
 lished, so I wrote for them, saying that I should read 
 them and see what they were for myself. They sent 
 them without any letter accompanying them. 
 
 Was that your only inquiry until you sent this letter 
 of November 23 ?— No ; I sent a letter to them asking 
 for the pamphlets last summer. 
 
 Had you seen any one with reference to what you 
 should prove or say before you received the letter of 
 November 23 ?— No ; that I swear positively. 
 
 Had yon communicated to any one connected either 
 with the Patriotic Union or the police the statement 
 you should make ? — No ; I am quite sure I did not. 
 
 Was Sergeant Donaldson, to whom you went, 
 getting up evidence ?— Not to my knowledge. He 
 said nothing to me when he gave me my ticket, ex- 
 cept to give me the address of an hotel at Dublin. 
 
 Had you before you went to Dublin written out any 
 statement of what you knew or professed to know ? — 
 No, not before I went to Dublin. I said I knew 
 something to the secretary of the Patriotic Union. 
 
 When did you say that — when you wrote for the 
 pamphlets ? — No, la6t week. 
 
 Sib C. Bussell.— I call for the letter. 
 
 The Attorney-General (producing letter).— Read it 
 now, please. 
 
 Sir C. Bussell. — My friend will pardon me ; I must 
 be allowed to conduct my own case. 
 
 The letter was handed to the witness, who identi 
 Bed it as in his handwriting. 
 
 How long before the 23d of November did you seDd 
 this letter ?— It might be four or five days. 
 
 I noticed that you produced another paper from your 
 pocket. What was it ?— A copy of the statement I 
 made in Dublin. 
 
 Let me have that also. (Witness handed it to the 
 learned counsel.) 
 
 Up to the time you went to Dublin, except the 
 letter you have shown me here, you had made no state- 
 ment in any shape or form to any one of what you 
 knew or professed to know ? — No. When I went to 
 Dublin I saw some gentlemen at Mr. Houston's office. 
 
 Do you see them in court to-day ?— I see one of 
 them. 
 
 Point to the gentleman you saw. (Witness pointed 
 to Mr. Walker, solicitor's clerk in Dublin.) 
 
 You do not know the name of the other gentleman 
 you saw in Dublin ?— No ; I did not know Mr. 
 Walker's name till I heard it to-day. I have seen no 
 one since I came to London except Mr. Walker. 
 
 Were you served with a subpeena ?— I think I was ; 
 I am not sure. I was served with some paper to- 
 day, but it was taken away again. 
 
 Did you get any money with it ?— No. 
 
 Have you had any money ? — They brought me over 
 here. 
 
 Have you been promised money ; do you expect any 
 money ?— I expect they will send me back. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 503 
 
 Do you expect anything more ? — I expect nothing 
 more, and I have been promised nothing more. I have 
 not been promised that I should be sent back, but I 
 expect to be. 
 
 You have come here, then.only to give your evidence 
 in the interests of justice ? — I think so. The state- 
 ment I have produced is, I think, the only one taken 
 down from me. 
 
 Is it correct ? — I am not sure that it is quite 
 right. It was taken down, not in shorthand, but 
 in longhand. It was read over to me, but it 
 was changed every now and again. I do not 
 know whether that paper is a fair copy of my 
 statement ; I only know that it was handed to me 
 this morning at my hotel by Mr. Walker. He told me 
 to read it over. I did go over it. 
 
 You said that it was not correct in all respects ? — No. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I will now read to your Lordships 
 the letter written by the witness to the secretary of 
 the Patriotic Union : — " Inchincummer. 
 
 " Sir, — I should like to thank you for the leaflets 
 and other pamphlets published by the Irish Loyal and 
 Patriotic Union you forwarded to me. I received 
 them and distributed them amongst the people, and I 
 am happy to inform you they did some good. You will 
 remember I told you last time something about my- 
 self—how I was at one time hon. secretary of a 
 branch of the National League in my parish, and how 
 I succeeded in smashing it up with two others." 
 
 Is what you have written in the letter true ? — When 
 I put in that letter that I was under-secretary, I was 
 doing a good deal of business for the branch. 
 
 You led the Court to believe that you had merely 
 written to the Patriotic Union asking them to send you 
 some leaflets. Is it true that when you wrote for the 
 leaflets you told the secretary of the Union you could 
 tell him a good deal about matters connected with the 
 League, as you had at one time been secretary of a 
 branch ? — That is true. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I call for that letter. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Of course, we have not 
 got the letter here. It was a letter applying for leaflets 
 written in June. We will get it. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — You were not the honorary secre- 
 tary, but your brother was, and you sometimes helped 
 him ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you succeed in smashing up two Land League 
 branches besides the one in your own parish ? Is that 
 true ? — Yes. 
 
 What were they ? — Scartaglin and Currans. 
 
 Were you a Fenian ? — No ; I never was one. I am 
 not a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, 
 and never have been. I have never been a member of 
 any other secret society. 
 
 Sib C. Russell continued the reading of the letter : — 
 
 " But I told you all about that before, and if you have 
 the letter I sent you you can better understand what 
 kind of man I am by reference to it. What I wish to 
 bring under your notice now is the Parnell Commission 
 or trial. There are a great many witnesses summoned 
 
 from county Kerry, who instead of beiDg of any use to 
 The Times will be a great injury. There are two 
 summoned from my parish — Culloty and M'Mahon — who 
 avowed their intention of not helping The Times in no 
 measured - terms. They are both wounded men — one 
 lost an arm and one a leg — and want to get popular 
 now, and do not mind what they swear to please the 
 people. There are many others who could and would 
 give evidence, bnt are not summoned at all. I am 
 willing to give evidence to the Commission if I am 
 summoned in the regular way. I could give some im- 
 portant evidence with regard to Mr. Timothy Harring- 
 ton, M.P. It is about something he said and paid for 
 in 1881. 
 
 " I can also give you a good dsal of information as 
 to the works of other leaders of the National move- 
 ment some three or four years since. 
 
 " I am sure my evidence would be of more use than 
 that of those who swore to their friends and neigh- 
 bours before they went away they would not do any- 
 thing to damage the National cause. I would have 
 offered my services before, only I did not wish to wait 
 so long in London, and also I did not know who to 
 apply to ; so I thought I would let you know, and let 
 you do as you please. Send this letter to The Times 
 and tell them to summons me at once. — I remain yours 
 respectfully, THOMAS O'Connor." 
 
 What was the date originally written on that letter? 
 — 1881. There was first a " 2," but I altered it when 
 I wrote the letter. The letter has not been in my 
 possession, nor have I seen it since I sent it to the 
 Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union. 
 
 You say in your letter that you could give a good 
 deal of information about the other leaders of the 
 National movement some three or four years since. 
 Who are they ? — I meant the committee-men of the 
 Castleisland branch. 
 
 And you called them the leaders of the National 
 movement 1 — I did in a way. I did not know how the 
 Patriotic Union would take what I said. I did not 
 wish to magnify my own importance. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I will now read the statement 
 made by the witness. (To the witness.) Does this 
 purport to be a correct copy of the statement you 
 made ? — It is not a correct copy. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — We shall require to have the 
 original. 
 
 The Attorney-Genebal.— -You shall have it. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I will read the statement to you. 
 Stop me where it is not correct : — 
 
 " I am now aged 30 years. Am the son of John 
 O'Connor, farmer, of same place, with whom I live. I 
 am unmarried. On Sunday, the 10th of October, 1880, 
 an open-air demonstration was held in the town of 
 Castleisland, at which Messrs. A. O'Connor, M.F., 
 and J. Biggar, M.P., attended and spoke. On that 
 occasion these gentlemen formally declared the Castle- 
 island branch of the Land League to be re-established. 
 Meetings were held at a house in the main street of 
 Castleisland on the following and subsequent Sundays 
 for the purpose of enrolling members and receiving 
 subscriptions. No other business of any importance 
 beyond the appointment of officers was transacted for 
 about a month. I joined the branch the first or second 
 Sunday after the demonstration above alluded to. The 
 subscription for farmers was assessed at 3d. in the 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
£04 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 pound on their valuation. Labourers and young men 
 gave what they could, from Is. up. I paid 2s. or 2s. 6d. 
 When the branch got fairly started (about the middle 
 of November) the business was deciding what reduc- 
 tions in rent should be demanded from landlords. What 
 the reduction on any particular estate was settled on 
 the tenants were pledged to act in a body in paying 
 the rent and insisting on a reduction. This went on for 
 a little while, but it was found did not hold together, 
 Borne going and paying their rent independent of the 
 main body, and the demands for reductions were 
 therefore not successful. (After the general meetings 
 the committee of the branch held private meetings in 
 another room.) The conduct of those who paid behind 
 backs was discussed, and they were spoken of vile 
 things not fit to walk the ground and should be banished 
 as St. Patrick banished the serpents. I was aware, and 
 it was generally known, that there was an inner body, 
 spoken of among the branch generally as the ' boys.' 
 Those who paid their rent now began to be denounced 
 by name in resolutions. Within the next week or fort- 
 night their houses were entered by bodies of armed 
 men, who either beat them with sticks or guns and 
 made them go on their knees and swear not to pay 
 their rent except as had been arranged." 
 
 Witness (interrupting). — Understand, I only heard 
 what you read just now. 
 
 " I remember Hugh 0'Connor,of Coolnageragh, tenant 
 of Mr. H. A. Herbert, of Muekross, two men named 
 Flynn, of Cool, tenants of, I think, Lord Ventry, being 
 so visited. All these raids did not appear in the police 
 reports or in the newspapers, as, unless the police heard 
 of the matter by accident, the people were afraid to 
 tell, they being sworn not to do so, and informing 
 the police incurring another visit with severe chastise- 
 ment." 
 
 Witness. — I only heard that was so. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I quite understand. Continuing ■ — 
 " I was invited to join the ' boys ' in December, 
 1880. For some time previously some of the boys had 
 been speaking to me and telling me what a proud 
 thing it was to be a soldier of Parnell's and of Ire- 
 land, and what a nice thing it was to be getting pay 
 for doing next to nothing. I was informed some were 
 sworn in, but I was not. I was simply taken into a 
 room where there was no one but the secretary, 
 Timothy Horan, now dead, by John O'Connor, of Gurt- 
 glass, and George Twiss, of Cool. Twiss said to the 
 secretary, ' Tim, this fellow is all right, and we need 
 him in his district. There is no one there as yet.' 
 the secretary said,in reply, ' All right.' We then left." 
 
 Up to this point, is there anything wrong '/ — Witness. 
 — I believe not. 
 
 ' ' The first expedition I was engaged was reinstating 
 Mrs. Horan, of Mullan or Ardraville, in a farm 
 from which she had been evicted by Sir Maurice 
 O'Connell and which had been taken by a man named 
 Edmund Browne. What we did was fetch Mrs. Horan 
 from where she was living back to her old house, with 
 some furniture, break open the door, and make a fire. 
 She was warned at her peril not to leave again except 
 at the point of the bayonet. There were between 30 
 and 40 engaged in this. Many of them I did not know. 
 About 15 were armed with either guns or revolvers. 
 Timothy Horan paid me 6s. for this. He paid nine or 
 ten others the same amount in my presence. Twiss was 
 the captain on the occasion. Another expedition I 
 remember being engaged on shortly after was warning 
 
 the tenants on Mr. Richard Meredith's estate not to 
 pay their rents except at Griffith's valuation. There 
 were 15 of us engaged in this expedition. We were all 
 armed with guns and bayonets or revolvers, and 
 disguised. We did no bodily harm on this occasion, 
 merely breaking open the doors of those who did not 
 admit us at once and firing shots by way of terrorizing 
 them. The captain on this occasion was Thomas 
 Kourke. He had been a short time in the police force. 
 I got 2s. 6d. on this occasion from Horan, and about a 
 week afterwards 15s. This raid was some time in the 
 spring of 1881. About this time — viz., iu or about 
 March, 1831 — Mr. Timothy Harrington came to Kil- 
 lientierna or Currow, and went among the people at 
 Mass and told them he wanted them to return au ad- 
 vanced Land Leaguer to represent the parish on the 
 Killarney Board of Guardians. After Mass he made: a 
 public speech, telling them it was a shame to have the 
 landlord's strapper and lick-plate representing them. 
 The person referred to was Mr. Richard Burke, 
 an agent or under-agent of Mr. Richard Meredith. He 
 denounced any one who would vote for Burke. Some 
 one in the crowd called for cheers for Burke, which 
 was heartily responded to. Mr. Burke then spoke, and 
 Harrington spoke again. Mr. Harrington, when the 
 meeting was over, spoke to me and two or three 
 others, and said he was afraid Burke would be 
 elected. We said we thought so, and he said he would 
 not wish it for £200. Harrington then said there was 
 only one way for it — that was for three or four of us 
 to go round to the people at night and get them to sign 
 the votes for his man — viz., Jeremiah M'Sweeney — and 
 that those who would not sign we were not to spare, 
 but we were not to kill any of them dead. He told 
 us we could name our own time. He told us to go to 
 Castleisland, and he would sead two or three more 
 from that town to assist us." 
 
 Witness. — That is not right. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — What is the objection to it ? — 
 Telling us to go to Castleisland. He told us not to 
 go, but to come to Castleisland. 
 
 Well, well, that is not a very serious misstatement. 
 (Continuing the reading) " He warned us to keep 
 sober lest we should do something foolish. We can- 
 vassed as directed, but had no need for resorting to 
 violence. We were armed with revolvers. We had 
 only to visit two men who held out, the others having 
 eigned for the men that Harrington had sent round 
 during the day. M'Sweeney was elected. He was 
 vice-president of the League in Castleisland. I and 
 one of the men — Thomas Brennan — called on Harring- 
 ton in Tralee for our pay." Thomas Brennan ; is that 
 right ? Should it not be Brosnan ? — Yes, Brosnan. 
 
 " He said he had not got it then, but would send it 
 to us in a week or two." 
 
 Witness. — That is not correct. He said it was a 
 shame for us to come to him, and told us to be off, 
 
 SlE C. RUSSELL. — " The following Sunday a young 
 man whom we did not know called on us in Castle» 
 island and cautioned us not to annoy Mr. Harrington 
 any more. The ' Boys ' were an inner circle of the 
 Land League. No one was admitted to it unless he 
 had ' first joined the League. The way in which out- 
 rages were originated was as follows : — After the general 
 meeting of the branch the committee retired to 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 505 
 
 another room. The ' captains ' of the ' Boys ' re- 
 mained hanging about the place." How does it come 
 that there is no statement here of the £7 you say was 
 given to you ? — I do not know. 
 
 You and Brosnan — how does that happen ? — I do 
 not know. I told you that the two statements were 
 not the same. 
 
 Do you swear that you told Mr. Walker in Dublin 
 that you received £7 — you and Brosnan between you ? 
 —I do. 
 
 Where was your evidence taken ? — At the office in 
 Grafton-street, 
 
 At the office of the Loyal and Patriotic Union ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Who were present besides Mr. Walker ?— Another 
 gentleman. 
 
 Who ?— I don't know. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (reading).—" After some time the 
 committee would come out and speak to the captains, 
 who then came and told ns what they were directed to 
 do. From March, 1881, on I avoided on various pre- 
 texts taking any further part in raids, and in June, 
 1882, I went to America, where I stayed till Septem- 
 ber of the same year. I joined the Oastleisland 
 branch on my return as an ordinary member, 
 but did not take much interest in the proceed- 
 ings. In 1885 a branch of the League was 
 started at Currow, of which I was secretary. It 
 was often suggested that an inner circle of ' Boys ' 
 should be formed in connexion with it. I opposed the 
 idea. The branch existed only for about six months 
 as an active body. The Sunday preceding the day on 
 which Cullotty was shot his action in accompanying 
 the bailiffs to point out the houses of three men who 
 were to be served with writs was discussed at the 
 general meeting of the Castleisland branch. The 
 committee retired to their room, accompanied by 
 Father O'Callaghan. On coming out again Father 
 O'Callaghan said that Cullotty was an ugly man, that 
 everybody knew it, and that he would soon he uglier, 
 and that Brosnan would soon have satisfaction." Now, 
 what were the mistakes in this statement ? — I have 
 told you. 
 
 What were the false statements, if any, that I read 
 out to you ? — I do not think there are any. 
 
 Are there any ? — There is no direct false statement, 
 but there are paragraphs which are not worded the 
 same way. 
 
 Is there any substantial difference in the account 
 you gave to Mr. Walker at the offices of the Loyal and 
 Patriotic Union and the statement I have read to 
 you ? — No, there is not. 
 
 No substantial difference ? — I think not. 
 
 Then what did you mean by saying in the first part 
 of my cross-examination that this statement was not 
 correct ? — Well, I think it is not. 
 
 In what respect ?— It is better than I thought it 
 was. I did not think it was so good. (Laughter.) 
 
 Well, did you read it this morning p— I did not read 
 it all, I believe. 
 
 lb was brought to you by Mr. Walker, who told you 
 to read it over ? — Yes. 
 
 Did yon tell him there was anything wrong in it ?«=» 
 No. 
 
 Is there anything wrong in it ? — I think not. 
 
 Then I may take it that this is substantially the 
 statement, in every substantial particular, that yon 
 made in Dublin ? Aye or no ? — Well, as far as it goes 
 it is. 
 
 Is there anything in that statement which you did 
 not say ? — I think not. 
 
 Is there anything you did say which is not in the 
 statement ? — I think there is nothing in it about the 
 secretaryship of the Carrow branch in that statement. 
 
 You mean that you acted as assistant secretary ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Is there any other statement on any material point 
 that is not in this statement ? — No. 
 
 Sib C. Russell, — Now, my Lords, I renew my ap- 
 plication to postpone my further cross-examination of 
 this witness. 
 
 The President.— It stands thus, Sir Charles ; if I 
 am to take it that you have cross-examined now as 
 far as you are able to do on the instructions you have 
 received 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have not received one word of 
 instructions. I have never heard the man's name 
 before. 
 
 The President, — It appears to me that if hereafter 
 you say that there is anything you desire to cross- 
 examine the witness upon, upon which you had not an 
 opportunity of cross-examining before, you ought to 
 be heard. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — With your Lordships' permission, 
 I will put one or twomore questions before the adjourn- 
 ment. (To witness.) Where did you live in America 'I 
 — Where did I live in America ? 
 
 Answer the question, Sir, and don't repeat what I 
 say to you. — Will you ask the question again ? I did 
 not hear it. 
 
 You repeated it. Where did you live in America ? 
 — In the city of Indianapolis. 
 
 Whereabouts ?— 152, Meek-street. 
 
 Did you live there the whole of the interval be- 
 tween leaving this country in June, 1882, and return" 
 ing to it in September, 1882 ? — Yes, excepting ten days 
 I stayed in New York. 
 
 Where did you stay in New York ? — 16 or 16J, 
 Albany-street. 
 
 What was your business in America ? — I was a 
 " freight-handler." Like the railway porters here. 
 
 Were you in the employ of a railway company the 
 whole time ? — Yes. 
 
 Excepting for that period of ten days,when you were 
 in New York ? — Yes. 
 
 The Court at this point adjourned for luncheon. On 
 resuming, 
 
 Mr. Lookwood (addressing the Court) said, — I do 
 not see my learned friend Mr. Reid here. I know he 
 wishes to say something with regard to this witness. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
506 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I think I ought to know 
 ■what counsel appear for Mr. Harrington. I understood 
 that Mr. Lockwood appeared for Mr. Harrington. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I do not know how you could 
 understand that. My learned friend Mr. Keid appears 
 for Mr. Harrington. 
 
 The President.— Have you anything to ask the wit- 
 ness, Mr. Loekwood? 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — At present I have nothing to ask. 
 my Lord. I join as far as it is necessary for me to 
 join in the application of my learned friend Sir Charles 
 Russell. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If you take up the same 
 position, you do not desire to cross-examine him any 
 further on his present evidence. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I do not now. 
 
 The President. — I have only to repeat to you what 
 I have already said to Sir Charles Russell — namely, that 
 if you are in a position to cross-examine the witness 
 now, you should go on ; but that if you desire hereafter 
 to cross-examine the witness again, you should have 
 an opportunity of doing so. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Yes, my Lord. If it is necessary 
 for me to repeat that which Sir Charles Russell has 
 already stated, I repeat that I have no instructions 
 whatever. 
 
 Mr. Reid (having entered the Court) said, — I submit, 
 my Lords, that I, as representing Mr. Harrington, 
 have a special and peculiar grievance in this matter. 
 If there is any meaning in the particulars this is 
 certainly a matter that should have been put into 
 them. Under the circumstances I must apply to post- 
 pone my cross-examination of this witness. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The allegations and 
 charges we make are distinctly set out in the parti- 
 culars. It was impossible to give particulars of the 
 names of witnesses and of the evidence. The evidence 
 this witness has given has been in support of a 
 general allegation. 
 
 The President. — Mr. Reid, I understand, then, that 
 you do not desire to add anything to the cross- 
 examination of Sir Charles Russell ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — There are some matters, my Lord, as to 
 which I should like to ask some questions, but of course 
 I should prefer to postpone my cross-examination and 
 ask all my questions together. 
 
 The President. — I think I must put it to you as I 
 have put it to Sir Charles Russell. I think that to 
 the extent you are instructed you ought to cross- 
 examine now, but that if you are instructed that 
 you cannot proceed you are entitled to delay. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My instructions are that the whole story 
 is a fabrication, so far as Mr. Harrington is con- 
 cerned. 
 
 The President. — That is certainly a compendious 
 way of putting it. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — If your Lordships think I should, I must 
 ask a few questions now. (To witness.) I think you 
 said you gave evidence to the police ? 
 
 The President. — I do not think, Mr. Reid, that you 
 
 ought to be pressed on this matter. If yon strongly 
 desire that it should stand over, I think that it 
 should. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My Lord, I do earnestly desire it. 
 
 The Attorney-General was understood to suggest 
 that the cross-examination should be resumed to- 
 morrow morning. 
 
 Mr. Re^d.— My learned friend must know that 
 that cannot be. Will your Lordships allow me to put 
 the point in this way. The solicitor instructing me is 
 resident in London, and it is one day's post, if not 
 two, to Kerry. This charge amounts to one of direct 
 instigation to outrage, and that is a very serious 
 charge. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My own observation only 
 refers to Mr. Harrington, who is here. 
 
 The President. — I have had that fact in my mind 
 when I spoke of the sources of information which 
 exist at present. Mr. Harrington, of course, is here 
 and could give information ; but I think it would be 
 convenient, as we are of opinion that Mr. Reid is 
 entitled to delay, to postpone the cross-examination. 
 Therefore, it will stand over for what may be called 
 a reasonable time. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — Am I at liberty, my Lords, to make 
 the same application? 
 
 The President. — Certainly ; but you, Mr. Davitt, 
 are in a different position. This does not apply to you 
 personally. I must say that you have never wasted a 
 minute of our time, and, although I do not know what 
 you have in your mind, I think you would do well to 
 leave this matter to those who are personally concerned. 
 
 The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Biggar. 
 
 You say that the reductions of rent recommended by 
 the League were from 15 to 20 per cent. ? — Yes, and 
 more. 
 
 Do you know as a fact that the reductions by the 
 Land Court exceeded 15 to 20 per cent. ? — They 
 averaged about 20 per cent., I think. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — You have 
 been asked whether you have asked for any money, 
 and whether you expect any. Have you ever asked for 
 any ? — No. 
 
 Was any promise of reward made to you, direct or 
 indirect, for giving evidence ? — No ; I only understood 
 that expenses would be allowed. 
 
 Just look at this statement. Is every page signed 
 by you ? — Yes. 
 
 Is that the statement that you signed in Dublin ?— 
 It is. 
 
 Let Mr. Walker Btand up. Did you give that statei 
 ment to this gentleman ? — I did. 
 
 The Attorney-General then read passages from the 
 original statement made by the witness in Dublin, of 
 which the document read by Sir 0. Rutsell was a 
 copy, pointing out where the phraseology of one docu- 
 ment differed from the terms of the other. In the copy 
 read by the Attorney-General the statement made by 
 the witness in his evidence as to the receipt of £7 
 was set out. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 507 
 
 The Attorney-General.— In the statement which I 
 have read you refer to a man named Thomas Brosnan. 
 Where did he live ?— At Ballybeg, in Killientiema. 
 
 Kate Fitzgerald, examined by SIR H. JAMES, said, 
 — I ain the mother of the witness Ellen Fitzgerald. 
 Before June, 1881, I dealt with Mr. Hegarty in Mill- 
 street. On June 10 some men came to my house at 
 night. They broke open the door and swore me not to 
 have any dealings with Mr. Hegarty. Notwithstanding 
 this I continued to deal with him. Three or four 
 months after the first visit some men came again. They 
 wanted to cut the hair off the head of one of my 
 daughters. One of the men struck me a blow on the 
 head with a gun. I did not realize that I was wounded 
 until I saw the blood running down my dress. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Daniel Sweeney deposed, — In 1881 I was a caretaker 
 in the employment of Mr. Hegarty. I was in charge of 
 the farm at Kippagh. On April 17 some men came to 
 my house at night-time. There were three of them. 
 They were outside the house. I was in bed, and they 
 called out to me to get up. I asked what they wanted, 
 and they replied that I must speak to them and that 
 they would not do anything to me. I then went to 
 the door, and they told me to leave Mr. Hegarty's 
 service. I answered that I had no means of living 
 except by earning wages. 
 
 SirH. James.— You had some police on the farm after 
 that ?— Yes. I suppose they were for Mr. Hegarty. 
 They were not there for me. 
 
 Of course not. (Laughter.) Where were the police 
 stationed ? — At Kippagh Farm. 
 
 That was where you were ? — Yes. 
 
 When did the police first go there ? — I think in May. 
 
 I think that these men visited the farm on April 
 17 ?— Yes. 
 
 After the arrival of the police the men never visited 
 you again at night ? — No. (The witness added an un- 
 intelligible explanation.) 
 
 Do you know John Murphy, of Millstreet ?— (No 
 reply.) 
 
 Do you know Mr. Murphy ? — Oh, yes. 
 
 He is a gentleman who has a horse and cart used in 
 the removal of furniture ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you apply to him for the use of them ? — Yes. 
 
 Did Murphy send you anywhere before he allowed 
 you to have his horse ? — No. 
 
 Did you go anywhere ? — I did not. 
 
 Did he send you anywhere ?— He asked me if I had 
 applied to the League, and I said I had not. I agreed 
 to do so, and I went to the League. 
 
 And then you got Murphy's horses ?-— Yes. 
 
 Of course you did. Did you get a card from the 
 League ? — I did not. I went to the League and told 
 them I wished to move, and they told me to go where 
 I liked. 
 
 Who gave yon that liberty ? — He was a black man 
 
 Kate Fitzgerald. 
 Daniel Sweeney. 
 
 (laughter), a black looking man. I do not know who 
 he was. He was a stranger. 
 
 Did the black man also give you a card ? — No. He 
 told me I could go where I liked. 
 
 Did you get a card ? — Yes ; on another day I got a 
 card, and paid a shilling for it. 
 
 Was it Murphy who told you to go to the League ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Eeid. — You got Murphy's 
 horses before you saw the black man ? — No ; that is 
 not so. I saw the black man first, and then got the 
 horses. 
 
 Where did you see this man ? — Inside a room. 
 
 What were you there for ? 
 
 The President. — The substance of what I under- 
 stood him to say is that he applied to Murphy, who 
 asked him to apply to the Land League. Then he ap- 
 pears to have gone to somebody and to have got a 
 card. 
 
 Mr. Rktd. — Yon were taking care of this farm when 
 the attack was made upon it ?— Yes. 
 
 Was it a farm from which anybody had been evicted ? 
 —No ; nor anything like it. (Laughter.) 
 
 It is, then, simply one of Mr. Hegarty's farms ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 There was no re-examination of the witness. 
 
 Daniel Kiordan, examined by Sir H. James. — In 
 1881 I was acting as caretaker for Mr. Hegarty. I 
 remember the time when the moonlighters visited me 
 about seven years ago. They broke in two doors and 
 entered the house. They drew me out of bed and put 
 me on my knees. They fired some shots about the 
 house. I was not hit. 
 
 Was your ear hurt ? — I got a slight " catch " in the 
 ear. It was not much harm. 
 
 Did it bleed ?— Yes. 
 
 Was it done with a knife ? — Yes. 
 
 You bled a good deal ? — Yes. 
 
 Yet it was a slight " catch." They put you on your 
 knees. What did they ask you to do ? — To leave Mr. 
 Hegarty. 
 
 Was that after you had received the slight " catch " 
 in the ear or before ? — I think it was before. 
 
 Since then, I believe, the police have been taking 
 care of you 1 — The police are in the yard where I am 
 living. 
 
 Did the men come more than once ?— (The witness 
 was understood to say that on another occasion two 
 men came and smashed all the windows of the house.) 
 
 Except that you were acting as caretaker for Mr. 
 Hegarty, do you know any reason why you should be so 
 treated ? — No, I do not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — Where was this 
 farm ? — Near Millstreet. It was called Clanhannon. 
 
 When were you put in as caretaker ? — About seven or 
 eight months before the visit of the moonlighters. 
 
 Who had been the tenant ? — Mr. Hegarty was the 
 owner. 
 
 Who was on the farm as tenant ? — Mr. Hegarty owned 
 
 Daniel Kiordan. 
 
508 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 the land. He had no tenant. He was occupying the 
 place himself. 
 
 Had a person been evicted from that farm when you 
 were put in as caretaker ? — No, Sir. There was a man 
 before that who had the farm ; his name was Thade 
 Drisooll. 
 
 Was he tenant of that farm ?— He was, before Mr. 
 Hegarty. . 
 
 The President. — I conjecture that Mr. Hegarty had 
 bought it. 
 
 Witness. — Mr. Hegarty bought the farm from Dris- 
 coll, Sir, some two years before this. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Do you say Hegarty had no tenant 
 from the time that he bought it up to the time you 
 were put in as caretaker ? — No, he had not, Sir ; his 
 own cattle were there. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You have lived a long time in the 
 district ? — I have, Sir. 
 
 Did you know Mr. Hegarty's father ? — I did not. 
 
 How long did you live in the district ? — A good many 
 years. 
 
 How many ?— Over 40 years. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— I think Mr. Hegarty 
 said his father died when he was eight years old. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — Was Mr. Hegarty's father a landowner 
 in the district ?— He was not, Sir. 
 
 The next witness was James Doyle, who was 
 examined by Sir H. James. Witness said, — I am a 
 sergeant in the Irish Constabulary, at Millstreet. I 
 succeeded the sergeant who was in charge of the station 
 before me, and these notices (producing some docu- 
 ments) were placed in my custody. They have been in 
 my custody one year and four months. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — I have been in 
 the Irish Constabulary over 18 years. I have not been 
 in my present district during that time. When I first 
 joined the Constabulary it was armed as it is now, with 
 Snider rifles, swords, and truncheons. It has been so 
 armed during the whole of the time I have been in the 
 Irish Constabulary. 
 
 Re-examined by Sib H. JAMES. — When we are on 
 ordinary day duty we wear truncheons. The other 
 arms we use at night. 
 
 Thomas Cahill was next called and examined by Sir 
 H.James. Witness said, — I have left the service of 
 the Royal Irish Constabulary. Formerly I was a head 
 constable. On December 28, 1881, I arrested a man 
 named Daniel Connell in connexion with some moon- 
 lighting raids. I found two documents upon his person 
 when I arrested him. (Documents produced.) 
 
 Sir H. James then read the documents, which 
 were as follows : — " To Patrick Ring, Horse 
 Mount. Please read the enclosed orders, which 
 must be performed. Notice— four men and self in per- 
 son to appear under all arms at an early hour at J. 
 Twohig's on the night of Dec. 30, 1881. Bring 
 Healey's shears. A bayonet out of the stock and false 
 whiskers for Owen Reredon also. (Signed) Moon- 
 
 t'ergeant James Doyle. 
 'iliomas Caiull. 
 
 light, for approval. Confirmed." The second document 
 was as follows :— " Dec. 30, 1881. Regimental 
 orders by Captain Moonlight. James Sullivan shot in 
 the legs and mother and daughter clipped for dealing 
 at Haggerty's. No. 2. John Lenihan storytelling to 
 F. Toom, clipped also. No. 3. Denis Cokeley for 
 turning out his labourer, clipped. No. 4, John 
 Murphy shot in the legs for paying his rent. No. 5. A 
 man for paying his rent also shot. Signed and con- 
 firmed by Captain Moonlight. M. Cokeley clipped for 
 talking to a peeler in Macrune and cursing moon- 
 lighters. Regimental orders by Captain M. N. L. 6. T. 
 •for appointed raids, Dec. 30, 1881." 
 
 Do you know any of these cases ? Who is Twohig ? 
 — He resided in that neighbourhood, and he and his 
 brother were afterwards convicted of moonlighting and 
 sentenced to penal servitude. Daniel Connell, the 
 man whom I took these documents from, gave evidence 
 against them. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — Connell was the name 
 of the man on whom these papers were found some 
 time in 1881. My initials are on the back of one of 
 the documents ; my initials are T. C, 28-12-'81. The 
 words " Regimental orders by Captain Moonlight for 
 appointed raids 30-12-'81 " were on the document 
 when I found it. 
 
 Was Connell a person who was ever tried ? — No, he 
 was not at that time ; he became an approver. 
 
 That is to say, he gave evidence against others ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Were the other persons convicted ? — Two were. 
 
 Did he become approver on more than one occasion ? 
 — There were two charges. 
 
 More trials than one ? — He did. 
 
 How many times did he go in the box ? — I think 
 about two or three times at the winter assizes, the 
 spring assizes, and, I think, the summer assizes. 
 
 When did he first give evidence or information to 
 the police ? — I am not aware that he ever gave 
 information to the police. It was after he was arrested, 
 when in gaol, I believe, that he became approver. 
 
 Did you inquire from him in whose handwriting 
 these papers were ? Did he ever swear in whose hand- 
 writing these papers were ? — I am not quite sure now. 
 I cannot recall that to memory. 
 
 Did you understand — did you believe that they were 
 in his own handwriting ? — I think it was believed that 
 they were in his own handwriting. 
 
 I am asked to suggest to you that he swore so upon 
 trial ? — I cannot recollect that. 
 
 Was he one of the ringleaders of these moonlighters? 
 — I believe he was. 
 
 Was he not the organizer of the moonlighters him- 
 self ?— I cannot say. I believe he assisted in them. 
 He was called the captain, but he stated that he was 
 not. 
 
 This document came into your possession 28-12-'81, ■ 
 and there was a notice for these raids 30-12-'81, 
 therefore this was not a memorandum of raids 
 
The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 509 
 
 that had taken place, but one of the raids that 
 Mr. Connell intended to carry out himself ? — Yes. 
 
 He was often a witness ? — I think three times. 
 
 Do you know what happened to him ? — I do not. 
 
 Did he leave the country ? — I cannot say. I do not 
 know if he is in the country. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — I cannot say — I do 
 not know — if Oonnell was arraigned or pleaded guilty. 
 I heard him give evidence. He said Owen Beardon — I 
 think that is the name — was the captain of the moon* 
 lighters, and he was acting under his orders. He was 
 a resident of Millstreet, I believe, and I think a trader 
 — a baker. I think he was tried, and that the jury 
 disagreed, and he was let out on his own recog- 
 nizances. I am not aware that he was convicted. 
 Oonnell said he had received £12 for his daring in 
 carrying out moonlighting raids. He said he had re- 
 ceived that from the Land League, but he did not say 
 from whom. 
 
 By Mr. Reid, — You say that this man said that he 
 got £12 from the Land League. When did ho say 
 that ? — He said it to me in conversation, and I am 
 certain I heard him swear it. 
 
 Can you give me an idea of where and when he 
 swore it ? — At the trial of James and Jeremiah Two- 
 hig ; that is, to the best of my belief. 
 
 There were, I think, two or three trials, you told 
 us ? — In depositions he made. 
 
 Did he state from whom ho received this money ? 
 —He did not name the particular person ; but I. recol- 
 lect that he said he got the choice of the Parnell 
 medal and £5, and he took the £5. (Laughter.) 
 
 Your recollection is that he swore that ? — My recol- 
 lection is he told me in conversation, and that he also 
 swore it. 
 
 That is the point I am asking you. And now I want 
 to get this explicitly from you. Can you state 
 whether or not he named any person as the person who 
 gave him the money ? — I cannot. 
 
 Can yoa state whether he was asked the question ? — 
 I cannot ; it is a longtime ago. 
 
 By Sir H. JAME3. — As I understand the man told you 
 he received £12 from the League, and you believe he 
 swore it ? — I believe I was listening to him swearing it, 
 and that was the deposition he made. 
 
 Thomas Cregg was next called and examinedjby Sir 
 H. James. Witness said, — I am a sergeant in the 
 Eoyal Irish Constabulary, and in December, 188S, 
 was stationed at Ballyvourney. On December 13, 
 1885, a meeting of the League was held in the League 
 room at Ballymakeery. On that evening I went into 
 the League room and saw a notice there posted up at 
 the entrance. The notice produced is the same. 
 
 Sir H. James then read the notice, which was as 
 follows :— 
 
 " Irish National League, December 13, 1885.— Re- 
 solved, that wo condemn the conduct of Jerry Hegarty 
 and William Connell (Count) in giving instructions to 
 lawyers to eject wholesale the tenants of the Bally- 
 
 vourney estate for the non-payment of rent which lands 
 do not yield ; and we therefore hold that the conduct 
 of Jerry Hegarty deserves the greatest censure, having 
 regard to the fact that he was supported from infancy 
 and educated at the expense of those tenants he is now 
 endeavouring to evict. And we are therefore resolved 
 to look upon any person who holds any intercourse or 
 dealing with them as approving of their conduct and 
 unworthy of the name of Nationalist and a supporter 
 of the Defence Union." 
 
 Was Jeremiah Lynch in the room ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you ask him, or any one in his presence, who 
 had put up this notice ? — Not in his presence. 
 
 Did you make any inquiry ? — I did. I asked Patrick 
 Hurley. He said he knew nothing about it. I did not 
 find out from any one who put it up. Two days after 
 this an attack was made upon a man named Cornelius 
 Lehane. He was serving processes at Ballyvourney, 
 He was severely beaten, and I believe four persona 
 were convicted for that. 
 
 The next witness was District-Inspector Starkie, of 
 the Royal Irish Constabulary. Witness said, — In May, 
 1881, I was temporarily stationed at Millstreet, in 
 county Cork. On the morning of May 27, 1881, an 
 attack upon Cornelius Kelleher was reported to me. 
 In consequence of that report I visited his houser on 
 the same morning. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Does he live at Tullig ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you receive a statement from Cornelius 
 Kelleher ? — He described the circumstances of tha 
 outrage. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I think, my Lord, this raises the old 
 point — whether this evidence can be received. 
 
 The President. — I understand the witness to say 
 what the man reported to him. 
 
 Mr. Reh>.—- S thought, my Lord, we were to have 
 what appears in the book ; otherwise we should 
 embark on an unlimited discussion. 
 
 The President. — I forgot the book. 
 
 Mr. ASQurra. — Cornelius Kelleher has also to-day 
 desertfred these very circumstances. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I thought that this gentleman being 
 the district inspector to whom the report was made, 
 we should be having it even more at first hand from 
 him himself. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — What we have assented to is, at all 
 events, a relaxation of the ordinary rules of evidence, 
 and ought not to be stretched further. 
 
 The President. — I quite think so ; it was a com* 
 promise which was come to. 
 
 Examination continued. — Did you make any entry in 
 the book at the time ?— That is the usual course, but 
 Millstreet was only a temporary district, and the 
 entry in the book was made by another officer. I had 
 the book. 
 
 I think you came to this district in April, 1881 ?— .> 
 Yes ; and remained there 13 months, till June, 1882. 
 
 Did you find that Hegarty was boycotted ?— He 
 was. 
 
 Have yott yourself seen any acts of boycotting, or 
 
 Sergeant Thomas Cregg. 
 
 District-Inspector Starkie. 
 
510 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 taken steps to deal with it ? — Yes ; his servants and 
 people he employed were shouted and booed at in the 
 town. I prosecuted several people, and they were 
 bound over. I did not provide personal protection, 
 but there were huts for police placed in the district. 
 There were policemen in them. They were for the 
 protection of Hegarty. 
 
 Now, on the 10th of June, 1881, did you hear any- 
 thing about Lawrence Fitzgerald ? — I was told that 
 his house had been attacked the night before. 
 ' Do you know O'Mahoney ? — Yes, I lived in his 
 house ; I lodged with him. 
 
 To your knowledge was he an intimate friend of 
 Hegarty's ? — Yes, he was married to a connexion of 
 Hegarty' s. 
 
 Was O'Mahoney boycotted ? — He was completely 
 boycotted. 
 
 What was he ? — He was a draper. 
 
 I think yon found that he had difficulties with 
 regard to getting things P — He was unable to get meat 
 from the local butcher ; he got it from the military 
 barracks ; it was supplied to them and then sent to us. 
 
 In June, 1881, in consequence of a report you re- 
 ceived, did you visit the house of Edward Mahoney ? — 
 Yes, I found that the windows had been broken in 
 the house. In August, 1881, it was reported to me 
 that the house of Michael Lynch had been visited by a 
 moonlighting party. 
 
 Would there be an entry of that in the book ? — Not 
 made by me. 
 
 By some one in the course of business ? — Yes. The 
 took is in town, but it is not here. 
 
 Was Canon Griffin the clergyman at Millstreet ? — 
 Yes. I do not know how long he has been there. 
 
 Was he boycotted ? — I cannot say he was boycotted ; 
 there were boycotting notices posted up about him, 
 and I believe there was a considerable falling off in 
 the ordinary dues. 
 
 Who was the secretary of the Millstreet branch 
 when you were there ? — John Riordan, I think. 
 
 Do you know any Owen Riordan ?— Yes ; I heard 
 the last witness speak of Owen Riordan ; but Owen 
 Riordan does not live at Millstreet and is not secre- 
 tary. 
 
 You know Connell ? — Yes. I had a conversation 
 with him. 
 
 During the time you were at Millstreet had you to 
 increase the number of police ? — Yes. When I went 
 there in April, 1881, the force consisted of 20 men and 
 a head constable ; it was subsequently increased to 
 about G5 men. 
 
 What was the cause ? — The outrages in the district 
 and the boycotting of Hegarty. 
 
 During that time was your attention frequently 
 called to these moonlighting outrages ? — Frequently. 
 
 Where had you been before you went to Millstreet ? 
 — In Queen's County. I have been in the service 
 since May, 1879. 
 
 Could you find any trace of who these moonlighters 
 were ? — Yes. 
 
 Speaking from your own knowledge, what class 
 were they ? — As a rule farmers' sons ; occasionally 
 there were labourers among them, and people also 
 belonging to the shopkeeping class in Millstreet. 
 
 Were : most of the people in the district Land 
 Leaguers ? — Yes, I think the exception was to find a 
 man who was not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — You have the books 
 with regard to all this time ? — I should think so. 
 I think I have the Macroom book. 
 
 Nowi is there any objection to producing the books?— 
 Not in the least. 
 
 With regard to Connell, he had been in the Army, 
 had he not ?— Yes. 
 
 Was he not a man of very bad character indeed ? — 
 Not that I am aware of. I knew nothing of him until 
 he was arrested for moonlighting. 
 
 Before that had he had any connexion with the 
 police ? — I am not aware ; I never heard that he had. 
 
 Do you know a man named Culligan, an informer 
 who has cropped up in Clare ? — I have heard of him. 
 
 Was he in your district in 1881 ? — Not that I am 
 awire of. 
 
 You' were not acquainted at all events with it if 
 there was any connexion between Culligan and the 
 police ? — None to my knowledge. 
 
 With regard to moonlighting — never mind the name — 
 night visits for the purpose of intimidation and 
 threatening, you have known them since you have been 
 in the service ? — Not in so great a number. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — How long were you in Queen's 
 County?— From September, 1879, to April, 18S1. 
 
 During that time were there cases of firing into 
 dwelling-houses brought to your notice ?— Not in mj 
 district. 
 
 Did you hear of such cases in other districts ? — My 
 district was only a portion of the county ; they may 
 have occurred in other districts without my knowing 
 it. 
 
 Were you aware of cases of threatening letters being 
 sent to persons who had obtained ejectments ? — I do 
 not know any particular case. 
 
 Are you prepared to say that to the best of your re- 
 collection such cases did not occur ? — They may have. 
 
 You may have forgotten them ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you hear of notices being sent to persons who 
 were trying to get farms from which it was thought 
 persons were to be evicted ? — No, I do not think I 
 did. 
 
 You may have forgotten it ? — It is possible. 
 
 Did you hear of notices being posted on public 
 buildings denouncing people for payment of rent ? — I 
 believe such notices were posted in Queen's County. 
 It was in 1880, as far as I remember ; I may bo 
 wrong. 
 
 Can you give a particular case of that ? — I think a 
 notice was posted up at Ballyhighland. I believe a 
 notice was posted up on the chapel gate. 
 
 What became of it ? — It came to me in the course of 
 my duty, but I forwarded it on. 
 
 District-Inspector Starkie. 
 
The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 511 
 
 It threatened persons who paid their rent ? — I believe 
 it was in connexion with rent ; I am not sure. It may- 
 have been in 1880, possibly earlier, but I do not 
 think so. 
 
 Was Queen's County one of the quietest counties ? — 
 Yes. My district was remarkably quiet. 
 
 Yet you had heard of such things as threatening 
 notices ? — No ; the only case I recollect is the one I 
 have told you. 
 
 You say that other cases might have happened and 
 you had forgot them. Did you hear of the case of 
 Blackfarm, at Enockaroon ? — No. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Did you know James Ellis French ? 
 — Yes ; he was Detective Director of the Royal Irish 
 Constabulary. I think I met him in Millstreet in 
 September, 1881. 
 
 Was that before or after Connell turned approver ? — 
 Before. 
 
 Do you know whether he was known to James Ellis 
 French ? — I do not know ; I was not aware. I know 
 nothing whatever about him. 
 
 Do you know whether Connell got any money from 
 French ? — I do not know. 
 
 Did you hear or read that James Ellis French gave 
 money to one Noonan for getting up bogus outrages ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — The witness is now being asked 
 concerning a specific matter of fact— whether he had 
 heard or read of it. I submit that he cannot be asked 
 such a question. 
 
 The President. — It is not a usual form of examina- 
 tion to ask what the witness has heard or read. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — This man was a notorious person, and 
 we believe that money was given. 
 
 The President. — The witness has denied that he 
 knows, and I do not think you are entitled to go 
 further. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — French was tried and 
 sent to imprisonment ? — Yes. I do not know how 
 long. I think I read in the public Press that it was 
 for two years. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Is it a fact that you had large 
 numbers of prisoners in sundry cases, and that they 
 were acquitted in the majority of cases ? — Yes. 
 
 A very large majority ? — Yes. 
 
 How many men did you get convicted ? — Two men 
 were convicted for the attack on Mrs. Fitzgerald, and 
 another was convicted of another raid. I think I 
 took over 100 altogether. We were not ,able to procure 
 evidence. If the witnesses had told the truth we would 
 have had no difficulty in getting convictions. (Laughter.) 
 
 Be-examined by Sir H. James.— You have spoken 
 of having arrested hundreds of persons. Did you 
 arrest them on information given to you ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you find as a rule that you could obtain informa- 
 tion from the persons attacked ?— In a great many 
 cases, not in all. 
 
 Rev. Canon Griffin was the next witness. In reply 
 to the Attorney-General he said,— I went to 
 Castleisland in 1855. The place was then quiet and 
 
 peaceable, and the people were industrious and 
 religious. In 1857 I went to Killarney and I remained 
 there till 1872. At the end of 1872 I went to Mill- 
 street, and I have been there up to the present time. 
 From 1872 till 1880 the neighbourhood of Millstreet 
 was excessively peaceable. The people were quiet, 
 industrious, and religious. I kept an accurate account 
 of my communicants, and I found that, taking an 
 average for the years between 1873 and 1879 inclusive, 
 they amounted to 39,000 per annum. In 1880 the 
 number of communicants fell off. The district, which 
 had been quiet and peaceable, became disturbed, and 
 during 1881 and 1882 there was a great falling off in 
 the number of people who attended to their religious 
 duties. The great majority of the people continued 
 very respectful towards me, though a good number did 
 not. One of the male schools in Millstreet was boy- 
 cotted in consequence of the teacher, William Reardon, 
 having given evidence at the Assizes at Cork. Reardon 
 had previously been in the school as a monitor. After- 
 wards I appointed him assistant teacher, and then 
 teacher of the junior school. He had been in the 
 school from the time I went to Millstreet, and he 
 was a young man whose conduct was extremely well 
 regulated in every respect. A collector in my church 
 named Reardon, the father of the school teacher, was 
 also boycotted. One morning I was surprised to find 
 the gallery on one side of the transept almost empty, 
 while the gallery on the other side was crowded to 
 excess. After the service I made inquiries, and found 
 that notice or word had been given to the people — I 
 do not know by whom — not to enter by one door in 
 consequence of Reardon being the collector there. 
 The elder Reardon, I think, also gave evidence. 
 I had a smaller church at Cullen, which was 
 attended by a man named O'Keefe, who had 
 been boycotted and was under police protection. 
 Just previous to the service one Sunday when 
 O'Keefe entered the church the people all got up and 
 walked out. On all occasions I preached against out- 
 rage. On December 25, 1881, I found a notice posted 
 on the door of my church, importing that I favoured 
 the " tyrants " of the country, and saying that those 
 who gave Christmas gifts to me would get buckshot. 
 Every time that an outrage had taken place in my 
 parish I had denounced it. A man named Jeremiah 
 Reardon, a brother of the collector in the church, who 
 was boycotted, was secretary of the local branch of 
 the Land League. One day I was denouncing some 
 crime — I do not exactly remember what — when he 
 spoke out in church most offensively. My parish be- 
 came disturbed immediately after the establishment of 
 the Land League. Up to that time rents were fairly 
 paid in my district. The outrages seemed to me to 
 arise out of mere vindictiveness and malice rather than 
 anything connected with the land. People were much 
 intimidated and often told me they were afraid to do 
 things they wanted to. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— I object to my friend giving evidence of 
 what people said to Canon Griffin. 
 
 District-Inspector Starkie. 
 
 Very Rev. Canon Griffin. 
 
!512 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 The President,— I think it is admissible as general 
 evidence. 
 
 Examination continued. — I believe that a great many- 
 people were coerced into doing things which they did 
 Dot like. If I remember rightly, the League was first 
 established in the Millstreet district about 1880 or 
 1881. 
 
 Cross-examined hy Mr. Reid. — There are a good many 
 exemplary priests all over Ireland who are in sympathy 
 irith the League, are there not ? — Thousands. 
 
 Who no doubt, like yourself, have denounced out- 
 rages and crime ? — Very possibly. I have heard so. 
 . I understood you to say that vindictiveness had a 
 good deal more to do with crime than the land ques- 
 tion ?— As far as my parish was concerned, I believe so. 
 
 Do you contend that the substantial basis of the Land 
 League was spoliation ? — I do not say it was started for 
 that purpose, but when established it was used for that 
 end. 
 
 What was the condition of the Millstreet district in 
 1879, when the Land League was started ?— Very 
 peaceable, as far as I remember. There was a good 
 deal of distress, but it was stopped by relief. It was 
 brought about by the failure of the potato crop. 
 
 Were the rents about Millstreet largely reduced by 
 the Land Commissioners ? — They were reduced by the 
 Commissioners and by the landlords. 
 
 Is it not the case that reductions as a general rule 
 were opposed before the passing of the Land Act '1 — I 
 never heard of cases where they were refused . I know 
 that on several occasions I recommended the landlords 
 in the district to give substantial reductions, and they 
 almost invariably adopted my suggestions. 
 
 You considered that the reductions were necessary ? 
 —Absolutely necessary. I considered that a very large 
 portion of the land about Millstreet was much over- 
 rented, and I was surprised that the people 6eemed 
 satisfied to pay such high rents. 
 
 You have told us that the Land League was misused ; 
 do you not agree that the excessive rents that pre- 
 vailed and the deep distress in consequence were the 
 causes which provoked the agitation of 1879 ? — It may 
 have been. As a priest I could not admit anything 
 into my parish which caused irreligion or disorder. 
 
 I am asking you what in your opinion were the 
 causes of the agitation ? — I believe that every agitation 
 Bhould be conducted within the walls of the Ten Com- 
 mandments. 
 
 So do I, but the question I want to ask you is 
 whether you do not think that the excessive rentals 
 Were the cause of the agitation ? — I do not think so. 
 I think that the people themselves were not the cause 
 of the agitation, but that it was the work of people 
 who wanted to come to the front and be great men. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Did not the agitation get the sympathy of the 
 people in 1879 ? — I dare say. Sympathy would come 
 yery quickly after it was originated. 
 
 What do you think was the cause of the popularity 
 of the Land League ? — When a tempting picture is 
 
 presented to the people they look at it and come to 
 admire it. 
 
 When did crimes begin in your district ? — Boycotting 
 began at the end of 1880. I think that crimes of 
 violence classed in Government returns as agrarian 
 offences began in 1881, 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood,— Do I understand 
 that you have been opposed to the Land League from 
 its very start ? — Yes. 
 
 Are you in the position, as far as your brethren are 
 concerned, that yon are standing alone in, this ques- 
 tion ? — I do not know that ; I do not believe I do. 
 
 Can you give me the name of one of your brethren 
 who holds the same opinion on this subject that you 
 do ? — I cannot. 
 
 Can you give me the name of one in your district ? — 
 In my district I believe all my clerical brethren sup- 
 port the Land League. 
 
 How many priests are there in your deanery ? — 
 Eleven or twelve. 
 
 Was there, as far as you know, any agitation in your 
 district with regard to the matter of rent before the 
 establishment of the Land League ?— Not to my know- 
 ledge. 
 
 Was there not a fair rent agitation in 1878-9 ? — 
 Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Have yon heard of the Farmers' Club ? — That was 
 not in Millstreet. When it is out of my district I 
 pay no attention to such things. 
 
 Did you ever hear of it ? — Yes» 
 
 Where was it held ? — At some place 20 miles from 
 Millstreet. 
 
 Did you not hear in 1878-9 of any agitation in favou 
 of the reduction of rent ? — No, not that I remember. 
 
 Did not you yourself in the services in your church 
 in 1878-9 denounce an agitation which was then going 
 on for the reduction of rent ?— Certainly not. 
 ! Not in your own church and from your own altar ?— 
 I do not think so. 
 
 I ask you whether you did so or not ? — I am almost 
 certain I did not. 
 
 It is not the sort of thing which you would have for- 
 gotten if you had done it ? — The only allusion I made 
 from the altar at that time was when the Government 
 gave cheap loans, when I advised the farmers to meet 
 after the service, and they did meet for the purpose of 
 seeing what they could do with regard to them. 
 
 That was not in 1878-9 ?— It was in 1879, I believe. 
 
 I am asking you with reference to the course you 
 pursued in 1878-9, I do not, however, wish to spend 
 more time upon that. You espoused the cause of 
 Hegarty ?— I espoused the cause of morality. 
 , I did not say anything about the cause of morality. 
 I asked you about Hegarty. Are they synonymous 
 terms ? You see yon will argue with me instead of 
 answering my questions. 
 
 The Pbesident. — Yes ; but he is answering what 
 is implied in your question. 
 
 Examination continued.— Did you espouse the causa 
 
 Very Rev. Cauoii Griffin. 
 
The Special Commission, December 4, 1888. 
 
 513 
 
 of this man ? — No. I was opposing the iniquity that 
 was going oh. The man was boycotted. 
 
 Do you remember Hegarty starting a bakery on his 
 own account ? — I do. 
 
 Do you recollect taking active steps in supporting 
 that bakery ? — No. 
 
 Do you remember a man named Cooper ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he a rival of Hegarty's ? — He was a rival of all 
 bakers. (Laughter.) 
 
 Do you recollect taking any active steps with regard 
 to Cooper ? What did you do ? — Other bakers told me 
 that he Was selling bread much below the proper 
 weight, and I Spoke of it from the altar. I cannot say 
 what I did. 
 
 I am not asking you that. — I cannot say what I did 
 unless you will allow me to say what he did. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attobney-GenebaIj. — You shall have an op- 
 portunity of explaining afterwards. 
 
 Cross-examination contiuued. — What did you say 
 from the altar with regard to Cooper ? — I spoke of 
 selling bread that was short in weight as not being 
 honest. 
 
 You mean his underselling the other bakers ? — It was 
 not a question of underselling. It was a case of giving 
 short weight. 
 
 Did you pay a visit to Cooper ?— -Certainly not. 
 
 Did you take any other steps with regard to him ? — 
 No. 
 
 Then what I understand is that you did mention the 
 fact from the altar that Cooper was not selling bread 
 as he ought to have done from your point of view ? — 
 From the public point of view. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — I have only a few questions to ask 
 you. You say that the cause of the agitation was not 
 the people themselves, but certain persons who wanted 
 to come to the front and «to create names for them- 
 selves ? — Yes. 
 
 Does that observation apply to Bishops and to priests ? 
 —I do not know that they initiated the agitation, but 
 even if they did that would not prevent me from taking 
 the action I did in the matter. 
 
 I am not questioning your right to take any action 
 you might think fit to adopt. I ask you whether your 
 Archbishop did not take a prominent part in assisting 
 the agitation ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you not know that he took an active part in the 
 initiation of the Land League movement 1 — I do not 
 know that. 
 
 You have told us that you preached against outrage 
 always. Did you ever preach against evictions ?— 
 There were only five or six in my parish, and in those 
 I was obliged in the interests of peace to interfere 
 to get them settled. 
 
 In the interests of peace as well as of justice ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 You believed that evictions caused very bad feeling 
 and disturbance ? — Yes. I believed that, undoubtedly. 
 
 But evictions of every kind Will cause angry feelings 
 on the part of the evicted ?— Naturally. 
 
 Do you remember the evictions which followed the 
 famine of 1848-49 ?— I was a boy at that time, but I 
 understood that there were very cruel evictions at that 
 time. 
 
 Do you remember the year 1849 ? — Not specially. 
 It was the year before I went to college. 
 
 It was a year of great disturbance in Ireland, was it 
 not ? — I should say so, but I do not recollect myself. 
 
 Do you know that there were over 200 agrarian 
 murders in 1849 ?— No, I do not. I was a boy at the 
 time. I may say this — that there were no agrarian 
 murders committed in the county of Kerry for 30 or 
 40 years until PofE and Barrett were executed. I 
 believe, though, that there was one agrarian murder 
 which was committed in the county the year before I 
 went to Castleisland, but that I understood to be the 
 result of a family feud. 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal.— He is speaking of 1854. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Are you a native of 
 Kerry ? — I am. 
 
 I think you say that you advised the landlords to 
 give reductions ? — Yes. 
 
 Then that was in the interests of peace as well as 
 justice ? — It was. 
 
 Then you thought that substantial reductions of ' rent 
 would conduce to peace ? — Most decidedly. 
 
 You have said that the people were coerced into 
 joining the agitation in your district ? — Undoubtedly. 
 A great many people would not have joined in the 
 agitation of the Land League had they not been com- 
 pelled to do so. 
 
 Do you remember the land agitation in 1852 ? — No. 
 
 I suppose that you know that it was not continuous ? 
 — No, I do not. 
 
 You say that you sympathized with Mr. Hegarty 
 because he was boycotted ? I am not putting this 
 question to you in an offensive manner. If you think 
 that I am I will apologize beforehand. You have, I 
 suppose, read a veiy able letter written by Mr. 
 Hegarty and addressed to myself ? — I do not think I 
 read it. I believe that he read it to me soon aftei 
 he had written it and he complained to me that you had 
 not answered it. 
 
 There may be a question as to my having answered 
 it. But what I wish to ask you is, Did you write that 
 letter for him ? — No, certainly not. Mr. Hegarty can 
 write a letter as well as anybody in this court. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Now, how do you define an unjust 
 eviction P — A case where a man did his best to pay his 
 rent — did not allow himself to fall into these largo 
 arrears, and paid what he could. If in such circum- 
 stances a landlord was cruel enough to evict him that 
 would, in my opinion, be an unjust eviction. 
 
 Have you ever known of an unjust eviction ? — Yes. 
 
 You have told us that you preached against outrages. 
 Have you ever preached against unjust evictions ?— 
 I do not consider that there were any unjust evictions 
 in my parish, and therefore I did not think it neces« 
 sary to preach against them. In a large number of 
 cases the matter was settled. 
 
 Very Rev. Canon Griffin, 
 
 17 
 
514 
 
 The Special Commission, December 4 and 5, 1888. 
 
 Then you did not preach against unjust evictions or 
 extortionate rents ? — There was no necessity. It was 
 not for me as a priest in an agricultural district to 
 raise a storm. 
 
 Is not extortion a sin ? — It is. 
 
 And yet at the same time you did not preach against it 
 —There are two sides to the question. I believe 
 that the landlords were to blame and that the tenants 
 were to blame also, because the farmers offered such 
 enormous rents that they tempted the landlords to 
 accept rents which they could not pay. Then I saw 
 that the tenants when they saw a farm to be sold 
 would offer fabulous sums for it. 
 
 Did you preach against land-grabbing or covetous- 
 ness ? — There was no land-grabbing in my district. What 
 was the necessity for preaching against what did not 
 exist? 
 
 Are not you the only priest in your district who has 
 identified himself with the landlords ? — I have not identi- 
 fied myself with the landlords more than any other 
 priest. I love the people as much as any other priest, 
 and I have gone as far to serve them. 
 
 Have you ever written a letter to a paper called the 
 Union in Dublin ? — No. 
 
 Your relatives are, I believe, very much in sympathy 
 with Lord Kenmare ? — My brother was his physician 
 and I was his chaplain some years ago, and some of 
 my relatives were tenants on the Kenmare estates. 
 
 Therefore your family was very cIo?ely identified 
 with Lord Kenmare in every way ? — I should be glad 
 to be identified with Lord Kenmare in any way, because 
 there is not a better landlord in Ireland. 
 
 Are you aware that in Kerry there is more crime than 
 in any other diocese in Ireland ? — Unfortunately there is. 
 
 And the Bishop of Kerry happens to be one of the 
 very few Bishops who take the part of the landlords 
 against the people ? — I am very glad you have asked 
 me that question. The Bishop of Kerry has done no 
 such thing. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — How long 
 ago did the Cooper incident take place ? — The year 
 after I went to Millstreet — in 1873. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— If it is not inconvenient to Canon Griffin, 
 perhaps he had better remain in London, as Sir Charles 
 Russell might wish to ask him a few questions. 
 
 The President. — Not unless you can put forward 
 some special object to be gained. 
 
 The Commissioners then adjourned at 20 minutes 
 past 4 o'clock. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 25tb sitting 
 bo-day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate 
 Court of the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 Their Lordships took their seats on the bench at 
 half -past 10. 
 
 Charles Moroney, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, 
 — I am a sergeant in the Irish Constabulary. I was 
 present at a meeting at Millstreet on December 15, 
 
 1885. I know Dr. Tanner. He was at that meeting. 
 He spoke there. He made some remarks with refer- 
 ence to Mr. Hegarty. I took a note of what be 
 said. He spoke three times on that night. I was pre- 
 sent on each of these occasions. I made my note of 
 what he said about an hour after I heard him speak. 
 I had a good recollection of what he said at the time 
 I made it. I have the note with me. 
 
 Just take out your note and tell us what Dr. Tanner 
 said in reference to Mr. Hegarty. — He called him " a 
 vile, creeping reptile living in their midst, who used all 
 his influence maligning the people. He was endeavour- 
 ing to climb to the magistracy. He would yet be 
 relegated to the lowest depths of a felon's cell." 
 
 Have you a note of anything he said on the other 
 occasions ? — Yes ; he spoke again of Mr. Hegarty. 
 He called him " an infamous being, who did not 
 deserve the name of being, whose proper definition 
 would be a thing ; but since he should call him being, 
 he would call him the lowest of created beings — a 
 creeping louse." Later on he added, " As long as 
 Hegarty is in your midst there will never be peace in 
 Millstreet, and I call on all present who wish him 
 away to hold up their hands." This wa3 all addressed 
 to a large crowd of people. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — You do not 
 write shorthand ? — No. 
 
 Is this your first experience in reporting speeches ? — 
 It is, Six. 
 
 Your first experience ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you forward this important speech to the autho- 
 rities or your superiors ? — I did, Sir. 
 
 To whom did you send it ? — To Head Constable 
 O'Brien. 
 
 You say this gentleman spoke on three occasions on 
 this day ? — He spoke on three occasions on that night. 
 
 How long each time? — About 20 minutes, I should 
 say. 
 
 Perhaps more? — Yes, perhaps more. 
 
 He spoke altogether more than an hour ? — I should 
 think so. 
 
 I suppose that what yon took a note of would take 
 only a minute or two to speak ? — Oh, yes ; I have 
 only a few words. 
 
 You picked out the plums ? — Yes. 
 
 This was not a very elegant course of orations ?— 
 No. 
 
 Somewhat coarse and vulgar ? — I thought so. 
 
 Let me see your book. (Reading.) " Dr. Tanner 
 referred to the sale at Cronin's." What was that ?— 
 I understand that Cronin's property was about to be 
 seized for rent. 
 
 Do you know that of your own knowledge ? — I have 
 heard of it. 
 
 Very well. Now (continuing reading), " he called 
 on all present who approved of it to hold up their 
 hands and to keep them up and swear they would 
 unite and stand to each other and would not take those 
 farms." I presume, then, that Cronin was to be 
 evicted ? — I believe that was so. 
 
 Sergeant Charles Moroney. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 515 
 
 Then, " Ho afterwards spoke oE Mr. Hegarty, and 
 abused him in a fearfully violent manner." Then follows 
 the speech. Hegarty was most unpopular at that 
 time ? — Yes. 
 
 You go on, " A torchlight procession accompanied 
 him to the railway-station, outside of which he again 
 addressed them, his entire speech being abuse of 
 Hegarty. He called on all those in the crowd who 
 wished to have Hegarty away to raise their hands. 
 The entire crowd raised their hands and kept up a 
 groaning and booing. He also made reference to the 
 landlords. Afterwards Dr. Tanner spoke inside the 
 station. He addressed the crowd a short time before 
 the train came in. Mr. Townsend, who was waiting for 
 the train, was groaned at by the crowd, and when the 
 train arrived he had to get in a carriage guarded by 
 police, and stones were thrown breaking the 
 window." Who is Mr. Townsend ? — He is a land 
 agent. He and Mr. Hegarty were connected with 
 some property in the district. 
 
 I see you go back again in your note. This is a sort 
 of narrative, and not a report ? — Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — Is this your own unaided recol- 
 lection written down here ? — Yes/ 
 
 Were you the only Government reporter present ?— I 
 am not a reporter, but I was the only person who 
 reported this. 
 
 Do you know whether any other report was made by 
 any other person on behalf of the Government ? — I 
 cannot say that. 
 
 Think. — I cannot say ; I have no knowledge what 
 other people may do. There were three other police- 
 men at the meeting. 
 
 Were they there for the purpose of reporting the 
 speeches ? — No, none of them. 
 
 Do I understand that you had no intention of report- 
 ing the speech until you got back to the station ? — I 
 formed the intention of reporting the speech when I 
 heard the language used. When I hear violent lauguage 
 I am bound to notice. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir II. James. — You told Sir 
 Charles Russell that Hegarty was an unpopular man. 
 How long have you been in his district ? — Since 
 December 11, 1882. 
 
 You found Hegarty a boycotted man when ' you got 
 there ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lock-wood.— My Lords, may I call attention to 
 the Attorney-General's speech at page 261 of the 
 original report ? It is in relation to a question I asked 
 jnst now as to there being another report. Speaking 
 of this speech, the Attorney-General said, " If you 
 compare it with the speech I have read, you will see 
 jt is the same, but it happens to be made of two 
 different reports." 
 
 Sir H. Jambs. — Do you want the other report ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwoou. — Well, I don't know. 
 
 Thomas Hobbins, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, 
 — I am a Head Constable in the Royal Irish Constabu- 
 lary. I attended a meeting held at Millstrcet on 
 
 August 15, 1886. Dr. Tanner was present. I heard 
 him address the people. There was a large crowd. I 
 had been stationed in Millstreet about seven or eight 
 months before that. I did not attend the meeting 
 specially to make a report. I did make a report of 
 what Dr. Tanner said immediately after the meeting. 
 (The witness then read from his notes.) " Speaking of 
 the landlord tactics at the last election, he said they 
 irritated the people, and he, as a doctor, told them that 
 when a sore of a patient irritated, inflammation set in, 
 and the inflammation now set in should be brought to 
 a point whether the lancet used was rifle or sabre. " 
 Alluding to Mr. Hegarty he said, — " That landlord 
 hireling and pimp, J. Hegarty, that parasite of infamy 
 that no words would be low enough to describe, that 
 louse — he fed on the rotten carrion of those land- 
 lords." 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — How many 
 people were there at the meeting ? — I should say 
 about 300 or 400. 
 
 Was the meeting peaceable ? — Yes. 
 
 Was the election referred to the election that had 
 just come off in July, 1886 ? — I believe so. 
 
 Who were the candidates there ? Was not Dr. 
 Tanner himself the candidate for that division ? — Yes, 
 he was elected. 
 
 By what majority ? — By a very large majority. 
 
 Who was the candidate against him ? — From memory 
 I could not say. 
 
 You are aware that Mr. Hegarty did take, as no 
 doubt he was entitled to do, the anti-popular side — the 
 landlord side — in the election ? — Yes. 
 
 That did not add to his popularity, did it ? — I should 
 say not. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwoot) (referring to the note produced by 
 the witness). — Is this the original note you made ? — 
 That is the report I made about five or sis minutes 
 after he concluded. 
 
 Did you take any note before you wrote out this ? — 
 No, I went at once to the barrack and wrote out 
 that. 
 
 Did not you say you had another report ? — I said I 
 had a copy of that. 
 
 Did not I understand you to say you had a note you 
 had written down at the meeting ? — Yes, I have it 
 here, but it is not very full. 
 
 I daresay it is not. You made a fuller on3 after- 
 wards. (To the Court.) Perhaps your Lordships will 
 allow me a short time to compare these two papers, 
 and if anything turns upon the comparison I should 
 like to ask a few questions. 
 
 The President.— Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson.— I wish now, my Lords, to read a 
 number of threatening notices with reference to the 
 case of Hegarty. The first is in December, 1880 :— 
 " Take notice that if you pay rent just now your body 
 will bo a mark for a bullet. Let Trench and his 
 hungry dog go as empty as they came. That dog is 
 Hegarty, and before long his body will bo a mark for 
 a rifle, Join the Land League," 
 
 Head. Constable Thomas Hobbins. 
 
 17-2 
 
516 
 
 The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 The President. — Will it be necessary to read them 
 all? 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — No, my Lord, I do not think so. 
 That is only a specimen of a bundle of four or five. 
 The next is in 1881 :— " Take notice that any person 
 found entering the premises of J. Hegarty will be 
 expelled from the Land League and afterwards be 
 boycotted as he has been. Follow this maxim. If 
 not I will sacrifice my life for any of you." The last 
 few words are illegible. There is a great number of 
 them, but this is a very fair specimen. They are all in 
 reference to Hegarty. 
 
 The President. — How many ? Tell me as nearly as 
 you can how many you have got. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — I should think about 20, either to 
 Hegarty or his tenants or customers. Another reads : 
 — " If you pay any rent to that pauper Hegarty you 
 had better look out." Then another : — " Any person 
 found dealing with Hegarty in butter or anything 
 whatever or paying bis rent will be shot. (Signed) 
 Captain Moonlight." 
 
 Sir H. James. — I think, my Lords, that concludes 
 Hegarty's case with the exception of one matter — 
 namely, one or two extracts from the Cork Herald. 
 Perhaps your Lordships would allow me to wait for a. 
 day or two before I put them in, as my friend 
 Mr. Lockwood said he was prepared to make some 
 admissions with regard to Mr. Hooper's position on 
 that paper. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— As I said, in answer to some 
 former observations of my learned friend, I am in a 
 position to admit that Mr. Hooper was the responsible 
 editor of this paper from 1885. He is not in England 
 at the present time, though he will be here to-day. I 
 should be glad, therefore, if the reading of these 
 extracts could be postponed. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Postpone reading these extracts ? 
 Certainly, with my Lords' permission. Mr. Lockwood 
 has before said that Mr. Hooper was in a subordinate 
 position on this paper in 1885. Our view is that Mr. 
 Hooper was acting editor up to 1885. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — You will postpone this ? 
 
 Sir H. James.— Certainly. 
 
 Sir C. Russell, addressing their Lordships, said, — 
 Before the next witness is called, my Lords, there is a 
 matter upon which we are anxious to be informed. I 
 have spoken to all my learned friends — and I need not 
 point out that the worry of this case comes upon none 
 more than upon your Lordships — and I certainly would 
 ask your Lordships, unless you see some reason to the 
 contrary, not to sit beyond the end of next week. 
 
 The President. — I and my colleagues would have 
 continued to sit as long as it was desired of us by the 
 parties, but if the parties agree in that request, I think 
 we are justified in acceding to it. 
 
 Sir H. James.— My learned friends and myself would 
 gladly have gone on if we could to the end of the month, 
 but I think it is convenient to allow the witnesses to 
 return home before Christmas. We therefore concur. 
 
 The President. — Very well ; that is reasonable. 
 
 Richard Williams, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, 
 — I live at Fermoy, near Cork. In 1884 I took a farm 
 which had been occupied previously by Thomas Russell. 
 He had been evicted. When I had been there a couple 
 of months I found difficulty in getting my horces shod. 
 The smith refused to shoe my horses. On one occasion 
 when a horse's feet had been measured the shoes could 
 not be put on. 
 
 What did the smith say when he refused to put the 
 shoes on ? — The blacksmith's wife told me that if they 
 shod my horses John Higgins would take his work 
 from them, and that other parties would also take their 
 work away. 
 
 Do you know whether Higgins was connected with 
 the Land League branch in that neighbourhood ? — I am 
 sure he was a member of it. Some time after this I 
 was in a publichouse in the village of Nowerhadda. It 
 was in the beginning of 1885 . A man named Lahihy 
 asked me to go outside. He was secretary of the Ahadda 
 branch of the League. He asked me who shod my 
 horses. I told him that I was getting them shod at 
 home. That was true, for I had to send for smiths to 
 shoe the horses at home. Lahihy then said that if I 
 did not give up the farm the three parishes would 
 unite and would not allow a blacksmith to work for 
 me. I told him I did not care, and then he said that 
 if I did not care I should be shot. In June, 1885, I 
 saw him in the road, and he asked me whether I had 
 left the farm and said I would have to leave. Some 
 time afterwards, in December, some men came to my 
 house at 11 or 12 o'clock at night. I was in bed, and 
 I heard a knocking at the door and some one asked me 
 for a match. I opened the door and gave them a 
 match. As soon as I had done that I was fired at, and 
 the shot struck me in the groin and all down the 
 leg. 
 
 Did the difficulty about getting your horses shod 
 continue all this time ? — It did, all along. Eventually 
 I gave up the farm to the rent warden that it might 
 be restored to Russell. During the boycotting Colonel 
 Thackwell lent me some horses. I had difficulty in 
 getting workmen and horses. 
 
 Did anything happen to Colonel Thackwell ? — I 
 could not tell you what happened to him. I remember 
 he was boycotted. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell, — When were you 
 first spoken to about coming here to give evidence ? — 
 Not until I was subpoenaed on the 14th of last month. 
 
 Who came to you ?— I do not know. He was a 
 stranger. 
 
 How did they find you out ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Had you been in communication with the police ?— 
 No. I had no idea of coming here until I received 
 the subpoena. 
 
 At the time when you were subpoonaed were you 
 aware that the man Lahihy, to whom you have attri- 
 buted certain language, was not in Ireland ? — I have 
 been aware of it for the last two years. 
 
 When did he leave ?— I think in the summer of 1886. 
 
 Head Constable Thomas Hobbins. 
 
 Richard Williams. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 517 
 
 Mk. Justice A. L. Smith.— la what year was ha 
 shot at ? 
 
 Witness. — In December, 188S. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — You toot this farm in 1884. 
 Where had the previous tenant gone ? — I could not tell 
 you where he went. He was living in some place near. 
 
 Who was the landlord ? — The farm belonged to the 
 O'Briens, but it was in the hands of a receiver under 
 the Court of Chancery. 
 
 You say that the smith's wife told you that people— 
 and she mentioned Higgins — would cease to employ them 
 if her husband were to continue to work for you. You 
 know that there was, and is, a strong feeling against 
 the practice of taking evicted farms ? — I am sure there 
 is. 
 
 That feelufg has existed as long as you can recol- 
 lect, I suppose ? — Oh, no ; not as long as I can recol- 
 lect. 
 
 Where do you come from ? — From the city of Cork. 
 
 When you took this evicted farm in 1884, had you 
 been a farmer ? — Yes. 
 
 Where ?— In Cork, with my father. 
 
 When was it that the smith's wife told you about 
 the popular feeling ? — In the middle of June, 1884. 
 
 When had you the conversation with Lahihy ? — In 
 the beginning of 1885. I think it must have been in 
 January. 
 
 Did Lahihy "talk to you in a friendly way ? — He 
 spoke to me in a friendly way. 
 
 Did he tell you, what you yourself already knew, 
 that there was such a strong feeling in the country that 
 you would be unwise to keep the farm, and that you 
 would run danger if you did not give it up ? — He told 
 me the danger I would be in if I did not give it up. 
 
 Did he say to you what he did say as a threat or as 
 a warning given in a friendly way ? — I should say it 
 was as a warning. I took it to be a warning. 
 
 I understand that he told you that if you continued 
 to hold the farm against the popular feeling you would 
 be shot ?— Yes. 
 
 Who was Lahihy ? — His father kept a coal store in 
 Whitegate. 
 
 And he assisted his father in the business ?— I do not 
 believe that he assisted very much, for he was always 
 out. 
 
 Where was the nearest branch of the National 
 League 1 — At Ballinrostig, I think. It was a branch 
 of the Ahadda branch. 
 
 Who was president ?— I could not tell you. 
 
 Were all the men in the neighbourhood members of 
 the branch ? — All about were members of the League. 
 I was not a member. 
 
 Had you been asked to join ? — No. 
 . N° pressure was put upon you to join ? — No. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James.— You told Sir C. 
 Russell that it had not always been an unpopular thing 
 to take an evicted farm. When did it first become 
 unpopular ? Can you fix a time ?— After the Land 
 League began in 1882. 
 
 Did you ever hear persons called land-grabbers 
 before ? — Never. 
 
 Where was the Ahadda branch of the League ?— • 
 Within a mile of my farm. 
 
 And of that branch Lahihy was secretary p — He was. 
 
 Tell me again what Lahihy said ? — I waa in a public- 
 house. Lahihy called me out, and asked me who was 
 shoeing my horses. I replied that I was getting them 
 shod at home. Then he told me that if I did not give 
 up the farm the three parishes would unite and would 
 not allow a blacksmith tu work for me. I told him I 
 did not care, and then he said that if I did not leava 
 the farm I should be shot. 
 
 Do you know where Lahihy has gone ? — No. 
 
 Sergeant Thomas O'Brien, examined by Mr. 
 Murphy, deposed, — I am stationed at Whitegate, and 
 have been there seven years. It is within my know- 
 ledge that the witness Williams was boycotted after 
 taking Russell's farm. 
 
 Do you remember anything in connexion with 
 Colonel Thackwell ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you see this threatening letter on the anvil of a 
 forge at Whitegate ? — Yes. 
 
 The learned counsel then read the following 
 notice : — 
 
 " You are going to work for Thackwell. Very well, 
 you can do so ; but remember you lose your customers 
 and set yourself against • the people. This is a fair 
 warning. Take it, if you will. If you do not, look; 
 out for squalls." 
 
 On November 22, 1884, did you accompany Mr, 
 Creagh when he made a search for letters at Lahihy's 
 house ? — Not at his house, but at the house of a man 
 named Steele. 
 
 Did you find two letters which purported to be sjgne4 
 by B. Lahihy ? > 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Do not lead, Mr. Murphy. 
 
 Witness. — We met Steele in Whitegate, and ho 
 delivered up two letters, which he said he had received 
 from Lahihy. 
 
 Are these the two letters ? — Yes. 
 
 Are you acquainted with Lahihy's handwriting ?— I 
 am, and I believe that these letters are signed by him. 
 
 The learned counsel then read the following 
 letters : — 
 
 " Whitegate, Saturday. 
 
 " Dear Mrs. Steele, — It has been intimated to me 
 that you are anxious to get the affair about the boy« 
 cotting of your machine settled. By your attending 
 to-morrow's meeting of the National League, about 
 1 o'clock, the matter will very likely be settled satis- 
 factorily. I infer that you intend coming to the 
 meeting. Yours truly, Ed. Lahiiiy." 
 
 " Whitegate, Tuesday. 
 
 " Dear Mrs. Steele, — I am most surprised at your 
 not acting according to the arrangement come to on 
 Sunday. By your doing immediately what was agreed 
 upon the whole power of the League would be directed 
 towards getting custom for you. Whereas if you 
 neglect to do it that same power may be directed 
 
 Richard Williams. 
 
 Sergeant Thomas O'Brien. 
 
518 
 
 The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 against you, and will make itself felt even next year. 
 You remember it was for what you did last year that 
 you are now suffering, so that 12 months do not make 
 much difference. I remain at home to-morrow and 
 afterwards, so that you will not be disappointed if you 
 cnme. If you consider your own interests, you will 
 come. Yours truly, Ed. Lahihy." 
 
 Do you also produce from the constabulary records 
 a number of boycotting notices ?— Yes ; I found some 
 of them posted myself, and others were handed to me 
 by some civilians who found them. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Rcssell. — Will Inspector 
 Creagh be here ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I am told he has not been sub- 
 poenaed. 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — Eow long have you been in the 
 Whitegate district ? — For seven and a half years. 
 Whitegate is within three miles of Queenstown. 
 
 Was that a quiet part of the country ? — There were 
 a good many outrages ; but the majority of the people 
 are generally quiet. 
 
 »Vero there any outrages of a serious kind ? — Yes ; 
 burnings of hay and houses. 
 
 You mean malicious injury to hay ? — Yes. 
 
 And the burning of houses ? — Yes. 
 
 Claims for compensation following them ? — Yes. 
 
 What class of houses were the houses burnt ? — 
 Dwelling-houses. 
 
 Then there were threateningletters, I suppose? — Yes. 
 
 Was that the character of the crime in the district ? 
 —Yes. There was also breaking of steam machines 
 and tearing down of fences. 
 
 Under what Act was it that you and District Inspec- 
 tor Creagh exercised the right of search ? — It was 
 under a warrant from the Lord Lieutenant. 
 
 Under what Act ? — I think it was the Act of 1881. 
 
 Was it Mr. Forster's Act or the late Act ? — It was 
 Forster's Act. 
 
 That authorized you to search Lahihy's house ? — We 
 did not search his house. It was not mentioned in the 
 warrant. 
 
 It was an authority to search Steele's house ? — Yes. 
 
 My friend read this letter as if it began " Dear Mrs. 
 Steele." It begins " Dear Mr. Steele," I believe ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 As I gather from these letters, Steele had been boy- 
 cotted ? — Yes ; for sending his machine to a farm 
 from which the former tenant had been evicted 12 
 months before. There was a caretaker on the farm. , 
 
 Was any outrage committed upon Steele ? — No. 
 
 The power to procure search warrants was unlimited ? 
 —Not unlimited. 
 
 Was the power very wide ?— Well, reasonably wide. 
 
 Who was Steele ? — A farmer. 
 
 How had he been boycotted ? — He had a steam 
 threshing machine,and no one would hire it because he 
 had sent it to the evicted farm. 
 
 Was there any other act of boycotting 1 — Not on this 
 occasion. There had been a previous occasion bearing 
 no connexion with this one. He had taken some land 
 
 against the wishes of a neighbour, and in consequence 
 he was boycotted for a short time. 
 
 Then the only boycotting which was put in force 
 against Steele was the non-employment of his thresh- 
 ing machine ? — That is the only way in which he 
 suffered, as far as I know. 
 
 The first letter says, " It has been intimated to me 
 that you are anxious that the affair about boycotting 
 your machine should be settled. I3y your attending to- 
 morrow's meeting the matter is likely to be settled 
 satisfactorily." The second letter says, " I am 
 surprised at your not acting according to the arrange- 
 msnt come to on Sunday. By your doing what was 
 agreed upon the whole power of the League would be 
 directed towards getting custom for you." Do you 
 know what was agreed to ? — I have made inquiries, 
 and have heard that he was fined £5 by the League. 
 That was the sum that he had earned for the two days' 
 use ot his machine. 
 
 From whom did you learn that ? — From some people 
 in tho neighbourhood. 
 
 Did you ask Steele ? — Yes ; he told me that it was a 
 fact that he was fined £5. He agreed to pay £5, and 
 he did pay it, I believe. 
 
 Then did he tell you that he had paid the £5 ?— 
 Yes : he acknowledged to me that he had paid it. 
 
 You have not told us that before. You made these 
 inquiries in order that proceedings might be taken 
 against certain persons ? — Yes ; but Steele declined to 
 prosecute . 
 
 Now I want to ask you a question with reference 
 to certain claims for compensation I have referred to 
 in that neighbourhood. I will put the exact language 
 to you, so that there shall be no mistake upon the 
 point. Have you known cases in which claims for 
 injuries have been put forward that looked " so sus- 
 picious, and that the people are miserably poor, 
 and compensation, if granted, would be a great help 
 to them " ? — I have not known cases of that kind. 
 
 Were the claims for injuries frequently put forward 
 by persons in a poor position ? — No, they were not. 
 
 Then, if Inspector Crane has said that, it would not 
 be correct ? — No. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, I wish to point 
 out that when a witness has said that a certain thing 
 is not the fact it is not right to put it to him that 
 somebody else has made a different statement. 
 
 The President. — I presume that it is rather to the 
 form of the question you object. The witness has said 
 that it is not the fact. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am not putting the question 
 without reason. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — If Inspector Crane 
 has said that such claims were made by poor persons, 
 you do not think that that would be a correct descrip- 
 tion ?— I do not think it would. 
 
 And you know of no such cases ? — No. 
 
 Then do you mean to tell their Lordships that no 
 case of claim for compensation has come before you in 
 which you have had reason to suspect that it was for 
 
 Sergeant Thomas O'Brien. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 519 
 
 an injury that was intentionally done by the owner of 
 the property ? — I believe some of the injuries were 
 malicious. 
 
 Answer my question. Do you say that no case of 
 claim for compensation has come before you in which 
 you hive had reason to suspect that the injury was 
 intentionally done by the owner of the property ? — 
 Yes, Sir. 
 
 Do you mean yes or no ? 
 
 The President. — Did you ever know of such a case ? 
 —No. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Now, as to threaten- 
 ing letters. Have you heard of people writing threaten- 
 ing letters to themselves and posting them up them- 
 selves ? — Yes, I have heard of it. But I do not believe 
 that that occurred in my locality. 
 
 Are you sure that you never heard of such things 
 being done ? — Instances may have occurred, but not in 
 that locality. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — You were stationed in the East 
 Hiding of Cork, were you not ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you from time to time furnished reports for 
 the official returns relating to crime in Ireland ? — I 
 have furnished reports. 
 
 What were the nearest branches of the Land League 
 to the place you were stationed at ? — At Ahadda^a mile 
 and a half from Whitegate. 
 
 When was the branch at Ahadda established? — It was 
 established before I came there ; it was established, I 
 helieve, in March, 1881. 
 
 Then I must have mistaken your evidence. I thougLt 
 you said that you had had seven years' experience in 
 the East Riding of Cork ? — I have, but not in that 
 particular station. 
 
 Have you from time to time reported agrarian out- 
 rages to the authorities for the purpose of their being 
 embodied in the returns ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you reported cases of sending threatening 
 letters, incendiary Gres, firing at the person, injury to 
 property, and so on ? — Yes. 
 
 Those have all formed subjects which you have 
 reported as agrarian outrages during 'the seven years 
 you have been stationed in the East Riding of Cork ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood here called the attention of their 
 Lordships to the fact that on the printed statements of 
 outrages which had been furnished by the other side, 
 the marginal note gave the name of the present wit- 
 ness and that of John O'Brien as those of the wit- 
 nesses who would be called to prove the facts stated, 
 and he wished to know whether this John O'Brien was 
 to be called. 
 
 Eventually it was ascertained that there had been a 
 misprint in the marginal note, and that the second 
 witness had been already called. 
 
 Cross-examination continued by Mr. Reid. — You 
 lave an outrage-book in your district ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you got it here ? — No. 
 
 The President. — Can yon get it ?— I can. 
 
 By Mr. REID. — Is there any objection to its being 
 
 produced, for I should like to see it ? — I should think 
 not, but I must apply for permission to bring it. Of 
 course, if the Court orders me to produce it 1 must do 
 so. 
 
 The Prrsident.— I thought, these outrage-books 
 were to be produced. Is not that so ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Yes, my Lord, quite so. 
 But there may be some particular outrage-book in 
 which something may be written which on public 
 grounds we should not feel compelled to produce. 
 Subject to that there will be no difficulty in the 
 matter. 
 
 Sin O. Russell. — There are, I believe, several of 
 these outrage-books. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Of course we have no means 
 of getting them beyond subpeenaing the witnesses, and 
 therefore my learned friends have just the same 
 opportunity of getting at these outrage-books as we 
 have. But, as far as we are concerned, in accordance 
 with your Lordships' ruling and suggestion, we will do 
 what we can to get them. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Here, perhaps, it may not be inconveni- 
 ent for me to remind your Lordships of the second 
 outrage-book, which I am waiting for and have not 
 yet seen. The other side have not called any wit- 
 nesses to say that there are objections to producing it 
 on public grounds. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— What book is that ? 
 
 The President. — There was a second book which 
 was thought to contain the equivalent of the motives. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — In your 
 last answer to Sir Charles Russell you said that, 
 having got some information from Steele about the £5, 
 you proposed to take proceedings against certain per- 
 sons, but that Steele declined to prosecute. How was 
 that ? — Steele said that ho would not by any means 
 enmo forward as a witness. 
 
 Now, as to the search warrants. Did they name any 
 particular house, or were they generally for your dis- 
 trict ? — They named Steele's house, in consequence of 
 the report I made to Inspector Crane. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I do not propose to trouble your 
 Lordships with the contents of all the threatening 
 notices I have hero ; but I will read a specimen : — 
 " Take warning. If you send your machine t«> General 
 Roche you must be prepared to suffer. Take care of 
 the fate of the tyrant who has a farm from which 
 another has been evicted. G. R. is a devil." C 
 cannot read any more. 
 
 Cornelius Regan, examined by Mr. Ron AN. — Where 
 do you live ? — At Killabrahar, near Charleville, county 
 Cork . 
 
 You are a farmer ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember in February, 1886, getting a 
 letter ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you get that letter through the post ? — Yes. 
 
 Is this the letter ? — Yes. 
 
 Sergeant Thomas O'Brien. 
 
 Cornelius Began. 
 
520 
 
 The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 The learned counsel then read the letter, which was 
 in the following terms : — 
 
 " Firies, Castlefarm, co. Kerry, Feb. 10, 1886. 
 
 " Suspected Sir, — I am informed you have been 
 noticed to pay your rent by the agent Tatlow, and 
 thereby injure the rest of the tenants if you pay. You 
 are aware of the fight your brother tenants are now 
 making for justice, and if you pay you know the* 
 injury you will do them ; and also remember what 
 will become of yourself, as I have been written for to f 
 attend this cursed division of Killabrahar, and I have 
 been told you went behind your brother tenants the 
 last half -gale ; but take notice that I will leave you 
 as lonesome of your ears as Eea the bailiff was left 
 lonesome here. This warning is for your good, so pay 
 if you like, and, if you pay, be sure I will call to you 
 before leaving for Firies. (Signed) 
 
 " To C. Began. " Captain Moonlight." 
 
 Mr. BONAN. — Your Lordships will remember that the 
 case of Eea has been proved. It is that of the man who 
 appeared here with his ears cut off. 
 
 Examination continued. — In March, 1887, did you 
 get a notice from the agent to pay your rent ? — I did. 
 
 Did you call upon him to get time from him until 
 May ?— I did, Sir. 
 
 Do you recollect on the night of April 2 hearing 
 shots fired outside your house ? — Yes ; and I heard the 
 breaking of windows in two rooms in my house. 
 
 What did you do ? — I got up and went to the window. 
 
 What did you find in your bedroom ? — I found a 
 bullet outside the bed. 
 
 Was there a screen across the window ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it on fire ? — It was. 
 
 What was the state of the glass in the other room ? 
 •—It was all smashed in, and I saw some pellets. I 
 called to one of my sons to get up. I told him that 
 the house was attacked and that he should get his gun. 
 One of my sons loaded his gun and returned the fire. He 
 fired two shots, and those who were attacking the 
 house left. I did not see anybody. I did not give any 
 one cause to commit the outrage. The nearest Land 
 League was about a mile from my house. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Bussell. — I was a tenant 
 of Mr. Orpen and Mr. Thompson. I held about 31 
 Irish acres from Orpen and 17 from Thompson. The 
 laud was divided by a road. 
 
 In 1878 or 1879 was any abatement of rent made ? — 
 In 1881 there was an abatement of 20 per cent, on my 
 rent. 
 
 When was that ?— It was about 1881 I got that. 
 
 When in 1881 ?— Some time in September. 
 
 Would that be an abatement in the gale which would 
 fall due in May, 1881 ?— In March, 1881. 
 
 Was that the first abatement you got since 1878 P— 
 That was so. . '■. !| l 
 
 Did you get that from both your landlords ?— I got no 
 abatement from Orpen until 1881. . .,;:, 
 
 Did you get any in 1879 ?— I do not think I did. 
 
 Did you get any in 1880 ?— I think I got it in. 
 1881-82. 
 
 That is what I want to come to. Was not the first 
 abatement in 1881-82 ?— Yes. 
 
 From Orpen P — Yes. 
 
 How much was that P — I got about 20 per cent, for 
 one half-year and 30 per cent, for the latter half-year.' 
 
 Did you go into the Court ?— No. 
 
 Have you got an abatement under a recent Act P— -I 
 have. I did not go into the Court at all. 
 
 I want to ask you this. Do you recollect the seasons 
 of 1878-79 ? Were those trying and hard seasons ? — They 
 were. 
 
 Did the tenants all ask for an abatement in their 
 rents in 1879-80 P— I think so. 
 
 About what reduction did they ask for ? — I think it 
 was 30 per cent. 
 
 As you have told us, the landlords gave them no 
 abatement in 1879-80 ?— No. 
 
 Do you think that if an abatement had been given in 
 1879-80 of 25 per cent, the tenants would have 
 accepted it and have been glad to get it ? — That they 
 would. 
 
 But none was given ? — No. 
 
 Not in 1879, 1880, or 1881 ?— I think there was 
 some given in 1881. 
 
 Now, I want to ask you this. Speaking of your 
 friends and neighbours in the district np to f 1884-5, 
 were they willing or not to pay their rent if they got 
 a fair abatement ? — I think they were. 
 
 In your judgment as, a practical farmer, was an 
 abatement a fair thing after the seasons of 1879 and 
 1880 ?— I think it was. 
 
 Were you a member of the branch of the Land 
 League to which you referred ? — I was. 
 
 Did you join that branch voluntarily, of your own 
 free will ? — Yes, of my own free will. 
 
 Was there any kind of pressure put upon you ?— No. 
 
 Were nearly all your neighbours and friends members 
 of the League ?— Nearly all. 
 
 Do you know that the outrages committed on you by 
 the filing of these shots was denounced by the two 
 branches of the League in your neighbourhood ? — I do 
 not know. I do not think they had anything to do 
 with it. 
 
 But dkl you not know that they condemned the out- 
 rage upon you ? — Yes, Sir, they did. 
 
 You know that ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the name of your parish priest ? — The Eev. 
 Mr. Beechery. 
 
 And the curate ?— The Eev. Mr. Bay. 
 
 Did both these gentlemen denounce this outrage 
 upon you ? — Yes. 
 
 Speaking of your neighbourhood at Charleville, if 
 there had been an abatement given after 1879 and 1880 
 would not the country have been quiet and peace- 
 able ? — Yes, I think so. 
 
 I do not think that there were any very serious out- 
 rages in your neighbourhood ?— Only the one com- 
 mitted upon myself. 
 
 Ee-examined by the Attorney-General— I was notj 
 
 Cornelius Began. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 521 
 
 a member of either the Land League or the National 
 League at the time I was fired at. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, I am now 
 about to interpose a witness. 
 
 James Walsh, who gave his evidence very indis- 
 tinctly, examined by the Attorney-General.— I was 
 appointed secretary of the Kiltimagh branch of the 
 National League, county Mayo, in December, 1887. 
 
 Mr. Keid. — My Lords, this is a most inconvenient 
 mode of proceeding. We have had no notice of the 
 intention of my learned friends to call this witness. Are 
 we to jump from Cork to Mayo and back again ? 
 
 The attorney-General. — As I stated before, as far 
 as we possibly can do so we intend to keep to par- 
 ticular counties. But in conducting the case I am 
 bound to interpose this witness now. 
 
 Mr.LoCKwooD. — The Attorney-General says that he is 
 bound to call this witness now, but some consideration 
 ought to be shown to us. 
 
 The President. — I consider that you have had con- 
 sideration. We will endeavour as far as we can to 
 reconcile your conflicting views. But if the Attorney- 
 General thinks it desirable to interpose this witness 
 there is no reason why he should not do so. 
 
 Examination continued. — Before you were secretary 
 had you been in the habit of attending the meetings of 
 the League ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you remember a resolution referring to Michael 
 Coleman ? — Yes, some time before December, 1887. 
 
 What was the resolution ? 
 
 Sir C. Bussell. — Wait a moment ; we must have 
 something more before we can have the terms of this 
 resolution stated by the witness. 
 
 The President. — You say that there is something in 
 writing. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — As secretary the witness can give 
 evidence of what was done. 
 
 Examination continued. — Do you remember any 
 verbal resolution being passed which was not entered 
 in a book ?— Yes. 
 
 What was it ? — That Coleman must be boycotted. 
 
 Why ? — Because he had taken an evicted farm. 
 
 Do you remember shortly after that Michael Cole- 
 man coming to Kiltimagh ? — I do, Sir. 
 
 Did you see any people doing anything on the day 
 he came to Kiltimagh ? — I saw some members of the 
 League following him from shop to shop. 
 
 Who were they ? — Andrew Walsh, Pat Henry, and 
 Jordan. 
 
 How many altogether ?— About eight or nine. 
 
 Had these men been present when the resolution was 
 passed ?— They had, Sir. 
 
 Did you go round with them ?— I did, Sir. 
 
 Did you hear them say anything in your hearing in 
 the shops ? — They told the people that that man was 
 boycotted, and they were not to supply him. 
 
 Did that man get any goods ? — Not that day, Sir. 
 
 Had these men whose names you have mentioned 
 
 any position in the League ? — They were members of 
 the committee. 
 
 Speak a little louder, please. Do you know from 
 having attended the meetings of the committee 
 whether the committee had anything to do, any duty 
 given them ? — Some of them were to look after those 
 men that were boycotted. 
 
 What do you mean by look after them ? — (The 
 answer was unintelligible.) 
 
 Did you know a man named Patrick Hyland ? — I 
 did, Sir ; he was the treasurer of the Land League. 
 
 Do you remember Patrick Hyland bringing forward 
 any proposition at a meeting of the League about some 
 notices ? — I remember him being present in his own 
 house. 
 
 What was going on in his own house ? — Some mem» 
 bers of the committee were present. 
 
 What did he propose ? — That notices should be put 
 up about Hughes getting the agency on the Taafe 
 estate. 
 
 Did you write them out ?— Yes, about six. 
 
 Who told you to write them out ?— Hyland, Sir. 
 
 What did "you do with them when you had written 
 them out ? — Stuck them up on the walls. 
 
 What was in these notices ? — Any tenant who would 
 vote for Mr. Hughes, who had evicted a man, would 
 get some of the Lynch laws. 
 
 Who was the secretary of the Kiltimagh branch 
 before you ? — A man named James Began. 
 
 Did you succeed him ? — I did, Sir. 
 
 Was there a property called the Ormsby property? —• 
 There was. 
 
 Do you remember a meeting at Kiltimagh which was 
 dispersed by the police ? — I do, Sir. 
 
 When was that ? — Some time in December, 1887. 
 
 Did you know a gentleman named Father O'Hara ? 
 —Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you know one named Charles Burke ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Had they anything to do with the League ? — They 
 had, Sir. Father O'Hara was president and Charles 
 Burke was secretary. 
 
 Was that the same branch as you were secretary of? 
 — It was, Sir. 
 
 Were you sole secretary, or was there more than oho 
 secretary ?— There were two secretaries. 
 
 Was there another property called the Tuohy pro- 
 perty ? — There was, Sir. 
 
 Shortly after that meeting was dispersed were you 
 present at a League meeting ? — I was, Sir. 
 
 At that meeting did you hear anybody propose any- 
 thing ?— I did, Sir. 
 
 Who ? — A man named James M'Ellin. 
 
 Tell me, if you can remember, who was present at 
 that meeting ? — Father O'Hara, Charles Burke ; I am 
 not sure whether Walsh or Henry or Jordan was 
 present. 
 
 What did M'Ellin propose ?— That those tenants who 
 had not joined the Plan of Campaign should be visited. 
 
 Was it said who was to visit them ? — No, Sir. 
 
 James Walsh. 
 
522 
 
 The Special Commi sion, December 5, 18S8. 
 
 Were there some tenants on the Condorga estate 1 — 
 There were, Sir. 
 
 Do you remember anything being said or proposed at 
 any Land League meeting about the Condorga tenants '{ 
 —Yes. 
 
 Was that the same meeting or another one ? — The 
 same meeting. 
 
 Was anything said as to what was to be done to 
 those men ? — The doors should be burst in. 
 
 Anything else ? — They should be frightened up. 
 
 Anything else ?— That is all I know. 
 
 Was anything said as to who should do it ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 Do you remember a meeting of the League after 
 that ? — I do, about a week or a fortnight after that. 
 I do not remember who'was present. 
 
 Try and remember. Do you remember if Father 
 O'Hara was there ? — Father O'Hara was present. 
 
 Did you hear a statement made at that meeting to 
 Father O'Hara about these Condorga tenants ? — I 
 heard a man named James M'EUin say that he had 
 visited the houses, and the tenants said they would pay 
 into the Pian after Thursday. 
 
 Just listpn to me carefully, please, Walsh. Did any 
 other man make any statement ? — A man named John 
 Flannery. 
 
 Was there a man named Thomas Reany,the younger ? 
 — I do not remember. 
 
 What did Flannery say ? — That he had been with 
 M'EUin. 
 
 Do you mean that he spoke separately, or that he 
 went with M'EUin ? — He said he went with M'EUin. 
 
 Was there anything said as to whether any others 
 had gone or not ? — I do not remember. 
 
 Do you remember a man named Patrick Walsh ? — I 
 do. 
 
 What land did he occupy ? — He was on the Ormsby 
 property. 
 
 Is that a place called Dervougby ? — It is, 3ir. 
 
 Do you remember at any League meeting Patrick 
 Walsh's name being mentioned ? — I do, Sir. 
 
 Who mentioned Patrick Walsh's name ? — M'EUin. 
 
 What did he say ?— He said that Walsh would not 
 join the Plan of Campaign. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, with reference to the 
 Plan of Campaign, this question has been raised before. 
 My learned friend undertook 
 
 Tho Attorney-General.— And I will make good 
 my statement ; but I am proving this as a part of a 
 continuous operation. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I respectfully submit to your 
 LorUahipe that, unless my learned friend justifies his 
 statement, there is no allegation in those proceedings 
 founded on the Plan of Campaign, and that tho 
 Attorney-General is not justified in asking questions 
 upon this. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have made my promise 
 once, and I am prepared to fulfil it at any convenient 
 time ; but may I point out to your Lordships that I 
 began with this witness with reference to the action 
 
 of the National League at the end of 1887, and I am 
 dealing with it, showing what the conduct of the 
 National League was, and I respectfully submit that 
 with reference to the acts of intimidation carried out 
 by members of the committee, I am only dealing with 
 it as showing what was the conduct of the National 
 League. 
 
 The President. — We have no doubt the evidence is 
 admissible. Any question which arises on that point 
 should be kept in reservation. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — This is after the publication. 
 
 The President. — What publication ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— The publication of the. allega- 
 tions in question. After the publication of the libels 
 which were the foundation of the allegations. 
 
 The President. — But not after ' tho passing 
 of the Act under which we sit. Any evidence 
 on the conduct of the persons charged which 
 will show there was connexion with the League is ad- 
 missible. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I say that the allegations against 
 iudividuals,the charges and allegations against certain 
 persons are founded on certain libels. These libels 
 form the substance of tho allegations in " O'Donnell 
 v. Walter," and it is not open to your Lordships to go 
 into any libels which are not contained in " O'Don- 
 nell v. Walter." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, this is long 
 before " O'Donnell v. Walter." This is December, 
 1887 — the matter I am now upon. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — He has spoken of two meetings 
 since December, and he has said the meeting we are 
 now asking about was a week or a fortnight later. 
 
 The President. — December, 1887. 
 
 The Attorney-General..— As a matter of fact, the 
 date of the publication, my Lords, was in March and 
 April, 1887. It was alleged that this National League 
 was pursuing a continuous policy at that time. 
 
 The President. — I only want to get at the full 
 comprehension of the nature of Sir Charles Russell's 
 objection, and I understand it to be that this was 
 after the publication of " Parnellism and Crime," and 
 was not in reference to " O'Donnell v. Walter." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It is six months before 
 "O'Donnell v. Walter." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not want to intrude myself 
 on the Court more than is necessary, but I have to dis- 
 charge my duty. My allegation is this — the libels wore 
 published up to March, 1887, and there was one in 
 April, 1887. The charges and allegations in " O'Don- 
 nell v. Walter " were founded only upon and in refer- 
 ence to these libels so published. Therefore I say 
 tho only matters your Lordships can inquire into, 
 within your jurisdiction, are the charges and allega- 
 tions mido in " O'Donnell v. Walter," which are 
 founded on the libels published in " Parnellism and 
 Crime." 
 
 The President.— I fully understand that, but the 
 question arises for our consideration for the first time. 
 We are of opinion that our inquiry extends to all 
 
 James Walsh. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 523 
 
 charges and allegations which were made in the course 
 of the trial of " O'Donnell v. Walter," and thus, 
 therefore, the charges against these several persons and 
 their connexion with the League would all come under 
 that head. 
 
 Sib. C. Kussell. — My Lords, how can an allega- 
 tion 
 
 The Attouney-Gen'SRAl (continuing)— I think you 
 said there were two meetings on Sunday after the 
 meetings which the police dispersed ? — There were. 
 
 The first proposed to visit these men, and at the 
 second M'Ellin reported what ha had done ? — Yes. It 
 was at the meeting after that that Patrick Walsh's 
 name was mentioned. 
 
 Did any members of the committee or any persons 
 at that meeting say what was to be done in conse- 
 quence of persons not joining the Land League ? — They 
 said that they were to be boycotted. 
 
 Anything else ? Now think. Do you remember being 
 at Hyland's house a few days after that ? — I do, Sir. 
 
 Who was there ? — Charles Burke, Hyland, and myself 
 Hyland was the treasurer and Burke the secretary. 
 
 Did Hyland say anything to you ? — He Baid that any 
 one who did not join the Plan of Campaign should be 
 threatened. There was nothing said as to who was to 
 threaten him. I saw Burke at the League rooms the 
 next Sunday. 
 
 Did he say anything to you about Walsh or anything 
 he had done ? — I do not remember, Sir. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. TIussell. — What age are 
 you, my boy ? — About 19. 
 
 What are you ? — A shopkeeper's son. 
 
 What is your father's name ? — Henry Walsh. 
 
 What is he ? — He is dead now. 
 
 When did he die ?— About 1878 or 1879. 
 
 Does your mother carry on the shop ? — She does. 
 
 What business is it ? — A grocer's. 
 
 Publichouse ? — No. 
 
 No licence ? — No. 
 
 Where do you live ? — In Kiltimagh ; that is a little 
 town of about 300 or 400 houses. 
 
 Were you ever the secretary of any branch of the 
 League at all, or was it merely that you helped the 
 secretary ? — I was the secretary of the League. There 
 were two secretaries altogether. I was joint secretary 
 with some one else the whole time. Charles Burke was 
 joint secretary with me the whole time. 
 
 Just give me these dates again. Give me the time 
 when you say you were joint secretary with Charles 
 Burke ? — I was appointed in December, 1887. 
 
 And how long did you continue to act ? — Until the 
 latter end of January, 1888 — January of this year. 
 
 Did you resign then or not ? — I did, Sir. 
 
 Were you asked to resign ? — I gave it up without 
 being asked. 
 
 Why did you give it up 1— Because I did not think it 
 worth while to be attending there. 
 
 Who continued after you resigned to act as secre- 
 tary P — Charles Burke. 
 
 And is he secretary now ? — He is. 
 
 What is he ? — A farmer. 
 
 Living near Kiltimagh ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you know a man called Michael Brennan ? — I 
 did, Sir. 
 
 Was he secretary at any time ? — Ha was. 
 
 When, some time in 1881 or 1882 ?— Yes. 
 
 When did he cease ? — I do not quite remember. 
 
 Is he living in Kiltimagh now ? — In the neighbour- 
 hood. 
 
 About when did you say he ceased ? — I do not quita 
 remember. A man named James Began was secretary 
 before him, and I do not know what became of him. 
 
 Whou did you join this Land League or National 
 League ? — In December, 1887. 
 
 You are sure you joined it in December, 1887 ? — Yes, 
 Sir. 
 
 And were you immediately appointed secretary with 
 Charles Burke ? — I was, Sir. 
 
 When were you first asked to go and give evidence ? 
 — About two months ago the District Inspector asked 
 me ; his name is Mr. Allen. He is stationed about five 
 miles away ; he sent a policeman to me, whose name 
 was Mr. Francis O'Connor. He is a constable. 
 
 When did O'Connor come to you ? — On a Thursday 
 about two months ago. 
 
 Did he bring you a letter from the district in* - 
 spector ? — No ; he only told me the district inspector 
 wanted to see me. 
 
 Where ? — At the Court-house. I went to the Court- 
 house and saw him. There was nobody else in the 
 room. 
 
 Did he then ask questions ? — Yes, and wrote down 
 what I stated, and read them over to me. 
 
 Did he send for any other people as well as you ?— 
 I do not know ; I did not ask. 
 
 Before you gave your evidence here to-day did you 
 see anybody besides O'Connor and District Inspector 
 Allen ?— I did, Sir. 
 
 Where ? — In Mr. Soamss's office. 
 
 Nobody. before you came there 'I — No. 
 
 Who were there ? — I do not know. I was brought 
 from the Balmoral Hotel there. 
 
 Did you give a statement of your evidence there ?— 
 No. 
 
 What were you brought there for ? — The statement 
 was read over that I had made to District Inspector 
 Allen. 
 
 Then are police and district inspectors looking up 
 witnesses for The Times, as far as you know ? — I do 
 not know. 
 
 They looked up you, at all events ? — They did. 
 
 Now, I should just like to ask, in order that we may 
 know where we are. You mentioned Father O'Hara ; 
 what was he ? — He was president of the League when 
 I was secretary. 
 
 But I mean as a priest ; was he parish priest ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you recollect a vacancy occurring in the Bishopric 
 of Tuain some time ago ? — Yes. 
 , Was Father O'Hara elected by the majority of tha 
 
 James Walsh. 
 
524 
 
 The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 parish priests to have his name placed before the 
 Bishop ?— He was. 
 
 Do you know his handwriting ?— I do not. 
 
 Now, I must ask you, was there any charge made 
 against you with relation to the funds of the 
 League ? — I do not know, Sir. 
 
 Do not remember or do not know ? — I do not know. 
 
 Did you never hear that a charge was brought 
 against you of pilfering the funds of the League ? — I 
 heard it a fortnight or three weeks ago. 
 
 How much was it said you pilfered ? — Ten 
 shillings. 
 
 Is it true ? — It is true. 
 
 Were you president of the Juvenile Athletic Club of 
 the district, and was it charged against you that you pil- 
 fered some of the funds ? — It was. 
 
 And were you expelled from the club ? — I believe I 
 was. 
 
 Were you agent to a plate-glass insurance com- 
 pany ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you insure your mother's windows ? — I did. 
 
 Did you represent to the company that your mother's 
 windows were broken and that they were of plate 
 glass ? — I did. 
 
 Did you upon that make a claim upon the company ? 
 ^1 did. 
 
 Was your claim found to be fraudulent, and were 
 you dismissed from your agency ? — I was. 
 
 Was it fraudulent ? — It was. 
 
 Were you afterwards appointed agent to a life 
 insurance company ? — I was. 
 
 To what company ? — The Gresham. 
 
 Did you represent that Mr. Patrick Smythe, the 
 editor of the Western People, wanted to get his life 
 insured for £500 ?— I did. 
 
 If true, would that have entitled you to a commis- 
 sion on the premium ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it true ? — It was not true, Sir. 
 
 Mr. Smythe never knew anything about the matter ? 
 •—He did not, Sir. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — This letter (showing document), 
 as your Lordships no doubt saw, was handed to me a 
 few moments ago, when I was in the act of cross-ex- 
 amining the witness. 
 
 By Mr. Bbid. — What is your employment at 
 present ? — I have none. 
 
 What is the reason why you should go back to 
 Ireland so soon ? — I do not know. 
 
 How long have you been in London ? — Since last 
 night. 
 
 Is there any reason why you should not stay another 
 week or fortnight ? — I do not know any. 
 
 Did anybody tell you a reason why you should he 
 called at the present time ? — No. 
 
 Did you ask to be called at once for any particular 
 purpose ? — No. 
 
 In fact, you have nothing particular to do ?■— 
 Nothing. 
 
 How much money did you get ? — I got £5. 
 
 How much are you to get ? — That is all. 
 
 Have you no expectation of anything more ? — No. 
 
 Well, so much for that business. Now you stated that 
 priests of your district and other persons were present 
 when outrages were discussed and prepared ; you 
 asserted that ? — Yes, 
 
 Now give me the names of persons who you swear 
 were present. — James M'Ellin and John Flannery. 
 
 Was Father O'Hara present ?— Yes. 
 
 On more than one occasion ? — Yes. 
 
 Were there many persons present, though you cannot 
 recollect their names ? — Yes, a great many. 
 
 Before you went to this police-constable had you 
 any communications with the police yourself ? — None. 
 
 By Mr. • Davitt. — When you were sent for by this 
 policeman, was any threat used to prosecute you for 
 your dishonesty if you did not give evidence ? — There 
 was. 
 
 Was it used by the district inspector or by 
 O'Connor ? — By the district inspector. 
 
 Now, will you tell their Lordships what threat was 
 used ? — He said he did not know what would happen 
 to me about that insurance company. 
 
 You took that as a threat ? — I did. 
 
 Do you know whether your mother was before this 
 visited by any policeman ? — I do not know. 
 
 Are you certain ? — I am not sure ; but I would have 
 been informed about it . 
 
 Does your mother place any confidence in you ?— 
 Yes ; she would have told me. 
 
 Now, after the district inspector referred to the 
 insurance company, whatelse did he say? — That was all. 
 
 What did you say when he referred to the insurance 
 fraud ?— Nothing. 
 
 You simply volunteered to come and give evidence. 
 -Yes. 
 
 Afterwards did he use this threat again ? — He asked 
 me all I knew about the League when I was . 
 secretary. 
 
 Did he mention names to you first, or did you 
 volunteer them ? — I do not know. 
 
 Did ho mention James M'Ellin to you first ? — I do 
 not know whether he did or not. 
 
 Then your memory is not very clear on that point. 
 Did he mention Father O'Hara's name ?— I do not 
 know. 
 
 Did you volunteer to tell him all you knew ? — I said 
 I would tell him all. 
 
 Who came with you to Dublin ? — Constable O'Connor 
 travelled with me in the same carriage. 
 
 Who gave you the £5 ? — A strange man gave it to me. 
 
 An elderly man with white hair ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know the name of Mr. George Bolton ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know him ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you meet him ? — To-day, in Mr. Soames'* 
 office. 
 
 Was it to Mr. George Bolton you made your state- 
 ment ? — No ; he read over the statement I had made 
 to Mr. Allen. 
 
 Did he suggest any names to you not mentioned in 
 
 James Walsh. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 525 
 
 the statement you made to Mr. Allen ? — No, he did 
 not. 
 
 Now, about this journey to Dublin with O'Connor — 
 did he speak about this Commission to you ? — No, he 
 did not. 
 
 Did he say nothing at all ? — No, because there were 
 some people in the same carriage. 
 
 Where did you go in Dublin ? — I did not stay in 
 Dublin ; he came with me to the boat. 
 
 Tell me, did James 31 'Ellin help to expose your dis- 
 honesty ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you believe he did not ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Will you swear he did not ? — I could not swear ; I 
 could not say whether he did or not. 
 
 What members of the League exposed your dis- 
 honesty ? — I could not say ; I only heard it was men- 
 tioned. 
 
 Who told you ?— Pat Carroll. 
 
 Did you see your statement which you made to Mr. 
 Allen this morning ? — Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — Only one 
 question. When did you do this misconduct about the 
 insurance company ? — About six or seven months ago. 
 
 Jeremiah Buckley was then called and examined by 
 Mr. Graham. The witness was exceedingly deaf, 
 and Mr. Uraham had to stand close to the witness-box 
 in order to make him hear the questions. Witness 
 said, — I was in 1881 and am still a tenant on Sir 
 George Colthurst's estate. 
 
 In 1881 were the tenants asking for a reduction of 
 their rents ? — Yes, 4s. in the pound. The landlord 
 offered 3s. in the pound. I paid my rent with the 3s. 
 reduction. 
 
 Was there a branch of the Land League in your place 
 at that time ? — I do not know ; I do not recollect. 
 
 Do you not know whether there was a Land League 
 branch or not ? — I cannot tell you ; I had nothing to do 
 with it. 
 
 Now, after you had paid your rent, did some men 
 come to you in the night ? — Yes. 
 
 How long ago was that ? — I do not know. 
 
 About how long was it after you paid your rent— a 
 week, three weeks, a month ? — I could not say. 
 
 What did they do ? — They came into my bedroom, 
 where I was sleeping with my wife and three children. 
 
 Did they say anything about rent ? — Nothing. They 
 asked me what I had done, and I said, " Nothing at 
 all." They told me to come out of bed, and then they 
 took me by the two hands and took me out at the door. 
 There was a man standing in the door ;he had a pair 
 of scissors, and he cut a bit of my right ear off. 
 
 What sort of scissors were they ? — I do not think 
 they were very good ones. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did they do anything else to you ? Had they a 
 furze-bush ?— They had. 
 
 Did they do anything with it to you 1 — I cannot say 
 they did anything to me with it, but they cut off my 
 bar. 
 
 Were they disguised in any way ? — Yes, they were 
 painted white and black and red. 
 
 Did you know any reason why they should have 
 visited you except that you had paid your rent f — No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I think I must 
 ask you to come down here. 
 
 Witness then left the witness-box and stood in front 
 of Sir C. Kussell. 
 
 How long had you been a tenant on this Colthurst 
 property 1 — My father and my grandfather were tenants 
 of it before me. 
 
 Had you always tried to pay your rent like an honest 
 man ? Had you worked hard ?— I do not understand 
 half you say. (Laughter.) 
 
 Have you been working hard to try and make the 
 rent ?— Yes. 
 
 Are you now an evicted tenant ? — I am. 
 
 Are you not in as caretaker ? — I got a notice. 
 
 That is under a recent statute, my Lords. (To wit- 
 ness.) Now the tenants, you say, wanted 4s. in the 
 pound ? — They did. 
 
 Now, tell me, do you think that was a fair and 
 honest reduction to ask for ? — I think it was. 
 
 Do you think they could honestly pay »"iere and 
 live ? — I do not think they could. 
 
 Was there any Land League at all that you know of 
 in your neighbourhood at the time this outrage was 
 committed on you ? — There may have been unknown to 
 me. I was far from the place, and I know nothing 
 about it. I was on my farm all day. 
 
 Have you ever said the Land League had anything to 
 do with this outrage on you ? — I never have. The 
 Land League never came to my house, or I would have 
 been boycotted. 
 
 Were you ever boycotted ? — No. 
 
 What was the rent of your farm when you came into 
 it after your father ? — £39. 
 
 Had it been raised in your father's time ? — No, bub 
 since I had it. 
 
 How often in your time ?— Twice ; there were two 
 levies on the tenants all over the estate. 
 
 Was Mr. S. Hussey the agent P — Yes. 
 
 And was he agent when the two rises or levies took 
 place ? — Yes, he was. 
 
 What was your rent before you got an abatement and 
 after the levies ?— £29. 
 
 So it was £29 when you got the farm, and went up 
 to £39 in two levies ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you succeed to your father ?— I could not 
 say ; a good while ago. 
 
 How long ago was the last rise ? — I cannot exactly 
 say ; I do not keep it in my mind. 
 
 Have you a family ? — Yes. 
 
 How many ? — Only seven, Sir. 
 
 Only seven ? (Laughter.) A young family ? — Yes, 
 all but two. 
 
 Have you any means of living except what you make 
 from the land ? — Divil a bit. (Laughter.) 
 ^ Do you recollect the bad years 1878 and 1879, when 
 
 Jeremiah Buckley., 
 
526 
 
 The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 the potato crop was so bad ? — I was better off at that 
 time than I am to-day. 
 
 You had some good seasons before that ? — Indeed I 
 had. 
 
 What kind of potatoes had you in 1879 ?— They were 
 bad ones. 
 
 What does your family live upon ? — Potatoes when 
 we can have them. 
 
 As long as they last ? — Yes. 
 
 I suppose you have joints of roast meat every day ? 
 —What is that. Sir ? (Laughter.) 
 
 Do you see flesh meat often ? — Flesh meat ! Begor ! 
 and I do not. (Laughter.) 
 
 Do you have flesh meat more than two or threo 
 times a year ? — Not any time of the year. 
 
 You have told us of this rise or levy on your rent. 
 Sir John Colthurst was your landlord ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he ever lay out any money on your land or did 
 you have to do everything for yourself ?— He laid out 
 some money, but not on my land. 
 
 Was that on relief works ? — Yes. 
 
 It was Government money ? — Yes. 
 
 Besides that he never laid out any money on your 
 land ? — Never. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— Have you 
 been able to save any money ? — I have not. I do not 
 have half enongh. (Laughter.) 
 
 Sergeant Lang, Boyal Irish Constabulary, examined 
 by Mr. Murphy, said, — I am stationed in the district 
 of Ballydehob, in the south-west of county Cork, near 
 the sea coast. I joined the Skull district in October, 
 1876, and left it in April, 1883, for the Ballydehob 
 district. When I first went to Skull there were three 
 policemen there, and there were three at Ballydehob 
 when I Jirst joined there. In October, 1880, both 
 districts were increased by the addition of six con- 
 stables each. A branch of the Land League was started 
 at Ballydehob either in August or September, 1880. 
 Richard Hodnett, senior, was president, and John 
 Hollands was secretary. A man of the name of Henry 
 O'Mahony was a very active member of the branch. 
 After the establishment of the League branch the 
 district was not as quiet as before. I noticed that 
 threatening letters and notices which were new 
 to the district became very prevalent. Some outrages 
 also occurred. Previously to that time such a term 
 as land-grabber was unheard of. On April 25, 1881, 
 Mr. Hodnett was arrested and taken to Skibbereen. 
 There was a large assemblage of people — probably 100 — 
 on the occasion of the arrest. Hodnett would not go 
 in a car, so we had to walk to Skibbereen, a distance 
 of ten miles. On the road we were met by a large 
 crowd of people, and when we arrived at the railway 
 station at Skibbereen there were between 400 and 600 
 persons. Mr. John O'Connor, M.P., was at the railway 
 station, and he addressed the crowd there. As the 
 train was not to start for some time he advised the 
 people to return and come back in their thousands. 
 He also spoke of the honour conferred upon Hodnett by 
 
 being arrested under the Act. At the time of the 
 departure of the train the mob increased ; a brass 
 band came, and an enlarged copy of the warrant upon 
 which Hodnett had been arrested was exhibited at tho 
 end of a long pole. When the escort of police with 
 Hodnett came on to the platform this thing was put 
 over their heads. A scuffle ensued and glass was 
 broken. On the return of the police to Skibbereen 
 the band and the mob kept behind us on our way to 
 the barracks and stones were thrown at us. Henry 
 O'Mahony was arrested on June 4. He made a speech 
 from the window of his house, in which he referred to 
 Mr. George Swanton, who had been fired at shortly 
 before as " Yellow George." O'Mahony attributed 
 his arrest to him. On June 6 a riot occurred in the 
 town of Skull. A large number of people assembled 
 there and wrecked several houses, and we had to 
 barricade ourselves iu the barracks. The front windows 
 of the barracks were broken by the mob. We learnt 
 afterwards that they brought with them the effigy of a 
 magistrate in the locality. The riot continued about 
 three days, and it was necessary to call out the 
 Marines. I was not at Ballydehob then, but I heard of 
 it. I do not produce any threatening notices. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I have been 
 28^ years in the police, and I am a Sligo man. I have 
 served in Galway east, in Cork west, and in Galway 
 west. I have no recollection of having heard of land- 
 grabbing till the agitation began. I now know what 
 it means. I now know that land- grabbing means 
 taking a farm from which a man has been evicted, as 
 it is supposed because he- was asked to pay an unfair 
 rent. 
 
 Was it ever, in your recollection, a popular thing 
 for a man to take an evicted farm ? — I do not think 
 much was thought about it till the Land League was 
 started. I do not remember whether it was popular or 
 otherwise. 
 
 You say positively that you do not know whether up 
 to 1880 it was popular or not ? — I am not aware. 
 
 Do you think it was popular ? — I suppose it would 
 not be. 
 
 Though you had not heard of the term, land-grabbing 
 you knew, by whatever name it was called, was not 
 popular ? — I do not suppose it could be popular. 
 
 Have you not known land-grabbing, although you 
 may not have heard it called by that name, suggested 
 as a cause of outrage and crime before 1880 ? — I have 
 heard of taking farms from which persons had been 
 evicted causing crime. 
 
 Do you keep an outrage-book at Ballydehob ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Let me see it ? 
 
 Two books were handed to the learned counsel. 
 
 Where do they begin ?— As far as I am concerned 
 they were kept in my handwriting from the time I 
 joined at Skull. The Ballydehob book has been kept 
 by me since I have been there. 
 
 I see they are in a different form to the other books. 
 This onfi begins, I see, in 1871. Have you known any 
 
 r-Sergeant Lang. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 527 
 
 cases of malicious injury to property before 1880 ? — 
 Oh, yes. Disorderly conduct and such like were called 
 minor offences by us. Indictable offences are also 
 entered in the book. 
 
 In 1876 you were at Skull ? — Yes. I remained there 
 till I went to Balljdehob in June, 1881. 
 
 Was not Skull one of the most severely visited 
 places in Ireland at the time of the great famine ? — I 
 heard it was in a bad state of famine. 
 
 They tried to support life by eating grass and sea- 
 weed, did they not ? — I heard so. 
 
 Did you, in 1878 and 1879, hear a talk among the 
 people as to what appeared likely to be a bad famine ? 
 — I think there was some talk in 1879. 
 
 The potato crop had practically failed ? — To some 
 extent — I think to a large extent. There were some 
 cases of distress, but I do not think there was general 
 distress. 
 
 Were there several relief committees going in the 
 neighbourhood ? — Yes. Meal was distributed and some 
 clothes were given by the rector's family and some by 
 the relief committees. The distress had disappeared 
 before I went to Ballydehob. No actual cases of 
 starvation occurred after I got there. 
 
 Did you hear that any of the tenants in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Skull had asked for a redaction of rent ? 
 — The cry was to get Griffith's valuation. That was 
 also the cry at Ballydehob, which is only four miles 
 distant from Skull. 
 
 When, so far as you know, did the landlords first 
 make any abatement ? Was it before 18S1 ?— I could 
 not say. 
 
 It is no part of your business ? — It is well for us to 
 know everything going on about us. 
 
 The Land League, you say, was established in 
 August or September, 1880 ? — I am satisfied it was. 
 
 Did you hear that a large number of ejectment pro- 
 cesses for rent were out among the tenants ? — I do not 
 think there were in Skull or Ballydehob. Some were 
 served in May, I believe. 
 
 Your impression is that preliminary stops for evic- 
 tion were not general up to that time ? — There were a 
 few in May, 1881. 
 
 Do you suggest that there were none before that ? — I 
 have not the slightest recollection of any before. It 
 is my firm conviction, so far as I can recollect, there 
 were none before. 
 
 You say the president of the League at Ballydehob 
 was Mr. Richard Hodnett. What was he ? — He had a 
 small farm and kept some little bit of a shop. 
 
 Was he much respected in the neighbourhood ? — A 
 good deal was thought of him by his followers. 
 
 Was he or not a man respected in the neighbour- 
 hood ? — He was. 
 
 Was he chairman of the Board of Guardians ? — He 
 was elected immediately before his arrest. Collins, the 
 secretary of the League, was a small farmer living 
 about five miles from Ballydehob. I do not think there 
 was anything against him. Hodnett had been a mem- 
 
 ber of the Board of Guardians for 40 years. He was a 
 man about 60 years of age.and I heard that he had been 
 agent for some minor properties. 
 
 Who was Henry O'Mahony i — Ae was a man who 
 had returned from America and had built a house and 
 set up a shop. He had been back a few years before 
 his arrest. 
 
 Afber the arrest of O'Mahony, Hodnett, and Collins, 
 the most active members of the League, did things 
 grow worse or better ? — Worse. 
 
 Much worse ? — Yes. 
 
 Would you expect that if the responsible heads, 
 respected by the neighbours, were arrested there 
 would be less control ? — My idea of the matter was 
 that the ground work of disorder was laid before 
 these men were arrested. 
 
 Having delivered yourself of that opinion, answer 
 my question. Would you not expect that the removal 
 of the responsible and active men in connexion with 
 the movement, who, you say, were respected by their 
 neighbours, would be likely to increase disorder ? — I 
 would not say O'Mahony was respected by the neigh- 
 bourhood. 
 
 Would you not expect that the removal of the re- 
 sponsible heads of the local branch of the League would 
 be likely to increase disorder ? — Well, if they were 
 disposed to the commission of outrage perhaps it 
 would. 
 
 You have said that a great crowd collected round 
 Hodnett at Skibbereen ? — Yes. 
 
 There was considerable popular excitement about his 
 arrest ? — Not a great deal in Ballydehob. 
 
 I said Skibbereen, Sir ? — There was some in Skib- 
 bereen. 
 
 Mr. O'Connor, I think, had the audacity to say that 
 Hodnett's arrest would do him honour ? — He said so. 
 
 That was an atrocious thing to say, no doubt, but are 
 you aware that people arrested under Mr. Forster's Act 
 signed their letters " ex-suspect," as if that were a 
 title of dignity ? — I have not known of that ; it never 
 came under my notice. 
 
 And wrote to the public Press describing themselves 
 as such ?— They may have done so. 
 
 Do you think that in the public estimation it brought 
 any discredit on a man — the mere fact of his 'having 
 been arrested under Mr. Forster's Act ? — I suppose not. 
 
 Did it not make him more popular ? — It is likely 
 that it did with his own class. 
 
 With the people generally, with a large proportion 
 of the people ? — Probably. 
 
 I did not suppose that it did with a police-constable. 
 —(Warmly) No, nor with a large number of other 
 people. 
 
 Yes, with landlords and land agents, very likely. 
 Can you tell me how many arrests were made alto- 
 gether under Mr. Forster's Act in the neighbourhood of 
 Ballydehob ?— Only two. 
 
 And in Skull ?— None. Ballydehob was the political 
 centre for the west. 
 
 Have you taken any trouble to examine into the re- 
 
 Sergeant Lang. 
 
528 
 
 The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 turns of outrages before and after the arrests under 
 Mr. Forster's Act ? — Yes, I have. I have both the 
 books there. 
 
 Then you can tell us generally were . they greatly in 
 excess after the arrests as compared with the number 
 before the arrests ? — They were in excess. 
 
 And greatly in excess ? — Yes, after the arrests. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. On 
 resuming, Sir C. Russell again took up the cross- 
 sxamination of Sergeant Lang. 
 
 What do you call this ? — (Holding up a book which 
 had been produced by the witness) — A register of crime 
 ind offences. 
 
 For what district ? — The sub-district of Ballydehob 
 and Skull. 
 
 What extent of country does that district cover ? — 
 I should say it is about 16 miles by about 12 or 13. 
 
 That is about 170 or 180 square miles. I will ask 
 you generally, will you say that at any time the record 
 d£ crime was serious in that district ? — Yes, it was, 
 rery serious. 
 
 Will you say that was in the winter and spring of 
 1882 ?— I will say from the spring of 1881 to the 
 spring of 1882 — or I would rather say to the end of 1882. 
 
 Very well. Will you tell us what were the most 
 serious outrages in that district that were reported to 
 you ? — They were mostly threatening notices. 
 
 Mostly threatening notices. What else ? — There 
 were two offences of firing at the person. 
 
 Could you give us the names ? — Mr. George Boyton, 
 J.P., and his father, Mr. Eobert Boyton. 
 
 Were they on separate occasions ? — Yes. 
 
 Then there were malicious burnings of hayricks and 
 things of that kind ? — Yes, and of houses. 
 
 Tell us some of them. — There was a cowhouse burnt 
 down in the spring of 1881. Then there was an 
 unoccupied dwellinghouse belonging to Henry 
 O'Mahony, of Ballydehob, burnt, and an unoccupied 
 house belonging to a Mrs. Driscoll. 
 
 Are these the principal crimes you can recollect ? — 
 There were other crimes, too — the cutting off the ears 
 of two horses there and injury to a horse's leg. 
 
 Two cases of maiming cattle. Very well. Now, I 
 presume, as an intelligent- officer, it is your business 
 when claims are made for injury to follow up the 
 story ? — Yes. 
 
 And to see what is ths corroboration ? — Yes. 
 
 And to try and get at the cause ? — Yes. 
 
 Then, does your experience as an officer enable you 
 to say whether or not, where people can get compensa- 
 tion from the county for injury to property — and, as 
 we have heard, material compensation — that they are 
 not very much averse to having their property injured ? 
 — There may be some cases of that sort. 
 
 Some cases where you might often suspect thera of 
 being parties to the injuries themselves ? — Yes ; but I 
 do not know of any cases of that sort, except, perhaps, 
 one. 
 
 Now, about threatening notices and letters, pro- 
 bably your experience shows you that that is the most 
 
 common kind of offence ? — Yes, it is very easy to 
 escape detection in a case of that kind. 
 
 Probably you have come across cases in which a tenant 
 who wanted to get in with his landlord might invent a 
 threatening letter ? — I never heard of that being done ; 
 I do not recollect any such case. 
 
 Nor of notices being put up on his house by a tenant ? 
 —No. 
 
 Do you recollect your mentioning to Mr. Murphy 
 that curing some popular excitement an effigy was 
 burnt through the town — a sort of Guy Fawkes pro- 
 cession — and some of Tom Smith's crackers were let 
 off? (A laugh.) I do not mean sweetmeat crackers, 
 but explosives. Whose effigy was this supposed to be 
 — It was supposed to be a Mr. Notter, a magistrate. 
 
 Is it not the fact that at the time of that excitement 
 it was rumoured that Father Murphy was going to be 
 arrested at the instance of Mr. Notter ? — It was said 
 he was going to be arrested. 
 
 Was it not at the instance of Mr. Notter ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 Was it not the popular opinion that Mr. Notter had 
 given the information ? — Oh, yes, I do believe that 
 Mr. Notter had something to do with it. 
 
 Now, I want to ask you about the general 
 question of arrests. Were not the arrests under 
 Mr. Forster's Act almost invariably made at the insti- 
 gation or suggestion of the local landlords or agents ? 
 — Never to my knowledge. 
 
 Never, you say ? — Never. 
 
 Now I just want to test that. Take the case of 
 Hodnett. Did you make an information against him ? 
 —No. 
 
 Against O'Mahony ?— No. 
 
 Did any police-constable in the neighbourhood, to 
 your knowledge, make an information against them ? — ■ 
 I am not aware. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — I only 
 wish to ask you a few questions. Do you know before 
 1880 of any tenant having been outraged for taking an 
 evicted farm ? — Not one, to my knowledge. 
 
 Did you ever know of any organization to prevent 
 people taking evicted farms before this agitation ? — I 
 never did. 
 
 Did you ever know a man outraged or threatened for 
 paying his rent before this time ? — I have no know- 
 ledge of it. 
 
 Prior to this agitation, when there was an eviction, 
 used the laud generally to be taken up ? Were there 
 any applications for it ? — Oh, yes. 
 
 I do not want to go through this book, but you 
 stated that from the beginning of 1881 to the spring of 
 1882 the condition of your district was serious, 
 having regard to its previous condition. You have 
 looked through this book. In 1881 and 1882 there are 
 a number of entries made up by yourself of persons 
 who were supposed to have paid their rent being pre- 
 vented from working for other people. So far as you 
 know, speaking of the book as a mere record, was 
 
 Sergeant Lang. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 529i 
 
 there anything of that sort in the district before 1880 ? 
 — There was only one case that I know of in the year 
 1879, when walls were thrown down upon a farm. 
 
 Did you find in these outrages that you investigated— 
 the burning of hay and houses and outrages on persons — 
 that you had any difficulty in getting evidence in 1881 
 and 1882 ? — I could not get any evidence except from 
 people who were inclined to support the law. 
 
 I ask you, speaking of your previous experience, was 
 there more difficulty in getting evidence compared to 
 what there was before ? — There was. 
 
 You were asked about O'Mahony. Was O'Mahony 
 respected by his neighbours ? — I do not think so. 
 
 I understood you to say he had come from America. 
 How recently had he come ? — He was home about 
 two years before the establishment of the League. 
 
 When Hodnett was arrested do you know who became 
 president of the Land League ? — Well, I am not sure, 
 but I know O'Mahony became more active then. 
 
 Was there any No-rent Manifesto issued in your 
 district P — Yes, there was ; it was posted in the win- 
 dow of a house. 
 
 That was the manifesto published about the autumn 
 of 1882 ? — 1» do not know when the first No- 
 rent Manifesto appeared. 
 
 You said that arrest under Mr. Forster's Act made 
 people popular with their followers. What do you mean 
 by that ? — Oh ! I moan those who were members of 
 this organization. 
 
 You have also said that in your judgment evictions 
 might be the cause of crime in your district. Were 
 there more evictions after the Land League or not ?— 
 There were more after the Land League in my dis- 
 trict. 
 
 In your opinion had the Land League anything to do 
 with evictions ? — Well, I cannot say. 
 
 Just look at this document (handing the witness a 
 letter), if you nlease. Did you get that ? — Yes, I did. 
 
 From whom ? — From a Mr. Andrew Bennett. He was 
 a returned American. He came to the country with a 
 lot of money. He purchased a small farm and built a 
 fine house upon it. 
 
 It is ' dated January 17, 1881, and purports to be 
 signed by John Collins, secretary of the Ballydehob 
 League. Do you yourself know John Collins's hand- 
 writing ? — No. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Your Lordships will remember that 
 my learned friend Sir Henry James made some obser- 
 vations earlier in the day with regard to the Cork 
 Herald. May I intimate that Alderman Hooper is now 
 here, and if it is not inconvenient I would suggest 
 that my learned friends should take the evidence with 
 regard to that paper now. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Sir Henry James will, no 
 doubt, deal with the matter, but I should like to ask 
 whether Alderman Hooper denies that long before 
 1885, as far back as 1878, he was connected with the 
 actual management of the Cork Herald, as acting 
 edAor ? That is what I propose to a6k. 
 
 Mr. LpOKWOOD. — As to the time when he became the 
 
 Sergeant Lang. 
 
 responsible editor of the paper, I have already assigned 
 the date as 1885 — no, I am wrong, the end of 1884. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I must ask whether yon 
 admit that he was connected with the management of 
 the paper as sub-editor as far back as 1880 ? He was 
 so connected, I am told, as far hack as 1878. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Yes, certainly, Mr. Hooper was 
 sub-editor as far back as 1878. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am told, Mr. Lock- 
 wood, that Mr. Hooper was a director of the company 
 from the same date. The articles of association state 
 that. 
 
 Sib C. Kussell. — I do not know whether that is 
 right or not. I have no doubt it is. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— As I understand it, so far as this 
 matter is concerned, there was a company registered ; 
 but as a matter of fact the company was never formed 
 and no persons were appointed direciors,so that it can« 
 not be said that Mr. Hooper acted in that capacity. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — In the articles of associa> 
 tion the first subscribers were nominated directors 
 and as .a matter of fact I am informed that Mr, 
 Hooper was nominated among them. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I will now read the 
 letter of January 17, 1881,which has been referred to, 
 from John Collins, secretary to the League at Bally, 
 dehob, to A. Bennett : — " I am directed to inform 
 you that a statement of grievance has been laid 
 before the Ballydehob branch of the League by Mr. 
 Brown, whose farm you occupy. I solicit your state- 
 ment, either verbal or written, so as to hear both 
 sides and to investigate the matter." 
 
 James Camier, examined by Mr. Murphy, said,—" 
 I live near Ballydehob, on the property of Mr. 
 Swanton. I have served one process for him ; only 
 one. I think it was in April, 1881. A short time 
 after that, on the 12th of the month, I think, my 
 house was broken into at night, and a party of men 
 with blackened faces came into my bed-room. One of 
 them made an attempt to injure my ears with some 
 instrument. My ear was cut and it bled. They also 
 gave me a few strokes. There was no dispute 
 between me and the people except with reference to 
 this one process that I served. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Mr. George Swanton, examined by Mr. Murphy, 
 deposed, — I am a magistrate for the county of Cork 
 and I live near Ballydehob. Before 1880 the 
 district was very peaceful and rents were fairly paid . 
 I remember the 18th of May. I was driving home from 
 Skibbereen and I saw a man jump from the road over a 
 fence. I made the horse gallop past the spot. There 
 was no firing there, but farther on the road I 
 heard a report. On July 13 as my father and his 
 servant were coming back from Skibbereen he was fired 
 at and his left eye was knocked out. I saw some 
 copies of notices. For a short time I was boycotted 
 and my servant left me. 
 
 James Camier. 
 
 Mr, George Swanton. 
 
530 
 
 The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir. C. Russell.— I kept a mill 
 in connexion with our meal and flour store. 
 
 I do not want to go into details, but do you 
 know that there were reasons, altogether without 
 connexion with aDy League, to account for your 
 unpopularity ? — Not at that time. 
 
 I do not want to go into your private affairs, but 
 do you say that the circumstances to which I am 
 referring occurred subsequently ? — Yes. 
 
 Your father was an old man ? — About 77. 
 
 Did this firing about which you have spoken occur 
 close to a space of land from which three tenants had 
 been evicted ? — It was not on a part of our property. 
 The firing occurred on the main road. 
 
 Was it close to a place from which three men had 
 been evicted ? — I do not know such a place. 
 
 John Sullivan.examined by Mr. Murphy. — I live at 
 Skull. In 1881 I owned some cars, which I let out 
 for hire. In June, 1881, the police employed some 
 of my cars. On the night of June 7 my house 
 was wrecked. I mean that the windows were broken 
 and the doors broken in. My wife was ill at the 
 time, and she suffered a fright. Next day I went for 
 a doctor, and parties followed me. They shouted, but 
 they did not do anything to me. 
 
 Were you able to procure food after this ? — The 
 witness was understood to reply that he found it 
 difficult to obtain food, but that some of his neigh- 
 bours helped him. 
 
 Did you get police protection ? — I was very con- 
 venient to the police, and therefore they did not 
 give me protection. The police were hardly able to 
 protect themselves, I believe. (Laughter.) I had to 
 protect myself, and to do the best I could. 
 
 Did you go to Mass after this ? — I did not go as I 
 used before. My house was quite convenient to the 
 chapel. The witness, who was exceedingly voluble 
 and difficult to follow, was understood to add that he 
 stayed away from chapel because he did not want to 
 be hooted at. 
 
 Did you take down any of the names of the men 
 who visited your house that night ? — All the shorthand 
 writers in London could not put down the names of all 
 of them. There were so many of them. (Laughter.) 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — The night you 
 have mentioned is the same night as Sergeant Lang 
 has told us about, when the whole town was in com- 
 motion ? — Yes. 
 
 The rumour was that Father Murphy was going to 
 be arrested ? — Yes. 
 
 And he is very popular with the people ? — Very. 
 
 And deserves to be ? — Yes. 
 
 There was a regular row, a riot in the town ?— The 
 witness having given his answer, 
 
 The President intimated that he had not understood 
 a word of it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I think he said this : — It was the 
 turf-cutting season, and they came in from tho country 
 
 John Sullivan. 
 
 districts with mattocks, pikes, spades, and other imple- 
 ments for hacking the land. 
 
 There was a regular riot in the town ? — Yes. 
 
 And it was on that occasion that your house was 
 wrecked ? — I think so. 
 
 Do you not know it was ? — I fcnow that. 
 
 That was not a very bad job for you, was it ? — Yes, 
 at that time it was a bad job. 
 
 But it was not a bad job when you got £110 com- 
 pensation ? — I would not go through that night again 
 for £5,000. No man in the Court would care to be shot 
 even for £500. (Laughter.) £110 did not pay me. 
 
 Sir O. Russell. — Let me get in a word. (Laughter.) 
 Did not two of your neighbours swear that they 
 could repair the whole damages done to your house for 
 a £10 note ? — Yes ; and I gave it to them and the; 
 would not do it after. (Laughter.) 
 
 Nothing would pay you ? — No ; I thank God for pro. 
 tecting me. 
 
 That is a very proper feeling. Have you had any 
 trouble since ? — No. 
 
 And you are not now a bit the worse except for the 
 injury to your feelings ? — The witness was understood 
 to concur. 
 
 Were any of your own relations among the crowd on 
 this occasion ? — Very likely. 
 
 There was some bad feeling, was there not ? — No ; 
 I never deserved it. 
 
 I did not suggest that you deserved it. Was there 
 a family row going on ? — No ; never a family row at 
 my place. 
 
 I think you have said something about an injury to 
 your car. Have you ever said it was a rival jarvey 
 who injured it ? — No ; it was a cart that was injured. 
 
 Henry Copithorne, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, 
 —I live near Ballydehob. In 1881 Mr. William Bald- 
 win was my landlord. I remember paying my rent in 
 the summer of 1881 to Mr. Jagoe, the agent. I went 
 secretly to the office in Ballydehob. I remember 
 having my hay scattered about my field. That was 
 after I had paid my rent. I do not know of any one 
 who owed me a grudge. I had no quarrel with any 
 one. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Mrs. Haycrofts, examined by Mr. Muephy, deposed, 
 —I live near Skull. I remember my house being 
 attacked at night in 1881. The hayrick was thrown 
 down and two or three shots were fired. The landlady 
 was Lady White. My husband had paid his rent a few 
 days before. He had not had any quarrel with tho 
 neighbours, 
 
 Was there any reason why these men should come to 
 your house ? — He had had some few words. 
 
 Whom with ? — With some of the other tenants. 
 
 Were you present ? — I was not. 
 
 You know no reason which you can suggest for the 
 outrage ? — None, except paying the rent. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Was this sup- 
 Henry Copithorne. 
 Mrs. Haycrofts. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 531 
 
 posed injury done to your haycock while the men were 
 at dinner ?— No ; about the dawn of day. 
 
 What did it consist of ? The top of the cock was 
 knocked down ? — They threw it down entirely. 
 
 Did you get compensation ? — Indeed I did not— not a 
 farthing. 
 
 You know haycocks sometimes slip down ? — Oh, but 
 that would not slip down. (Laughter.) 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Murphy. — Stones were thrown 
 at your house on the occasion when tho hay was 
 thrown down ? — Yes. 
 
 The next witness was Richard Daly, who was ex- 
 amined by Mr. Mukphy. Witness said, — In 1881 I was 
 steward to Mr. Swanton, near Ballydehob. On October 
 24, 1881,my house was burnt. There were some threaten- 
 ing notices about. After this time I had police pro- 
 tection. I had to go some distance to get my horses- 
 shod. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sik C. Russell. — I am not now 
 steward to Mr. Swanton. I gave up the post three or 
 four years ago of my own free will. It was my own 
 wish to leave at that time. 
 
 You have been asked whether your house was burnt . 
 Was it an outhouse that caught fire ? — It was — (the 
 latter part of the witness's answer was unintelligible). 
 
 One outhouse and your own house adjoining ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 Then some of your people were living in the out- 
 house, and when that fire occurred they came and lived 
 in your house ? — Yes. 
 
 Then there was nobody living in it at the time it was 
 burning ? — No. 
 
 Did you get compensation ? — I made a claim for 
 compensation, and got £20. 
 
 What was the size of this outhouse ? — From 28ft. to 
 30ft. long. 
 
 Was there more than one room ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Was it a thatched house ?— Yes. I cannot say what 
 part of the house caught fire first. The thatch and the 
 rafters and walls were burnt. 
 
 Thomas Attridge was next called and examined by 
 Mr. MURPHY. Witness said, — I am a farmer living near 
 Glissacahar.and am a tenant of Mrs.Notter. I remember 
 an application for my rent. I think it was in 1880 or 
 1881. Mrs. Notter camo to me for the rent. It was 
 the first time she had done so. 
 
 Did she say why she came ? 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — We cannot have that. 
 
 Mr. MrjRPHY. — I submit we can. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is not a statement of fact, 
 but an explanation of why she came there. 
 
 The President. — We cannot allow this. We do not 
 think it is admissible. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— You paid her the rent ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know Mr. Raycroft in that neighbourhood ? 
 — There are a number of Raycrofts there. 
 
 Do you remember a Mr. Raycroft speaking to you about 
 his rent ? — Yes, William or Tom Raycroft. 
 
 Is he connected with the League down there ? — They 
 say he is, but I cannot say if it is so. 
 
 Did he come and make some communication to yon 
 about Mrs. Notter ; I am not entitled to ask you more 
 than that ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you have a cow's leg broken ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it apparently intentionally done or not ? — I 
 should say it was, Sir. 
 
 Was this after the conversation you had with Ray« 
 croft ? — There were two conversations with Raycroft, 
 Sir ; one was after the cow's leg was broken, the othei 
 was before. 
 
 Was there any reason that you know why anybody 
 should break your cow's leg ? — Not a bit. But I had 
 paid my rent three days before. 
 
 Do you know Roberts, Thomas Roberts ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Was he going round with a book collecting money ? 
 — Yes, Sir ; I think his name is James. I know it is 
 Roberts. 
 
 Is he connected with the League, to your knowledge? 
 — He was collecting, he said, for the League. 
 
 What did he say to you ? 
 
 The President.— No, no. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Did you see any threatening notices 
 up about you ? — No, Sir, I did not see them. I only 
 heard of them. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Did you ask 
 for an abatement of your rent from Mrs. Notter?— 
 No, Sir. 
 
 How much land do you farm ? — I farm two farms. 
 That farm is £18 a year — the one I am living on. The 
 rent of the other farm is £9, I think now, Sir. I have 
 no business besides. 
 
 How many acres altogether ? — About 40 acres of 
 land on this farm. I daresay there is more on the 
 other farm because the land is not so good. 
 
 You are what they call a warm man ? — I do not 
 know what you mean by a warm man. 
 
 Well, a comfortable man ? — Well, I work hard and I 
 try to live up to my means, if you call that a comfort- 
 able man. (Laughter.) 
 
 Who asked you to come and give your evidence 
 here ? — Who asked me ? 
 
 Do not repeat the question. — I beg your pardon, 
 Sir. I got a letter saying I was to be served with a 
 subpcona. 
 
 Let me see the letter. — That is the subpoena (pro- 
 ducing it). 
 
 But I do not want that at all. (The witness then 
 produced the letter, which was handed to Sir 0. 
 Russell.) 
 
 Sir C. Russell (reading).—" Nov. 10." Do you 
 know the writer of this letter ? — No, I do not. 
 
 Had you never been brought into contact with him 
 before ? — No, never. 
 
 This, my Lords, is a letter from Mr. George Bolton. 
 On the top of the letter is " Crown Solicitor, county 
 
 Richard Daly. 
 
 Thomas Attridge. 
 
532 
 
 The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 Tipperary." Sir C. Kussell then read the letter, which 
 was as follows : — 
 
 " Crown Solicitor for co. Tipperary. 
 " Special Commission. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — It is intended that you should be 
 examined as a witness before the Special Commission, 
 and I would take it as a great favour if you will inform 
 me whether or not you will accept service of a subpoena 
 and viaticum, through the post office. All your expenses 
 will be paid by Joseph Soames, Esq., solicitor of The 
 Times, 58, Lincoln's-inn-fields. You will be required to 
 leave on Friday or Saturday next. 
 
 " Yours traly, " GEORGE BOLTON." 
 
 Did you answer that letter ?— I answered, but I did 
 not get a reply — that was, providing all my expenses 
 would be paid. And the day that I replied to that I 
 was served personally with this (the subpoena). 
 
 Had you up to that time given any statement of your 
 evidence to anybody ? — No, Sir, I did not know any- 
 thing about it. I did not even read about this Times 
 Commission. 
 
 Did you know what you were going to be asked 
 about ? — Well, I thought it was about this cow's leg 
 and about paying the rent. 
 
 But beyond that you did not know anything ? — Not 
 that I can remember ; I do not remember anything. 
 
 You were not applied to by any local policeman ? 
 Just think. — I remember now. There was a police- 
 man met me one day and asked me did I find out who 
 broke my cow's leg, and I said " No." He did not 
 mention the League or any one to me. I was going 
 along in my cart. 
 
 When was that ? — It was not very long before I was 
 served, Sir. I think it was in the end of October, as 
 well as I remember. 
 
 Was it the same policeman that served you with the 
 subpoena ? — I do not know the gentleman at all who 
 served me with a subpoena. This was a policeman in the 
 district I was well acquainted with. Sergeant Rourke, 
 I think, was his name. 
 
 When did you first give a statement to anybody of 
 your evidence ? — I did not give a statement to anybody 
 until I came to London. 
 
 To whom did you give it ? — In the consultation room 
 here in the corridor. 
 
 When Mrs. Notter came to you, about what time did 
 she come ? — As well as I remember, she came to me 
 about the 3d or 4th of November. I know it was on 
 a Thursday, and the following Sunday the leg of the 
 cow was broken. That would be in 1881, I think. 
 
 That is a good while ago ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Does she live near Ballydehob ? — I think it is seven 
 or eight miles from Ballydehob. I am some miles 
 from Ballydehob. She said she wanted the rent, and 
 that Mr. Notter did not like to come. 
 
 I was not asking you that. Just kindly answer the 
 questions I put to you. And you paid the rent, and 
 she went about her business and you attended to 
 yours ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Had you told anybody you paid your rent ? — No, I 
 bad not. 
 
 So far as you know, was it known you had paid 
 your rent ? — I do not know. The cow's leg was 
 broken, and William T. Baycroft, when I was talking 
 to him and saying that I did not know who would do it, 
 said, "Were you not with Mrs. Notter the other day?" 
 
 Was it not suggested that it was accidental ? — I 
 never heard it. 
 
 You believe, from an examination of the cow's leg, 
 that it was done on purpose ?— Surely. 
 
 Michael Wall was next called and examined by Mr. 
 MURPHY. Witness said, — I am a district inspector in 
 the Royal Irish Constabulary. On May 4, 1881, I was 
 in Skull district. I remember, on June 4, Henry 
 O'Mahony was arrested. He was arrested under the 
 Lord Lieutenant's warrant. Immediately after this 
 arrest the chapel bell was rung and horns 
 were blown, and the police surrounded. The 
 people went into the roads of the town, armed 
 with various weapons — sticks, spades, pitchforks. 
 They came in parties, rather orderly. There 
 was always some man detached from the rest as if he 
 was a responsible party. There were several stones 
 thrown at the police. The sergeant was wounded by 
 a stone. Before leaving the house O'Mahony 
 spoke to the crowd from the window. He an- 
 nounced himself to the people as another victim of 
 Yellow George — Mr. Ueorge Swanton. He said he 
 knew that the Ballydehob boys would make it hot for 
 him. Mr. Ueorge had been fired at on May 18. On 
 June 4 this language, was used. O'Mahony was 
 brought twice down the street ; the first time we were 
 forced back, but on the last occasion we were met by 
 a very large mob, a new mob, coming in from the 
 Skibbereen direction, and they came down the hill, 
 and the prisoner and his escort were forced back. I 
 could not be quite certain how many men there were, 
 but I should say about 1,000. There were many 
 people arriving while this was going on. 
 
 Mr. Murphy was proceeding with the examination, 
 when 
 
 The President said,— Nothing is gained by going 
 into details like this. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I will accept your Lordship's sugges- 
 tion. (To witness.) Were the telegraph wires cut ?— 
 On the night of the 6th and the morning of the 
 7th. I know Mr. John O'Connor, M.P. He was not 
 present at all on that occasion. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — The telegraph 
 wires were cut on the 6th of June ? — Yes, the -night of 
 the 6th and the morning of the 7th. 
 
 Was that in connexion with popular fervour about 
 Father Murphy's reported arrest ? — Yes. 
 
 It had nothing to do with O'Mahony's arrest ? — No, 
 I should say not, except that the excitement might have 
 continued. 
 
 Now, with regard to the excitement about 
 O'Mahony's arrest, is it not a fact that O'Mahony 
 quietly took the train to Cork and surrendered to the 
 
 Thomas Attridge. 
 
 District-Inspector Michael Wall. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 533 
 
 police P— -I do not know about " quietly ;" there was a 
 good deal of parade about it. 
 
 Well, I will drop the " quietly ; " but did he m>t 
 present himself at the gaol ? — Yes ; he had a copy of 
 his own warrant. 
 
 He went up to the governor of the gaol and surren- 
 dered himself ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, was not O'Mahony what you would call an 
 eccentric person ? — No, I would not say he was. 
 
 When the time of his release came, is it not a fact 
 that he surreptitiously got rid of his own personal 
 apparel and returned home in a suit of prison clothes ? 
 ■—I never heard that. 
 
 Jacob Euttle, a sergeant in the Eoyal Irish Con- 
 stabulary, was then called and examined by Mr. 
 Mdtsphy. He said, — I went to the Skull district in 
 May, 1880, and was there about six years. 
 
 Were you present at a Land League meeting on the 
 5th of April, 1881, when Miss Parnell, Mr. John 
 O'Connor, and Mr. O'Hea were present? — The meeting 
 was on the 30th of March. 
 
 Did you take notes in longhand of the speeches ? — 
 Yes, I have got them here. 
 
 Will you read them ? 
 
 Witness then read his notes as follows : — 
 
 " Richard Hodnett, chairman, of the Ballydehob Land 
 League, chairman introduced Miss Anna Parnell. 
 
 " Miss Anna Parnell said, — Ladies and gentlemen, 
 a month ago I did not know there was such a place 
 as Ballydehob. When I first heard the name I said 
 there was a fighting sound in the name Ballydehob. I 
 think Ballydehob will not be the first to go back to 
 the Land League. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I do 
 not think you have seen the newspapers to-day. I saw 
 something in them which might injure Mr. Healy and 
 do a good deal of harm if it was not rightly under- 
 stood. He said in Dublin yesterday that the evicted 
 tenants might go on the poor relief. The new 
 guardians who turned out the landlords' guardians 
 ought to strike a rate for the poor evicted tenants. 
 But I think that theory would only work where all the 
 tenants are evicted ; but I believe in any place all the 
 tenants or half the tenants will not be evicted. I must 
 tell you, if you hear the talk of Mr. Healy's theory, 
 do not be frightened. Halt the money collected by 
 the Land League will be to assist the tenants. So 
 long as they act on the instructions of the Land 
 League they will be assisted. I was going to tell you 
 that all the money of the Land League is in the hands 
 of trustees ; the money is in the hands of men who will 
 not allow an evicted tenant to suffer if he continues to 
 live according to the teaching of the Land League. If 
 the Irish people were to say to-morrow to long as the 
 Coercion Bill was in force they would pay no rent, the 
 people in America would subscribe as much money as 
 would keep the tenants for five years. I do not know 
 what people would subscribe as much money as would 
 keep the landlords for five years. As long as you are 
 true to the Land League the Land League will be 
 faithful to you. There is another danger of a false 
 idea about the money of the Land League. I have 
 letters from persons of influence to give money to poor 
 people for which it was never intended. But as an 
 honourable woman, I could not give the money for a 
 purpose for which it was not intended. We cannot give 
 
 the money to poor distressed people who have no land. 
 Let the gentlemen who have condemned us in no 
 measured terms and the ladies they have influenced 
 undertake the charge of all the poor in Ireland who do 
 not come under the sphere of our work. In this con- 
 nexion I would make an appeal to the tenant-farmers 
 of Ireland. They have practically the whole wealth 
 of the country in their hands, and I think they might 
 seriously ask themselves when they found it their duty 
 to keep money for to feed themselves and their 
 families, and to ask whether they are entitled to give 
 too much to the landlords while numbers of poor 
 tenant-farmers are starving at their gates. The ladies 
 have got to know the innermost thought of every land- 
 lord, the innermost thought of the agent, and the 
 secret soul of the bailiff. I do not know that there 
 would be any harm if you knew a little of the thoughts 
 of the Boyal Irish Constabulary ; but the way to find 
 out the thoughts of those gentlemen is not to ask them 
 or talk to them about what they intend, it is to judge 
 them by their actions. You may thus find out what 
 they are ; if you talk to them they will tell you 
 nothing but lies. Now I do not think you are pro- 
 claimed here yet, but I believe you will be one of 
 these days. (E. Hodnett.— We are all ready.) Well, 
 I feel proud to address a proclaimed audience. I will 
 tell you what happened to me on Sunday last as wewere 
 driving to a meeting in Kanturk, and we saw a donkey 
 lying on the road. He did not move as we came up. 
 Now, ladies, some people would say that he was a 
 donkey and had no sense ; but I think that dunkey had 
 a kno wledge of politics ; that donkey knew that if we 
 ran over him it would be apt to hurt us. The Govern- 
 ment and the landlords are coming along, or at least 
 they were some time ago, with a great deal of bluster 
 as if they would annihilate us "; but if we stop and 
 pay no attention to them, the landlords will think as 
 we thought that if they run over the tenants they will 
 be the more hurt of the two. It is very cold standing 
 here, and I don't know who put up that platform ; I 
 hope the gentlemen here won't prop up the landlords 
 as well as they did that platform. If you here won't 
 protect the tenant-farmers of Ireland, just write to 
 me, and when we are not able to protect you and yours 
 I will give you timely notice." 
 
 The Peesident. — Is that the end ? 
 
 Mr. Mup.phy— That is the end of the speech, my 
 Lord ; there is a speech of Mr. John O'Connor. 
 
 The Peesident. — Is it necessary to read these 
 speeches ? 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — I think it is very entertaining. 
 
 Mr. Mubphy. — If my learned friends will accept 
 tho statements of the witness I do not wish to have 
 the speech read. 
 
 The Peesident. — I thought that an arrangement had 
 been come to before that these speeches might be re- 
 ferred to. 
 
 Mr. Muepht. — My Lord, I only propose to read the 
 speech of Mr. John O'Connor ; it is not very long : — 
 
 " John O'Connor, secretary to the Cork Land League, 
 said, — My fellow countrymen and women, I must say 
 as the ladies had so much of it we might have a little 
 now. Some people would say that the ladies were 
 very unfitting for tho hard and fast work now before 
 the Irish people, but he would say that those people 
 could not see past their noses. I shouldered my rifle 
 in 1SG7 and am prepared to associate and organize 
 
 Sergeant Jacob Euttle. 
 
534 
 
 The Special Commission, December 5, 1888. 
 
 every association to benefit my country. Some time 
 ago a gentleman came into the rooms of tlio newly- 
 formed Cork Land League. He was an old man of 
 venerable appearance, and he said to me ' I came from" a 
 remote part of the county of Cork where the tenants 
 are paying rack-rent and wo want the Land League.' 
 That part of the country was Ballydehob and that 
 gentleman was Mr. Hodnett. Let me say a few words 
 to the men of the country. The men of Ireland were 
 now breast high against the laws of the country. Let 
 no man tako a farm from which another has been 
 evicted. For the present you shall not pay an unjust 
 rent until the time shall come that you shall pronounce 
 that you shall pay no rent at all. We have the first 
 round out of the Government and we have been 
 victorious. We have had a round with the landlords 
 and we have taken a fall out of them. If any man go 
 behind your back and pay an unjust rent or part of it 
 I won't tell you what to do with him. I won't tell you 
 to nail his ears to the pump, I won't tell you to boy- 
 cott him, but they knew how to meet him themselves. 
 When we have reduced the rents to what they should 
 be we shall not stop there till we shall achieve a 
 state of social comfort." 
 
 SIR C. Russell. — I understand you to say you do not 
 write shorthand ■? — No. 
 
 Are these your speeches or the speeches of the 
 orators ? — It is the longhand notes I took of their 
 speeches. 
 
 Well, it is a most marvellous performance. — I took it 
 in longhand ; it is correct to the best of my belief. 
 7 Nearly word for word ? — Yes. I have not given all 
 that was said. 
 
 Have you given all of Miss Parnell's speech ? — No ; 
 but a good deal of it ; she spoke very slowly. 
 
 Did you got a good deal of Mr. O'Connor's speech ? 
 — Not nearly all. 
 
 You picked out the worst parts ? — Yes. I picked out 
 the sentences I considered most necessary to t:iko 
 down. 
 
 There is a third speech, not read ? — Yes, Mr. 
 Patrick O'Hea. 
 
 When did you write out these reports ? — A few days 
 after the meeting. 
 
 Does it happen that you are a subscriber to the Cork 
 Exxm.vn.er ? — I am at present ; I cannot say whether I 
 was then. 
 
 At all events you read it ? — I do not know whether 
 I read it or not. 
 
 Is it not a fact — if it is not you are one of the 
 wonders of the age — that you composed this speech 
 with tho aid of the Cork Examiner ? — No. 
 
 Or the Cork Herald ?— No. 
 
 Or the Freeman's Journal or the Skllibcrecn Eagle ? — I 
 do not know whether* there are eagles in Skibbereeu, 
 but we know there is a paper of that name. I did 
 not consult any paper. 
 
 Do you mean to tell their Lordships that you wrote 
 
 out these sentences completely without having seen or 
 
 read a report of the meeting ? — Yes, when I got a 
 
 sentence I wished to take down I retained it till I 
 
 ' had finished it, and did not mind any others. 
 
 But all this reads consecutively and smoothly ; have 
 
 Sergeant Jacob Euttle. 
 
 you got your original notes of this 'i — No, I destroyed 
 them ; I did not consider I would ever require them. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — This John O'Connor is put 
 down here as secretary of the Cork Land League i 
 that is not the member of Parliament ? — Yes ; he 
 was not a member then. 
 
 You attribute this speech to the John O'Connor who 
 is now member of Parliament ? — Yes. 
 
 You say he was the secretary of the Cork Land 
 League ? — Yes ; I was informed that he was. 
 
 Sergeant Kells, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, 
 was then called and examined by Mr. MuKPHY. He 
 said, — I am stationed at Wicklow. I was formerly 
 at Ballydehob. I produce threatening notices which 
 have been kept at the constabulary barracks. I pro- 
 duce a copy made by myself, in my own handwriting, 
 of a notice posted on the house of Martin Daly. I 
 am not sure what came of the original. I have 
 searched for it, but could not find it. 
 
 Kindly read the notice. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — Have you searched for the originals 
 yourself ? — I have, in my own boxes at home. 
 
 Witness then read the following notice : — 
 
 " Eory of the Hills. — I am going to pay you a small 
 compliment that it is only too well for you to know. 
 I will stain my hands in your blood, you one-eyed 
 robber. — (Signed) Yours truly, 
 
 " Captain Moonlight & Co." 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Mrs. Daly, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — In 
 1881 I was postmistress at Ballydehob. I had a 
 tenant named Holland, and I had occasion to give him 
 notice to quit and to get a decree. Shortly after that 
 I received a threatening notice. It was to the 
 effect that I shoukl go and explain myself at the Land 
 League. I did not go. I cannot remember the date 
 when this occurred. I remember a parcel being found 
 in the post-office by my son, but I did not see it. My 
 son who found it is now dead. The parcel was taken 
 away by Head-constable Leap. I know Richard Hod- 
 nett's handwriting. The signature to the letter pro- 
 duced is in hii: handwriting. 
 
 Mr. Murphy then read the following letter : — 
 
 " 3d March, 1881. 
 
 " Complaint having been made by John Holland with 
 regard to the manner in which he has been treated by 
 you, the members of the National League think it 
 advisable for you to suspend any further proceedings 
 against him until the next meeting, at which they 
 expect your attendance. 
 
 (Signed) " Richard Hodnett." 
 
 Examination continued. — That is what I call the 
 threatening letter, as that was my idea of the meaning 
 of it. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— There was a document handed in 
 by Sergeant Kells which I did not appreciate, and 
 perhaps your Lordships will allow him to be recalled. 
 
 Sergeant Kells, recalled, cross-examiDed by SIR C. 
 Russell, said. — In the book handed in there is a 
 
 Sergeant Kells. 
 Mrs. Daly. 
 
The Special Commission, December 5 and G, 1888. 
 
 535 
 
 copy of a threatening notice signed " Captain 
 Moonlight and Eory o' the Hills." The report 
 relating to it would be addressed to the inspector 
 of the district. I do not know whether it 
 would be the district inspector's duty to forward it 
 to the resident magistrate. I believe he is inconstant 
 communication with the resident magistrate. The 
 police report upon all crime or supposed crime. I do 
 not know whether the same resident magistrate in 
 1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884 would try the cases if 
 there were evidence. 
 
 Sib H. James. — With your Lordships' permission, I 
 will now read some extracts from the Cork Daily 
 Herald. On the 2d of August, 1880, there is a long 
 account of the meeting of the Millstreet branch of the 
 Land League. My only purpose is to show the begin- 
 ning of the Land League in Millstreet. 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD. — I shall not ask my friend to read 
 it, but I ask to be allowed afterwards to comment on 
 it. 
 
 Sie H. James.— The next date is August 17, 1880. 
 It purports to be a meeting of the Knocknagrie branch. 
 Mr. Sheeba proposed a resolution condemning evic- 
 tions and land-grabbing, and Mr. Heffernan supported 
 the resolution in a long speech calling upon the people 
 to abstain from taking evicted farms, and attacking 
 Mr. J. Hegarty and Archdeacon Bland. The next ex- 
 tract which I put in is from the Cork Daily Herald of 
 December 24, 1880. It is a meeting of the Millstreet 
 branch of the League, Mr. J.J. Cronin, president, in 
 the chair, at which the following resolution was 
 passed : — " That we, the members of the Millstreet 
 branch of thelrish National Land League, hereby pledge 
 ourselves not to deal with any merchant who is an 
 cuemy of the Land League and the principles which it 
 inculcates, and any member violating the rule will be 
 expelled." The next extract is from the Cork Herald 
 of December 29, 18S0. It reports a meeting of the 
 Millstreet branch of the League, at which about 200 
 members were present, the president, Mr. J. J. Cronin, 
 being again in the chair. It states that the following 
 resolution was adopted :— 
 
 " That the resolution proposed by Mr. O'Connell at 
 our last meeting, and passed unanimously, be still 
 farther confirmed from the fact that Mr. Jeremiah 
 Ilegarty, on the 24th inst., publicly challenged with- 
 out provocation a respectable member of our League, 
 and also a member of our executive committee, for his 
 connexion with such persons, and otherwise insulting 
 him, which conduct we consider highly detrimental to 
 the interests of our League ; and we further pledge our- 
 selves to vindicate our cause by resenting all unde- 
 served insults offered to individual members, and 
 working shoulder to shoulder." 
 
 Then there is another resolution which I need not 
 read. Then in the same paper there is a report headed 
 '• Boycotting in Millstreet," which states that the boy- 
 cotting of Mr. J. Hegarty still continues, and causes 
 the greatest possible excitement. His house is watched 
 by members of the Millstreet Land League, and on 
 Wednesday some members of his household came into 
 
 collision with members of the League. As a result on 
 Christmas Day Mr. Hegarty swore an information 
 against five men for riot, and they were arrested and 
 brought before Mr. O'Leary and allowed out on their 
 own recognizances till the following Monday, when he 
 accepted bail for their appearance. % 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Perhaps I may be allowed to call 
 attention to what appears in these papers later on. 
 
 The Court adjourned at five minutes to 4 o'clock. 
 
 TEUliSDAY, DECEMBER 6. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 2Gth sitting to- 
 day at half -past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Itoyal Courts of Justice. 
 
 Their Lordships having taken their seats on the 
 bench, 
 
 The President said, — We were called upon on Tues- 
 day to order the arrest of a witness, I think of the 
 name of Molloy, who had refused to obey the subpoena. 
 I believe— I am informed — that he has been brought here 
 — to London, that is ; but I presume that it would not be 
 convenient that he should be examined to-day. I think 
 it was desired that there should be an opportunity of 
 examining. him, and therefore I propose that he should 
 be examined to-morrow morning. 
 
 The Attokney-Geneeal. — Of course, I should take 
 this witness at any time your Lordthiris think proper. 
 I was going to mention the matter myself, and to 
 suggest that he should be taken to-morrow morning. 
 
 The PEESiDEJST. — I assume that is assented to. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I am extremely glad to hear you 
 say, my Lord, that the witness will not be taken to 
 day. Sir Charles Iiussell is not here at present, but I 
 know of no reason why the witness should not be taken 
 to-morrow. 
 
 The PiiESiDENT. — Of course, it is desirable that the 
 man should be examined as soon as possible. 
 
 The Attokney-Geneeal. — Of course, my Lord. I cau 
 only say that, as far as we are concerned, we should 
 think it our duty to take him as soon as convenient. 
 
 The President. — Ou every ground it is desirable 
 that that should be done. Have you anything to say, 
 Mr. Lockwood ? 
 
 Mr. Lcckwood. — I was only asking my learned 
 friend whether the Committee on Privileges was sitting 
 to-morrow. That might be in the way of Sir Charles 
 Russell's attendance. 
 
 The Attoekey-Geneeal.— I do not think it will be 
 sitting to-morrow. Anyhow it does not sit until 
 12 o'clock in the day, and my learned friend Sir 
 Charles Kussell would have time to cross-examine the 
 witness. 
 
 The President. — We must have the witness brought 
 before us in order that we may deal with him. 
 
 Sie H. James. — May I mention, my Lords, the sub- 
 ject of the inspection of books ? My learned friend 
 Mr. P„eid on Tuesday mentioned the question of the 
 inspection of the books of the National Bank, and ob- 
 jected to some c? the books being seen on account of 
 the private and personal nature of the accounts. An 
 
 Sergeant Kells. 
 
536 
 
 The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 affidavit was handed to me yesterday from Mr. Biggar 
 dealing with these accounts, and on looking at it I 
 think there is a little misapprehension as to what your 
 Lordships' order was. I wish now to say that, so far 
 as the application of my learned friend goes, objecting 
 to the inspection of accounts connected with merely 
 private and personal matters— as, for instance, the pay- 
 ments to members of Parliament — we all feel that that 
 is not a matter which will assist your Lordships, and 
 we have not the slightest wish to enter upon it. That 
 is a personal account, and we do not wish to inspect 
 anything that approaches a personal matter. I think, 
 however, we can get inspection of the rest of the 
 account, taking care not in any way to make public 
 anything of a personal character. 
 
 The President.— I should hope that you and Mr. Eeid 
 will be able to come to an arrangement between you. 
 
 Sir H. Jambs. — I think so, my Lord. I only wish to 
 do away with the idea that we desire to go into any- 
 thing of a personal character. 
 
 District-Inspector G. C. Royce was then called and 
 examined by Mr. MuRrnv.— He said, — I was stationed 
 at Skull from December, 1882, to November, 1883. 
 On January 11, 1883, in the discharge of my duty, I 
 seized a number of books and documents at the house 
 of Henry O'Mahony. I produce them. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I propose very shortly to give your 
 Lordships a general idea of what these documents are. 
 I have handed Sir Charles Russell a copy. They relate 
 to the Ballydehob branch of the League. There is, 
 first of all, a register of members of the League, 
 with the names of the executive, namely : — President, 
 Richard Hodnett ; secretary, John Collins ; treasurer, 
 John Kearney ; and the executive committee, Anthony 
 Lavis, Henry O'Mahony, Michael Sullivan, Edward 
 Koycroft, Cornelius O'Driscoll.'and other names. The 
 next purports to be a sort of record of the proceed- 
 ings. (Reading.) " Patrick Driscoll v. Daniel Dris- 
 coll. These men were before the League the last 
 day. Dan Driscoll charged Pat with shoeing horses 
 for the police. The League concluded that they 
 would not interfere, as the police should be fed and 
 shod themselves and their horses." 
 
 The President. — Do I understand that you handed 
 up the originals of these ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Only to show what sort of things 
 they are. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — If your Lordships have a copy, I 
 should be much obliged if I may look at the originals. 
 
 The President. — Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Murphy (reading). — " Mr. James Roberts 
 wanting to become a member. Mr. Roberts came 
 before the League on the last day, wishing to become 
 a member. The League concluded that it was best to 
 postpone the case for a week, with a view of seeing 
 whether, Mr. Roberts being an agent, would this dis- 
 qualify him. July 7, 1881. No appearance. Mr. 
 Roberts was admitted a member on July 14, 1881." 
 Then — " Mr. Downing v. M'Carthy. Mi. Downing 
 
 accused M'Carthy of being a land-grabber. Mr. 
 M'Carthy said he would give up the place and have no 
 more to do with it. July 7, 1881. (Signed) Richard 
 Hodnett." Then I would call attention to the register 
 of members. The number of members on the register 
 is 1,638. I wish also to call attention to the cha- 
 racter of the register. It gives the name of the mem- 
 ber, the date of admission, the extent of holding, 
 the rent, the valuation, the name of the landlord, the 
 name of the agent, and the subscription. Then we 
 come to the minute-book. I need not do more than 
 refer to that. 
 
 The :Attorney-Generai.— There are some letters 
 from Mr. Brennan. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Yes, some letters passing between 
 Mr. Brennan, of the Irish National Land League 
 in Dublin, and Mr. Collins, the secretary of the 
 Ballydehob branch. Then at page 6 is a bill of costs 
 delivered to the Land League by Mr. Patrick O'Hea 
 for the costs of civil bills at Bantry Quarter Sessions. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Would you ask the witness, as you 
 allude to the documents, to produce the originals ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Certainly. (To witness.) Will you 
 produce the originals as I go along ? Then, on the 
 next page, a letter from Mr. Brennan to the secretary 
 of the Ballydehob branch. Then, on the next page, under 
 date July 21, " Proposed, — That the committee of our 
 League hand over to Blr. R. Hodnett £5 on account of 
 expenses incurred in supplying dinner to strangers who 
 attended at the jndignation meeting at Ballydehob." 
 (To witness.) Can you tell me what was the indignation 
 meeting alluded to ? — No, I cannot tell you. 
 
 Mr. Mup.phy (continuing reading). — Then, my Lord6, 
 on page 3 of No. 3, under date July 21, there is a 
 resolution, " That this branch order a solicitor to 
 defend Mr. O'Driscoll at petty sessions in Ballydehob 
 to-morrow." 
 
 " July 21. 1881. 
 
 " That we appoint an assistant secretary lest any 
 mishap may befall our present secretary, Mr. J. 
 Collins, and that we may be totally thrown in the 
 dark for want of correspondence." 
 
 "Ryan came before this League to know what he could 
 do against his landlord, Mr. Swanton, as it appears 
 that he being a weekly tenant the League decide they 
 had no power." 
 
 " At a meeting of our committee on July 28 it was 
 resolved : — ' That our secretary, together with Mr. 
 Con. O'Driscoll, Mr. James O'Regan, and Edward Roy- 
 croft (being the members of our committee assembled), 
 do go to. Skibbereen to meet the prisoners (now in 
 the county gaol), and that these members shall have 
 power to determine and decide on getting a suitable 
 dinner for these men at their arrival at Skibbereen.' " 
 
 "August 11, 1881. 
 " Resolved that the hon. sec. be deputed to 
 acquaint the Rev. John Murphy, P.P., and Rev. D. 
 Forest, P.P., in hopes that these clergymen may 
 announce that subscriptions were required on the occa- 
 sion, which is principally to meet the demands of the 
 solicitors who defended those men who were recently 
 imprisoned relative to the arrest of H. O'Mahony and 
 the rumoured arrest of Father Murphy." 
 
 District-Inspector G-. 0, Eoyce. 
 
The 'Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 537 
 
 The learned counsel next drew attention to the 
 following copy of a Land League card : — 
 
 " Ireland for the Irish. Down with landlordism. 
 
 Branch. 
 
 Union 
 
 is 
 
 Strength 
 
 The Irish National Land League. 
 
 Was admitted this day of 188 . 
 
 " Hon. Sec. 
 
 " Keep a firm grip of your homesteads. The land 
 for the people." 
 
 (On reverse side :) 
 " Objects op the League. 
 
 ' ' The Irish National Land League was formed f or 
 the following objects :— 
 
 " First. To put an end to rack-renting, eviction, and 
 landlord oppression. 
 
 " Second. To effect such a radical change in the 
 land system of Ireland as will put it in the power of 
 every Irish farmer to become the owner, on fair terms, 
 of the land he tills. 
 
 " The means proposed to effect these objects are : — 
 
 " 1. Organization amongst the people and tenant 
 farmers for the purpose of self-defence, and inculcating 
 the absolute necessity of their refusing to take any 
 farm from which another may be evicted, or from pur- 
 chasing any cattle or goods which may be seized on for 
 non-payment of impossible rent. 
 
 " 2. The cultivation of public opinion by persistent 
 exposure in the Press, and by public meetings, of the 
 monstrous injustice of the present system, and of its 
 ruinous results. 
 
 " 3. A resolute demand for the reduction of the ex- 
 cessive rents, which have brought the Irish people to a 
 state of starvation. 
 
 " 4. Temperate but firm resistance to oppression and 
 injustice." 
 
 The next document to which attention was drawn 
 was a circular from Mr. Qninn : — 
 
 " The Irish National Land League, 39, Upper 
 Sackville-street, Dublin, June 24, 1881. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I am desired to send you the accom- 
 panying form, and to request that you will fill it up 
 and return it to me as soon as you can. You will per- 
 ceive that the object is to obtain the fullest and most 
 accurate information with regard to the action of the 
 tenants on each estate in the district covered by your 
 branch with reference to the payment of rent. 
 
 " It is important that we should know what demand 
 has been made by the tenants in every case, whether 
 the landlord has agreed to the demand, and if not 
 whether the tenants have continued to hold the position 
 first taken up by them. 
 
 " As Mr. Parnell desires to have the information 
 placed in his hands without delay, for purposes of 
 great importance, the executive hope that you will fill 
 up the form as speedily as possible and return it to 
 me. 
 
 " Your faithful servant, 
 
 " J. P. QuiNN." 
 
 The learned counsel also read the following docu- 
 ments : — 
 
 " The Irish National Land League and Labour 
 and Industrial Union, 39, Upper Sackville- 
 street. Dublin, Sept., 1881. 
 
 *' Dear Sir,— I have to request that for the future 
 
 you will forward to me, without a moment's delay, all 
 
 writs served in your district, marking on the backs of 
 
 the writs the date of service, and how it was effected, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 " William Doriss. 
 " Mr. John Collins." 
 
 " Mr. John Kearney, Ballydehob, co. Cork. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — If you communicate with Mr. Sexton 
 and give him a full statement of the case referred to 
 in your letter the executive may agree to pay the 
 costs. " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " William 9obiss." 
 
 " Irish National Land League, 39, Upper Sack" 
 ville-street, Dublin, Sept. 26, 1881. 
 " Received from Ballydehob Branch per Mr. John 
 Collins the sum of five shillings. 
 
 " , Treasurer. 
 
 " J. P. Quikn, Eon. Sec." 
 " The Irish National Land League and Labour 
 and Industrial Union,' 39, Upper Sackville- 
 street, Dublin, Oct. 12, 1881. 
 " Mr. John Collins, Ballydehob, co. Cork. Dear 
 Sir, — In reply to yours of the 9th inst. I beg to inform 
 you that if the tenants mentioned in enclosed hold out 
 against the rack-rent until they are evicted the 
 League will give them every assistance in its power. 
 " Yours faithfully. " Willm. Dobiss." 
 
 " Mr. J. Coleman, Ballydehob, co. Cork. Dear Sir, 
 — In reply to yours of the 7th inst. I have to inform 
 you that if the tenants hold out until sheriff's sales 
 take place the League will pay the legal costs in- 
 curred. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, " Willm. Doriss." 
 
 " Mr. Henry Mahony, Ballydehob. Dear Sir, 
 — There being no grounds for defence in the cases 
 referred to, it would therefore be only a waste of 
 money to contest them in the Courts ; the tenants 
 should unite together and refuse to pay the rack- 
 rents demanded, and if evicted in consequence the 
 League will give every assistance in its power. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, " Willm. Doriss." 
 
 The learned counsel next drew attention to a copy of 
 the No-rent Manifesto, and read the signatures — 
 " C. S. Parnell, A. J. Kettle, Michael Davitt, 
 Thomas Brennan, John Dillon, Thomas Sexton, Patrick 
 Egan." Next he read the following : — 
 
 " Irish National Land League and Labour and 
 Industrial Union, Oct. 25, 1881. 
 
 " To the Secretary, Land League Branch. Dear 
 Sir, — If there are any sheriff's or other law costs 
 guaranteed by Central Executive to members of your 
 branch which still remain unpaid, please send particu- 
 lars of them, with the letter from the Dublin offices 
 guaranteeing the same, to Mr. P. C. M'Gough, 
 Solicitor, Ormond Quay, Dublin, when they will be 
 paid as soon as the accounts can be examined and 
 vouched. 
 
 " Inquiry having reached me as to the disposition of 
 any funds lying in the hands of the local treasurers, I 
 am authorized to say that, as the Ladies' Land League 
 have undertaken the sole charge of evicted families, it 
 is desirable that any sums in hand locally should be 
 forwarded at once to Miss Anna Parnell, Ladies' Land 
 League, Sackville-street, Dublin, for special purposes 
 of relief. 
 
 " With regard to the general movement, prompt and 
 efficient steps are being taken in view of the altered. 
 
 District-Inspector G. 0. Koyce. 
 
538 
 
 The Special Commission, December 6,. 1888. 
 
 circumstances to carry on the organization and sustain 
 the strike against rents. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 " Patrick Eg an, Hon. Treasurer." 
 
 " M'Gough and Fowler, Solicitors, 33, Upper 
 Ormond Quay, Dublin, Nov. 17, 1581. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — Let the brother of the man who Ii'as 
 been served with the writ at once get a solicitor to 
 take proceedings for the sum due to him. Let the 
 writ he forthwith served and let the tenant imme- 
 diately sign a consent for judgment. Let this judg- 
 ment be registered as a mortgage against the tenant's 
 interest in his farm, and then the sheriff will bd 
 unable to make a valid conveyance of this interest 
 afterwards. The utmost despatch is requisite. 
 
 " Nothing has been done in the case of " Mahony v. 
 O'Mahony " since I entered the appearance to the writ. 
 " Yours very truly, II. M'Gouo.H. 
 
 " Mr. Henry O'Mahony, Ballydehob." 
 
 " Ballydehob, Nov. U, 18SI. 
 
 " Dear Madam, — There is about £39 in the hands of 
 the treasurers here, and" a few members of the com- 
 mittee are in favoar of retaining the money in conso. 
 quenca of the last circular from the Executive, stating 
 where a tenant in any one property paid his i en t or 
 applied to the Land Commissioners, that none of the 
 otier of those on the same property who submitted to 
 he sold out by and evicted would be paid their legal 
 expenses. My object is to show these poor people 
 who allowed heavy law costs to be incurred that they 
 will be paid their legal expenses where the Executive 
 guaranteed it, and also to forward up the balance of 
 about £39, which is in the hands of the treasurer. If 
 I can have a letter from you to that effect it will 
 restore confidence in the people, and under such cir- 
 cumstances I am sure we could be pretty successful in 
 holding back people and start a prisoners' fund, or 
 contributing to the Ladies' League. Please reply by 
 return of post. 
 
 " Your humble servant, 
 " Hen-ry O'Mahony, Ex-suspect, Ballydehob. 
 
 " To Miss A. Parnell." 
 
 " The Ladies' Irish National Land League, 39, 
 Upper Sackville-street, Dublin, Nov. 19, 1831. 
 " Mr. Edward O'Mahony. Dear Sir, — We have not 
 seen the circular which says that ' on a properly where 
 a tenant paid his rent or applied to the Land Commis- 
 sion no other teaant who submitted to be sold out or 
 evicted would be paid their legal costs.' Miss Parnell 
 would like you to send a copy of it, as it may be a 
 bogus circular. It is not correct either to say the 
 above, that where one tenant on an estate applied to 
 the Court or pays, the rest will get no assistance. All 
 who really hold out, if it were only one tenant 
 amongst a thousand others, would be supported ; but 
 if the majority of the tenants on an estate pay or 
 apply to the Court, then those tenants who might he 
 evicted on that estate from inability to pay would not 
 be supported. 
 
 " On the other hand, if the majority of the tenants 
 on an estate hold out, then those evicted, although 
 they might not be able to pay, would be supported. 
 In all cases, where guaranteed, law costs will be 
 paid . 
 
 " Yours truly, " Clare Stritch, Hon. Sec. ' 
 
 " The Treasurer of Ballydehob Land League. 
 " Sir, — Please pay Mr. J. Collins, hon. sec., the sum 
 of three pounds sterling, to attend at the coming exe- 
 
 cution sales at Cork ; 
 bringing home Mr. P. 
 
 also to see to the facility of 
 Duggan, of Skull. 
 " Per Austin Sweetnam 
 " Mich. Coghlan 
 " Edw. Roycroft." 
 " Ballydehob Land League. 
 " To the Executive of the Dublin L. League 
 
 '* Gentlemen, — We, the undersigned members of this 
 branch of the League, respectfully call your attention 
 to the cases of some of our members who, in com- 
 pliance with rules of the League, allowed themselves 
 to be sold out in Cork on Saturday last. There were 
 nine farms sold — live were bought by the emergency 
 men and four by the owner previously of the f arm 
 through Mr. O'Neill. These men could have paid 
 their rents, but stuck the ship in order to keep with 
 their poorer neighbours. Now these men who bought, 
 we are glad to add, are Protestants, and the live whoso 
 farms were . . . were Catholics, and these geutle- 
 men refused a fair reduction, and made their sacrifice 
 on behalf of our League, and it is certainly very unjust 
 to think that these men should not get their legal ex- 
 penses, as they were heretofore promised, and which 
 promise induced these men to make this hold out." 
 
 Examination continued. — Do you remember going to 
 the post-office in Ballydehob and receiving a parcel ? 
 — Yes ; I think it was in February, 1883. 
 
 Where was it found ? — At the receiving office, Bally- 
 dehob. 
 
 To whom was it addressed ? — 1 was told 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Do not let us have that. 
 
 Mr. MuRriiY.— I will postpone that point for the 
 present. Did you have this parcel submitted to exami- 
 nation ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it found to contain dynamite ? — Yes. 
 
 What quantity did it contain ? — I cabnot recollect 
 precisely. 
 
 A large or small quantity ? — A small quantity. 
 
 Do you remember whether Mr. Hodnett, the presi- 
 dent of the League, had been prosecuted at that time ? 
 — I cannot remember the date. He was arrested on 
 the day of the outrage, I believe. The outrage took 
 place at night, and I think that Hodnett was arrested 
 that day. 
 
 The President. — What arc you referring to when 
 you say the day of the outrage ? — To the dynamite. 
 
 Mr. MtTErny. — Do you know whether Richard Hod- 
 nett had been arrested on that day, or had his convic- 
 tion been confirmed ? — His conviction had been con- 
 firmed, I think. His conviction was confirmed on or 
 about the day when this outrage was committed. 
 
 I think Hodnett, ]un., was prosecuted in connexion 
 with this dynamite outrage ? — Yes, and the jury dis- 
 agreed twice. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— A letter was read yester- 
 day signed by John Collins, secretary of the Bally- 
 dehob branch of the League. I now propose to put in 
 another letter from the same source : — 
 
 " Land League Rooms, Ballydehob, Oct. 22, 1881. 
 
 " The Honourable Secretaries, I. N.L. League, Dublin. 
 
 " Gentleman, — Whereas the legal costs in the case 
 
 of the Lenicon estate tenants Wm. Jas, Jno. & Edw. 
 
 Koyencroft, together with Thos. Allridge, is still un- 
 
 District-Inspector G. C. Eoyce. 
 
The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 539 
 
 settled or not considered by you. . Tis hard for us here 
 in Ballydehob to stand the attacks of those parties 
 who allowed themselves to be sold out on considera- 
 tion of being paid their costs, while those matters are 
 franked elsewhere ; there has been a circular form 
 filled and sent up to you relative to these cases, which 
 the Honourable member Mr. C. S. Parnell said that 
 they had every right to be paid up under the circum- 
 stances of how those men held out so stanch to the 
 cause. " Faithfully yours, 
 
 " Jso. Collins, Secretary, L. L., Ballydehob. 
 " F.S. — At the last demonstration in thecity of Cork 
 as II. P. Mahony, ex-suspect, of Ballydehob, bad an in- 
 terview with Mr. Parnell, he said to him that he'd see 
 about the matter I refer to, as those parties are Protest- 
 ants and are very numerous in this locality. Unless 
 those costs are paid, will cause lukewarmness on the 
 part of the whole of those parties." 
 I put that in, and also the circular referred to, 
 signed H. O'Mahony, chairman; J. Kearney, treasurer, 
 and John Collins, secretary. There is also a letter 
 signed by O'Mahony, dated October 15, enclosing a 
 form of expenses in connexion with the sale of four 
 farms. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — What is the 
 population of the sub-district of Ballydehob ? — I have 
 not the least idea. 
 
 Can yon not tell us within a thoasand or two ? — No ; 
 it was five years ago when I was there. 
 
 Were all the people iu the neighbourhood members 
 of the Land League ? — I cannot speak as to the Land 
 League,because I was not in the service at the time. 
 
 It was in 1381 that Hodnett was arrested as a sus- 
 pect under Forster's Act ? — I cannot say ; I was not in 
 the place at the time. 
 Do you not know it officially ? — No. 
 In 1882 he was arrested again, not summoned, on a 
 charge of making a violent speech ? — I do not know 
 that either. 
 
 Mr. Gilhooly, M.P. , was also prosecuted for a 
 speech ? — So I have heard. 
 
 He was charged with making an intimidating 
 speech ? — I do not know. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — You pro- 
 duce this bundle of letters which were found at 
 O'Mahony's honse at Ballydehob ? — Yes, with the 
 exception of -one. 
 
 And there is nothing in that bundle but what was 
 found at O'Mahony's house ? — No. 
 
 The Attornev-General. — Of course I put these 
 papers in, but I do not suggest that the whole of them 
 should be printed ; only those which your Lordships 
 have got already before you. 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — It is very important that the 
 whole of them should be placed upon permanent 
 record. This is the result of a search under legal pro- 
 cess, and we ought to have the full and complete re- 
 sult permanently recorded. 
 
 The President. — But suppose there are in this 
 bundle of papers some buicher's bills or other things 
 which are irrelevant ? 
 The Attorney-General.— There is, for instance, a 
 
 copy of the No-rent Manifesto among the papers. 
 Surely that need not be printed again ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — There mast be a permanent 
 record to show the general action of the League in 
 that neighbourhood. 
 
 The President. — If you insist upon it it must be 
 done, but it is a great pity that you insist upon your 
 strict right. Every document that you insist upon 
 must be recorded. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I am reluctant to insist upon any- 
 thing that you would think unreasonable. We will, 
 with your permission, have the documents carefully 
 examined and see whether we can make a selection of 
 them. 
 
 The President. — Let it be so, otherwise I am afraid 
 that we shall be buried in the mass of documents. • 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I think that your Lordships 
 probably will be. (Laughter.) 
 
 The President. — Before you call the next witness 
 ws will deal with the case of the witness Molloy. Mr. 
 Lockwood, have' you communicated to Sir C. Russell 
 what took place in his absence? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am obliged to your Lordships. 
 
 Patrick Molloy was then brought into Court in 
 custody and was placed on the floor of the Court in 
 front of the Bench. 
 
 The President, addressing the witness, said,— - 
 What is your name? 
 
 Molloy. — Patrick Molloy, Sir. 
 
 The President. — We have been informed that you 
 were served with a subpoena to attend here to give 
 evidence in this case. Is that correct? 
 
 Molloy. — Yes, Sir. 
 
 The President. — Why did you not come here in 
 obedience to your subpoena ? . 
 
 Molloy. — The money given me was not sufficient to 
 bring me over. 
 
 The President. — What amount was given you ? 
 
 Molloy. — £4 was given me with the subpoena. Another 
 thing was that the subpoena was not served upon me 
 until Friday, while the subpoena commanded me to be 
 here on that Friday. 
 
 The President. — You admit that you received £4 
 with the subpoena ? 
 
 Molloy. — Yes. It was not sufficient to bring me 
 over. 
 
 The President. — Can any one inform me what is 
 the amount of the travelling expenses ? 
 
 Mr. Edwards (clerk to Messrs. Soames). — £1 18s., 
 my Lord. 
 
 The President, after consulting with the other 
 Commissioners, said, — We think that the sum you 
 received was sufficient. 
 
 Molloy. — It was not, under the circumstances. 
 
 The President. — We are the judges of that. We 
 are of opinion that the £4 which you received was 
 enough to have enabled you to come hero. 
 
 Molloy.— Very good, Sir. 
 
 District-Inspector G. C. Koyce. 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
540 
 
 The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 The President. — You ought to have attended to the 
 subpeena, and as you have not done so you have 
 subjected yourself to the action of the Court ; and, 
 accordingly, I commit you to prison until further 
 orders. 
 
 Molloy. — Very good, Sir. 
 
 The President. — You will be required to-morrow 
 morning to give evidence. 
 
 ■ Molloy was then removed from the Court in 
 custody. 
 
 Daniel Leap, examined by Mr. Murphy.— I was 
 formerly head constable at Ballydehob. I was 
 stationed there from December, 1881, to July, 18S4. 
 I remember Richard Daly, the postmaster at Bally- 
 c>ehob, handing mo a parcel on the 22d of February, 
 1888. He directed me to take it to Mr. Burrell, the 
 analyst. Daly is dead. He made a statement to me. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — My Lord, Daly being dead, I pro- 
 pose to ask the witness what that statement was. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I object to the evidence as being 
 inadmissible. 
 
 The President. — Mr. Murphy, you are not entitled 
 to put the question. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Very well, my Lord. 
 
 Examination continued. — He subsequently handed 
 me a letter, which I produce. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Hand it to me. (The letter was 
 handed to Mr. Murpby.) My Lord, for the purpose of 
 identification only I will read the address on the 
 envelope. It is addressed to " Richard Daly, Bally- 
 dehob, County Cork," and it has an American stamp 
 on it. 
 
 Examination continued. — Did Daly make a deposition 
 at the trial of Hodnett, jun. ? — He did. I am not 
 Bure that he made a written deposition, but he 
 attended at the trial. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I submit, my Lord, that this letter 
 would be admissible in evidence as coming within the 
 category of documents already described. I will 
 assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a letter of 
 a threatening character. 
 
 The President. — Daly was the postmaster, and a 
 letter of this description was sent to him ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — The letter will speak for itself. 
 Does it bear a post-mark ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — Then it came through the post ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — With the permission of your Lord- 
 ship I will ask the witneBS a question or two. 
 
 The President. — Certainly, if you wish to do so. 
 
 By SIR C. Russell. — What do you say Daly handed 
 to you ? — He handed me that letter, which he said he 
 got in the post-office that morning, threatening him- 
 self. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Well, my Lord, I do not object 
 to the letter being read if I have a copy of it. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— I will read a copy and ycu shall 
 check it by the original. 
 
 The original letter was then handed to Sir 0. 
 Russell. 
 
 Mr. Murphy read the letter, which was as 
 
 follows : — 
 
 " March 27, '83. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I am sending you these few lines in- 
 forming you that you had no right to expose the letter 
 directed to Mr. Spencer that I passed through your 
 office. You are a citizen of Irish birth and race and 
 you ought to be a solger of the Island and help to 
 unfurl the flag of green. Instead of that you are 
 helping the red flag of England to fly and tyrannize 
 you for ever in the poverished town of Ballydehob, 
 and if you will not reform you will be sacrificed, as I 
 think your profession don't teach you what a sacrifice is. 
 A little of this explosive stuff that we got here will 
 damn 60on learn you what a sacrifice, is. Let all 
 letters in your office goto their destination in future or 
 the crooked bridge will be your doom. So take my 
 advice and be wise and you will be at the winning 
 side, or if you don't Ballydehob will be unhealthy for 
 you in future to live in. And also I am surprised the 
 building and you are not blown up by this time. If 
 you will not look out we will renew boycotting soon 
 again. You ought to shake hand with Carey the 
 informer, but perhaps things are not as bad as they 
 seem. Give my love to the R. I. C. if there is any of 
 the old boys of years ago there now. They often 
 gave me a shake of the hands. You will soon hear 
 from me again. I suppose you are a Government 
 officer now yourself, but we would like to entertain 
 Carey, Kavanagh, Spencer, and Buckshot and a few more 
 of the gentlemen. We would give them some wine 
 and hard tack. 
 
 " Give my love to Robert of Ballybaun and the 
 people there. No more at present from mo, Richard 
 Daly of Ballydehob. 
 
 " I suppose you will make a present of this to the 
 Skibbereen Eagle, but don't tell them I am No. 1 but 
 No. 2. I will send you a revolver next week — a good 
 one too— a 7-shooter, but let me know if you want it." 
 
 The President. — Is the letter signed ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— No, my Lord, it is anonymous. 
 
 The President. — I daresay that there is something 
 in this which has escaped our attention, but what is 
 there in it that makes it either relevant or im- 
 portant ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — It is with a view to .connect the 
 evidence. 
 
 The President. — If you have anything in view in 
 producing it I will not press you on the point. 
 
 Michael Burke, examined by the Attorney-Gene- 
 rAl. — I live at Ballynonan, near Clonbur. It is on 
 the borders of the counties of Galway and Mayo. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Again, I must ask your Lordships, 
 are we to have no kind of order ? Have we left 
 Cork for good or why are we now skipping to county 
 Galway ? I hope that your Lordships will interpose 
 and say that some kind of order should be preserved, 
 unless there are very good reasons for departing from 
 it. We are not prepared to go on with the cross-exa- 
 mination of a witness who is taken out of an entirely 
 different county to the one with which we have been 
 
 Daniel Leap. 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 54] 
 
 dealing, and it was only bj the merest accident that 
 we were enabled to deal with the witness from Mayo 
 who was examined yesterday. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Forgive me as to its 
 being a mere accident. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I repeat that it was by the 
 merest accident. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We shall find before the 
 case is over whether it is the fact or not. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— It is a fact. 
 
 The President. — Why do you interpose this wit- 
 ness ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— There are two reasons for 
 oar doing it. First, with regard to the county itself, 
 the evidence relates as much to county Galway — the 
 evidence with regard to which I have informed your 
 Lordships is not completed — as it does to county 
 Mayo. But the main and principal reason why we 
 take this witness is that he must be examined at 
 once. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— That is what you said with regard 
 to the young man Walsh who was examined yesterday, 
 and there was not the slightest apparent reason for it. 
 
 The ATTORNEr-GENERAL. — There was. My learned 
 friends and myself take the responsibility for it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — If your Lordships are to take the 
 statement of the Attorney-General on the matter there 
 is an end of the subject. 
 
 The President. — We shall bear in mind these circum- 
 stances and they 6hall have our full consideration, but 
 in the conduct of the case I can have nothing else to 
 go upon than the statements of counsel. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I quite agree with that, my Lord. 
 
 Examination continued. — My father held a farm 
 under Mr. Lynch at Ballynonan. I am about 40 years 
 of age, but I do not exactly know my age. Some years 
 ago I got work in a shipbuilding yard at Jarrow. 
 
 Just answer this question, yes or no. Did you join 
 some society at Jarrow ? — Yes, I did. That was about 
 14 or 15 years ago. I afterwards went back to Ire- 
 land. That was about eight years ago. I went to 
 Ballynonan, where I have lived most of the time ever 
 since. My wife and children and my mother live there 
 too. I remember a Land League meeting being held 
 at Cong about six or seven years ago. I attended that 
 meeting. I do not remember the. names of the persons 
 who spoke at that meeting, but a man whom I did not 
 know, but who I was told was Sheridan, spoke. I did 
 not know his name until afterwards. I afterwards 
 attended Land League meetings at Robeen, at 
 Clonbur, and at Tourmachdy. I know a man named 
 Pat Heffron. He was a plasterer living at Clonbur. 
 He was a member of the local branch of the Land 
 League. About a fortnight before the Clonbur meeting 
 he and I went through the country to collect money 
 to buy scarves for that meeting. We colleoted about 
 30s., which Heffron took, saying he should give it to 
 the committee. I know Pat Kearney. He keeps a 
 publichouse at Clonbur. He was secretary to the Land 
 
 League, I believe. The Land League meetings were 
 held in his house sometimes. I am not aware that 
 they were held anywhere else. 
 
 Now, do you remember the time of Lord Mount- 
 morres's murder ? — I do, Sir. 
 
 Before Lord Mountmorres was murdered was there a 
 meeting held at Kearney's house ? — There was a kind 
 of meeting held, Sir. 
 
 How many people were present at it ? — Not many. 
 
 About how many ? — I should think about 20. 
 
 Where was the meeting held ? — In the back yard at 
 Kearney's house. 
 
 Who were there that you remember ? — Martin 
 Fallon, Pat Barrett, and Kearney. 
 
 Anyone else whose name you recollect P — No, Sir. 
 
 How long before Lord Mountmorres's murder was 
 that meeting held ? — About a fortnight. 
 
 Did anything happen at that meeting with reference 
 to Lord Mountmorres ? Was anything said at that 
 meeting about Lord Mountmorres ?— There was soma 
 talk. 
 
 Just tell us what the talk was ? — It was drawn 
 down that he should be done away with. 
 
 Just explain what you mean by drawn down ?— Well, 
 spoken of. 
 
 Was anybody else's name mentioned at the same 
 meeting ? — Yes, Mr. Lynch's. 
 
 What was said about Mr. Lynch ? — I could not 
 exactly tell — his name was drawn down, but they dis« 
 agreed. 
 
 Drawn down for what ? — That he should be dona 
 away with. 
 
 Yoa say that was disagreed about ? — Yes. 
 
 Was anybody else's name mentioned ? — Yes, Mr. 
 Wm. Burke's name was also drawn down, but he had 
 protection. 
 
 What protection ? — Police protection. 
 
 Now on the day of Lord Mountmorres's murder 
 where were you ? — I was working at Kylebeg, about 
 half a mile from Clonbur. 
 
 Whose property were you working upon ? — On Lord 
 Ardilaun's property. 
 
 Did a man come to you ? — He did, Sir. 
 
 What was his name ? — Patrick Sweeney. 
 
 Who was he and what was he ? — I believe he was a 
 tenant and a herd to Lord Mountmorres. 
 
 Was he a member of the League ? — He was, Sir. 
 
 Do you know whether he had any office or post 
 in the League ? — No, Sir, I do not. 
 
 What did Patrick Sweeney say to you when he came 
 to you ? — He asked me if I would assist in doing away 
 with Lord Mountmorres. 
 
 What did you say ? — 1 told him I would not. I had 
 a wife and family to look after ; but I might if it 
 were not for that. 
 
 Did Sweeney say any more about this or not ? — No, 
 Sir, not at that time. 
 
 Did you that afternoon see anybody else, or did any 
 one else come to you ? — Yes, Patrick Mulroe. 
 
 Was he a member of the League ? — He was, Sir. 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
542 
 
 The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 About what time did he eome to you ?— About 12 or 
 1 o'clock. t 
 
 Was it after Sweeney came to you ? — It was, Sir. 
 
 What did he say to you ? — Not much. 
 
 Something about Lord Mountmorres ? — Yes, Sir ; he 
 told me he expected he was going to be done away 
 with. 
 
 Did you see Lord Mountmorres that afternoon ? — I 
 did, Sir. 
 
 Walking or driving ? — Driving. 
 
 Which way was he driving ? Did you see him once 
 or twice ? — Twice. 
 
 Driving both times ? — Yes, Sir. He first drove from 
 Clonbur, and I saw him again driving into Clonbur 
 about 4 30 in the afternoon, I could not exactly say, 
 but about that time. 
 
 What time did you leave your work that night ? — At 
 6 o'clock. 
 
 Where did you go to ?— Clonbur. 
 ' Where ? — To Patrick Kearney's publichouse. 
 
 Whom did you see there ? — Patrick Kearney, 
 Sweeney, Barrett, Fallon, Thomas Murphy, William 
 Hausbery, Patrick Hannelly, William Burke. 
 
 .Anybody else ? — I do not know whether I saw any 
 more or not. 
 
 Were the men whose names you have mentioned 
 members of tne League ? — They were, Sir. 
 
 While you were there did Patrick Sweeney say any 
 more to you ? — He did, Sir. He asked me if I would go 
 to lend a hand to do away with Lord Mountmorres. 
 
 Did Kearney say anything to you ? — He asked me the 
 same as Sweeney, Sir. 
 
 What did Kearney ask you ? — He said I had better 
 go along with the rest and lend them a hand. 
 
 Did Kearney ask you before or after Sweeney ? — After 
 Sweeney. 
 
 What did you say to Kearney ? — I gave consent in 
 going, Sir. 
 
 Yes, what did you say, please ? — I said that I might. 
 
 Do you remember whether you said anything more ? 
 —Not at that time, Sir. 
 
 What time in the evening was that ?— About 6 30 — I 
 could not exactly tell. 
 
 Did any of the men you have mentioned leave 
 Kearney's hoose after that ? — I missed some of them 
 after that about 7 o'clock. 
 
 As near as you can remember tell me the names of 
 those you missed.— Well, I could not tell you the 
 whole of them, Sir. 
 
 As near as you can remember. — I think I missed 
 Sweeney, for one, Sir ; Mulroe ; I think I missed 
 Fallon— I am not sure. 
 
 Who else ? — Murphy — Thomas Murphy. 
 
 Did Kearney say anything to you before you said 
 you might go ? — Not that I am aware of, now, Sir. 
 
 Try and think. — I think Kearney went out, Sir, and 
 I was inclined to go too. (The rest of the answer was 
 inaudible.) 
 
 What answer did you give to Sweeney when he 
 asked you ?— I told him I would not. 
 
 You told me Kearney came to you after Sweeney, 
 and asked you to go ? — He did, Sir. 
 
 Did he say anything to you ? — Not that I am aware 
 of, Sir ; I told him that I might. 
 
 Did hs say anything to you before ? — I am not sure 
 whether he called me a coward or not. 
 
 Do you think he did ? — I am not sure, Sir, 1 think 
 so. 
 
 However, you said in reply to Kearney you might 
 go ?— I did, Sir. 
 
 Did you hear Kearney speak to any other man or 
 not ? — Not to my knowledge, Sir ; not that I am aware 
 of. 
 
 He spoke to you alone, and you did not Lear any- 
 thing he said to other men ? — I was told 
 
 Do not say what you were told, please. Do you 
 remember Kearney saying anything to anybody after 
 you missed Sweeney and these men from tho house ? — 
 I do not, Sir, except I met him at the door, and he 
 told me to return, Sir, and would not let me go, and I 
 turned into the publichouse. 
 
 Later on that evening, did anybody come back ? — 
 They did, Sir ; Mulroe. 
 
 Anybody else ? — Not that I am aware of— Pat Mul- 
 roe. 
 
 About what time ? — About 8 30 or o'clock. 
 
 Did you notice anything about Mulroe — anything 
 about his hand ? — I saw some kind of wound on his 
 hand. I do not know what it was. 
 
 Did Mulroe go anywhere else with you that night ? — 
 I went part of the way home with him. It was the 
 way home of both of us. 
 
 Did he say anything to you a.s you were going home ? 
 — He did, Sir ; he said that they had done away with 
 Mountmorres. 
 
 You were arrested on suspicion, were you not ? — I 
 was. Sir. 
 
 How long were you in gaol ? — A month. 
 
 How soon after the murder were you arrested ? — I 
 cannot exactly tell you ; something about nine or ten 
 weeks, I think, Sir. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. FvUSSEll.— My Lords, I 
 am in the same position as I was in regard to the wit- 
 ness yesterday. I will ask some questions of the wit- 
 ness and postpone the further cross-examination. 
 
 You went back to Ireland you say about eight years 
 a,go ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 From Jarrow ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 What year was it you did get back ? 
 
 Witness (after a pause). — I do not understand what 
 he means. 
 
 Would you mind turning this way so that I may see 
 your face ? What year did you return ? — About eight 
 years ago. 
 
 What year ?— I do not know. 
 
 1881, or 1882, or 1883 ?— I could not exactly say, 
 Sir ; I am no scholar. 
 
 What year is this ? — I could not answer that, Sir. 
 
 You do not know what this year is ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 543 
 
 That you swear ? — I could not swear to what year 
 this year is. 
 
 Is it 1887, 1888, or 1889, or not ?— Well, it is a thing 
 that I did not look after, Sir. I could not swear to 
 it. 
 
 A thing you did not look after and you could not 
 swear to ? — No, Sir ; I am no scholar. 
 
 Try and tell us as nearly as you can what year it 
 was you went back. — Something about eight years 
 ago. 
 
 And you cannot get any nearer to it than that ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 How long had you been in Jarrow ? — I could not 
 exactly say, Sir. 
 
 How many years or how many months ? — Not very 
 long at that time I think, Sir ; I had been backwards 
 and forwards. 
 
 When did you go to Jarrow first ? — I could not 
 exactly say, but about 26 years ago. 
 
 What age were you '1 — Something about 14. 
 
 And how long did you remain the first time you went 
 to Jarrow ? — About three or four years, Sir ; something 
 about that ; I could not exactly swear. 
 
 All the time in Jarrow ? — Between Jarrow and North 
 Shields. 
 
 Did you work for the same employer ? — Sometimes, 
 Sir ; I could not exactly tell you. 
 
 Did you work for the same employer ? — I could not 
 say that. I am not certain whether I did or not, Sir. 
 
 Do you know whether you continued in the same 
 employment or not ? — I might sometimes, Sir, some 
 other times not. 
 
 Then do you mean to say that you ch anged your 
 employment ?— Sir ? 
 
 Do you mean to say that you changed your em- 
 ployment — worked for different people ? — I think I 
 did, Sir. 
 
 Who was the first person you worked for V — A man 
 of the name of Palmer. 
 
 The shipbuilder ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 As a labouring man ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 How long did you work for him ? — I could not exactly 
 say. 
 
 How many days or montns ? — I am no scholar. I 
 could not answer that question. 
 
 Did you remain with him years or months ? — I 
 could not exactly say. 
 
 Who was your next employer ? — I think they were in 
 Co. — a man of the name of Smith. I could not exactly 
 tell you the name. 
 
 He means a company. Smith you say was the name ? 
 — I think so. 
 
 In Jarrow ? — No, North Shields, Sir. 
 
 How long did you remain with Smith ? — I could not 
 tell you. Some time. 
 
 Was it months or years ? — I could not tell, Sir. 
 
 Whom did you next work for ?— I am not sure, Sir. 
 
 Try and think. — I cannot remember, Sir. 
 
 What did you work at ?— I could not tell you, Sir. 
 
 Would you mind turning this way ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Would you mind turning this way ? — Yes, Sir. 
 (Witness turned towards Sir C. Russell.) 
 
 Do you swear you cannot tell for whom you next 
 worked ? — I do not know whether I could or not, Sir, 
 I was not inquiring after such affairs at the present 
 time. Sir. 
 
 You have told us you worked for Palmer, and Smith 
 and Co., North Shields. Who was your next employer f 
 — I am not sure, Sir. 
 
 What was the kind of work you did ? — Any kind o) 
 labouring work I could get. 
 
 What kind of work was that ? — I was attending 
 masons and bricklayers building houses, and the like 
 of that, Sir. 
 
 For whom ? — Oh, begor, that is more than I can say. 
 
 Who paid you your wages ? — The foreman did. 
 
 What was his name ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Who was his employer ?— I could not tell you. 
 
 How long did you continue attending bricklayora 
 and masons ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Was it months or years ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Was it months or years ? — It might, Sir. 
 
 Might be months or years ? — It might, Sir. I am 
 not going to swear about such affairs. I am at my oath 
 now, Sir, and I am not going to swear such a thing 
 that I am not sure of. 
 
 Quite right of you to think of that. Will you swear 
 you do not know whether it was months or years ? — 
 No answer. 
 
 Will you attend to the question ? Attend ! — I will 
 not, Sir. I am not going to swear it. I am not sure. 
 
 Do you swear that you are not sure whether it was 
 months or years that you were working as assistant 
 to a bricklayer or a mason ? — I am not sure, Sir. 
 
 What was your next employment ? — I cannot say, 
 Sir. 
 
 Who was your next employer ? — I do not know the 
 man's name. I have worked for men during 26 years. 
 I cannot know everybody's name. 
 
 You swear that except the name of Palmer, the 
 shipbuilder at Jarrow, and Smith and Co., at North 
 Shields, you cannot tell the name of any employer 
 for whom you worked ? — I do, Sir. I do not know. 
 
 You said that you joined a society 14 or 15 years 
 ago ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 What year was it that you joined the society ? — I 
 cannot say, Sir. 
 
 For whom were you working then ? — For Palmer, 
 secondly. I had worked for him before. 
 
 When you joined this society ? — Yes. 
 
 Was that the Ribbon ^Society ? — Sir ? 
 
 Did you hear my question ? Answer, Sir. — I do 
 not understand what you mean, Sir. 
 
 Do you swear you do not understand my question ? 
 — I do not, Sir. 
 
 Then I put it to you again. Did you join the 
 Ribbon Society ? — I cannot understand that, Sir. 
 
 Are you a Ribbonman ? — I cannot explain that, Sir. 
 
 The question was asked again twice, and on both 
 occasions the witness gave the same answer. 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
544 
 
 The Special Commissioii, December 6, 1888. 
 
 The President.— Come ! come ! This is a specific 
 question. Are you a Ribbonman ? 
 
 Witness. — I do not know whatever the man means. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Do you swear you do not know what 
 Eibbonman means ? — I do not, Sir. 
 
 What was the society you joined ? — I cannot exactly 
 say, Sir. 
 
 That you swear ?— Something for the purpose of 
 Ireland any way, Sir. 
 
 Did you take an oath ? — I did, Sir. 
 
 Did you swear to be secret ? — I did, Sir. 
 
 What was the oath you took, Sir ? — I could not 
 explain to you. I am no scholar, Sir. 
 
 What did you understand you were swearing ? — I 
 could not understand about that. I am no scholar. 
 
 Who put the oath to you ? — A man I did not know 
 explained it to me. 
 
 Was he the person that asked you to join ? — (A 
 pause.) 
 
 I am waiting for the answer. — I do not understand 
 what you say, Sir. 
 
 Was the stranger whom yon did not know, and who 
 put the oath to you, was he the man who asked you 
 to join P— There were two men. I know them well* 
 but I could not remember the men's names. 
 
 Can you not give me the name of any men ? — I could 
 not ; I could not remember to give any man's name. 
 
 But you remember you were sworn ? — I do, Sir. 
 
 On a book ? — Out in a back yard. 
 
 You were sworn on a book ? — The man had a book. 
 
 Is that the only secret society you have joined ?— 
 To my knowledge, Sir. 
 
 Are you a member of the society still ? — Not now, 
 Sir. 
 
 When did you cease to be ?— I have had nothing to 
 do with any society for five or six years. 
 
 Then after you were sworn in, which you say was 
 14 or 15 years ago, how long did you remain working 
 in the North of England before you returned to Ire- 
 land ? — I could not say, Sir. I often went backwards 
 and forwards. 
 
 How long did you continue working in the North of 
 England before you went back to live ? — I cannot 
 ewear, Sir. 
 
 Tell me within a year or two ? — I cannot answer 
 that, Sir. 
 
 Had you made the acquaintance of any gaol when 
 you were in England ? — Sir ? 
 
 Did you not hear me P Had you made the acquaint- 
 ance of any gaol when you were in England P — Any 
 gaol ? 
 
 Were you in gaol at all in England P — No, Sir. 
 
 Not at all ?— No, Sir. 
 
 Nor in Ireland P — Yes, Sir, after Lord Mountmorres's 
 murder. I have been in gaol for other things once. I 
 only got a month in gaol once, Sir. 
 
 Was that for sheep stealing ?— No, Sir, for quarrel- 
 ling. 
 
 Were you charged with sheep stealing ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Never ? — I do not understand what you mean, Sir. 
 
 Were you ever charged with sheep stealing ? — No, 
 Sir. I was charged for killing a sheep, but not for 
 stealing it. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General here made some observa- 
 tion which was not generally audible. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Mr. Attorney, I could not but 
 hear your observation about our having all the infor- 
 mation. You are at liberty to see the paper I have 
 in my hand. 
 
 The Attorney-General was understood to say that 
 there was no occasion for Sir Charles Russell to make 
 that observation in Court. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (warmly). — And I could not but 
 observe a certain corresponding motion on the bench. 
 
 The President. — I do not know what you were 
 alluding to. If you were alluding to anything on my 
 part it was not the case. 
 
 Sir O. Russell. — No, toy Lord, I was not alluding 
 to anything on your Lordship's part. (To witness.) 
 Were you charged with killing a sheep that did not 
 belong to you ? — There was a Sheep killed, and I was 
 . summoned for killing it. 
 
 Was that a sheep that did not belong to you ?— I 
 cannot understand what you mean. 
 
 Was that a sheep that did not belong to you ? Was 
 it your own sheep ?— I do not understand. 
 
 I want an answer to that ; was that a Sheep that 
 did cot belong to you ?• — I cannot understand what you 
 say. 
 
 Was it your sheep ? — (Witness did not answer.) 
 
 The President.— What is your answer to that? — 
 No ; it was a sheep belonging to a neighbour. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Did you kill it ? — 
 No ; I was summoned for it, but they could not make 
 any more of it. 
 
 Who killed it ?— How can I say that ? I had plenty 
 of evidence that I had nothing to do with it — three or 
 four evidences. 
 
 Now, you have sworn that you came to the North 
 of England 14 or 15 years ago, and returned to live 
 at Clonbur about eight years ago ?— Sometimes ; back 
 and forwards. 
 
 Did you live principally at Clonbur for the last 
 eight years ? — I did not ; I have been in England in 
 the last eight years. 
 
 But you lived the greater part of the time at Clon- 
 bur ? — Sometimes. 
 
 Did you live the greater part of your time there ? — I 
 could not say. 
 
 Did you say when you were being examined that 
 since eight years ago you had lived most of your time 
 at Clonbur ? — Yes, most of my time. 
 
 Well, is that true ? — I lived most of my time in it ; 
 I did hot live always in it. 
 
 Who asked ou to join the Land League ? — X could 
 not exactly tell their names. 
 
 Try and think. — I know them, but I could not mind 
 their names. 
 
 Did you ever pay any money to the Land League ? 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 545 
 
 You can probably remember that ? — I did ; I paid Is. 
 to it, any way. 
 
 Is that all, as well as you can recollect ? — I might 
 pay more, and I might not ; I will not swear I paid 
 more than Is. 
 
 When was that ? Eight years ago ? — No ; about 
 six or seven years ago, or eight. 
 
 That was what I was putting to you. Did you get 
 any card ? — I did. 
 
 Where is that card ? — Not here. 
 
 Where is it ? — In Ireland. 
 
 Why did you not bring it over with you ; are you 
 sure you had it ? — I am not sure where it is, but I am 
 sure I had it at one time, anyhow. 
 
 When did you see it last ? — I am not sure whether I 
 have seen it this couple of years or not. 
 
 Now, except attending the meetings you have spoken 
 of at Clonbur, Eobeen, and Tourmaceady, did you ever 
 attend any Land League meetings at all ? — I did attend 
 meetings ; I am not sure what they were. 
 
 Will you swear that you attended any Land League 
 meetings, except those I have mentioned ? — I attended 
 some meetings, but I am not going to swear ; I did not 
 know whether they were Land League meetings or 
 not. 
 
 Did you attend other Land League meetings or not f 
 —I am not sure whether they were or not. 
 
 Will you swear you attended any Land League meet- 
 ings except those three ? — I could not swear ; I 
 attended meetings, but I could not swear whether they 
 were Land League meetings. 
 
 Were those meetings which you told the learned 
 counsel were Land League meetings public meetings 
 at which speeches were made ? — They were. 
 
 Except public meetings, where speeches were made, 
 do you swear you attended any Land League meet- 
 ings ? — I attended meetings. I could not swear 
 whether they were Land League meetings or not. I 
 am no scholar, and I have only bad English. 
 
 Tell me plainly, will you swear that except meetings 
 at which you heard speeches publicly made, in the 
 open air, you ever attended a Land League meeting 
 at all ? — I attended meetings. I could not swear 
 whether they were Land League meetings or not. I 
 do not know, and I am not going to swear. 
 
 Were there any Land League rooms at Clonbur ? — 
 There was a room for meeting ; I am not sure whether 
 it was Land League or not. 
 
 Where was the room ? — There used to be some meet- 
 ings at Patrick Kearney's ; I am not sure what they 
 were, Land League or not. 
 
 Was there or was there not in Clonbur a Land League 
 room where Land League members met ? — There 
 might or there might not. 
 
 Do you swear you do not know whether there was 
 or not ? — I know I attended some meetings in it and 
 some in the town of Clonbur. 
 
 Have you attended what you call Land League 
 meetings in Clcnbur which were not at Kearney's 
 
 house ? — I did not attend in any other place except 
 public meetings. 
 
 That is what I wanted- to get. Then you have 
 attended only public open-air meetings and meetings 
 at Kearney's ; and whether the meetings at Kearney's 
 were Land League meetings or not you cannot say ?— 
 No. 
 
 Now, tell me, will you swear there was a Land 
 League at all at Clonbur in 1880 ? — I will not swear 
 whether there was or not, but I was told there was by 
 several people ; but I was no scholar, and I could not 
 swear. 
 
 Who told you ? — Several people. 
 
 Who told you there was a Land League branch iu 
 Clonbur ?— I was told by several people, but I could 
 not swear by whom. 
 
 As your Lordships are aware, the death of Lord 
 Mountmorres was on the 25th of September, 1880. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I think it was the 2Cth. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Will you swear thero 
 was any branch of the Land League at all in Clonbur 
 before Lord Mountmorres'6 death ? — I am not a scholar, 
 and could not answer your question ; I can neither read 
 nor write ; I was told there was. 
 
 Will you swear you had a Land League card before 
 the murder of Lord Mountmorres ? — I will not swear. 
 
 Will you swear you paid Is. to the Land League 
 before the murder of Lord Mountmorres ? — I will not. 
 I paid Is., but I had no card till afterwards. 
 
 Who told you there was a Land League in Clonbur ? 
 — I can only — — 
 
 Attend to me ; who told you there was a Laud 
 League in Clonbur ? — Several people, Sir. 
 
 Attend ; who— if anybody — told you there was a 
 Land League branch before Lord Mountmorres's murder ? 
 — I can only ■ 
 
 Will you swear anybody told you ? — I could not swear 
 what were the men's names, but I was told by several 
 people. 
 
 Attend to me ; will you swear you were told by 
 any one before Lord Mountmorres was murdered that 
 there was a Land League branch at Clonbur ? — There 
 was some kind of branch ; I could not swear what 
 branch it was. I know there was a branch. 
 
 Will you swear, on your oath, that any one told you 
 there was a branch of the Land League in Clonbur 
 before Lord Mountmorres was murdered ?— I was told, 
 but I do not know the name of the man. 
 
 You swear you were told before the murder of Lord 
 Mountmorres ? — I swear I was told ; there was some 
 kind of meeting, I could not say what it was myself. 
 
 You swear you know there was some kind of meet* 
 ing ; will you swear ? — I will not. 
 
 Attend to me, I will have an answer. — Not to that 
 question, because I cannot answer it ; I have said all 
 I know. 
 
 Attend to me. — I am attending as well as I can. 
 
 Will you swear any one told you before Lord Mount- 
 morres was murdered that there was a Land League 
 branch at Clonbur ?~I was told there was a branch, 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
 18 
 
546 
 
 The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 but I could not say what it was ; I could not say 
 whether it was a Land League branch or not. 
 
 Why did you not tell me so before ? Who was it 
 that told you there was some kind of branch ? — I 
 could not say. 
 
 What was the man who told you ? — It was several 
 men, back and forward through the country. 
 
 Tell me one of them. — I do not know the men's 
 names. 
 
 Then is it your statement to the Court that you 
 cannot name anybody who, before Lord Mountmorres's 
 murder, told you there was some kind of branch at 
 Olonbur ?— I could not name anybody. 
 
 Where were you told ? — In Clonbur. 
 
 Where ? — On the street. 
 
 When ? About what time ? — I could not swear to 
 the date. 
 
 At what time do you say you were told ? — I was told 
 several times that there was a kind of branch, but I 
 am uot going to swear, I do not know. 
 
 Was that after Lord Mountmorres's murder you were 
 told that ? — I am not sure. 
 
 Do you swear it was not ? — I will not swear what I 
 am not sure of. 
 
 Now, let me remind you what you have sworn. At 
 the time you were examined by the learned counsel — I 
 admit you were somewhat led to it — you swore that 
 Patrick Kearney was secretary of the Land League 
 branch at Clonbur. Do you now swear he was ever secre- 
 tary to the Land League ? — I swear he was secretary of 
 some kind of branch ; I am not swearing whether it 
 was Land League or not ; it was some kind of 
 branch. 
 
 Then you did not mean to swear, when you were 
 asked by the learned counsel, that he was secretary of 
 the Land League branch ? — I am not sure. 
 
 You are not sure '/ Very good. And when you answered 
 that those persons whose names you mentioned were 
 members of the Land League, I ask you again will 
 you swear any one of them was a member of the Land 
 League before Lord Mountmorres's death, if ever ? — 
 I am not sure whether they were or not. 
 
 Why did you swear they were ? — I saw them at meet- 
 ings and attended meetings along with them. I could 
 not say about whether they were Land League meetings 
 or not ; I will not swear. 
 
 You said there were meetings held sometimes in 
 Kearney's house, sometimes in the back-yard, sometimes 
 in the private room ? — Yes. 
 
 Were these men you met members of the same 
 society you yourself belong to ? — I think so. 
 
 You had no doubt of it ? You could recognize them 
 by signs ? — (Witness hesitated.) 
 
 Come, answer. — I do not know what you mean. 
 
 You would know them by signs ?— No. 
 
 Pass-word ? — No, Sir. 
 
 A shake of the hand ?— No. 
 
 How, then, did you know them ?— Because I seen them. 
 
 How do you know they were members of the same 
 
 society as yourself ? — Only because they were in the 
 one place. 
 
 Do you swear that is the only way you knew them ? 
 —Yes. f 
 
 On your oath ? Come, tell the truth ? — I am telling 
 the truth, as far as I understand. 
 
 The President (to Sir C. Russell).— Did you put in 
 the word " secret " ? 
 
 Sib C. RrrssuLL (to witness).— Were they members 
 of the same secret society as yourself ?— As far as I oan 
 understand they were. 
 
 Now, when you were sworn in 14 or 15 years ago 
 you were told some way you would recognize your 
 friends ? — I am not aware of it. 
 
 Do you say you did not learn 14 or 15 years ago anj 
 way by which you could recognize your friends ? — I dc 
 not know. 
 
 No sign ? — No. 
 
 Or pass-word ? — No. 
 
 Or grasp of the hand ? — I could not say exactly ; I 
 could not swear. 
 
 Just tell us what you did. — I could not tell you 
 exactly, I cannot answer that question. 
 
 Well, you could give a good guess as to whether 
 they were friends or not, could not you ? — I could not 
 say. 
 
 "Have you ever heard the question of pass-words dis- 
 cussed at all among your friends ? — I could not exactly 
 say whether I did or not. 
 
 Have you ever heard it described — heard pass-words 
 described— as " stuff " 'I— I never knew any pass- 
 words. 
 
 Have you heard — attend to me, your hat (which wit- 
 ness was stooping to pick up) will be all right — have 
 you heard anything about " stuff " ? — I might or I 
 might not ; I could not say. I could not say whether 1 
 did or not. 
 
 Very good. Now, you were constantly going between 
 the North of England and Clonbur ? — Sometimes, when 
 it would answer me. 
 
 Were you in the habit of bringing messages from 
 friends in Ireland to friends in the North of England — 
 were you a go-between ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Are you sure ? — I could not exactly say. I would 
 not like to swear. 
 
 Would you like to swear you were not a messenger 
 between friends in 1he North of England and friends in 
 Ireland ? — Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Will you swear ? — As far as 1 know about it I was 
 not ; I will not swear. 
 
 Do you think you could be without knowing it ? — I 
 do not think I could. 
 
 Were any others of these men whose names you have 
 given men who had worked in England ? — Sometimes ; 
 some of them. 
 
 In the North of England, I suppose ? — Sometimes, 
 when they had a mind to go back to England ; when 
 it suited them. 
 
 Just as you did ? — Yes. 
 
 Were a good many of your friends who were working 
 
 Michael Burks. 
 
The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 547 
 
 in the North of England from the neighbourhood of 
 Galway and. Mayo ? — They might or they might not, 
 for all I know. 
 
 As far as you can judge were they members of the 
 same society as yourself ? — I am not sure ; I could not 
 say. 
 
 Do you think they were ? — They might and they 
 might not. 
 
 Do you believe they were ?— I could not say, Sir. 
 
 At all events, many of them were ? — They might and 
 they might not. 
 
 Will you just tell me this ? — I will if I can. 
 
 I think you told us that the name of the man who 
 
 asked you if you would lend a. hand in this murder 
 
 (Witness was not attending.) Now, as soon as you have 
 settled your coat. — I am ready for you. 
 
 Now, I will repeat it. Do you say that it was 
 Sweeney ? — I say he was one. 
 
 Who first asked you if you would lend a hand in this 
 brutal murder ? — I do, Sir. 
 
 Had Sweeney worked in the North of England some- 
 times ? — No, Sir, not that I know. Hs was the first 
 that spoke to me about that affair. 
 
 Tell me, how long before the murder was it that he 
 spoke to you ?— I could not say, but he spoke to me 
 on the same day. 
 
 Yes, but did he speak to you before ? How long 
 before ? — On that day. 
 
 Do you swear he did not speak to you until that 
 very day ? — He did, but not about this affair. 
 
 Then I am to understand that he did not speak to 
 you about Lord Mountmorres until the day of the 
 
 murder ? — Not that I am aware of, except (Witness 
 
 hesitated.) 
 
 Except ? Go on. — He was at this meeting where 
 
 it was drawn down, before that. He spoke at that 
 meeting. 
 
 How long was that day before the murder ? — About a 
 fortnight. I could not exactly swear. 
 
 Just let me follow. Was that the occasion on which 
 there was a kind of meeting in Kearney's back-yard ? 
 —I could not exactly say whether it was or was not. 
 
 I must really ask you ?— I am not going to swear 
 
 to it. 
 
 It might be another occasion ? — It might and it 
 might not. 
 
 I wish to make you understand and follow me. You 
 have said that Sweeney spoke to you on the day of the 
 murder ? — I did. 
 
 You now say he was at the meeting at which it was 
 " drawn down," some time before that ? — Yes, and I 
 mentioned that before. 
 
 Attend, please.— -I am attending, Sir. 
 
 I am glad to hear it. At that meeting, which you 
 described when you were answering the learned counsel 
 much more easily than you are me — at that meeting in 
 Kearney's back-yard, on your oath, when you were 
 asked to try and recollect the names of people present 
 at that meeting where the murder was drawn down, 
 as you call it, did you not mention Martin Fallon, 
 
 Patrick Barrett, and Kearney himself as the onlj 
 people you could remember as present on thai 
 occasion ? — There were about 20 altogether. 
 
 You said so, but when you were asked to try and 
 remember who were present did you not swear that 
 those three were the only persons you could recollect 
 as being present ? — As far as I can remember, Sweeney 
 was present. 
 
 You swear he was ? — As far as I can understand. 
 
 Do you swear he was, aye or no ? — Witness (after a 
 pause). — As far as I can understand he was. 
 
 Do you swear he was ? — As far as I can understand 
 he was. 
 
 Do you swear he was ? — No answer. 
 
 I am waiting for an answer ? — As far as I can under- 
 stand be was and several others as well. 
 
 Will you swear positively he was ? — No answer. 
 
 The Pbesident. — What is your answer? You must 
 surely understand the question. 
 
 Witness. — As far as I can understand he was. I did 
 not mention the man before as I was not exactly sure 
 at the time the statement was taken down as to more 
 than three or four names. 
 
 Sir C. Kussell. — How was it you came to forget ?— 
 I might forget a good many things. 
 
 How was it you forgot that when you were pressed 
 by counsel ? — I was not pressed by any man. There 
 might have been one or two I might not think of. 
 
 Now, about that meeting in Pat Kearney's back- 
 yard. That meeting was about a fortnight before Lord 
 Mountmorres was murdered, was it not ? — Something 
 about that. 
 
 How long before that had you teen in England ?— > 
 In England, Sir? Something about 12 months before 
 that. 
 
 Do you swear that ? — I was at home 12 months 
 before that. 
 
 Do you swear you had not been in England during 
 that 12 months? — I do swear that for 12 months before 
 I had not been, so far as I know. ■ 
 
 You swear you had not been in England for 12 
 months before a fortnight before Lord Mountmorres 
 was murdered ? — Yes, so far as I know. 
 
 Will you swear you were not in England in the 
 autumn ? — I could not exactly swear what month. 
 
 Will you swear you were not in England in the 
 month of September, the very month he was murdered ? 
 — In England, Sir ? No, not that I am aware of. 
 
 Is that all you can say ?— I was not in England for 
 two months before at any rate. 
 
 Have you ever brought any revolvers or arms from 
 England ?— No, Sir. 
 
 Think before you answer ?— I will. 
 
 You never did ? — Never. 
 
 Never from England to Ireland ? — Never. I never 
 fired a revolver in my life. 
 
 When did you mane a statement of your evidence ? 
 —Not any time that I am aware of ; I never carried 
 a revolver. 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
 18-2 
 
548 
 
 The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 Never mind that, I am asking you as to your state- 
 ment. Who first saw you to ask you to give evidence ? 
 ■—Sir, I do not understand what you said. 
 
 You swe&r that ? — If I were told over again I might 
 understand better. (Laughter.) 
 
 Who first saw you about giving evidence ? — Who first 
 saw me (witness hesitated) ? 
 
 The President (after a pause). — What is your 
 answer ? We cannot wait an indefinite time. 
 
 Witness. — I do not exactly understand what the man 
 means. (Laughter.) 
 
 Sir C. Rtjssell. — I will give it you again. Who 
 Erst spoke to you about giving your evidence ? — Spoke 
 to me ? 
 
 The President.— What is your answer ? 
 
 Witness. — I was summoned to appear here. 
 
 Sir C. Bussell. — Answer the question. — I am 
 answering it. 
 
 Who first s loke to you about your evidence ? — I was 
 summoned by the Crown, and fetched here. 
 
 Question repeated. Witness, after a pause. — Well, 
 the policeman, I think, Sir. 
 
 Why did you not say so ? What is his name ? — His 
 name is Thomas Finn. 
 
 Where was he stationed ? — I cannot exactly say. 
 
 What county ?— I think he comes from Galway some 
 part. 
 
 When did he come to you ? — Come to me, Sir ? He 
 came along with 4 process-server to my house. 
 
 When ? — About'a month ago. 
 
 Who was the process-server ? — I do not know his 
 name. He is a ma^, f rom the town of Galway. 
 
 You do not know his name ? — I was told his name was 
 Malone, but I do not know. , 
 
 How long ago was that ? — Some three weeks or a 
 month ago. 
 
 Was it then you were served with a subpoena ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you got it ? — I have. 
 
 Let me see it. (the subpoena was handed to the 
 learned counsel.) Did you give any statement of 
 your evidence when the policeman, came to you ? — Not 
 at that time, that I am aware of. 
 
 Could you give it without being aware of it ? — Not 
 that I am aware of. (Laughter.) 
 
 Had anybody spoken to you about giving evidence ? 
 1— Not that I am aware of before that time. 
 
 Do you swear that ?— Not that I am aware of. 
 
 I want to have a positive answer. Do you swear that 
 before the policeman and the process-server came to you 
 three weeks or a month ago no one had spoken to 
 you about giving your evidence ? — I am not sure. I 
 cannot exactly swear whether I did or not. 
 
 Try and think. Tell us whb it was. — I oannot say, Sir. 
 
 Try and think. — I was arrested for that case, and I 
 suppose that is the cause of my being brought here. 
 
 What was it you said about being arrested ? — I can- 
 not say what was the cause of my being here except 
 that I was arrested for that affair, and I suppose that 
 is the cause of some one brin ug me here. 
 
 How long was this Constable Finn at Clonbur ? — I 
 cannot say exactly. 
 
 Was he there at the time of the murder ? — Not that 
 I am aware of. 
 
 When was it that he was at Clonbur ? — Somewhere 
 about three or four years ago. 
 
 Do you swear you do not know that Constable Finn 
 was at Clonbur three weeks or a month ago, and was 
 there some days ? — Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Did you give any statement of your evidence to Con- 
 stable Finn ? — No, not that I am aware of. 
 
 Did he put any question to you ? — I cannot exactly 
 say. He might or he might not. 
 
 Did he write down anything that you said in answer ? 
 ■ — Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Did he write down in his note-book anything you 
 said ?— No. 
 
 What did you get with the subpoena ? — Sorr ? 
 
 What did you get with it ? — I got £5 to pay my 
 expenses here. 
 
 Did any one accompany you to Dublin ? — Malone, 
 the process-server, went with me to Galway. 
 
 And from Galway to Dublin was anybody with you ? 
 — There was a lot. Finn, the policeman, was one. 
 
 Were there other policemen ? — I saw policemen on 
 the boat. 
 
 But you don't come by boat from Galway to Dublin. 
 (Laughter.) On the train ? — There was a lot of people 
 on the train. 
 
 Did Finn take you anywhere in Dublin ? — He took 
 me to'a lodging-house. 
 
 Where ? — I don't know the number of the house. Wa 
 got to Dublin between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening. 
 
 You spent that night in Dublin ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he take you anywhere in Dublin the next day ? — 
 Only to the boat. 
 
 You came over here with him ? — Yes. 
 
 How many police accompanied you ? — Only him 
 till we got on the boat, when I saw a lot more. 
 
 When did you arrive here ? — Tuesday night. 
 
 Last Tuesday ?— No ; three weeks ago. 
 
 Are you in a hurry to get back to Clonbur ? — Well, 
 I don't know. 
 
 You are enjoying yourself in London ? — I am, Sir. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 You don't mind how long you stay here ? — I should 
 like to get back as soon as I could. 
 
 Did you ask to be examined to-day in order to get 
 back ? — Not that I remember. 
 
 How long had you been in Londou when your state- 
 ment was taken ? — Some days ; I could not say how 
 many. 
 
 Who came to take your statement ?— It was taken 
 by some gentleman in an office. 
 
 Now, up to that time you say you had made no 
 statement ?— Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Who was present when your evidence was taken ? — I 
 could not say. 
 
 Was Finn there ? — No. 
 
 Did he take you there ?— Yes, I think he did. 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 549 
 
 How old was the gentleman who took your evidence ? 
 —Middling old. 
 
 Do you know where it was ? — Well, I have an idea, 
 but I don't know the number 6f the house, or what 
 place it was. 
 
 When was your statement taken ? — The day before 
 yesterday, I think. 
 
 Am I to take it that you were not asked to make a 
 statement before that ? — I could not say whether I was 
 or not. 
 
 Did you refuse to make a statement ? — I might. 
 
 Did you refuse ? — I might. 
 
 When you gave your statement were you asked 
 questions ? — I expect so. 
 
 And then was it taken down and read over to you ? 
 ■—I could not say. 1 can neither read nor write. 
 
 Do you recollect it 1 — I cannot say whether there 
 might not be some words which would be missed. 
 
 At all events, the statement was read over to you 
 after you had answered questions 1 — I think so. 
 
 And that was the day before yesterday 1 — I am not 
 sure, but I think it was. 
 
 Has it been read over to you since ? Was it read 
 over to you this morning ? — I think it was. 
 
 Are you not sure 1 — I believe it was. 
 
 Was it read over to you just before you came into 
 court ? — It was read over to me this morning. 
 
 Where ? — I could not say. 
 
 At your hotel ?— No. 
 
 In a room off this corridor ? — Yes. 
 
 Who read it over to you ? — I cannot say. 
 
 vVas it a policeman ? — I dp not know ; I do not 
 think it was. 
 
 Had you requested to have it read over to you, or 
 were you called into the room 1 — I was called in. 
 
 Were you told you were going to be called this 
 morning ? — Yes. 
 
 And were you told that as you were going to be 
 called it was just as well to read it over to you 1 — I 
 could not say if those words were mentioned. 
 
 Any words like them ? — I could not say. 
 
 Was it said that as you were going to be called it 
 would be well to read it over 1 — I could not say whether 
 that was said ; it might or it might not. 
 
 Do you swear you had been three weeks or so 
 in London and that you never were asked to give your 
 evidence until the day before yesterday ?— I could not 
 say. I might or I might not. I do not 6wear that I 
 was and I do not swear that I was not. 
 
 Has Constablo Finn been looking after you ?— No. 
 
 Who has 1 — There are constables in the house. 
 
 Who are they ? — I only know the names of one or 
 two. One is named Talbot. 
 
 Where is he stationed ? — In some part of Galway . 
 
 Do you know the name of Preston ? — I have heard it 
 mentioned. 
 
 Who by ? — I have heard the police talking about the 
 man. 
 
 Did you hoar be was a detective 1—1 did not. 
 
 Did you hear that he was getting up the case in 
 Mayo ? — I might or I might not. 
 
 Did you see him ? — I might or not. Many spoke to 
 me that I did not know who they were. 
 
 Were you reminded you yourself had been charged 
 with the murder of Lord Mountmorres ? — I could tell 
 it myself. 
 
 Was that talked about since you came to London ?— 
 I talked about it myself. 
 
 Did the police talk about it ? — They might. I talked 
 about it. I could not say whether they talked to me. 
 
 As regards Lord Mountmorres's murder, you say you 
 left your work at 6 o'clock and went to Kearney's ?— 
 Yes, and others were along with me. 
 
 Who ?— Hogan and Kelly. 
 
 Stand up, Sir. (The witness was leaning on the 
 front of the witness-box.) 
 
 Witness (raising himself). — Well, Sir, I'm very 
 nearly tired of talking to you. (Laughter.) 
 
 You did not mention Hogan's name as going to 
 Kearney's t — I do not say whether he went into the 
 house. He went as far as the house. 
 
 Let me understand. Yon were willing when Sweeney 
 asked you — you expressed yourself as willing — to help 
 in Lord Mountmorres's murder ? — I said that I might. 
 
 You meant by that you were willing ? — I was not 
 willing at the time, but I did not like to give a bad 
 answer. 
 
 Was it on account of the oath you had taken in this 
 society you belonged to that you did not like to give a 
 bad answer ? — I did not like to give a bad answer. 
 
 Was it on account of the oath you had taken that 
 you did not like tb give a bad answer ? — I could not 
 say whether it was or not. I did not like to give a 
 bad answer to the gentleman I was talking to. 
 
 Was it on account of the oath you had taken ? — Well, 
 Sir, I would not give a bad answer to the gentleman I 
 was talking to, because he was a well-wisher of mine, 
 (Laughter. ) 
 
 Was any reason given for this brutal murder of Lord 
 Mountmorres ?— I could not exactly say. 
 
 Was a single word said in relation to Lord Mount- 
 morres as a landlord when he was " drawn down," as 
 you call it ?— I believe there was, but I could not 
 exactly say whether there was. 
 
 Will you sweat that there was a word said at the 
 time ? — To my belief there was, but I am not going to 
 swear it. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. 
 
 On resuming.Mr. Lockwood said, — Would your Lord- 
 ships allow me to reserve my oross- examination of this 
 witness ? 
 
 The President. — Of course, but I rely upon yon 
 only to go into matters that have not been gone into 
 already. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— Quite so, my Lord. 
 
 The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. 
 — For whom are you working when you are at some ?■»• 
 I work for myself most of the time. 
 
 What are you 1—1 am a labouring man. 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
550 
 
 The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 For whom do you labour ? — For myself. 
 
 What on ? — On my holding. 
 
 Oh ! you have a holding ? — Yoa. 
 
 How many acres? — I cannot say. 
 
 Is it 100 or 50 acres, or what ? — I cannot say. 1 
 have never measured it. It would take a clever 
 man, like you, to do that. 
 
 You need not be insolent to me. What rent do you 
 pay for it ?— £5 7s. 6d. 
 
 When was that ? — Two years ago, before I got a 
 I eduction. 
 
 When did you get a reduction? — I cannot exactly say. 
 
 What is your rent now ? — £4 0s. 3d. 
 
 To whom do you pay it ? — To Mr. Lynch. 
 
 Is that the Mr. Lynch whose murder was discussed 
 at one of these meetings at Kearney's house ? — Yes, 
 Sir. 
 
 Had you this holding from Mr. Lynch at that time ? 
 —Well, my mother had it. 
 
 She has died since then ?— No, she is living on the 
 holding still. 
 
 .And the rent is paid in her name, I suppose ? — Yes. 
 
 After Mr. Lynch's murder was discussed, did you 
 tell him anything about it ? — Never, Sir, up to this day. 
 
 Who is Mr. Lynch's steward or agent ? — He had no 
 agent except himself, but he had a steward of the 
 name of O'Donnell. 
 
 Did he live at Clonbur ? — He did not, Sir. 
 
 Where did he live 1 — At Ballynonan. 
 
 Did you pay your rent to him ? — No, Sir. I paid it 
 to Mr. Lynch himself. 
 
 When did you see O'Donnell last ? — A few days 
 before I left home. 
 
 Did you call upon him ? — No. 
 
 Did he call upon you ? — No ; there was no necessity 
 for it. 
 
 How did you see him, then ? — He is my next-door 
 neighbour. 
 
 You see him frequently ? — Of course I do. He lives 
 in the next house to me. 
 
 You talk to him and he talks to you ? — Sometimes, 
 when it is my business. Why not ? 
 
 When you saw him a short time ago did you tell him 
 you were subycenaed to come here ? — 1 did not. The 
 man did not know I was coming here at all. I told 
 him nothing of the sort. 
 
 Did any talk of your coming here ever tako place 
 between you and him ? — Never, since I was born. 
 
 Did you know a Mr. Darley, Lord Ardilaun's agent ? 
 •—No. I do not know that I do. 
 
 Have you ever spoken to him ? — No ; not that I am 
 aware of. 
 
 Will you swear you never spoke to him ?— No, I will 
 not swear ; I never spoke to him that I am aware of. 
 
 When arrested on suspicion for the murder of Lord 
 Mountmorres did you make any statement to any one ? 
 —No, I never did. 
 
 Did any one ask you in prison to make a statement ? 
 —Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Is your memory clear about that particular period ? 
 YiThat prison were you in ? — Galway Gaol. 
 
 Did Constable Finn visit you there ? — I do not 
 believe he was in the county at all at that time. 
 
 Nobody spoke to you in prison with reference to your 
 knowledge of this murder ?— No, Sir. 
 
 You swear that ? — I do and no mistake. 
 
 Are you a married man ? — I am, Sir. 
 
 How many children have you ? — I have a few. 
 (Laughter.) I do not know whether I am bound to 
 answer that question. 
 
 Well, if you think it an insulting question, do not 
 answer it. — I have five. 
 
 Did you tell your wife anything about this meet- 
 ing you swear to ? — What occasion had I ? 
 
 Did you tell her anything about Lord Mountmorres's 
 murder ? — What occasion had I to do so ? 
 
 Did you tell her or did you not ? — I did not. 
 
 Will you swear that you did ? — I will not swear that 
 I did. 
 
 Will you swear that you did not ? — Not that I am 
 aware of. 
 
 You have sworn to something about a process-server 
 named Malone coming from Galway to serve you with 
 the subpoena ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 You knew he was a process-server ? — I did not know. 
 I was told he was. He told me he was, so I had only 
 the man's word for it. 
 
 Did you owe any arrears to your landlord ? — I did not. 
 
 Had you any fear that he was coming to serve you 
 with a process on account of your holding ? — No, I 
 had not. The man lived a long way off. 
 
 You went with him to Galway ? — I did. 
 
 Did you travel alone with him ? — There was a car- 
 man along with us. 
 
 Oh ! you travelled on a car. Did he talk to you 
 about the evidence you could give ? — He did not. Ho 
 gave me the summons and told me I was to come here. 
 
 Did he tell you about what was being investigated 
 in this Court ?— Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Will you swear he did not mention the League ? — I 
 will not swear that he did not. 
 
 Or that he did ?— No. 
 
 From Galway to Dublin Constable Finn accom- 
 panied you, I believe ? — Some of the way. 
 
 How far ? — From Ballinasloe to Dublin. 
 
 Did he talk to you about this case ? — Not that I am 
 aware of. 
 
 Are you not sure that he did talk to you about it 1 — 
 I cannot say whether he did or not. 
 
 Did he talk to you at all ? — Yes, on several affairs. 
 
 Tell me one ? — I do not remember. 
 
 Now, come, you are an intelligent man. — No, I am 
 not. (Laughter.) I am an ignorant man. 
 
 You are too modest of your accomplishments. 
 (Lauehter.)Will you swear he did not talk to you about 
 the evidence you were to give here ? Now, yes or 
 no ?— -I will not swear it. He might or might not. 
 
 Did he talk to you at all about the evidence you 
 were to eive ? — I cannot say. He might and might not. 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 551 
 
 Will you swear he did not ? — I will not. I cannot 
 say whether he did or not. 
 
 Will you swear that neither he nor Malone told you 
 that something would happen to your wife and children 
 if you would nob come here to London ? — Well, I do 
 not think he said anything of the sort. 
 
 Will you swear he did not ? — I will not swear it. 
 
 Did Constable Finn mention the case of your wifo 
 and children ? — Not that I am aware of. He might 
 and he might not. 
 
 Won't you swear he did mention it ? — I will not. 
 
 Won't you swear he did not ? — I will not. 
 
 When did you see Sweeney last ? — I cannot say, 
 Sir. 
 
 This month ?— No. 
 
 Last month ? — I believe so. 
 
 Did you speak to him ? — I think 1 did ; I am not 
 sure. 
 
 Where is he now ? — That is more than I know. 
 
 Where is his home ? — Well, I suppose where ho 
 lived. 
 
 Where was that ? — In Clonbur. 
 
 Is Mulroe in the country ? — I do not know. 
 
 Where is he ? — I do not know. 
 
 Where did he live when he was at home ? — Ho lived 
 in the village I lived in. 
 
 How many years ago ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Do you know where he is now ? — I do not know. 
 
 Is he in England ? — I do not know, the man never 
 wrote to me. 
 
 Have you ever quarrelled with Mulroe or Sweeney ? 
 ■ — Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Were you ever brought before Lord Mountmorres for 
 any breach of the law ? — I might and I might not. 
 
 Come, I must have an answer to this question. Were 
 you ever brought before Lord Mountmorres for any 
 b.'each of the law ? — Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Try and remember. — I am trying to remember as 
 well as I can. 
 
 You know Lord Mountmorres was a magistrate, I 
 suppose ? — Well, I have heard of it. 
 
 Do you not know he was a magistrate ? — I have seen 
 him at the Court-house. 
 
 I suppose you were there when you saw him ? — I 
 was sometimes. (Laughter.) 
 
 What took you to the Court-house ? — I went some- 
 times to look on, as many do here now. 
 
 Sometimes, I suppose, you were taken against your 
 will ? — Very seldom. 
 
 Tell me one instance when you were taken before 
 Lord Mountmorres ? Once or twice ? — I am not aware 
 of it. 
 
 There will be a record of such charges if they were 
 over made. Will you swear you were never taken 
 before Lord Mountmorres for a broach of the law ? — I 
 will not sw«ar it. 
 
 Now do not you know that you were ?— I do not 
 know. 
 
 Do you know whether Sweeney or MuIroe.wore ever 
 taken before him for breach of the law ? — No ; I 
 know nothing about that. They could bo taken there 
 unknown to me. 
 
 Do you know that, as a magistrate, Lord Mount* 
 morres frequently s«nt men to prison for drunkenness 
 and small offences of that kind ? — Yes, to be sure. 
 
 Did you ever hear him spoken of in Clonbur as a 
 Freemason ? — Not that I know of. 
 
 Or as an Orangeman ? — I cannot say I did. 
 
 Do you believe he was an Orangeman ? — I do not 
 know what the man was. 
 
 Do you swear that you never heard him spoken of as 
 a Freemason or an Orangeman ? — No, I will not 
 swear it. 
 
 I suppose you are not a Freemason or an Orange- 
 man ? — No, not as far as I can understand. 
 
 Do you know whether any members of the Jarrow 
 society were Freemasons or Orangemen ? — I don't 
 know exactly what they were. I know they were 
 Irishmen. 
 
 Will you swoar you know they were not Orangemen 
 — I will nob swear anything of the sort. 
 
 Will you swear you never attended any meeting of 
 men whom you believed to be Orangemen ? — No ; I 
 am not aware of it. 
 
 You never tried to join the Orange Society or Free- 
 masons ? — No. 
 
 Now about this oath. You said this morning you 
 could not remember the terms of this oath ? — No, Sir, 
 nor yet now. 
 
 Was it anything like this — " In the presence of 
 Almighty God and this my brother I do swear that I 
 will sulfer my right hand to bo cut from my body and, 
 laid at the gaol door before I will waylay or betray a 
 brobher ; that I will persevere and will not spare from 
 the cradle to the crutch or from the crutch to the 
 cradle ; that I will not pity the groans or moans of 
 infancy or old age, but that I will wade knee-deep in 
 Orangemen's blood, and do as King James did." Did 
 you ever hear that oath ?— - No, never. 
 
 The Attokney-Oeneral.— What is that oath ? 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — The Ribbon oath. (To witness.) Do you 
 tell me you will swear that you never had an oath 
 like that put to you by anybody in gaol ? — I cannot 
 say whether or not. 
 
 Will you swear some such oath was not put to you ? 
 — I will not swear that either. 
 
 You took some kind of oath, did you not ? — I might. 
 
 That means you did, does it not ? — It might. 
 
 Will you not admit that it does ? — Nay. 
 
 You said this morning that you were not in Eng- 
 land for two months before Lord Mountmorres's 
 murder. Do you remember any friend of yours coming 
 to Clonbur from England shortly before Lord Mount- 
 morres's murder ? — Not that I am aware of. You 
 might remember it, though I do not. 
 
 You know that that is insolence, I suppose ? — I do 
 not think there was any friend of mine there. 
 
 Did you know of any ona coming to the loeality 
 
 Michael Burke' 
 
552 
 
 The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 whom you «had met in England ? — I could not say bo 
 I might and I might not. I could not tell now. I am 
 not going to swear. 
 
 Will you swear that no such person came to Clon- 
 bur ?— I could not swear to it myself whether they did 
 er not. 
 
 You have spoken of meetings in Kearney's public- 
 house. When did they first begin ? — I could not say. 
 I could not tell you for how long such meetings had 
 been held before I attended. 
 
 Were you in Clonbur 15 years ago ? — I think I was 
 in England. 
 
 Were you in England 20 years ago ?— I might and I 
 might not. I went backwards and forwards as it 
 answered my purpose. 
 
 And I suppose when you returned home you went to 
 Kearney's house frequently. You have been going there 
 on and off, I suppose, for 20 years ? — Sometimes I 
 might be a few years without going there at all. 
 
 Do you remember any stranger from England attend- 
 ing a meeting in Kearney's house some 12 or 15 years 
 ago ? — I could not say. 
 
 Will you swear that no such stranger came a few 
 days before Lord Mountmorres's murder ? — I will not 
 swear it. He might have come there unknown to me. 
 Plenty of other things happen that I would not be 
 aware of. 
 
 You swear that you saw Lord Mountmorres twice on 
 the day of the murder. You knew that there was a 
 plot to kill him ?— I was not sure of it. I only heard 
 tell of it. 
 
 Did you believe it ?— I conld not say whether I did 
 or not at this distance of time. 
 
 Did you believe that he was in danger of his life ? — I 
 could not say. Many things may be said and you may 
 not think that they will happen. 
 
 Were you not asked to take part in the murder ?— I 
 was. 
 
 Was that before you saw Lord Mountmorres that 
 afternoon ? — I am not very sure. 
 
 Did you not swear this morning that it was ?— I am 
 not exactly sure. 
 
 Then you saw the man who you were told was to be 
 murdered, and it did not occur to you to go and warn 
 him ?— Why did not I go to warn him ? How did I 
 know that it would be done because I had been told 
 of it ? 
 
 Do not you think that it would have been a manly 
 and Christian duty to warn him ?— It was not likely 
 that I was going to leave my work for anything. I was 
 employed by another man, and I could not leave my 
 work? 
 
 You were ready, under certain conditions, to assist in 
 jBordering this man, but you were not ready to leave 
 your work in order to warn him ? — I do not understand 
 youT^ You are too smart a man for me. 
 Oh, you understand ! — Do I ? 
 
 Since you have been in London how many people 
 have spoken to you ?— That is more than I could tell 
 
 Many 
 
 you. There may have been 20 for all I know, 
 people will have a word with one, perhaps. 
 
 Has any promise been made to you respecting your 
 holding ? — What promise should I require about my 
 holding ? I am not ejected. 
 
 Has any promise been made to you about money ?— « 
 Not likely ; not that I am aware of. 
 
 Do you expect any money ? — About as much as will 
 take me home. 
 
 Will you swear that you expect no more ?— I do. 
 I expect my expenses only. 
 
 You expect no more ?— That is all. 
 
 By Mr. T. Harrington.— Who was working with you at 
 the wall when Sweeney came to you ? — Three others ; 
 Thomas Corbett, Thomas Hogan, and Michael Kelly. 
 
 Were you building the wall or attending the men ?— 
 I was building it. 
 
 Who was the man who was attending you while you 
 were building ? — It was a rough wall. The three of 
 us were working together, and one man was attending 
 to the three of us. 
 
 Were you and Hogan on the same side of the wall ? 
 —We were at work on one side of the wall. 
 
 Of course Hogan and Kelly and Corbett saw Sweeney 
 come to you ? — Well, I suppose so, but I could not 
 swear that they did. 
 
 Try and recollect from what direction he came, and 
 whether they could see him. — We were in the field, and 
 I saw him coming from the road. 
 
 Did the others make any remark about Sweeney 
 coming ?— Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Did he stand any time with you at the wall ? — He 
 did not stand at the wall at all. He called me aside. 
 
 So that then, at all events, you stopped your work 
 for a time ?— Not for long ; only for a minute or two. 
 
 Did you say anything to the other men about going 
 away ? — I did not. 
 
 They did not hear anything that occurred between 
 you and Sweeney ? — They did not. As far as I could 
 Understand, they could see Sweeney, but I am not going 
 to swear it. 
 
 When you saw Constable Finn about this case, was 
 he in plain clothes or in uniform ? — I could not say. 
 I think he was in plain clothes. 
 
 About a week before Finn visited you with Malone, 
 did he not have another conversation with you ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 Think now. — Well, perhaps you know better than I 
 do. 
 
 Was he at your house on any day before that ?— Not 
 that I am aware of. He might be there, and I might 
 not see him. 
 
 But if he was there you did not see him ? — No. 
 
 Were you ever in the police barracks before that ?-» 
 On no day before that. I do not believe that I was in a 
 police barracks for two years before that. I was not 
 there that I am aware of. 
 
 Who is the head constable in that barracks P — I do 
 not know his name. I have seen him once or twice at 
 chapel. 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 553 
 
 Nowhere else ? — I might have met him in the 
 street. 
 
 Had you any conversation with him about this case ? 
 —No. 
 
 About your evidence ?-— No. 
 
 Who was the first person to whom ? — The first 
 
 person ; I never spoke 
 
 The President.— I have lost the threads this. 
 
 Mr. Harrington. — Who was the first person to 
 whom you said anything about Lord Mountmorres's 
 murder ? — I am not aware I told it to anybody until I 
 told it in the office outside the Court. 
 
 Will you swear you never told it to anybody until 
 you told it in London ? — I am not going to swear, for I 
 might be mistaken. I might have spoken a word. 
 
 Think, now. To whom did you speak that word ? — 
 I am not aware that I did or not. 
 
 Did you speak to anybody in Dublin about the 
 matter ? — I do not believe I did . 
 
 To anybody in Clonbur ? — Not that I am aware of. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Before proceeding fur- 
 ther, I will ask your Lordships to look at pages 817, 
 820, and 822 of the shorthand writer's transcript, and 
 particularly at questions 10,336 and 10,420, and Wil- 
 liam O'Connor's evidence. Your Lordships will re- 
 member with reference to question 10,336 that there 
 was a very emphatic cross-examination by Sir C. Russell. 
 I may ask your Lordships to note these matters now. 
 
 The witness was then re-examined by the Attorney- 
 Gexeral. — What sort of labour as mason have you 
 been accustomed to do during the last year ? Is it 
 labourer's work or not ? — Rough work for masons and 
 bricklayers. 
 
 Is Kearney, whose name you have mentioned, alive ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Is he still at Clonbur ? — I could not say that. 
 
 Has he still got a publichouse ? — He has. 
 
 You told Sir C. Russell that you had been once 
 charged with quarrelling before the magistrates ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 And that you had been charged with killing a sheep, 
 but that you proved that you were innocent ?— Yes. 
 
 Excepting on those two occasions, do you remember 
 being before the magistrates at all I — Not that I am 
 aware of, excepting the time when I Was arrested for 
 the murder of Lord Mountmorres. 
 
 Have you ever heard of Ribbohmeii ? — I do not think I 
 have . 
 
 Do you remember the name of the society that you 
 joined in Jarrow ? — I do not. 
 
 Did any meetings of that society ever take place at 
 Clonbur ? — (The witness was understood to Say that as 
 far as he could understand they did not.) 
 
 What was the name of the society at Clonbur ? — I 
 cannot exactly say. I heard some of them say it was 
 a Land League, and I heard some call it the 
 organization, or something of that kind. 
 
 Did you ever hear it called by any other name ?— 
 Not that I am aware of. 
 
 You have spoken of the meetings at Fat Kcarncj's. 
 
 How many were there ?— I could not say. I had not 
 been at many. 
 
 At how many had you been ?— At four or five— not 
 more. 
 
 Do you remember on what day of the week they 
 were held ? — I do not exactly. 
 
 Do you know anybody of the name of Preston ? — I 
 cannot say bat what I do. 
 
 When you came over here, did you travel with many 
 other witnesses ?— I did. 
 
 Do you remember Constable Finn ever asking you 
 any questions ? — Not that I am aware of. He might 
 or he might not. 
 
 What was Sweeney's Christian name ? — Pat. 
 
 Is Sweeney iu the Clonbur neighbourhood still ? — I 
 could not say. 
 
 Was he living there this year ? — As far as I know. 
 
 Do you talk Irish ? — Yes ; when at home I alwayi 
 talk it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, I am told that 
 the expression " I am aware of " so often used by 
 the witness is a common expression in Ireland for " I 
 do not remember." 
 
 The President.— He has also used a good old- 
 fashioned English phrase — " I do not mind it." But 
 the phrase that has caught my ear most often in his 
 evidence is, " As far as I understand." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — What do you mean when 
 you say " I am not aware " ? — That I do not know 
 what you are Saying, like. 
 
 Now, the other expression, I think, is " as far as I 
 understand." What do you mean by that ? — As far as I 
 know. 
 "Well, now, except League meetings, had you heard 
 of any meetings taking place in Clonbur ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — My Lords, I must object to that 
 form of the question. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Except the meetings that 
 you heard called League meetings, did you hear of any 
 meetings taking place in Clonbur ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. —My Lords, I again object. 
 
 The President. — He said some one told him, I am 
 sure. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— My Lords, my recollection is that 
 it was even more indefinite than that. 
 
 The shorthand writer thereupon read out the answer, 
 which was as follows : — " I heard some of them say 
 it was the Land League, and I heard some call it the 
 organization, or something of that." 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Yes, my Lords, that was it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.-- -Except the meetings that 
 the people told you were Land League meetings or 
 meetings of the organization, did you attend any meet- 
 ings at Clonbur at all ? — Not besides them. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Probably the witness will wish to 
 take the subpoena away with him. It is dated Oct. 3, 
 1888. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— That is not the date it 
 was served. 
 
 Michael Burke. 
 
554 
 
 The Special Commission, December G, 1888. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — It is a summons to attend on Oct. 
 26. It is rather strange, because I see that the Erst 
 date that is on it is to attend on the 30th, and that 
 has been altered to the 26th. f 
 
 The Attorney-General. — They were first filled in— 
 Mr. Lockwood. — My Lords, I will make no com- 
 ment on it at preeent. 
 
 Peter Horan was next called and examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson. Witness said, — I am a sergeant in the Irish 
 Constabulary, and was stationed at Millstreet in the 
 month of January, 1887. I remember Dr. Tanner making 
 a speech in Millstreet on that date. I took no note of 
 it. I am able to remember something of what he 
 said. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — My Lords, the date is January 23, 
 1887. 
 
 Witness, continuing. — At that meeting he referred 
 to the police. He said the mothers who gave them 
 birth should be ashamed of them. He referred to the 
 women of the district associating with police, and he 
 said fathers and mothers should take care of their 
 daughters, and brothers should watch their sisters. He 
 also said that Millstreet had become historical, and 
 that was due to the invincibility of the people of 
 Millstreet. 
 
 A short time after that was an outrage alleged to bo 
 committed on a girl of the name of Murphy reported ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood objected to the form of the question. 
 
 Was an outrage reported with reference to a person 
 of the name of Murphy ? — Yes, about 11 days after 
 this speech. 
 
 Jeremiah Murphy was next called and examined by 
 Mr. Atkinson. Witness, who gave his evidence very 
 indistinctly, said, — I reside at Coolekerry, near Mill- 
 street, county Cork. I am a farmer, and had two 
 daughters residing with me in the early part of la6t 
 year. The police were in the habit of coming to my 
 bouse as friends. I remember a number of men dis- 
 guised coming to my house some time in the mouth of 
 February, 1887. They came in. There was a shot 
 fired, and one of the party cried out, " Captain 
 Moonlight " and " Out with the guns." I got 
 up then and said I never had a gun. He said, 
 " Put your face to the wall and nothing will 
 happen to you." I had a daughter Bobina ; she was 
 sitting at the table, and she went into another room 
 when the people were coming in. The crowd followed 
 her and I heard some noise. There were some shots 
 fired in the room that my daughter had gone into. I 
 was with my face to the wall all this time. There 
 was a man in my house at (ho time named Charles 
 M'Carthy. (The witness here became unintelligible.) 
 
 The President.— The substance of his answer was 
 that that man said, " This man and his family ought 
 not to be visited by moonlighters." 
 
 Examination continued. — Some one said, " He 
 brings the police down here, aud girls talking to the 
 police." A question was asked about one of my girls. 
 
 Sergeant Peter Horan. 
 Jeremiah Murphy, 
 
 Did any of the moonlighters ask 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— Do not lead, please. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson.— That is not leading. (To witness.) 
 Was any question asked by one of them, do you re- 
 member, about one of your daughters ? — After they 
 came from the room into which my daughter had gone, 
 one of them asked where was the other daughter, 
 and they called her by her name, Mary. Mary was 
 pointed out by this man, who said, " There is the 
 other one." They pulled her down from the entry into 
 the kitchen. I had lamps lighted when they came in. 
 It was about 9 o'clock. After doing this to my 
 daughter Mary they went away. When they left the 
 lamps were not lighted. I saw my daughter Kobina 
 after that. Her hair was cut and tar was over her 
 head. The other daughter had no tar on her head. 
 Eobina is not in ihis country. She is in Australia. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — Maryis here. The 
 police I refer to as visiting my house as friends were 
 the police in the hut of the same townland that Hive in. 
 
 How long had that police hut been there ? — For the 
 last six or seven years, I think. 
 
 Did you treat the police in the same way that your 
 neighbours did ? — Yes. 
 
 So far as you know, was there any difference between 
 the way that you or your daughters behaved to the 
 police to what other people did ? — I do not know that 
 there was. 
 
 You do not mean to suggest that you were on more 
 friendly terms than other persons, so far as you know ? 
 — Perhaps. I do not say that I may not have been 
 on more friendly terms. 
 
 So far as you know.were your neighbours on the same 
 friendly terms ? — Some of them may not have been. 
 
 And some of them, I suppose, were on more friendly 
 terms. About your daughters — were they attending the 
 mass on the following Sunday, do you remember ? — Yes. 
 
 I am not for a single moment suggesting that this 
 was not disgraceful treatment of your daughters, but 
 there was no injury done excepting what you told us of ? 
 —No. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — I do not know any 
 cause for my daughters being so treated excepting the 
 police coming to my house. My neighbours may have 
 been as friendly as I was with the police. I do not 
 know how my neighbours treat the police. 
 
 Sir H. James.— My Lords, the daughter who was 
 tarred is in Australia. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I have not cross-examined the last 
 witness with regard to the details of the conduct of 
 these people. 
 
 Sir H. James.— My Lords, the other, the second 
 daughter, is here ; but in consequence of no cross- 
 examination we do not think it worth while to call 
 her. The elder daughter is iu Australia. 
 
 Philip Cremen was next called and examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson. Witness, who was occasionally quite un- 
 intelligible, said, — I live at Kathcool, Cork. I was 
 sub-lanant of a man named John Lyons, who was 
 
 Philip Cremen. 
 
The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 555 
 
 evicted. I remember his being evicted. I was evicted 
 in February, 1886, and was put back as caretaker. 
 Lyons was turned away. There were two agents on 
 the property ; Mr. Hegarty was one of them. I do 
 not know if there is an agent named Herbert 
 living there. After I was put there as caretaker I 
 went before the League. That was in March, 1886. 
 The chairman of the League on that day was James 
 Pomeroy. I went before the League to get assistance, 
 but they refused to give it. 1 had some manure on 
 the land, and I could get nobody to work on that land. 
 When I found that I went before the League. I went 
 to the League, and Mrs. Lyons challenged me for 
 speaking to Mr. Hegarty on the day of the eviction of 
 John Lyons, and I said I would speak to Mr. Hegarty 
 ,and give nobody any satisfaction. 
 
 Well ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — It is very far from weil. We 
 cannot understand what the witness says. 
 
 The shorthand-writer thereupon read the last part of 
 witness's evidence as to his going before the League. 
 
 Was anything said about this manure of yours ? — The 
 witness's answer was unintelligible. 
 
 Examination continued. — I did not get the permission 
 I wanted, and I came home then back to my farm. I 
 did not at that time observe any change in my neigh- 
 bours' behaviour to me. I was able in the following 
 November to get people to work for me. In November 
 I was made caretaker of the entire farm. I was not 
 present at Macgulty's-bridge when Dr. Tanner ad- 
 dressed a meeting there. I know a man named 
 Sullivan. He was chairman of the National League 
 at Kilcooruey. (The witness was again unintelligible.) 
 
 In the spring of 1887 did you observe a change in 
 the behaviour of people towards you ? — I did, Sir, 
 after this meeting. I remember being in Millstreet at 
 that time. Nothing was done to me in Millstreet at 
 that time. After I came home from Millstreet I was 
 fired at near my own house. That was in February, 
 1887. In the following March I became tenant of 
 this evicted farm, of which I had been caretaker up 
 to that time. After I became tenant I could 
 get nobody to work for me. Sometimes I could 
 sell my butter at a very low price ; before 
 that meeting I could sell anything. Later on 
 — February 18, 1888 — I was stoned at the chapel. 
 
 Did you prosecute any persons for that ? — Yes. I 
 was present at the trial at petty sessions. They were 
 defended by Mr. Kelleher, who was instructed by a 
 man who I heard people say was a member of the 
 League. Father Carbutt, the curate of the parish, 
 was also there. I cannot say whether he is a member 
 of the League. 
 
 Was anything done to you in April, 1887 ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I must ask my learned friend not 
 to suggest dates to the witness. 
 
 Examination continued. — At any time after this wa : 
 anything done to you ? — My furze was burnt in April. I 
 went to the burning furze ; there was a party present at 
 the other side of the river. I knew some of them were 
 
 members of the League, surely. There were three or 
 four of them members. 
 
 Cross-examiued by Mr. Lockwood. — You say this 
 furze burning was in April ? — Yes. 
 
 It took place at night f— About nightfall. 
 
 Was there a large crowd of people ? — I could not 
 say how many, but I could hear them speak. There 
 were not 100. I knew some of the voices. 
 
 I suppose it was not a very good light P — They could 
 see me better than I could see them ; but I could 
 hear their voices. 
 
 Now, about this occasion when you were fired at ; 
 were you going into your house ? — I was near it. 
 
 Was there one shot ? — There were two shots, from a 
 revolver. 
 
 You have mentioned a man named Sullivan' as 
 chairman of the National League at Kilcoorney ; did 
 you, in February, 1887, know another man named 
 Sullivan, a young man ? — I do not understand what 
 you say. 
 
 At this time— in February, 1887 — was a young man 
 living near you named Sullivan ? — Yes ; Sullivan, 
 who was chairman, lived near me. 
 
 He had sons ? — Yes. 
 
 Had he one son who, after that occasion, went to 
 America ? — There were two brothers ; I do not know 
 what came of them. 
 
 Did you suspect young Sullivan ? — I did not, Sir ; 
 how can I say ? I did not suspect anybody. 
 
 Did young Sullivan, at any rate, leave the neigh- 
 bourhood ? — The two brothers went to America, I 
 think, but I do not know ; they left the place. 
 
 After February, 1887 ?— Yes. 
 
 Now, with regard to the League, you went to ask for 
 assistance '/ — Yjes. 
 
 That was as far back as March, 18S6 ? — Yes. 
 
 And you say the persons there refused you ? — Yes. 
 
 At any rate, from March, 1886, to February, 1887, 
 you lived on good terms with your neighbours '/ — Yes, 
 as far as I know. 
 
 By Mr. HARRINGTON. — Do you know where Lyons 
 is now '! — Yes ; he is living at Kathcool, as caretaker. 
 
 Do you know how many children he had ? — I do nob 
 know. 
 
 Had he ten ? — I do not know. 
 
 Think. To the best of your recollection, how many 
 had he ? — I could not say how many he had. 
 
 Will you swear he had not ten ? — I will not swear ; 
 I do not know. 
 
 What rent was Lyons paying at the time he was 
 evicted ? — £30 a year, I think. 
 
 You would not take the farm at that ? — No ; I pay 
 nothing. 
 
 But you are the tenant of the farm now ? Have you 
 been asked to pay ? — No, I was not asked to pay. 
 
 But was there no agreement ? — Yes. 
 
 What was it ?— £25 a year. 
 
 How long have you been iu possession as tenant ?— 
 Going on two years. 
 
 You do not appear to be much of an improvement on 
 
 Philip Cremen, 
 
556 
 
 The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 Lyons. How much did he owe ? — He owed three or 
 four years' rent. 
 
 Can you pay your rent now ? — I cannot, because I 
 can get no man to work for me. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You say two shots were fired at 
 you from a revolver ? Did you see the revolver ? — I 
 did not, but I found one of the bullets next day and 
 gave it to the sergeant of police. 
 
 Have you a revolver of your own ? — No. 
 
 Had your father 1 — No. 
 
 Were you made caretaker of the farm before or after 
 you were fired at ? — It was at the same time. 
 
 Of the whole farm ? — Yes. 
 
 You said something about a crowd across the rrjer, 
 and you said you recognized one who was a Land 
 Leaguer ? — Yes, John Holt. He has gone to America. 
 
 Did you recognize any Land Leaguer who has not 
 gone to^America? — Yes, Eugene Riordan. 
 
 Whsre is he living now ? — In Cork. 
 
 Yes, but where in Cork ? — On his own farm. 
 
 Did you recognize anybody else ?— The two Sulli- 
 vaDS, who went to America. 
 
 Anybody else ? — I do not remember anybody ; that is 
 what I know. 
 
 Re-examined by SIR H. JAMES. — How long have you 
 been on this farm without paying rent ? — Two years. 
 
 Why have you paid no rent ? — Because I had no 
 chance for making it. 
 
 Why ? — Because I was boycotted and could get no 
 one to work for me. 
 
 Can you get anything out of your land without^ 
 labour ? — No ; I am not able to get a living out of it. 
 
 How many acres have you ? : — I think 73. 
 
 And you want men to work it ?— Ye? ; nobody will 
 work for me. . 
 
 The next witness was Peter Kelleher. Examined by 
 Mr. RONAN, he said,— I am a farmer, and live near 
 Maoroom, on the estate of Sir George Colthurst. I 
 know Mat Kelleher. Before my house was attacked I 
 lent him some money, and gave surety for some more 
 at the bank. There was an arrangement by which I 
 was to be paid ; I had a mortgage on the land . There 
 were other creditors coming on him, and I had to get 
 a writ of fieri facias and sell out the land. 
 
 Now, do you remember in October, 1881, a party of 
 men coming to your house ?— Y^s. 
 
 About how many ?— I cquld not say exactly ; a^ovi 15 
 or 16. Some of them were armed. 
 
 What did they say ?— They asked me the question 
 was I going to turn out Mat Kelleher, and I said that 
 if he could not pay I would have to sell out the land. 
 They said that was no excuse. After that they asked 
 if I had got a gun, and I went and got the gun and 
 gave it to them. 
 
 Did they say anything about a card ? — They said had 
 I got a Land League card ; and I said I had. When 
 they got the gun they fired at me and hit me in the 
 thigh. 
 
 After this did you get police protection ? — Yes ; it 
 lasted about a year and a half. 
 
 After that did you come to an arrangement with 
 Mat Kelleher ?— Yes. 
 
 And was the police protection then taken away ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD.— Was this Mat 
 Kelleher a cousin of yours ? — Yes. He mortgaged his 
 property to me, and was unable to pay the interest he 
 owed me. There were other creditors, and in order to 
 protect myself I had to take the land. 
 
 Was Mat Kelleher very angry about this ? — He was 
 at the latter end when I had to take the land and turn 
 him out. 
 
 He was a cousin ? — Yes. 
 
 Had he a brother ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he take Mat's part 'I — Well, I cannot say ; I do 
 not know that. 
 
 Was any one tried for this outrage on you ? — There 
 was J. Harrington and Mat Kelleher's nephew. 
 
 Were these cousins of yours ? — Yes. 
 
 Had the Land League anything to do with it as far 
 as you know ? — Well, to the best of my opinion they 
 had not. I cannot exactly say. ■ 
 
 Were these two cousins of yours, who were tried 
 for this disgraceful outrage, convicted ? — No ; they 
 were not. 
 
 Who was ? — A young man named John Tarleton. He 
 was no relation to Mat Kelleher. 
 
 Was any relation of Mat's , convicted ? — No ; one ol 
 them was tried, but acquitted. 
 
 Now tell me further ; did you seek for compensa- 
 tion for the outrage ?— I did. 
 
 And was compensation refused you on the ground 
 that it was a family quarrel ? — It was, Sir. 
 
 Now about some other questions. How old are you t 
 — About 55. 
 
 Then you can remember, as a young man or boy, the 
 days of 1848-9 ?— I can. 
 
 And what a terrible time that was ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you at that time, or was your father, a tenant 
 on the Colthurst estate ?— -Yes ; I was living with 
 him at the time ; there were a great many of us, nine 
 or ten. 
 
 I suppose you had a very hard time of it— there was 
 great want ? — We got enough of want, and a good 
 deal besides. 
 
 Who was the agent of the estate ? — Mr. Hussey, I 
 believe. 
 
 At that time, when you were all suffering from want 
 and under this famine, were there many evictions on 
 that property ? — Well, there was a share of them. 
 
 Who was the man who was turning out the people on 
 the Colthurst estate ? Was it not Mr. Hussey ?— 
 Yes ; he was the agent. 
 
 Aye, and ordered the people to be turned out ?— YeSj 
 himself or some one under him. 
 
 Were there at that time three-quarters of the tenants 
 v. evicted ?— I do not understand. 
 
 Peter Kelleher. 
 
The Special Commission, December 6, 1888. 
 
 557 
 
 Were half of the tenants turned out ? — Not a fifth of 
 them. 
 
 Could yon give me the number of tenants evicted ? — 
 Of course I could not, Sir. 
 
 I do not mean exactly, bat can you give me any idea 
 of the number ? — No. I believe there were not more 
 than 20 out of 200. That is my opinion. 
 
 Were they dying of starvation ? — There were some 
 cases ; I suppose there was no help for it. 
 
 Do you know of cases where they were buried with- 
 out coffins ? — Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You say you were asked had you a 
 Land League card, and you said you had one. Were 
 you fired at after that ? — I was. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I ask your Lordships to note that 
 when Mr. Hussey was cross-examined neither of my 
 learned friends nor any other person put any question 
 to him on this subject. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — The reason that no question was 
 asked of Mr. Hussey is that at that time we had no 
 information. 
 
 The President. — I do not see what the events of 
 1848 have to do with this inquiry. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — The fact is that Mr. Hussey 
 claimed to have been up to 1879-1880 the most 
 popular man in his district. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Those were not his words. He said 
 he was fairly popular. The questions which have been 
 asked of the last witness ought to have been put to 
 Mr. Hussey himself, and not to other witnesses. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I do not think it is the proper time 
 for us now to discuss this question. I would also re- 
 mind your Lordships that Mr. Hussey was dealing with 
 the case of Kerry, and my learned friends, Sir Charles 
 Kussell, Mr. Eeid, and I directed our attention more 
 directly to Mr. Hussey's action with regard to Kerry. 
 The questions put to the last witness related to Mr. 
 Hussey's action in Cork. 
 
 Sir H. James. — The questions should have been put 
 to Mr. Hussey. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — If we had then had the information 
 we should have done so. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Then, why do you not have the 
 witness back ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I should like to do so. 
 
 The President was understood to intimate that this 
 was not the proper time to recall Mr. Hussey. 
 
 Re-examined by Sin H. James.— How old were you 
 in 1848 and 1849,when you lived on Sir John Colthurst's 
 estate ? — About 15 years of age. 
 
 Do you know how many tenants there were on that 
 estate, and under what circumstances the evictions took 
 place ? — I do not. 
 
 Do you know the cause of the evictions ? — Not pay- 
 ing rent, I believe. 
 
 Do you know the amount of rent each owed ? — No, 
 I do not. 
 
 Is Matthew Kelleher a second cousin of yours ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 You have spoken of a man named Tarleton who was 
 
 convicted. Had you known him before he came to 
 your house ? — No. 
 
 Was he a stranger to the district ? — I believe so. 
 
 Do you know bow he came from Kelleher to attack 
 you ? — I do not know. 
 
 Did you know he had anything to do with Matthew 
 Kelleher P— I did not know who he came from or who 
 sent him. 
 
 Is Matthew Kelleher a Land Leaguer ?— He was on 
 the committee of the League. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Surely this evidence ought to have 
 been given in examination-in-chief. 
 
 The President. — There was a reason why it was 
 not. 
 
 Re-examination continued.— Do you know of any 
 notices being posted up about you ? — I did not see 
 any. 
 
 Did you know of any general reports being .cir- 
 culated about your being a land-grabber ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I object. 
 
 The President. — You suggested that it was a family 
 feud, and surely he may ask a question of this kind. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I object to the form of my friend'a 
 question. He asks if there were any general reports. 
 
 Sir H. James (to witness).— My question was 
 whether you know of your own knowledge of general 
 reports in your neighbourhood as to your being a land- 
 grabber ? — Some of the rowdy class gave me that 
 character. 
 
 The President.— Have you heard them ? 
 
 Witness. — Y es > I have heard them. 
 
 Sir H. James.— That was after you had taken the 
 land and before you were attacked ?— Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Harrington. — Did any of the landlords of 
 the district take part in opposing your getting com« 
 pensation ? — Yes, they did. 
 
 Michael Fenton, examined by Mr- Atkinson, — I 
 live near Mitchelstown. In September, 1881, I paid 
 my rent. A short time after a number of men came 
 to my house at night. I was in bed, and I heard the 
 report of a shot. Afterwards I found the windows in 
 my house were broken and stones were thrown in. I 
 was obliged to move from where I was and to sleep 
 in another place to avoid the stones. 
 
 Do you know whether there was any cause for visit- 
 ing your house except that you had paid your rent ?— ■ 
 I had paid my rent. 
 
 Do you know of any other cause ? — I could not say 
 that the rent was the cause of it. 
 
 Did you know any other cause ? — I did not know any 
 other cause. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood.— Do you believo 
 that the payment of your rent had anything to do with 
 it ? — I could not say it had. 
 
 By Mr. Harrington. — Are you a member of the 
 National League ? — Yes. 
 
 There was no League established in the district at 
 this time ? — No. 
 
 Nor for a long time after ?— No. ■>■ 
 
 Peter Kelleher. 
 
 Michael Fenton. 
 
558 
 
 The Special Commission, December 6 and 7, 1888. 
 
 Do you remember when the League began ? — There 
 was a Land League at this time. 
 
 How long ago is it that this occurred ? — It was in 
 1881. 
 
 The Court adjourned at ten minutes to 4 o'clock. 
 
 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 27th sittjng to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probata Court of 
 the Eoyal Courts of Justice. 
 
 Their Lordships having taken their seats on the 
 bench, 
 
 Patrick Molloy was called and examined by the 
 Attorney-General . 
 
 Is your name Patrick Molloy ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Where do you live ? — Well, my present residence is 
 Holloway Gaol. 
 
 Where were you living before you came to London ? 
 —43, York-street, Dublin. 
 
 How old are you ? — Somewhere about 25 or 26 years 
 of age. 
 
 Have you been a Fenian ? — Never. 
 
 Do you swear that ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you seen this gentleman (pointing to Mr. 
 Walker) ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you state to him you had been a Fenian ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 Do you swear that ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you state to him that you joined the Fenians in 
 1877 or 1878 ?— No, Sir. 
 
 Did you say anything to him about being a Fenian ? 
 -No, Sir. 
 
 Not a word ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Was the word Fenian ever mentioned ? — It was. 
 
 What did he say about Fenians ? — This man came to 
 me, called at my house a fortnight last Tuesday 
 
 Attend to my question. What was said about 
 Fenians P — He asked me if I had ever been a Fenian. 
 I told him no. 
 
 That you swear ? — Yes. I afterwards told him that 
 when I came to London I would make a statement. 
 
 Did you say you knew James Carey ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Will you swear that ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you not say you were introduced into a society 
 by James Carey ? — Never ; I never knew the man in 
 my life. 
 
 Now, be careful how you answer this question (hand- 
 ing witness a paper). Was that paper written out in 
 your presence ? — What does this paper purport to be ? 
 
 Answer my question. Was that paper written out in 
 your presence ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Was any paper written out in your presence ? — No, 
 Sir. There were some notes made in my presence. 
 
 On paper ? — On paper. 
 
 Was this paper, page by page, read over to you after 
 it was written out ? — Never. 
 
 Was it given to you on three sheets of paper, and did 
 you yourEelf read it there in this gentleman's pre- 
 sence ?— No, Sir. 
 
 Did you go to Fitzwilliam-square, Dublin ? — I did. 
 
 Do you know what house that is ? — I do. 
 
 What house is it ? — Mr. Beauchamp's house. 
 
 A solicitor's office ? — No, not a solicitor's office ; it 
 is his private residence. 
 
 Did you say you joined a society to which you were 
 introduced by James Carey ? — I could not say that, for 
 I never saw James Carey in my life. 
 
 Did you say that ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Now, I caution you how you answer the question. 
 Did you say the society had been engaged in convey- 
 ing arms to different parts of Ireland ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Was anything said to you about arms ? — There was. 
 
 What ? — This man asked me if I knew anything about 
 it. I said No. He told me he could tell me all about 
 myself. He mentioned a lot of things in connexion 
 with arms and a Fenian organization, and so forth, and 
 told me that he knew when I went to America, and 
 that Mr. Davitt, Mr. Biggar, and Mr. Kenny, and 
 several others were connected with the organization. 
 
 Did you say anything about arms to him ? — I never 
 said anything at all to him. I promised him I would 
 make a statement when 1 came to London. 
 
 Did you say you were sworn in 1881 ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Did you say you knew Timothy Kelly 'I — I did. I 
 went to school with him. 
 
 Did you say that Timothy Kelly swore you in ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 Did you say you were invited to join the Invincible 
 organization in 1882 ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Did you say you attended the meetings ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Now, I must put it to you again — did you read over 
 the notes this gentleman made ? — I did not. 
 
 Not one of them ? — Not one of them. 
 
 Were they put into your hands ? — They were not. 
 
 Did you say that at the meetings of the Invincibles 
 you attended Dan Curley, Timothy Kelly, Joe Mullett, 
 Joe Brady, and Tom Caffrey were there ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Did you mention their names ? — I mentioned no 
 names at all. 
 
 Did you say Joe Mullett was there ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Did you say Patrick Egan was there ? — No, Sir. 
 This man asked me about Egan. 
 
 Did you say anything about Egan ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Did you say Sheridan was there ? — No, Sir. 
 
 You said just now that you did not mention any 
 names. Did you not mention Kelly's name ? — I did 
 not. I only mentioned the fact that I went to school 
 with him. 
 
 Did you tell this gentleman you knew Joe Mul- 
 lett ?— I told him that I knew Joe Mullett. I told 
 him that I went to school with him. 
 
 Joe Mullett's name was mentioned then ? — Only in 
 connexion with the fact that I went to school with 
 him. 
 
 Did you say that you met Patrick Egan several 
 times ? — No, Sir ; I never saw the man in my life. I 
 should not know him if he was put before me. 
 
 Was a house in Brittain-street mentioned ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Was the number of a house in Brittain-street men- 
 tioned ? — No. Sir. 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 18 H 8. 
 
 559 
 
 Or the name, of a man who kept a house there ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 On your oath, did not you say that you knew Patrick 
 Egan well ? — No, Sir. On my oath I never saw the 
 man. 
 
 Did you say to Mr. Walker that you knew Egan 
 well ?— 1 did not. 
 
 Do you know the Ship and the Wings Hot els in Abbey- 
 street ?— Yes. 
 
 Were they mentioned ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Never referred to ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Are they two hotels ?— They are. 
 
 Did you know them before ? — I did. 
 
 Was neither of them mentioned ? — No. 
 
 Was Judge Lawson's name mentioned ? — Never. 
 
 Not a word said about it ? — Never. 
 
 Was Michael Fagan mentioned ? — No. 
 
 Was anything said about anything being done to 
 Judge Lawson or any Judge ? — No. 
 
 Was the Winter Gardens Palace mentioned ? — No. 
 
 Where is that 1 — St. Stephen's-green. 
 
 Was Mrs. Smythe mentioned ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Did yon say that Pat Egan had supplied money ? — 
 No ; never. 
 
 Did you say you believed he had given money to Joe 
 Brady and Dan Curley ? — No ; I never said anything of 
 the kind. 
 
 Did you say Curley had told you that himself ? — No, 
 I did net. 
 
 Was Curley's name mentioned ? — It was not. 
 
 Did you say you went to America in 1883 ? — I did. 
 
 How d'd you come to mention that ? — This man asked 
 me if I went to America. 
 
 Did you say you were ill in America ? — I did ; and I 
 was ill. 
 
 Did you say that Frank Eyrue employed you m a 
 publiehouse in America ? — I did. 
 
 Did you know Frank Byrne ? — No ; it wa» • friend 
 of mine, who worked for him, and sent for 
 me. Byrne took sick, and this friend of mine sent for 
 me. He was a young fellow — a friend of mine whom 
 I knew in Dublin. 
 
 Did you know Frank Byrne before you went to 
 America ? — Never saw him. 
 
 Was Frank Byrne's name mentioned at the interview 
 with this gentleman ? — It was. 
 
 What did you say about him ? — Ifcat I had worked 
 for him. 
 
 Was Mr. Ford's name mentioned ? — It was. 
 
 What did you say about him ?— I said I never saw 
 him. 
 
 Did you not say you had called on Mr. and Mrs. 
 Ford ? — I did not. 
 
 Was Mr. Beau champ called in ? — He was. 
 
 What for ? — This gentleman called him in for the 
 purpose of satisfying myself as to who he was. 
 
 Did Mr. Beauchamp satisfy you who he was ? — Yes ; 
 he told me he was agent for The Times. 
 
 How many times did you see this gentleman ? — I 
 have seen him as often as two or three times a day. 
 
 The first time I saw him was a fortnight last Wednes- 
 day, He sent mo a letter asking me to call at tho 
 Hibernian Hotel. 
 
 Have you got that ?— I have not got it in my posses- 
 sion. I gave it to a friend of mine named Bolan, of 
 Dublin, and he handed it over, I believe, to a gentleman 
 who will produce it here. 
 
 Who ? — I do not know. 
 
 Who is it, Sir ?— Dr. Kenny, M.P. 
 
 When did you hand ftie letter to Bolan ? — On the day 
 that I called at the hotel. 
 
 On that evening ? — On the same evening I got it, and 
 I told him I had received it after having an interview 
 with this man. 
 
 How soon after that did you find out that Dr. Kenny 
 had got it ? — Dr. Kenny did not get it until some day 
 this week. 
 
 What is Bolan ? — A paving overseer in the service of 
 the Dublin Corporation. 
 
 What is his Christian name ?— James. 
 
 How long did that interview at Fitzwilliam-square 
 last ? — Oh, it might have lasted about an hour. 
 
 Did it last an hour ? — I cannot swear, I had not a 
 watch with me. 
 
 Did it not last a full hour I — l could not swear to a 
 few minutes. 
 
 Now, I ask you, after these notes had been written 
 and you had read them, did not this gentleman offer to 
 burn them if you wished it ? — No, Sir. 
 
 You swear that ? — I swear that. 
 
 Were the notes he had written put in your hands ?— 
 No, Sir. 
 
 You never had hold of them or looked at them ? — I 
 never handled theio. 
 
 Did you get any other letters from this gentleman ? — 
 I got one asking me to call at the Wicklow Hotel. I 
 gave that to Mr. Bolan, and I believe it is in the 
 possession of Dr. Kenny. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — They are all here if you wish to 
 see them. 
 
 Witness (continuing). — I got another telegram from 
 him last Saturday, and on Sunday, when I refused to 
 travel on the mail boat with him, I got another letter 
 when I went home. 
 
 Now, you went to the station to tell him you had 
 come to go to London ? — I did, and I received £11 
 from him at the station. 
 
 Did you tell him that you could not leave until you 
 had paid two email debts ? — I did. 
 
 Was that true ? — No ; it was not true. 
 
 Did he tell you he would give you any money ? — He 
 did. 
 
 Did you see him a second time, and tell him you did 
 not like to go away without paying these debts ? — I did. 
 
 Was that true ? — I did not like to go away until I 
 got hold of the money. I had no money. 
 
 Did he tell you he would not give you any money, 
 but that if you would write two letters to the people 
 you owed the money to you could post them in his 
 presence ? — He did, and I wrote those letters and 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
560 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 posted them in his presence, but I did not owe any 
 money. 
 
 I suppose you thought you were getting hold of him 
 by this ? — I do not know about getting hold of him, 
 but I just wanted to show up a little of the workings. 
 
 Oh ! You wrote out two letters and addressed two 
 envelopes to two persons to whom you did not owe 
 money ? — Yes, but I did not owe any money. He did 
 not see to whom the letters were addressed. 
 
 You took these letters to the station with you p — 
 Yes. 
 
 What were the names of the two friends of yours ? — 
 Mr. John Marriner and Mr. George Banner. 
 
 Did you show the letters to Mr. Walker ? — I showed 
 him the letters, but I did not let him see to whom 
 they were directed. 
 
 Was one of the letters addressed to Mr. Bolan ? — No, 
 one was not directed to Mr. Bolan. 
 
 Had you seen Bolan about writing these letters ? — I 
 had, and bad his advice upon it. I took no steps in 
 the matter without advice. 
 
 Did anybody else, advise you ? — Yes, Mr. John 
 Manton, Mr. John Marriner, Mr. George Banner, and 
 Mr. John Bolan. 
 
 Did you take this advice before you went to Fitz- 
 wil liam-square ? — Yes. 
 
 You said just now that you made no statement, and 
 that nothing was read over to you. What was it, then, 
 that made this gentleman bring you over ? — He asked me 
 different questions about different things, and I told 
 him I would go to London and make a statement. 
 
 You swore a few minutes ago that you made no 
 statement, and that you read over no notes, and that 
 no notes were read over to you ?— I swear that again. 
 
 What were you to go to London for ? — For the 
 purpose of making a statement before Mr. Soames and 
 Mr. .Walter. 
 
 Who was Mr. Walter ? — The proprietor of The Times, 
 I presume. 
 
 You told him nothing of what you would prove ? — 
 No : I told him I would make a statement in London. 
 
 Did he serve you with a subpoena ? — Yes ; last 
 Friday, in the Young Men's Christian Association 
 building in Dawson-street. On the Tuesday previous 
 he asked me to go to London with him for the purpose 
 of making a statement. I said I would not unless I 
 got a subpoena, because it was dangerous for me to 
 give evidence. The subpoena was served on Friday and 
 commanded me to be in London at the same time. 
 
 Was it dangerous for you to go to London ?— Oh, 
 not at all. 
 
 Did you say you were afraid of being shot ? — I did 
 if I gave evidence. 
 
 What evidence ? — Evidence which I believe this man 
 supposed I could give. He seemed to think I could 
 tell a lot about Mr. Davitt. 
 
 Tell me something he was supposed to believe you 
 could tell him ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Do you swear that ? — I do. 
 
 Try and recollect ono thing which he was supposed 
 
 to believe you could give that would endanger your 
 being shot ? — I cannot. 
 
 I ask you, Sir, was Davitt's name ever mentioned 
 until after notes had been taken ? — It was, and Mr. 
 Biggar's name and Mr. Kenny's name and another that 
 I cannot remember. 
 
 Did not this gentleman after the statement was 
 made ? — I made no statement. 
 
 Well, after the notes had been taken, did he ask you 
 if you knew Davitt ? — He did. 
 
 Did you not say, " Yes ; but he was never mixed up 
 in the business so far as I know " ? — I never said that. 
 I said I had seen him. 
 
 What answer beyond that did you give ? — None. 
 
 Did this gentleman mention a single other name of 
 a member of Parliament to you ? — He mentioned Mr. 
 Kenny, Mr. Biggar, and Mr. O'Connor, of Cork. I 
 knew there was a fourth, but I could not think of it 
 just at the time. 
 
 Did he not ask you if you had ever met a member of 
 Parliament at any of the meetings of the Invineibles f 
 — He asked me if I knew any of these men, and I told 
 him I did not. I said nothing about Invineibles. 
 
 Did you not say you had met a member of Parlia« 
 ment there ? — I did not. 
 
 That would have been true if you had said it ? — It 
 would be true if I had said I had never met a member 
 of Parliament at any time. 
 
 Do you know Mr. Kenny ?— No, Sir. 
 
 Or Dr. Kenny ? — I have seen him. 
 
 Do you know him ?— Not personally. 
 
 Have you spoken to him ? — Yes. 
 
 How long ago ? — Last Monday. 
 
 Never before that ? — No. 
 
 What did you speak to him about last Monday ?— 
 About this business. 
 
 What did you say to him ? — I handed him the letters 
 and told him the circumstances of the case. 
 
 You told me a few moments ago that Bolan gave him 
 the letters ? — So he did, in my presence. 
 
 Have you had the letters back ? — No, Sir. I have 
 never handled the letters since I received them. 
 
 When you say you handed the letters to Dr. Kenny, 
 you mean that Bolan handed them in your presence ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Had you everj seen Dr. Kenny before ? — In the 
 streets, but I had never spoken to him. 
 
 Were you secretary to Michael Fagan ? — No. 
 
 Did you know him ? — I have met him. 
 
 Did you know him ? — Yes ; I knew him. 
 
 Had you anything to do with him ?— How do you 
 mean ? 
 
 Any business of any kind ? — None. 
 
 Had you anything to do with him at all ? — Nothing. 
 
 Do you swear that ?— Yes. I met him casually as 
 a friend. 
 
 How did you know him ?— I was introduced to hi in 
 by a young man named Murphy. 
 
 When ?— Soinevfhcre about 1880. 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 561 
 
 Did yon know Fagan during the years 1880 and 
 1881 ? — I met him occasionally. 
 
 Where did he live ?— I cannot tell you. 
 
 Do you swear that ? — I do. 
 
 Where did you live in 1880 ? — In Petor-street. 
 
 Did Fagan live a short distance from you ? — I do not 
 know where he lived ; it was somewhere on the north 
 side of the city. 
 
 Is Peter-street on the north side of the city ?— No j 
 in the extreme south. 
 
 Will you swear Fagan did not live a short distance 
 from you ? — I swear that. 
 
 Where did he live then ? — I do not know. 
 
 How often did you see him- ? — I might see him once 
 a month or once in three months. 
 
 Did you see him once a month ? — Sometimes I might 
 have met him accidentally. 
 
 Did you see him more often than once a month ? — If 
 I happened to meet him in the street I might do. 
 
 Do you know what Fagan was ? — A blacksmith. 
 
 Was Fagan an Invincible ? — I don't know. 
 
 Do you swear you don't know ? — I do. 
 
 Was Fagan hanged ? — He was. 
 
 What for ? — For the Phoenix Park murder. 
 
 Where used you to see Fagan ?— I met him in the 
 street or theatre. 
 
 Anywhere else ? — Nowhere else. I might have met 
 him in publichouses. 
 
 What publichouses ? — I cannot say. 
 
 What publichouses ? — I cannot really swear. 
 
 Have you met him in more than one publichouse f — 
 Oh, I have ; but I can't really 6wear in what 
 publichouses. 
 
 Half-a-dozen publichouses ? — No, I don't think so. 
 
 Two or three ? — I might have met him in two or 
 three ; possibly four. 
 
 Tell me one of them ? — I can't remember them. 
 
 You say you knew Fagan in 1880, saw him more 
 than once a month, and met him in publichouses, and 
 you cannot tell me where ? — No. I cannot. 
 
 Did you know him through the years 1880 and 1881 ? 
 —I never was intimately acquainted with him ; I met 
 him casually. I met him in those years, certainly. 
 
 Did you meet him at Mullett's ? — No ; I swear 
 that. 
 
 Where did Joe Mullett live ? — No. 6, Temple-cot- 
 tages, Upper Dominic-street. 
 
 Where did James Mullett live ? — He kept a public- 
 house in Dorset-street. 
 
 Did you know him ? — I did. 
 
 Have you been there ? — I have, on business. 
 
 Met Fagan there ? — No ; I swear that. 
 
 You said you could not tell what publichouses you 
 met him in ? — Yes. 
 
 You know Fagan was hanged ?— I am aware of that 
 fact. 
 
 What became of James Mullett ?— I believe he got 
 ten years' penal servitude. 
 
 For what ?— I am sure I don't know ; I Swear that. 
 
 Anything to do with the Phoenix Park murders ?— He 
 
 was arrested at that time. What he got the ten yearg 
 for I don't know. 
 
 Don't you know perfectly well that James Mulletfs 
 was imprisoned for the part he took in the Phoenix 
 Park murders ? — I know he got ten years, but what ha 
 got it for I do not know. 
 
 Did you ever hear of any other charge for which ha 
 got imprisonment except the Phcenix Park murders ?— 
 No. 
 
 I have reminded you of this — of your knowing Fagan, 
 of your knowing James Mullett, and of your going to 
 his publichouse.- — I went there on business, with 
 letters from my employer. 
 
 Who was he ? — Mr. William James Stewart, 5, St. 
 Andrew's-street, Dublin, solicitor. 
 
 Don't you know James Mullett pleaded guilty to 
 complicity in a conspiracy to murder ? — Yes ; I was 
 aware he pleaded guilty, but to what charge I was not 
 aware. 
 
 Do you represent to the Court that you had no idea 
 that James Mullett pleaded guilty to complicity in a 
 conspiracy to murder 1 — I had an idea he pleaded 
 guilty, but I was not aware to what charge. 
 
 You had no idea that he was concerned in the 
 Phcenix Park murders ?— 1 knew he bad something to 
 do with it, because he was arrested at the time. 
 
 That his ten years had something to do with it ?— 
 Yes ; for having connexion with it. 
 
 You knew Fagan, James Mullett, and went to hia 
 publichouse. Will you swear you never met Fagan 
 there ? — I do. 
 
 If you are not able to tell me the publichouses, how 
 do you know it was not James Mullett's? — I was never 
 in James Mullett's house except on business. I carried 
 letters there for my employer, who transacted hia 
 private business. 
 
 Did you know you were going to be arrested your« 
 self ? — No ; I swear that. 
 
 Mr. Stewart was your employer ? — He was. 
 
 I caution you. Did you go to Mr. Stewart's office- 
 and break open your desk ? — No, Sir. I had no 
 occasion to break it open; I always had a key to it. 
 
 Did you open it ?— When ? 
 
 Did you open it ? — I opened it every morning when 
 I went there. 
 
 When did you leave Mr. Stewart ?— In 1883. 
 
 What time in 1883 ?— Somewhere about January,1883. 
 
 Was it January or February ? — I could not swear. 
 The latter end of January or February. 
 
 Did you know Robert Farrell ? — I did not. 
 
 Have you seen him ? — No. 
 
 Did you hear of his name ? — I heard his name when 
 he turned informer. 
 
 When did he turn informer ?— I cannot exactly tell 
 you the date. 
 
 Do you swear that ? — I do. 
 
 In what year was it ?— It would be 1882, of course. 
 
 Will you swear it was not in the beginning of 1883 ? 
 — I cannot swear that. 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
562 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 When did you hear of it ?— Somewhere about the 
 early part of 1883. 
 
 Did not you hear of it in January, 1883 ? — I cannot 
 Bay if it would be January or not. 
 
 When you left Stewart's employment, did you give 
 him notice ? — What do you mean ? 
 
 Did you not leave him without notice ? — I did. I 
 did not give him notice. 
 
 What made you go ?— Because I had a dispute with 
 my parents at home. 
 
 But having a dispute with your parents at home would 
 not be a reason for leaving him without giving notice ? 
 —It would, because I decided to leave the country. 
 
 Where did you go ? — I went to America. 
 
 Where did you get the money from to go ? — I had the 
 money saved. 
 
 When did you go ? — Somewhere in the early part of 
 
 1883. 
 
 In February, 1883 ?— Either February or March. 
 
 Whun you determined to go, did you go to your 
 office, open your desk, and take your papers away f — I 
 cannot remember. 
 
 Will you swear you did not ? — I won't swear that I 
 did or that I did not. 
 
 Will you swear you did not break the desk open ? — I 
 
 will. 
 
 Did you open the desk and take all the papers 
 a way 1 — I cannot remember. 
 
 You do not remember one way or the other ? — I do not. 
 
 Had you a revolver ? — No. 
 
 Ton swear that ? — I do. 
 
 Never had one in your life ? — No. 
 
 Did you hear just before you left Mr. Stewart's 
 employment that you were going to be arrested ? — I 
 did not. 
 
 You knew that Farrell had turned informer. Who 
 told you ? — I saw it in the paper. 
 
 How many days before you saw it in the papers was 
 it that you determined to leave Mr. Stewart's em- 
 ployment ? — I could not exactly say, 
 
 Is Mr. Stewart in Dublin now ? — He is dead. 
 ' When did he die ? — Somewhere near the latter end 
 of 1882. His son is there now. 
 
 Did you know M'Caffrey ? — I saw him. 
 
 What was he ? — A mineral water maker. He lived 
 nearly opposite where I lived. 
 
 Did you know him ? — I was introduced to him by 
 his nephew. 
 
 Did you know him ? — I did. We were neighbours 
 for years. 
 
 Did you know him in 1880 and 1881 ? — I knew him 
 before that. 
 
 Intimately ?— Never intimately ; nothing beyond 
 nodding and that. 
 
 Was M'Caffrey an Invincible ? — I do not know 
 whether he was or not. He was convicted for it, or 
 pleaded guilty — something like that. 
 
 Pleaded guilty to what charge ? — That is more than 
 I can tell you. 
 
 You have no knowledge as to whether it was in 
 
 connexion with the Phoenix Park murders ? — It must 
 have had some connexion with them, of course. 
 
 Was M'Caffrey an Invincible or not ? — How do I know ? 
 
 Answer the question. Do you know whether he was 
 or not ? — I do not. 
 
 How long were you away ? — Between 18 months and 
 two years. 
 
 From where did you take your passage ? — From 
 Liverpool. 
 
 In your own name ? — Well, I did not pay for mj 
 passage. 
 
 How did you go, then ? — I worked my passage over. 
 
 In your own name ? — In my own name. 
 
 In what ship ? — The steamship Pennsylvania. 
 
 When did you sail ?— In 1883. 
 
 Had you been to sea before ? — Only across from 
 Dublin to Liverpool. 
 
 You worked your passage out as what ? — As steward. 
 
 Did you pay anything ? — Yes ; I think I paid tho 
 steward 30s. to let me work my passage. I had not 
 much money ; only £8 or £9. I did not want to pay 
 £4 or £5 out of that. 
 
 You told me a short time ago that you had saved 
 money for your passage ? — So I had. 
 
 Did you serve in the ship in your own name ?— Yes. 
 
 What name did you give ? — My own name. I signed 
 no articles. That is not necessary for a man who 
 works his passage over. 
 
 What name did you give to the steward ? — My own. 
 
 What name ? — Patrick Molloy. 
 
 What was the steward's name ? — Brennan. 
 
 What is his Christian name ?— Michael. 
 
 Who are the owners of the ship ? — I forget now. I 
 think the owners are Spencer Brothers. I could not 
 say for certain. 
 
 Where did you go in America ? — To Philadelphia. 
 
 What did you do while you were away ?— I did 
 several things, mostly bar-keeping. 
 
 Did you do some peddling ? — I travelled for a 
 jewelry firm. 
 
 Do you call that peddling ? — No ; it was a wholesale 
 jewelry firm I worked for. 
 
 Did you do any canvassing ? — No,. 
 
 Did you do any other work ? — That and bar-keeping 
 and acting as cashier in an hotel. 
 
 Now, Sir, was not Farrell's public examination at the 
 police-court on January 20, 1883 ? — I do not know. I 
 cannot tell the date. 
 
 Did you know of Farrell being examined at the 
 Dublin police-court before Mr. Keys ? — I read of it. 
 
 What in ? — The Freeman and Telegraph. 
 
 What Freeman do you mean ? — The Daily Freeman. 
 
 Did you read your own name in the report of Far- 
 rell's evidence ? — It could not have been my name. 
 
 Did you see your own name ? — I read of someone 
 named Molloy. 
 
 Do you remember what you read in connexion with 
 that name ? — No ; I remember that the name was 
 mentioned. 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 1S88. 
 
 563 
 
 Had you ever seen any other Molloy with Fagan P— I 
 do not know whom I had seen. 
 
 Any other man named Molloy with Fagan ? — Oh, I do 
 not know. 
 
 Had you ever seen any other Molloy in Fagan's com- 
 pany ? — I do not know whom I had seen in his com- 
 pany. I could not swear. 
 
 Had you ever seen any other man named Molloy in 
 his company ? — There might be another man named 
 Molloy in his company. 
 
 Had you ever seen such a man with him ? — I cannot 
 say. 
 
 Will you swear you had ? — No. 
 
 Do you remember what was said about Molloy in the 
 paper ? — I do not. 
 
 No recollection ? — No, not just at present. 
 
 Try and think. What was it you had seen about 
 Molloy in Farrell's evidence ? — I forget now. 
 
 Will you swear you forget ? — I have seen something 
 about it, but I cannot remember. ' 
 
 Will you swear you cannot remember any part of 
 what you read ? — I cannot remember any part of it 
 just at present. 
 
 Your mind is quite a blank ? — Well, I remember 
 there was such a name mentioned. 
 
 Do you remember anything more ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Did you see it in any other paper besides the Free- 
 man ? — No, I don't think so. 
 
 Do you remember the examination that took place 
 before Mr. Keys, the police magistrate ? — No. I may 
 have read about it. 
 
 Come, now, were the persons then charged these — 
 Joe Mullett ; was he one of the persons charged ? — 
 Yes ; I believe so. 
 
 James Carey, was he one of the persons charged ? — 
 I don't know. 
 
 Will you swear that ? — Will I swear what ? 
 
 You told me just now that you knew from the re- 
 port that appeared in the Freeman about the charge. 
 Was James Carey one of the persons charged ? — I don't 
 know. 
 
 Were Joe. Brady, Henry Rolls, Thomas Martin, and 
 Timothy Kelly charged ? — I believe so, from the report 
 in the paper. 
 
 I am reading from the report of the deposition of 
 Robert Farrell. Was Joseph Mullett charged ? — I 
 believe so. 
 
 Had you known him ? — I went to school with him. 
 
 Were these men also charged — James Mullett, Peter 
 Carey, Edward M'Caffrey, Edward O'Brien, Joseph 
 Hanlon, Laurence Hanlon, Peter Doyle, William 
 Moroney, Daniel Delany, Joseph Mullett, Daniel 
 Curley, George Smith, Michael Fagan, Patrick 
 Delany, James Fitzharris, Thomas Doyle, Thomas 
 Caffrey, and Joseph Smith ? Do you remember that 
 those were the names of the persons charged ? — I don't 
 remember the names ; there were something like 20 
 men charged. 
 
 Did you know Joe Mullett ? — I told you before that 
 
 I went to school with him. We kept up the friendship 
 all along. 
 
 Where did Joe Mullett live ? — I have told you be- 
 fore. I have answered that question. 
 
 There is Daniel Curley — do you know him ? — I do not. 
 
 Had you heard his name before you saw it in the 
 paper ? — Not that I know of. 
 
 Then there is Fagan — did you know Fagan ? — I knew 
 Fagan. 
 
 Having reminded you that these were the people on 
 their trial, three or four of whom you knew, I ask 
 you whether you read this in the paper in Farrell's 
 evidence— I am putting the substance of it merely — 
 that when Farrell got the revolver from Curley and 
 went back to Westland-row, he there met a man 
 named Molloy ? — I read something like that. 
 
 Did you ever hear the name of a man called Barrett? 
 —No. 
 
 Come, now, come, now, stand up and answer my 
 question. Did you ever hear the name of Barrett ?— 
 No, Sir. 
 
 Do you swear that ? — I swear that. 
 
 You do not know to whom I am referring at all ? — ■ 
 No, I did not know a man by the name of Barrett. 
 
 Barrett, a wine merchant, I mean ? — No. 
 
 You never heard of him ? — No. 
 
 That you swear ? — That I swear. 
 
 Just listen to this. Did you read this ? Mullett, 
 speaking to Farrell, is reported to have said : — " He 
 told me that a scuine would # take place, and he 
 pointed to where a policeman would come up, and he 
 said if I was of opinion that he was going to arrest 
 any 'of the parties I was to shoot him, but if I was of 
 opinion he was not going to arrest any one I was not to 
 interfere with him." Do you remember reading that ? 
 — -The account that was in the paper ? 
 
 Yes. — Yes ; I remember reading that. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — This, my Lord, is Farrell's 
 evidence, question and answer, as it was published in 
 the Freeman of Monday, January 22, 1883. 
 
 Examination continued. — Now, listen to this. 
 
 " Did you keep your appointment on Monday at Ken- 
 nedy's in Duke-street ? — I did. 
 
 " Did you meet Mr. Mullett there ?— I did. 
 
 " Is that man in the dock Joseph Mullett, the man 
 you made the appointment with ? — Yes. 
 
 " Was he alone when you went there first ? — Yes. 
 
 " Did any person join you after that ? — There did. 
 
 " Tell me who they were ? — Joseph Dwyer and a man 
 of the name of Molloy. I don't know his Christian name. 
 
 "Who was Molloy ? Do you know where he lived or 
 his business ? — I do not. 
 
 " Do you know Maurice Hanlon ? — No, Sir. 
 
 " Now listen, please. Who else came in ? — Laurence 
 Hanlon came iu. 
 
 " Did Mullett say anything as to whatyou were to do 
 or where you were to go ?— He told me to wait for a 
 few minutes and he would send another along with 
 me. He said that we were to go in twos. 
 
 *' Whom did you go out with, then?— Laurence Hanlon. 
 
 " Did Laurence Hanlon tell you where you were to 
 go 1 — He told me we were to go to Westmorland- 
 street, and I told him I understood that I was to go 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
564 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 to Westland-row, and he left me then and went back 
 to ask. 
 
 "Did he come back to you afterwards ? — He did. 
 
 " What did he say to you when he came back ? — He 
 told me he was to go to Westmorland-street and I 
 was to go to Westland-row. 
 
 " Did you hear Timothy Kelly say anything ? — At 
 Moore's statue Timothy Kelly came over and asked 
 Hanlon was he going to come on. 
 
 " And he went with Kelly and you went to Westland 
 row ? — Yes, by Brunswick-street. 
 
 ' ' Who was the first man you knew you met in West- 
 land-row r— Daniel Curley. 
 
 " When you were going down Bunswick-street to 
 Westland-row had you any revolver with you ? — No. 
 
 " What did Curley say when you met him ? — He asked 
 me did I see Mullett, and I told him no . I had seen 
 hie in Duke-street, but not in Westland-row. He 
 meant in Westland-row. 
 
 " He then asked you had you a revolver ? — Yes ; 
 and I told him I had not. 
 
 " When you told him you had not a revolver did he 
 bring you to any place ?— He did. 
 
 ' ' Where did he bring you ? — He brought me near the 
 Merrion-hall and there gave me a revolver loaded. 
 
 " Had you that revolver with you when you were 
 arrested ? — I had not, but I had it in another place. 
 
 " Where is it now, do you know ? — Superintendent 
 Mellon has it. 
 
 "' When you got your revolver near Merrion-hall 
 where did Curley and you go ? — To Merrion-row, or 
 at least into Westland-row, I mean. 
 
 " You went back to Westland-row ; and who did you 
 meet there ? — I met Joseph Mullett, Joe Hani on 
 Michael Casey, and George Smith. 
 
 " The other man whose Christian name you don't know, 
 but whum you said you met before — Molloy — was there 
 when you came back ? — Yes ; Molloy was there. 
 
 " Did yon ask Curley as to what you were to dp 
 there ? — I told Curley I was brought there and did not 
 know what I was brought there for, and he told me 
 Mullett would tell me. After a short time Mullett 
 came up and he told me a scuffle would take place 
 about the chapel, and he told me I was to stay about 
 the chapel. I asked him could not I stand where I 
 was as well as to stand at the chapel. ' Very 
 well,' he says. 
 
 "Where were you actually standing at the time?— At 
 the veterinary surgeon's. 
 
 ' 'At Mr. Hunter's — that is, on the opposite side ? — Yes. 
 
 " And what did he say you were to do then? — He said 
 that a scuffle would take place on the far side, and 
 that if the policeman at Westland-row came up and if 
 I considered he was going to arrest any parties I was 
 to shoot him, and if I considered he was not going to 
 arrest them I was not to interfere with him." 
 
 Now listen, please, — " Did you hear Mullett say any 
 thing to Molloy ? — Yes ; he gave an envelope to 
 Molloy to write a name on it. 
 
 " Did you hear him say what the name was ? — He did 
 not say, but I understood afterwards that the name 
 was W. 6. Barrett. Mullett gave the envelope to 
 Molloy. Whether there was a letter in it or not I am 
 not sure. Molloy was to hand the envelope to Mr. 
 Barrett. Molloy took the envelope from Mullett and 
 went away and came back again after a few minutes 
 with the envelope directed." 
 
 Do you recollect reading that ? — Yes, I think I recol- 
 lect reading that. 
 
 Now, just think for a moment, please. You said 
 just now that you had never heard of the name of W. G. 
 Barrett ? — I did not until I read it. 
 
 You told me just now that you had never heard of 
 his name. Had you forgotten it ? — I took no notice 
 of it. 
 
 Did you think that that account referred to you ?— 
 I don't see why it should. 
 
 Do you think that it referred to you ? — No. 
 
 Did you ever make any inquiry about the Molloy 
 there referred to ?— It did not concern me. 
 
 How long after reading that account did you make 
 up your mind to quit Mr. Stewart's employment ?— 
 I cannot say for certain. 
 
 Will you swear that it was not within 24 hours 
 afterwards ? — I would not like to swear within what 
 time. The fact of my going to America happened very 
 suddenly. I had a very serious dispute with my mother 
 and father and I determined to leave the country. 
 
 Will you swear that you did not come to that deter- 
 mination within 24 hours after that account appeared 
 in the newspaper ? — I won't swear. 
 
 Did your dispute with your father and mother arise 
 after this account appeared or before ?— The dispute 
 was brewing for some time. 
 
 I want to know how long a time it was after this 
 appeared you swear that you suddenly left Mr. 
 Stewart's employment ? — I could not swear. I hav» 
 told you so before. 
 
 Did you go to Mr. Stewart's more than once after 
 reading this ? — Yes, I did. 
 
 How many times ? — I cannot say for certain, it is 
 so long ago. 
 
 I ask you did you think that this referred to you ?— 
 No. 
 
 You thought that it had nothing to do with you ?•— 
 That it had nothing to do with me. 
 
 Can you suggest any Molloy besides yourself to 
 whom it may refer ?— How could I suggest ? 
 
 Can you ? — I cannot. 
 
 Now, I will read on further : — 
 
 " Did you hear from any of those whb were there 
 what was to be done to Mr. Barrett ? — Mullett was to 
 give the letter to Mr. Barrett, and so far as I could 
 understand Molloy was to attack him there. 
 
 " Did you hear Mullett say anything to Molloy about 
 any other person ? — Mullett said it would be a great 
 job if the two things could be done on the one night. 
 But I am not sure whether it was to Molloy or myself 
 he said it." 
 
 Did you understand that the Molloy mentioned in 
 the paper was to be concerned in the murder of Mr. 
 Barrett ? — I did not understand anything about it. I 
 simply read it. It did not concern me. 
 
 Very well, then listen to this : — 
 
 " About how long did you remain at Westland-row that 
 evening ? — From about 5 o'clock until about ten or 
 20 minutes past C. 
 
 " When had you to go away ? Did you go away your- 
 self or ask leave to go ? — I had to ask Mullett's 
 leave. 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 565 
 
 " What did you say ? — I told him I could not wait 
 any longer, that I had left a horse and yoke at Kevin- 
 street and had to go back to it. 
 
 " Where had you left it ?— At Doyle's Stores, at 
 Kevin-street. 
 
 ' ' And then Mullett gave you permission to go ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 "Coming back to Kennedy's publichouse, do you recol- 
 lect before you left it anything being said about West- 
 morland-street and Westland-row ? — I recollect nothing 
 particular, except tfiat Hanlon when he oame out was 
 to go to Westmorland-street and I was to go to West- 
 land-row. 
 
 "Was anything said as to the number of men who were 
 going to Westmorland-street ? — If there were not 
 enough men in Westmorland-street, they were to be 
 brought from Westland-row. I think Mullett said 
 that." 
 
 Do you know Kennedy's publichouse ? — Which Ken- 
 nedy ? There are several Kennedys. 
 
 Tell me any one you know. — There is one at North 
 Wall, one in Cable-street, one on the City-quay, and 
 one in Townsend-street. 
 
 All of whom you know ? — Yes ; and there is another 
 at Duke-street and another at Portobello Harbour. 
 There are half-a-dozen or a dozen Kennedys in 
 Dublin. 
 
 How came you to communicate with Mr. Kenny ? 
 Who brought you to him ? — Mr. John Clancy. 
 Is he the member of Parliament ? — He is not. 
 Who is he ?— He is Sheriff of the City of Dublin. 
 Did you know him before ? — I was introduced to him. 
 Is he a relation of the member of Parliament ?— Not 
 that I know. He may be. 
 
 When were you introduced to Mr. Clancy ? — Some 
 time ago. 
 
 What do you mean by some time ago ? — Well, six 
 months or a year ago. 
 Two years ago ? — I don't think so. 
 So Mr. John Clancy brought you to Mr. Kenny ? — He 
 did. We were three together. 
 
 Who were the other two? — Mr. Solan and Mr. 
 Marriner. 
 
 Had you seen Mr. Kenny before ? — I had seen him 
 in the street. 
 Did you know him before ? — No. 
 Had you known Mr. Kenny before or not ? — Have I 
 not answered that question before two or three 
 times ? 
 Kindly answer my question. — No. 
 How long was Mr. Walker, the gentleman you have 
 referred to, taking the notes you have described ? — I 
 could not say. We were talking of several things. 
 
 Was everything that you told Mr. Walker true ? — 
 No. 
 
 Just tell us anything that you told him that was not 
 true.— I forget. 
 
 You swore just now that several of the things you 
 told him were not true. Just tell us anything that 
 jou told him that was not true ?— Well, one thing that 
 
 I told him that was not true was that I would come td 
 London to make a statement. 
 Anything else ? — Nothing else that I can think of. 
 And everything else you told Mr. Walker was true ?-« 
 I did not tell him very much. 
 
 Can you remember anything else you told Mr. Wal« 
 ker that was not true except that you would come to 
 London and make a statement ? — No, I cannot. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Kussell.— When did yom 
 come back from America ? — At the latter end of 1884, 
 Sir. 
 
 Have you been living in Dublin since that time 'I-+ 
 Yes. 
 
 Have you been in employment there ? — In Dublin-« 
 yes, Sir. 
 
 Who is the head of the detective police in Dublin, 
 Inspector Mallon ? — I think so. 
 Was it well known that you were in Dublin ? — Yes. 
 Since 1884 ?— Yes, since 1884, Sir. 
 Have you been in employment there ? — Well, off and 
 on. I have not been in constant employment. I have 
 been employed by the corporation and I have worked 
 at my trade for a living. 
 
 What is your trade ? — Silk weaving, but I do not 
 follow it up. I have been connected with a friendly 
 society, and I have been a canvasser for a London 
 publishing firm. 
 
 What firm ?— Spencer Blackett, I believe, is the 
 name of the firm. 
 
 What was your employment in the corporation ?-■ 
 Timekeeper to some works. 
 
 Was there any concealment since your return from 
 America in 1884 of your identity, or of the fact that 
 you were living in Dublin ? — None in the world. I did 
 not conceal myself from the time I landed. I landed 
 on the Saturday, and I went to mass on the Sunday at 
 the chapel where I was known. 
 
 You say that you went out in your own name as a 
 steward ? — Yes, and came back in my own name on a 
 steamer belonging to the same company. I worked my 
 passage home again. 
 
 Has any charge been made against you or any 
 attempt been made to arrest you since your return ?— 
 Never. 
 
 Have you any objection to tell the Court what was 
 this quarrel with your parents ?— Well, I was inclined 
 to get married, and my father did not seem satisfied 
 with it, so I went off in a huff. 
 
 You have told my learned friend when he was ex« 
 amining you that when this gentleman saw you he told 
 you that he knew all about you, and mentioned a 
 number of names, including those of Mr. Davitt, Mr. 
 Biggar, Mr. O'Connor, of Cork, and Mr. Kenny. Just 
 tell us a little more fully what he said ? — He told me 
 that Mr. Davitt was a Fenian, and that he knew him 
 to be a Fenian. He asked me if I knew any man by 
 the name of Eugene Davis, of Paris, and whether I had 
 seen him. I told him no. He asked me whether I 
 had seen John O'Connor, of Cork, the member of 
 Parliament, and he said that he also was a Fenian, 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
566 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 and that Kenny, the present secretary to the Lord 
 Mayor of Dublin, was also a Fenian, and that he had 
 proofs of it. 
 
 Anything more ?— The same thing applied to Mr. 
 Biggar. 
 
 Anything more ? — That was about the text of his 
 conversation, bat he would have liked to have got 
 somebody to supply him with information with refer- 
 ence to these people. 
 
 He was seeking for information ?— Yes. 
 • I understand that you took advice from your friends? 
 —I did. 
 
 Was that after you first saw him ? — The first in- 
 timation I had was that he called at my house a 
 fortnight last Thursday. I was out, and I got a letter 
 making an appointment. The first appointment was 
 for 12 o'clock the following Wednesday. The letter 
 was sent to 43, York-street, at my house, asking me 
 to call. 
 
 Are these the letters you received ? (The witness 
 examined the letters.) — Yes. That is the first letter I 
 received. 
 
 Are you sure that this is the document you got from 
 this gentleman ?— Yes. 
 
 But I understand that the gentleman's name is 
 Walker, and this letter is signed Thompson ? — That is 
 the letter ho sent me. 
 
 Sie C. Russell read the letter, which was as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Hibernian Hotel, Nov. 20, 1888. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I am anxious to see you as to the 
 directory. I was not able to be there at the time 
 named, but sent my friend. However, you did not 
 call, I believe. If convenient you might call here at 
 12 o'clock to-moirow, Wednesday. If you are not 
 able to come will you kindly give me the name of the 
 agents in Dublin ?— Yours, " S. Thompson." 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — I do not quite follow 
 this. What is this directory ?— It is a work Spencer 
 Blackett are bringing out on the trade and industries 
 of the city. 
 
 And you were canvassing for orders for it ? — Yes. 
 
 I see that the next letter is addressed " Captain 
 Molloy, care of Spencer Blackett, 50, Fleet- street," 
 and it is as follows : — " Mr. Patrick Molloy, — Meet 
 the gentleman who saw you with reference to Spencer 
 Blackett at No. 8, or leave a note." Where is No. 
 8 ? — It was at the Young Men's Christian Association. 
 
 The next is a letter dated November 30, which has 
 neither beginning nor end nor signature ? When did 
 you receive it ? — I did not receive it until late on 
 the Sunday night. 
 
 It is endorsed by you Sunday, 2-12-88, about 2 
 o'clock. Sie C. Russell then read the letter, which 
 was as follows : — 
 
 " I would like to have more particulars as to terms 
 of subscription for the book, and whether, if a large 
 number of copies was ordered, there could be a re- 
 duction ; also how soon you will expect to be able to 
 furnish copies. I will be at No. 8, Young Men's 
 Christian Association, at 3 to-day." 
 
 Witness. — That " Young Men's Christian Associa- 
 tion " has been written in, Sir ; I think it is Mr. 
 Manton's writing. 
 
 Sie C. Russell (continuing).—" I will be at No. 
 8," and then there is this addition — it is quite right — 
 " Young Men's Christian Association," and then some 
 thing I cannot read — oh ! " Dawson-street, at 3 to- 
 day. If not convenient to see me then please ask the 
 firm to drop a note to No. 25 ;" and then there is an 
 address which, of course, I will not read again, " or 
 write yourself and say when it would be convenient 
 for you to see me in consultation with them," and 
 this writing across it, "I think if you can give an 
 assurance that the book is likely to be a success, a 
 very large number would be ordered. No advertise- 
 ments will be issued till you reply." 
 
 Now what is next ? — Those (pointing) are the two 
 letters that I posted with the money. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I think, Sir Charles, you 
 have the next letter in your hand now. (To witness.) 
 Where is the 30th of November letter ?— That is 
 burnt, Sir. 
 
 The President. — There is a letter of the 30th of 
 November, I thought. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— My friend says there is no letter 
 of November 30, and the witness has just said that the 
 letter was burnt in the presence of Mr. Thompson or 
 Walker. I call for a copy of that letter. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — By all means (producing a 
 letter-book copy). 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am afraid I cannot read it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If you will follow it I 
 will read it from a statement given to me. I have no 
 other copy. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (to witness).— Will you take a sheet 
 of white paper — the usher will give you one— and 
 perhaps you can read it. First of all, before you read 
 it, let me understand, Molloy, what is the date of that 
 letter ?—" The 30th of November " is on the letter. 
 That was handed to me on an appointment that I kept 
 at 7 o'clock at No. 8, Dawson-street, on that evening 
 at the Christian Association, and I burnt it in his 
 presence. I had two friends waiting for me, and I 
 told them that I had received such a letter and had 
 burnt it in his presence. 
 
 I gather from your statement that you were humbug- 
 ging Mr. Thompson ? — Humbugging him all the time. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 The witness, prompted occasionally by the Attorney- 
 General, then read the letter, which was as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Nov. 30, 1888. Dear Sir,— I have considered 
 your proposal that I should advance you £11 to enable 
 you to pay your debts this evening, before leaving for 
 London, and I have come to the determination that I 
 ought not to do so. I am willing to give you any 
 guarantee you require in the way already settled 
 that your father and mother will be furnished with 
 means to leave the country it your giving evidence 
 should lead to the necessity of their going. I think it 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 567 
 
 also fair and shall give you a guarantee that you will 
 be provided with means to take you wherever you 
 want to go if, as you say, you could not longer remain 
 here. I will also give yon a guarantee, as this is taking 
 you from your present means of earning a living and 
 paying your debts, that you shall get a full equiva- 
 lent : and, farther, that you will not be dealt with in 
 any niggardly spirit in considering these matters. Be- 
 yond this I do not think it woald be honourable to go ; 
 and I am sure on reflection you will agree with me. 
 Yours truly, John Walker. Mr. Patrick Molloy, 43, 
 York-street. P.S. — I gave your statement to The 
 Times' solicitor after satisfying myself I was at liberty 
 to give you these assurances. — J. W." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I shall have to go back, I think, 
 as this is mentioned now for the first time. — I men- 
 tioned the fact to the people who were advising me ; 
 but unfortunately I burnt that letter. I read it and 
 then burnt it. 
 
 Just tell us why you burnt it ? — To give him to 
 understand that I had no other communication. 
 Everything we were doing was supposed to be private 
 between the two of us. He was trying to get me into 
 a trap, and, of course, I was trying to get him into it. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 But I do not quite understand. Was it that 
 you might satisfy him that you would not show 
 ihe letter to anybody else ? — That was exactly it ; but 
 [ could see, of course, that the letter had been 
 copied, because it was blotted through the press 
 machine. 
 
 Now, I think I must go back. When did you first 
 see Mr. Thompson, whom you afterwards found to be 
 Mr. Walker ? — The first gentleman I saw whom I pre- 
 sumed to be Mr. Thompson I never saw again. That 
 was the man who kept the appointment with me at 
 12 o'clock at the Hibernian Hotel. I went to the 
 Hibernian Hotel at 13 o'clock ; that was the first time 
 I had seen anybody in consequence of these com- 
 munications. 
 
 And you told your friends you were going to the 
 appointment before you went ? — I told one of my 
 Friends before I went that^I was going to keep the 
 appointment. I told the others afterwards that I had 
 kept it. 
 
 Then you met a gentleman at the Hibernian Hotel at 
 12 o'clock ?— Yes. 
 
 Who was he ? — That is more than I can say. He 
 was supposed to be Mr. Thompson. He asked me 
 about the book — if I had a specimen of the book. I 
 said, " No, I had not one with me at that time, but I 
 could get one in 29 minutes or half an hour." He said 
 he had not time to wait ; but was going to have a 
 chop, and would call back at 5 30, and would ask his 
 friend about the matter meanwhile. When I called at 
 5 30 the proprietor of the hotel told me that Mr. 
 Thompson was not in ; but that a friend of his was 
 waiting for me. The proprietor went in and told him, 
 and this gentleman (pointing to Mr. Walker) came out. 
 He said he was having some dinner, and asked ine to 
 come in and wait for Mr. Thompson. He did not men- 
 tion his own name at all. 
 
 At all events it was this person ? — This was the 
 man. 
 
 What took piace on that occasion ? — I waited for him 
 until he had done his dinner, and he brought me then 
 over to see his friend Mr. Thompson, 25, Fitzwilliam- 
 square, Mr. Beauchamp's house, and asked me to 
 show him my book. He looked at it, and said the 
 plates were very nice. 
 
 Who was the gentleman who was introduced to you as 
 Mr. Thompson ? — I do not know, I never saw him 
 since. 
 
 I understand you to say that this gentleman said he 
 would bring you over to Fitzwilliam-square and intro- 
 duce you to Mr. Thompson ? — Quite so. 
 
 And accordingly you went over there and saw 
 the other gentleman ? — And did not see the other gen- 
 tleman. 
 
 Did not ? — No ; this gentleman then asked me to show 
 him my book, and he said the plates were very nice 
 and all that. After looking at it for a minute he said, 
 " Well, Mr. Molloy, it is not in connexion with your 
 book I want to see you ; I am an agent for The 
 Times." I said, " Indeed." He then commenced to 
 ask me questions. 
 
 What kind of questions did he ask you ? — The 
 first was, Was I not clerk in the Land League 
 office ? — I told him, " No." Was I not a member 
 of the Land League ? — I told him, " No." Was I 
 not a Fenian ? — I told him, " No." Was I not 
 an Invincible ? — I told him, " No." Then he said 
 he could prove that I was. He had evidence to prove 
 that I was both a Land Leaguer, a Fenian, and an 
 Invincible. I told him that if so it was very 
 strange that the Government had not taken proceedings 
 against me. He asked about Mr. Egan, Mr. Sheridan, 
 and Byrne. 
 
 Did you, in fact,know Egan at all ? — Never saw him 
 in my lifetime, Sir. So far as I know I never laid 
 eyes on him. 
 
 Did you know Carey ? — I did not, Sir. 
 
 Did you know Byrne ? — I only knew him by working 
 for him in America. I did not know anything about him 
 before. In America a friend named John Lyons 
 asked me if I would go there for a week or two while 
 Mr. Byrne was 6ick to work for Mr. Byrne as a bar- 
 keeper. He had a publichouse. 
 
 Now, I go on. He mentioned about Egan, Carey, and 
 Byrne. Was it on this occasion he mentioned the 
 members of Parliament you have mentioned ? — On that 
 occasion also ; then and afterwards. 
 
 Was it then that he 6poke to you about Mr. Biggar ?— 
 He mentioned them on two or three different occasions. 
 rr I understand you to say the three names he men- 
 tioned were Mr. Biggar, Mr. Kenny, and Mr. 
 O'Connor, and Mr. Davitt ? — Yes. Three members of 
 Parliament and Mr. Davitt. He asked me if I knew 
 them, and I told him, " No." 
 Was that the fact ? — I never spoke to any of them. 
 What was the result of that interview ? — The result 
 of that interview was that he asked me if I would 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
568 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 make a further appointment with him, and I said I 
 would. 
 
 On that occasion did he take any notes at all ?— No, 
 Sir. 
 
 On that occasion was Mr. Beauchamp or any other 
 person present ? — There was no person present at any 
 of the interviews. I saw Mr. Beauchamp ; but not on 
 that occasion. 
 
 What was the next occasion ? — That was on the 
 Wednesday evening. I made an appointment to see 
 him at 12 the following day ; that would be Thursday. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — What day of the month ? 
 —About November 22. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — If it is important to have the 
 exact date we can easily ascertain. 
 
 Witness. — I think it was the 22d ; I am sure it was 
 Thursday. 
 
 Did you tell your friends of the interviews you had 
 had at the Hibernian Hotel ? — I had two friends of 
 mine to see him as he came out of the hotel. I told 
 them about the appointment, and what transpired at 
 it. They advised me to see him again. The next 
 appointment was for 12 the following day at the 
 Hibernian Hotel. That was the first occasion my 
 friends were there to have a took at him. On the 
 Thursday I called at 12. He said he had some busi- 
 ness to do, and he asked me if I would call back at 
 3 30 at the hotel. I called at 3 30, and told my 
 friends in the meantime what had transpired, and they 
 told me to see him at 3 30. Then I saw him. I did 
 not know who he was. He said if I had any doubt as 
 to his bona fides he would introduce me to a gentleman 
 who would give me satisfactory assurances. I went to 
 Beauchamp's office, 5, Forster-place. He followed me 
 down there. 
 
 Did you see Mr. Beauchamp ? — I did in the mean- 
 time, and showedf him my book. He said he had 
 no money to spend on books or anything of that 
 kind. In the meantime this gentleman came in and 
 told Mr. Beauchamp this was the young man he was 
 speaking of and who wanted some guarantee that he 
 was the authorized agent of The Times. Mr. Beau- 
 champ said, " Quite right." I came away, and we 
 made an appointment then for 8 o'clock with them 
 that night. 
 
 Did you tell your friends of this ? — Yes ; I had two 
 of my friends there again. I kept the appointment. 
 
 What took place that night ?— He asked me a lot of 
 questions. 
 
 Just tell us the nature of the questions, and about 
 whom. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — He did not say about any- 
 body. 
 
 Well, mention any of them. — It was the one thing 
 nearly over again, and he took down notes on this 
 occasion. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That was the first occasion on 
 which he took down notes ? — Yes. 
 
 Well J> — I told him that I would give him no infor- 
 mation unless I got a guarantee that I should get £40 
 
 or £50 before I would leave Dublin, and that I should 
 get this guarantee that I would get the money in Cash 
 as it would be rather a bad business, and when I 
 would get to London I would make a statement. I 
 did not see him then until the following Monday at 
 the Star and Garter Hotel. 
 
 What date would the Monday be, the 26th ? — I saw 
 him on the following Monday. My friends knew of 
 this appointment also. On that day he asked me if 
 8 30 that night would suit — same place, 25, Fitz- 
 william-square. 
 
 Did he take any notes at the Star and Garter ? — No, 
 he did not recognize me, scarcely at all, so that there 
 would be no suspicion if any one should see me in com- 
 munication with him. I went to Fitzwilliam-square. 
 
 Well, What took place ? — The same thing ; the same 
 conversation all over again. The following day I saw 
 him again. He only took the notes on one occasion. 
 I saw him then on the Tuesday, and he wanted me to 
 go to London that night. I told him I would not on 
 that night, as it would be dangerous to go. My 
 friends advised me to tell him this — that if I were to 
 go there it would be dangerous for me, and that I 
 should get a subpoena to go, in order to secure my own 
 safety. He told me then that he would see me on the 
 following Friday and serve me with a subpoena. I did 
 not see him till the Friday, and he told me to follow 
 him to Dawson-street, and he there served me with a 
 subpoena, and handed me the £4, and wanted me to go 
 aboard the mail boat that Friday night, and to catch 
 the mail train in the morning. I consulted the time- 
 tables and guides and found that my fare would be 
 42s. 6d., and I said that £4 would be no use to me. I 
 could not possibly think of doing it. He said he 
 would see me then at 5 30 or 5 o'clock, I cannot say 
 which ; and I saw him at 5 o'clock and had my friends 
 with me again, and I told him that I could not really 
 go unless I got more money — that I owed this money, 
 £11. I saw him then at 7 30, Sir, and he handed me 
 this letter that he has a copy of, stating that he would 
 not give me the £11, and I told him that I would not 
 go then, as I owed this money in the city, and 
 would not leave the city until I got it. He asked me 
 to see him at 9 30, and I did not ; and on Saturday 
 about 3 o'clock I got that telegram asking me to Bee 
 him either at 4 or 8. I went at 8; not at 4. At 8 he 
 asked me what I intended to do. I told him I would 
 not go. He asked me if I got the money would I go. 
 I said, " Blost decidedly." I would post the letters in 
 his presence and go. He asked me to see him at the 
 mail boat at 6 30 in the morning. I met him at the 
 place, and showedhim the letters I had for my friends. 
 He said, " Be quick." He said there is a £5 and 
 there is another £6, and showed me the notes and put 
 them in the letters. He said " I Will go down and 
 watch you post them." There was a friend of mine on 
 the opposite side watching me post them as well. 
 The gentleman stood beside me as I posted the letters. 
 When I had the letters posted and he had taken the 
 tickets at the railway station I told him I would: not 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 569 
 
 go. (Laughter.) He told me he would stop pay- 
 ment of the notes and publish it, and I told him to 
 publish it. These are the letters I wrote with the 
 notes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — One is to Mr. George Banham and 
 the other to Mr. John Manton. They read as follows — 
 
 The Attorney- General. — This is not evidence. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I think my friend entirely forgets 
 that I am cross-examining his witness. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— That may be your view ; 
 it certainly is not the case. 
 
 The President (to Sir C. Russell).— I think you are 
 entitled to read them. 
 
 Sir C. Russell then read the letters : — 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I enclose yoa the sum of £5, amount 
 due. Excuse my not calling on you, as I have to leave 
 the city on a little business. You need not bother to 
 send any receipt, as I will see yoa soon and explain 
 myself. " Yours truly, 
 
 " Patrick Molloy." 
 
 That is the one to George Banham. The next is 
 Sunday, the 2d, to John Manton : — 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I enclose you the sum of £5, amount 
 due. You will excuse my not calling on you, as I 
 have to leave Dublin on very important business. You 
 need not bother sending any receipt, as I will 
 see you shortly and explain myself to you. . 
 " Yours truly, 
 
 " Patrick Molloy." 
 
 This is the memorandum he gave you ? — That is the 
 note he handed me on Sunday morning, and told me 
 he would publish it. I told him to publish whatever 
 he liked. 
 
 " Stop payment of following bank notes, Bank of 
 Ireland £5 [numbers so and so], both dated January 25, 
 1888. National Bank £1 [number so and so], date 
 October 1, 1887. Soames, Edwards, and Jones, solici- 
 tors, 58, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London, W.C." 
 
 You say that at no time was any statement read over 
 to you. Were you asked to sign any statement ? — No, 
 Sir, I never was asked and I never signed any, never 
 put ray pen to paper at all. 
 
 The only person who took any notes was Mr. 
 Thompson or Walker ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Mr. Beauchamp never took any notes ? — Never. 
 
 And never was present when any notes were taken ? 
 —Never. 
 
 And from the beginning to the end, you had informed 
 your friends about what was going on ? — Quite so, 
 Sir. 
 
 Is the name Molloy a common name or not in 
 Dublin ? — It is pretty common. 
 
 By Mr. Reid. — Do yoa understand Farrell's evidence 
 to refer to yourself ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Had you any idea of it ? — None in the world. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt.— Do you know who this person 
 Thompson was or Walker is ? — I do not, Sir. 
 
 Do you know if he has anything to do with the 
 Loyal and Patriotic Union ? — I do not, Sir. 
 
 Did you understand him to promise you money if you 
 would try to incriminate me ? Did you understand him 
 
 to mean that he did not care whether what you swore 
 was true or false ? — He asked me could I give him 
 any information. 
 
 Did you ever meet me before or speak to me in your 
 life ? — Never, Sir, I have seen you before and heard 
 you lecture and speak. 
 
 Do you not know that it is a common belief in Ire- 
 land now that agents of The Times and of the Go- 
 vernment are going round the country offering to buy 
 and threatening people to give evidence against my- 
 self and others ? 
 
 The President. — This is not within the scope of 
 cross-examination. 
 
 Mr. Davitt.— I beg your Lordship's pardon, it is my 
 impression that this sort of thing is going on. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— Only one 
 question. In the letter from Walker to you there is 
 this postscriptum, " I gave your statement to The Times' 
 solicitor after satisfying myself that I was at liberty 
 to give you this assurance. — J. W." 
 
 Did yoa read that postscriptum ? — I did. 
 
 John Walker, examined by the Attorney-General, 
 said, — I am an assistant in Mr. Beauchamp's office. 
 He is a solicitor in independent practice in Dublin. 
 
 Just answer this question, yes or no ; did you 
 receive, before you saw Molloy, some information 
 respecting him ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you endeavour to find him out ? — I did. 
 
 Where did you find out Where he was ? — Mr. Houston 
 gave me the name of Molloy. 
 
 Was he a straDger to you ? — Yes, I never saw him 
 before. 
 
 Now, who was the gentleman who first communicated 
 with you on the subject ? — His name was Day. 
 
 What is he ? — He is a clerk in the Irish Loyal and 
 Patriotic Union. 
 
 They have an office, I think, in Grafton-street, 
 Dublin ? — That is their principal office. I saw him at 
 the Hibernian Hotel. 
 
 Day saw Molloy on one occasion ? — Yes, I was unable 
 to go myself. 
 
 You subsequently wrote one or two letters in the 
 name of Thompson ? — Yes. (Letters handed to wit- 
 ness.) These are the letters ; they are in my hand- 
 writing. 
 
 When did you first see the witness Molloy ? — I saw 
 him first at the Hibernian Hotel on Wednesday evening ; 
 on the same evening I went to Mr. Beauchamp's at 
 FitzWilliam-square. 
 
 Was it on the same evening that he made a state- 
 ment ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I think this is the right moment 
 to interpose j I wish to define the position in which 
 we stand. 
 
 The President.— I understand this witness is only 
 called to prove the statement which was made ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— That is absolutely all. 
 I had no intention of doing anything else. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— The rule ordinarily observed is 
 
 Patrick Molloy. 
 
 John Walker. 
 
570 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 this ; if a witness is called against a party, that 
 party has the right by his counsel, in cross-examina- 
 tion, to put in a statement which varies from the 
 statement then made as a statement which the wit- 
 ness has denied. That does not apply to a witness 
 called by a party. He may cross-examine his witness 
 if the Court is of opinion that the witness is a hostile 
 one ; he may examine him and put facts to him if so 
 advised, but he cannot put affirmative evidence to dis- 
 credit his own witness. Therefore, treating this as a 
 question inter partes in ordinary litigation, I submit 
 that the evidence of this witness is not admissible. 
 
 The President. — I have always known this course 
 taken — that where a hostile witness denies he has made 
 a statement, then evidence is brought forward. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I should be glad if your Lordship 
 would refresh your recollection on that point. 
 
 The President. — Certainly. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I take it that the rule is this — 
 that if a witness is called against a party, then that 
 party is entitled not only to cross-examine him, but to 
 call other evidence to disprove his statement. 
 
 The President. — I am not aware of any such dis- 
 tinction ; can you refer me to any authorities in sup- 
 port of your contention ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am not able at this moment, 
 my Lord, but I will point out what may obviate the 
 difficulty in this case. This could not be evidence at all 
 if it were inter partes, and treating my clients as one 
 of the parties this would not be evidence. 
 
 The President. — Then you need not trouble your- 
 self at all ; it is perfectly obvious that what this man 
 is supposed to have said, and which he denies on oath, 
 cannot be evidence against your clients. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I submit that the only ground on 
 which this evidence could be put in would be with regard 
 to the minds of your Lordships if we were pursuing an 
 independent inquiry as against this particular person. 
 But this is not a person at all who is put forward as 
 being incriminated, and therefore on another ground 
 this evidence is inadmissible. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — May I add a word ? As I understand, 
 evidence of a previous statement of a witness inconsis- 
 tent with the evidence he has given in the box is allowed 
 to be put in for the purpose only of impeaching his 
 credit. In Koscoe's " Nisi Prius," the edition, I think, 
 edited by Mr. Justice Day, page 156, there is the 
 ruling given that if a witness when called displays a 
 determination to speak as unfavourably as possible to 
 the party calling him — that is to say, proves a hostile 
 witness, then the party calling him may conduct the 
 examination with the same latitude as cross-examina- 
 tion, but ho must confine it to matters material to the 
 issue, and the party calling him cannot examine merely 
 for the purpose of testing his credit. Therefore if the 
 party calling a witness cannot examine him it seems 
 to follow that he cannot give independent evidence of 
 previous statements which only goes to impeach his 
 predit. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — I would suggest that in as far as tbis 
 evidence is tendered only for the purpose of impeach- 
 ing the credit of this witness it is not substantially 
 relevant to any issue before your Lordships. The issue 
 is not whether this, witness did or did not make a 
 statement. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My learned friends seem 
 to have forgotten what has been done previously in 
 this inquiry. Where a witness has made a statement 
 which varied from that which he has given in the box, 
 the fact that he made a statement and has gone back 
 from it has been allowed to be proved by the person to 
 whom he made the statement. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Designedly, and with my approval. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I submit that it is in 
 accordance with the ordinary rule that with respect 
 to this particular matter of whether the witness made 
 a statement we should be entitled to bring that state- 
 ment before your Lordships. I never remember a case 
 in which this objection has been taken ; and it seems 
 to me that it is out of the ordinary practice. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I should like to say simply this — 
 on previous occasions this objection was not made 
 because I, using my discretion as leader in this ease, 
 did not think it right to raise it. I think it right to 
 raise it now, and for the reason I have given, which 
 my learned friend has not touched. 
 
 After consulting with his colleagues, the President 
 said, — I daresay it may be from the same circum- 
 stances that led Sir Charles Russell not to take the 
 objection on previous occasions that it has not come 
 within my experience that this objection has been 
 taken. But now that the objection is taken it appears 
 to me that the reason particularly put forward by Mr. 
 Asquith does make an impression, at least on my mind, 
 that it is so. When one goes on to look at the real 
 reason why this evidence is sought to be given, it is this 
 — namely, as it were, to set up the bona fdes of the 
 production of a witness in the case. That is all it 
 will prove if this gentleman were allowed to come 
 forward and state what occurred. It would only 
 prove that representations were made to him which 
 led to Molloy beiDg produced. I think, therefore, that 
 the evidence is not relevant. I will add that, while 
 it was quite necessary to go through the examination 
 of the witness, it is obvious that what has occurred 
 renders his evidence utterly valueless, and the result 
 is that our time has been uselessly consumed. I 
 attach no blame to you, Mr. Attorney. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am entirely in your 
 Lordships' hands. I think that I am entitled to ask 
 Mr. Walker as to the questions put by Sir Charles in 
 his cross-examination, unless it is understood that the 
 evidence is valueless for all purposes, or else Sir 
 Charles might say we have not contradicted it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I shall certainly take no such 
 objection. 
 
 The Attosney-Geniral.— I am perfectly satisfied 
 with that. 
 
 John Walker. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 571. 
 
 The next witness called was Richard Chard. 
 Mr. Mukphy. — This, my Lord, is a witness from 
 Galway, whom we could not get over before. 
 
 Witness, examined by Mr. Murphy, said. — I am a 
 farmer at Kilronan, in Galway, and also keep a 
 general shop. Some time prior to 1879 I took a farm 
 at Manister which had been formerly occupied by a 
 man named Gandy. 
 
 Was he evicted or did he surrender ? — I think there 
 was no eviction ; I think he surrendered it. I 
 bought it from Mr. Kilbrist for £120. Prior to 1879 I 
 had not the slightest trouble with my neighbours. The 
 first land speech 1 remember distinctly was on the 
 12th of September, 1880. 
 
 After that time had you any trouble with your busi- 
 ness ? — Yes, and before ; outrages were committed on 
 my cattle previous to September, 1880. 
 
 Id August was a watch set on your shop ? — Yes, on 
 the 12th of August, after opening my shop, I saw a 
 young man sitting on a fence and taking out a note- 
 book. He took the names of people going in. He 
 appeared to be writing them down. 
 
 In 1880 did anything happen to your sheep ? — 70 
 sheep were killed on the 4th of June, 1880. 
 
 Did anything happen in 1881 ? — Yes, in April of 
 that year three sheep and four lambs were killed. 
 In January, 1881, a calf was ripped open. 
 
 Did you, on the 14th of December, 1885, get a 
 threatening letter ? — I did. 
 
 Prior to that did you surrender this farm ? — Yes, 
 about 1882. 
 
 Had you any trouble between 1882 and 1885, when 
 you got this threatening letter ? — No trouble what- 
 ever. 
 Read the threatening letter. 
 Witness then read as follows : — 
 " To Mr. Dick.— Dear Sir, — It is reported in our 
 town that you are going to take the farm of Gandy, in 
 Manister, and another small farm in the village of 
 Kilronan. I thought you got enough of land before it, 
 but it seems you did not. But if you have anything to do 
 with land this time it is not the same as before. You 
 will get something that will make you a little quiet 
 and take some of the wax out of your head ; and if 
 you or your sisters go to Galway yon will not ever 
 leave it until ye are in corpse. So don't have any- 
 thing to do with this land. It is not the times. The 
 Arran men give me a very bad account of you, that 
 you are a good land-grabber ; but your land-grabbing is 
 over if I get one sight of you in this town, or inter- 
 terfering with any person except your own private 
 
 business, you beggar. Mind yours, if you do not 
 
 I will mind you. Yours, a man for Ireland and a 
 true man. What I say is true, and in this note is the 
 coffin where you will go." 
 
 Was there any question of your taking land at that 
 time ? — Not the slightest. 
 
 You had enough of it ? — Yes, and too much. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir O. Russell. — Where is your 
 farm ? — In the Isle of Arran. 
 
 I think you had some official position ? — Yes, I was 
 petty sessions clerk. 
 
 Have you lived there long ?— I have lived thero 
 since I was two years old. 
 
 You took this farm in 1879 ?— No, in 1877. 
 
 Had you any land at that time ?— I had two other 
 small farms in the island. 
 
 Was this a grazing farm ? — Yes. 
 
 The former tenant, you say, was Gandy ; what had 
 become of him ?— He is there still, farming. 
 
 You paid nothing to him ?— I bought it from 
 Kilbrist, who bought it from the landlord. 
 
 Not from the former tenant ? — No. I do not know 
 the circumstances under which Gandy gave it up from 
 my own knowledge. 
 
 Now, my learned friend seemed rather to stop you, 
 but I want to know ; before September, 1880, you 
 said you had had trouble H— Yes. 
 
 What was the earliest ? — In April, 1879, poison was 
 put into the watering-trough for the cattle. It 
 resembled phosphorus or rat poison ; the cattle refused 
 to drink. On December 22, 1879, two of my cattle 
 were found killed, and on the 6th of April, 1880, a 
 brood mare was killed. 
 
 Now, when was the first land meeting held ? — I 
 cannot say. 
 
 Was there any one in 1880 ? — I saw a land meeting 
 held publicly. 
 
 Well, but was there any land meeting in 1880 ? — 
 The land meeting I saw was on September 20. 
 
 Was that a Land League meeting ?— Yes. I heard 
 people speaking when I was going to the office. 
 
 Was there not an outrage in June ? — On the 4th of 
 June. 
 
 And the first land meeting was not till September, 
 1880 ? — I never saw a land meeting until this, only 
 this one. 
 
 Was there any Land League at all in Kilronan ?— . 
 Oh, yes. 
 
 Where ? — In the village ; I believe our village was 
 the head centre for the island. 
 
 When was it established ? — I cannot say when it 
 was established. 
 
 Do you say it was established in 1880 at all ? — I 
 cannot say ; I know nothing about its establishment. 
 
 Now, with regard to boycotting — I do not know 
 whether you know the phrase, but you thought your 
 shop was picketed ? — Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Do you know Father O'Donoghue ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 He is not a very violent man ? — No, he is a very 
 nice gentleman. 
 
 Do you know that he appealed publicly several 
 times for money to save the islanders from starva- 
 ti ra ? — Yes, I know a good deal of money was col- 
 lected in England. 
 
 Did you ever see me there ? — Yes, once, in connexion 
 with that. 
 
 Do you know I was there before ?— I heard it. 
 
 Do you know whether I had something to do with 
 the money collected ? — I remember reading that you 
 
 Richard Chard. 
 
572 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 were a member of the committee. I heard you had 
 been there before. 
 
 For what purpose ? — I cannot say. I only saw you 
 there in 1886. 
 
 Was there distress there in 1886 ? — We have some 
 distress there at all times ; the people are very poor. 
 Was there distress in 1886 ? — I heard of it. 
 Arran is a very poor place ? — Yes. 
 You say you took a farm there ; does not the name 
 " craggeries " mean rocks ? — I think it means so many 
 acres. 
 
 The President. — If a craggery does not mean rocks, 
 what does it mean ? 
 
 Witness. — A craggery means about eight acres of 
 land. 
 
 Cross-examination by Mr. Davitt resumed. — Don't 
 you, as an intelligent man, know that the whole island 
 is a mass of rock ? — The greater part is. 
 
 Practically the whole of it ? — No ; there are several 
 fertile pieces besides the Rev. Mr. Kilbride's holding, 
 though they may not be so compact as his. 
 
 At any rate the soil is very poor on the island ? — 
 In comparison with the mainland. 
 
 Do you know what the total rental of the island was 
 before the Land Act ? — I do not. 
 
 Do you know that rents were much reduced under 
 the Act ? — I know they were reduced a great deal, but 
 I do not know they were reduced more than one-third. 
 The people used to ask me to read their letters for 
 them in the post-office, and in that way it came to 
 my knowledge that reductions were made. 
 
 Do you know that the people pay their rents out of 
 the money sent them by their relatives in America ? — I 
 believe so. 
 
 Do you know also that they frequently pay 
 their rents out of money subscribed by the 
 charitable for the relief of distress ? — I do not 
 know that. The landlords are Captain St. Lawrence 
 and the Miss Digbys. I believe they have not got 
 much rent lately. 
 
 Through the prevailing distress ? — I won't say that 
 it is through the distress. 
 
 Do you know that in consequence of the great dis- 
 tress in the island this year the relief committee of 
 which I was a member distributed over £1,000 worth 
 of food there ? — I am certain of that. 
 
 You say you saw a young man opposite your house 
 taking notes ; how do you know he was taking the 
 names of those who entered your shop ? — I knew that 
 he was because people told me they were afraid to 
 come into my shop. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — A watch began to 
 be placed on my house on August 20, 1880. It had 
 never occurred before. 
 
 Constable James Hughes, Royal Irish Constabulary, 
 examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — In 1879 I was 
 stationedat Ballinrobe, county Mayo. I knew a gen- 
 tleman named David Feerich. He was agent for some 
 property belonging to Mr. George A. Brown. In 
 
 October or November, 1879, I was present when a 
 woman named Mary Greaghty, a tenant on Mr. George 
 A. Brown's estate.was evicted. Mr. Feerich, the agent, 
 was at the eviction, and there was also a crowd of 
 between 20 and 30 persons present. Among those I 
 saw present were Frank Mannion, James Durkin, and 
 Pat Machin. These people lived three or four miles 
 from Ballinrobe, and were members of the Land League 
 when it was subsequently started. The demeanour and 
 attitude of the people towards Mr. Feerich at the 
 eviction were very threatening, and Mr. Feerich had to 
 be taken home under protection. In the following year, 
 1880, in the month of June, Mr. Feerich attended a 
 Road Sessions at Ballinrobe, and on the evening of that 
 day I received a report that he had been shot. I went 
 with Sergeant Madill and found Mr. Feerich wounded 
 in the road. He was taken to the workhouse hospital, 
 where he died on August 15 following. When we 
 found his body on the road it was about 2 o'clock, 
 and as it was a holiday there were a lot of 
 peoplo on the road. I endeavoured to discover the 
 perpetrator of the crime, but got no assistance from 
 the people of the district. Subsequently a man was 
 tried for the murder, but acquitted. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Rbid. — The Land League was 
 established in Ballinrobe early in 1880. I do not know 
 the exact date. There was no Land League at the 
 time of the eviction of Mary Greaghty, but at the 
 time of Feerich's murder there was. The first Land 
 League meeting in Ballinrobe was, I think, on Octo- 
 ber 5, 1879. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — Was not Feerich 
 rather a violent kind of man, and was he not in the 
 habit of threatening people at fairs and markets ? — I 
 could not say he was violent ; I never heard him 
 threaten any one. I never heard that he was in the 
 habit of threatening people at fairs. 
 
 Were you present at the meeting at Ballinrobe in 
 October, 1879 ; 1 was at the meeting, was I not? — You 
 were. 
 
 Did yon hear me speak ? — I did not. I was on duty 
 in the town, but I saw the people on their way to the 
 meeting. The meeting could have been held in the 
 town, but the priest would not allow it, and it had to 
 be held in the adjoining parish. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. A. O'CoNNOB. — Did you know 
 Mr. Feerich personally ? — Very well. 
 
 When did you go to Ballinrobe ? — I went there in 
 September, 1879, and Mr. Feerich was murdered on 
 June 29, 1880. 
 
 Who ' was agent before him P — Feerich was agent 
 during my time. I do not know who was his prede- 
 cessor. 
 Did Feerich succeed Durkin ? — I think so. 
 Did you ever hear of the eviction of a poor woman 
 named Mary Greaghty ?— Yes. 
 
 How did her holding lie with respect to the holding 
 of Feerich ?— I believe it almost adjoined Feeri<jh'« 
 farm. 
 
 Constable James Hughes. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 1S8S. 
 
 573 
 
 Did she have orphan children dependent upon her ? 
 — I do not know. 
 
 Are you not aware that the eviction of that woman 
 by Feerich was a subject of comment in the neighbour- 
 hood ? — I am. There were letters in the Freeman's 
 Journal about it. 
 
 Among the population in the neighbourhood was 
 there not a great deal of very bitter feeling as regards 
 the treatment of this widow ? — Yes. On the day of 
 the eviction Feerich had to get police protection. 
 
 Do you know a man named Mackin, and was he a 
 relation of Feerich's ? — I think not, but I am not sure. 
 
 Did you ever hear of Mackin remonstrating with 
 Feerich as to his cruelty to that woman ? — I never 
 did.' 
 
 Do you know whether Feerich was obnoxious to 
 members of secret societies in that district ? — I 
 could not say. 
 
 Did you ever hear him make public mention of his 
 contempt for the members of secret societies in that 
 neighbourhood ? — I know that he wrote a letter to the 
 paper. Mr. Monaghan first wrote a letter to the 
 paper complaining of the conduct of Feerich in evict- 
 ing Mary Greaghty. Mr. Feerich wrote a very strong 
 letter in reply. 
 
 Were there any secret societies in the district ?— 
 Not that I am aware of. I did not know any at that 
 time. 
 
 Did you ever hear of the " Boys " ? — Not until I 
 read of them in this Court. 
 
 You have never heard of the " Boys " as an expres- 
 sion signifying the members of secret societies ? — I 
 have heard of the Whiteboys being members of a secret 
 society. 
 
 You never heard, then, the term the *' Boys " used 
 in county Galway with reference to the members of 
 secret societies? — I never did. 
 
 Did you ever hear of Mr. Feerich being shot at before 
 this ? — Yes, coming from Castlebar one night in March 
 of the same year, 1880. 
 
 Ever before that ?— No. 
 
 Did you never hear that he was fired at at a place 
 where there is a* bridge on the CastleL-ar road 12 
 months before ?— He may have been. I do not know. 
 
 Was there another tenant of the name of Garvey, 
 whose land Feerich took as well as that of Mary 
 Greaghty P— I do not know of his taking Garvey's 
 land. 
 
 Did you ever hear that Feerich took Garvey's three 
 acres which adjoined his own holding and walled them 
 in ?— No. 
 
 I believe the holdings of tenants in the neighbour- 
 hood are called " stripes " ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you know that when Feerich was first connected 
 with the agency his holding was separate from all the 
 others ? — I do not know. 
 
 Did le afterwards come in among the " stripes " of 
 the tenants and obtain or " grab " more than one ? — 
 Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Constable James Hughes. 
 
 You never heard that the tenants were afraid that by 
 degrees he would Ret them all out ?— No. 
 
 Ke-examined by Sir H. James. — I am quite sure 
 the Land League was established before the murder of 
 Feerich. The newspaper most read in the district is 
 the Connaught Telegraph ; the accounts of the land 
 League meetings appeared in that newspaper. I never 
 heard of any secret society in the district of Ballinrobe 
 known by the name of the '* Boys." I have not heard 
 the term applied to any one, but I have heard the 
 term moonlighters. I first heard of moonlighters 
 five or six years ago after the establishment of the 
 League. 
 
 Sergeant John Donovan, Koyal Irish Constabulary, 
 examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — I was stationed at 
 Ballinrobe in June, 1880, at the time of the murder 
 of Mr. Feerich. On November 5, 1879, I was present 
 at the eviction of a man named James Durkin, a tenant 
 of Mr. Brown's. Mr. Feerich was the agent of the pro- 
 perty. Durkin was put back as a caretaker, and I 
 think he is on the farm still. After the murder of Mr. 
 Feerich I arrested a man named Patrick Machen and 
 some other man. At the investigation before the 
 magistrate Mr. P. J. Daly, solicitor, appeared for 
 Machen. Mr. Daly was instructed by Mr. P. J. 
 Monaghan, the president of the Ballinrobe National 
 League. I remember the funeral of Mr. Feerich. It 
 was attended by very few people in the district. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Beid. — Machen, the man 
 whom Mr. Daly defended, was acquitted. One man, 
 James Hyne, was sent to the assizes by the magi- 
 strates, but was subsequently acquitted. 
 
 Ke-examined by SlK H. James. — The other men were 
 discharged because no witnesses would appear against 
 them. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for lunch. 
 
 On resuming, Thomas Elliott was called and examined 
 by Mr. Atkinson. He said, — lam a sergeant in the 
 Irish Constabulary. I was stationed at Ballinrobe 
 in 1880. I remember the time of Feerich's murder. 
 
 The Pkesident. — I suppose you have considered 
 whether there is any fresh point in connexion with 
 this case that this witness can speak to.. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Yes, my Lord. (To witness.) Do 
 yon know Scrab Nally ?— Yes, I do. He addressed a 
 meeting in the town on the evening of July 11. He 
 referred to Feerich. He said he had got pills worse 
 than Holloway's pills. He told the people they *e« 
 the people to give them the pills, " Down with land- 
 lords and landgrabbers. It is all in your own hands." 
 
 Do you know Mr. Nally ?— I do, personally. 
 
 Do you know that he is a member of the Land 
 League ?— I do not know it, but I understand 
 
 Mr. Keid.— Stop, please. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. A. O'Connok.— You are 
 speaking of Ballinrobe ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there a Land League branch there at this time 
 to your knowledge ?— Yes. 
 
 Sergeant John Donovan. 
 Sergeant Thomas Elliott. 
 
574 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 How do you know ? — Because I saw them meet. 
 
 Do you know who were the officers ? — A man named 
 Monaghan was the president and a man named O'Malley 
 was treasurer. 
 
 How did you learn that these men were officers of 
 that branch ? — Through seeing them take an active 
 part. 
 
 How did you learn their several official positions ? — 
 I learnt them from the people. 
 
 Were you stationed at Ballinrobe at that time ? — I 
 was. 
 
 Would you be surprised to learn that there never was 
 a branch at Ballinrobe. ? — I saw on one occasion that 
 there was a meeting there in 1880,and I saw a gentleman 
 collecting money there and giving the people cards. 
 
 What day was that ? — I think it was February 22, 
 1830. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Have you ever seen Nally speak 
 when the chairman was in the chair, or was it only at 
 the breaking up of the meeting ?— I have heard him 
 speak when the chairman was in the chair. 
 
 Were these Land League meetings at all ? — Yes, they 
 were called together as such by placard. 
 
 But you do not know whether the promoters were 
 members of the League ?— I know Monaghan was 
 president. 
 
 Did you ever see the officers of the branch on the 
 platform when Nally spoke ?~Yes. 
 
 Who were present from the central body in Dublin 
 on the occasion you speak to ? — X do not know any- 
 thing about that. 
 
 Can you tell me what was the reduction in the rents 
 »>n the estate of Mr. Browne ? — Oh ! I cannot tell you 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Arthur Shaen Eingham was the next witness. 
 ^The answers given by him to the questions put to 
 him by Mr. Atkikson were scarcely audible in the 
 body of the court. He was understood to say, — I am 
 a landed proprietor in county Mayo. I have about 30 
 tenants on my property. Up to the year 1880 I was on 
 very good terms with my tenants. I have some land in 
 my own hands. In October, 1880, a meeting of the 
 Land League was held at Glencastle, about three 
 miles from my residence. I was not present myself, 
 but I read a report of the proceedings in the County 
 Telegraph. After the meeting I observed a change in 
 the demeanour of my tenants towards me. They 
 shortly after refused to work for me. They were in 
 the habit cf paying part of their rent in work. I 
 know the Rev. P. J. Devanny. He was president of a 
 neighbouring branch of the League. Some time after 
 the meeting in October, 1880, this gentleman called 
 upon me accompanied by my tenants. The upshot of 
 that interview was that I was offered 30 per cent, over 
 Griffith's valuation. I did not accede to that, but I 
 offered a reduction of 4s. in the pound. That was not 
 accepted, and the tenants left in a body. 
 
 Some time after that interview was any injury done 
 to your property ?— Yes ; my hay was set on fire 
 
 Were you able to get people to work for you ? — I 
 was not. I was not able to save the crops on my 
 farm. My servants left me and I could not hire any 
 more. I was boycotted. I was not under police pro- 
 tection at that time. 
 
 Did any of your tenants pay you their rent in 
 secret ? — Yes, some did. They did not ask for and 
 would not take receipts. 
 
 Do you remember returning home one evening in 
 1881- ? — Yes, I was driving on a car with my wife and 
 another woman. I was shot at and wounded. One of 
 my fingers was cut with a bullet and another bullet 
 went through my eoat and vest. I saw the man who 
 fired at me. I noticed him first going up a hill. He 
 was dressed like a woman. 
 
 Do you remember the time the Land League was 
 suppressed ? — I do. The boycotting ceased about that 
 time. Father Devanny was replaced about this time, 
 and some of the popular leaders of the League were 
 arrested, the result being that things quieted down. 
 There was a great improvement. The Rev. Mr. Foy 
 was Father Devanny's successor. He was as much 
 against the Land League as Father Devanny was for 
 it. 
 
 Did you let any grass land to a man named 
 Riley ? — Yes, about three years before 1881. I 
 remember that ho gave it up in 1881. He did 
 not show me a threatening notice, but I heard 
 that such a notice had been posted on his farm. 
 I subsequently let 12 acres of this land to a man 
 named Barratt. He was shot dead. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — Had any one been 
 turned out of that land ? — No. I had had the land in 
 my own hands for 16 or 17 years, with the exception 
 of the time when I let it as grazing land. 
 
 Do you attribute the fact that Barratt was shot to 
 his having taken that land ?— The neighbours said that 
 was the reason. 
 
 The land was not evicted land or surrendered land ? 
 —It was not evicted land. 
 
 Had Barratt given offence in any other way ? — 1 had 
 always heard that ho was a very good neighbour. 
 
 Had you heard whether he had e"ver quarrelled ? — No. 
 
 Had a man named Carter been injured before 
 Barratt's death ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you over hear that Barratt had said that the 
 persons who wounded Carter were known and that if 
 certain people did not take care it would come out ? 
 
 The President. — Is not this going rather far ? 
 
 Sir H. James.— We have not objected to a witness 
 being asked as to a matter of general report. But 
 this question refers to a rumour as to a specific fact. 
 I submit that this is not the way in which infermation 
 as to that fact ought to be elicited. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My learned friend has proved that a 
 person named Barratt was murdered, and with that 
 they have connected the statement that Barratt took 
 some grazing land from the witness. I am now 
 putting to him, as he is suggesting a particular cause 
 for the murder, whether he did not hear that Barratt 
 
 Mr. Arthur Shaen Bingham. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 575 
 
 had said something which might very well provoke 
 people against him. 
 
 Sir H. Jambs.— If my friend had asked whether it 
 was not the general report in the neighbourhood that 
 Barratt was unpopular I should not have objected. 
 But my friend goes further, and asks " Have you 
 heard that Barratt said this or that ?" 
 
 The President (to Mr. Reid). — I think you must 
 put it in another way. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I wish to comply with all the ordinary 
 rules, and indeed with the humours of my learned 
 friend, if necessary. (Laughter.) Of course I do not 
 mean bad humours. My learned friend is always good- 
 humoured, I know. (To the witness.) Did you ever 
 hear it said in the neighbourhood that Barratt had 
 made a statement with reference to the persons who 
 had wounded Carter to the effect that if they did not 
 take care it would come out ? — I heard it mentioned 
 that he had said that he knew something about Carter's 
 affair. It was reported. 
 
 Was it also reported that he had said that he knew 
 who had wounded the man ? — I never heard that said. 
 
 Now with regard to yourself. Were the rents paid 
 in 1879 ? — Yes ; but some were in arrear. 
 
 Was there great distress in 1879 ? Had relief to be 
 given ? — I forget. 
 
 Was relief given to your tenants ? — About two years 
 ago we had bad times. 
 
 I am speaking of 1879. — Very little relief was 
 given to my own tenants in 1879. 
 
 Did they ask for a reduction ? — Yes. (The witness 
 was understood to add that he refused it.) 
 
 Did you process anybody in 1879 ? — I served pro- 
 cesses, but did not evict. 
 
 Do you say that you were on thoroughly good terms 
 with your tenants ? — We were on very good terms up 
 to 1880. 
 
 Processes were very much dreaded, were they not ? — 
 After the processes were served we came to an 
 arrangement, and I gave them 4s. in the pound. 
 
 That was not until 1880 ?— No. 
 
 Have you turned any tenants into caretakers ?— Only 
 two in the last 20 years, and those two men were 
 very much in arrear. The witness was continuing to 
 explain when 
 
 Mr. Reid stopped him. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — He is entitled to give his 
 explanation. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Certainly, but when he gives an explana- 
 tion more than four times it becomes tedious. 
 
 Witness.— It was before 1881 that these men were 
 turned into caretakers. I think it was before 1879. 
 
 Have your rents been brought before the Land Courts? 
 — Yes. 
 
 Have you a list of alterations ? — Not here. 
 
 By Mr. A. O'Connor. — How many tenants had you in 
 1879 ?— About 50. 
 
 What was the average size of the holdings 1— Some 
 tenants held a couple of acres and 6ome held 50. 
 
 What was the average rent ? — They ranged from £1 
 to £90. 
 
 Was the whole of your rent paid in money ? — Some 
 of the tenants paid partly in money and partly in 
 work. Some of them gave eight days' work and others 
 12. They used to give half the number of days' work 
 in spring and half in harvest time. ,. 
 
 Were not those the most valuable days in the year 
 both to yourself and the tenants 'I — The witness was 
 understood to reply in the affirmative. 
 
 Did your receipts for rents contain receipts for the 
 duty paid ?— Yes. 
 
 Were these tenants at your beck and call on any day 
 when you might choose to summon them away from 
 their own work ? — If I required work I sent somebody 
 round on the night before, who told them that they 
 would be wanted on the following day. 
 
 And what was said if they did not come ? — That 
 another day would do as well. 
 
 Have you ever fined a man 2s. 6d. for a day's work 
 when he did not come ?— I think I processed some of 
 them for the work, perhaps one or two. 
 
 The President.— When did you process them ? — It 
 was before 1879. 
 
 Mr. A.O'Connor. — I am not speaking of process. I ask 
 whether you have ever charged a man 2s. 6d. ? — Not to 
 my knowledge. 
 
 Have you never charged a man anything for absence 
 on a duty day '—They gave me duty days as willingly 
 as they paid. 
 
 Have you ever required a tenant to pay you money in 
 respect of his absence from work on a duty day ? — I do 
 not think I have. 
 
 When you processed for work what was your claim ? 
 — My process was for work and rent together. 
 
 At what money value did you estimate the work ? — 
 2s. Cd. 
 
 Then for every day that a man was absent from his 
 duty work he bad to pay 2s. 6d., or some such sum ? — 
 Tbat was the rule, but I do not think I got it. 
 
 You said that some rents were as low as £1, and 
 tenants had to give you 12 days' duty work. Therefore, 
 according to your own estimate of 2s. 6d. a day for 
 duty work, the money part of the rent represented only 
 two-lifths of the total payment ?— They took the land 
 for so much money and so many days' work. 
 
 What would be the average acreage of holdingB 
 reoted at £1 ?— Two or three acres, and there were 
 rights of turbary and grazing. 
 
 What is the average valuation of the land you own 
 per acre ?— The valuation in our county is very low. I 
 should put the average valuation at 12s. 
 
 You say that after 1879 your relations with your 
 tenantry were not as good as before. Did you consider 
 tnat you were yourself in any danger ?— I did not con- 
 sider I was in the least danger up to the time when I 
 was flred at. 
 
 Did you ever carry any arms ? — I did not until after 
 I was fired at. 
 Where did you carry the revolver when you had it 
 
 Mr. Arthur Shaen Bingham. 
 
576 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 with you ? — Sometimes in the breast pocket of my coat 
 and sometimes in another pocket. 
 
 On the day -when you were shot you had a girl with 
 you on the car ? — Yes. 
 
 Was she sitting opposite to you ? — She was sitting on 
 the left side of the car, and I was driving on the 
 right side. « 
 
 And when the shot which injured you was discharged 
 your left coat-pocket was injured and the arm of the 
 girl, who was sitting on the left of you, was hit, 
 Which of her arms was injured ? — I could not say. 
 
 Try to remember. — I cannot remember. 
 
 Did she show you the wound ? — Yes. 
 
 The President. — I cannot see at present what is the 
 object of this minute examination as to the quarter 
 from which the shot came, unless you are endeavouring 
 to discredit the witness. 
 
 Me. Justice A. L. Smith. — Do you say he was not 
 shot at ? 
 
 Mr. O'Connor. — Your Lordships will soon see my 
 object if the witness will answer my questions 
 straight. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith.-- -I think he is answering 
 them straight enough. 
 
 Mr. O'Connor. — Was it not the right arm of the girl 
 that was wounded ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Now, Sir, will you swear that you were not alarmed 
 by the sudden apparition of a person you thought to be 
 a woman, and that as you were about to draw out your 
 revolver it did not go off ? Was it not through your 
 great nervousness that you mismanaged the weapon 
 and caused it to explode ? — The revolver could not go 
 off, as it was not in my possession. (Laughter.) 
 
 Do you know a school teacher named Redmond ? — 
 yes. 
 
 Did you ever make a complaint against him ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 In consequence of your complaint was he dis- 
 missed ? — He was dismissed, but he was afterwards 
 reinstated. 
 
 Was an investigation called for after his dismissal ? 
 —So I heard. He was reinstated, and I believe he 
 has now a pension. 
 
 Was it not thought by the authorities that your 
 charge was without foundation ? — No. On the second 
 inquiry we did not push the charge, because Barrett, 
 the chief witness, who was shot at, did not come 
 forward. 
 
 You understood that your character for veracity was 
 at stake, did you not ? — We did not push the charge 
 when the second inquiry came on because Barrett did 
 not come toward. 
 
 Was not your word questioned at the second in- 
 vestigation ? — I understood so. The man who was 
 reinstated was, I heard, cautioned by the Commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You said that Mr. Devanny was 
 president of the branch of the League ? — That is what I 
 beard. I heard that they had meetings every Sunday 
 
 after mass and that he was in the chair. I heard it 
 from my own tenants. 
 
 Is it not a common thing for priest and curate to 
 interest themselves in the affairs of the tenants in 
 Mayo ? — Some of them do, some of them don't. Mr. 
 Foy used to. 
 
 Was he there at the time of the distress ? — Yes. 
 
 Did your tenants get relief from the fund which I 
 was administering ? — Yes. 
 
 You know something about the character and 
 traditions of the peasants of Mayo. Did you evor hear 
 of a secret society called the " Steel Boys " ?— There 
 was formerly a society of some kind. 
 
 And you have heard that they committed outrages in 
 connexion with disputes about land ? — Not about land, 
 I heard that they used to go about robbing. 
 
 Did you not hear that they committed outrages when 
 people had been evicted from their farms ? — Yes. 
 
 That they took people out of their beds and carded 
 them ?— I have heard that. 
 
 Did your tenants go to England for the harvest in 
 the summer ?— Very few. From other parts of the 
 country a good many people did. 
 
 Do you know that they partly pay their rents with 
 what they earn in England ?— Some of them. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — What is the acreage of your pro» 
 perty ?— The valuation of the property is very low. 
 
 I did not ask you that question. About how many 
 acres is your property altogether P — Between 2,000 and 
 3,000 acres. 
 
 What is the valuation ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 You do not know how much the valuation of the 
 whole is ? — I do not know ; I could not say. 
 
 Is it a thousand a year, or is it above or below a 
 thousand ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Is it about 8s. an acre ? — I could not exactly say. 
 
 You said your tenants wanted to get their rents re- 
 duced to 30 per cent, over the Government valuation ? 
 — Yes ; I refused those terms. 
 
 Were there any 100 per cent, above the Govern" 
 ment valuation ? — I do not know. Some might not be 
 up to that and some above. 
 
 Why did you not accept the terms Father Devanny 
 offered ? — I offered them 4s. in the pound. I thought 
 he was disturbing the tenants, and that was the cause 
 of my refusing. 
 
 You refused irrespective of the fact as to whether 
 this proposition was reasonable or not— simply you did 
 not want to gratify him ? — I did not want at all to 
 agree to it. " 
 
 You do not mean to say that his proposition was un- 
 reasonable ? — Not in some of the holdings. Some of 
 my tenants went into the Land Court. 
 
 What reduction was there ? — Some got large reduo* 
 tions, some not so much. 
 
 What do you mean by a large reduction ? What per 
 cent, or how much in the pound ? — Well, for instance) 
 Tom Everall, his rent was £3, and the Commissioners 
 cut it down to £2 9s. There was a man also named 
 Beilly, his rent was £3, and they cut it down to 
 
 Mr, Arthur Shaon Bingham. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 1S88. 
 
 577 
 
 £1 16a. 6d. That was the greatest redaction, and his 
 holding was the same as Everall's, for the plot was 
 divided, and they cast lots as to which should have 
 each part. 
 
 In point of fact, you say this was the largest of the 
 reductions. He got 40 per cent, taken off him ? — His 
 was the largest of all the redactions. 
 
 You said some were large and some not so much. 
 What was the smallest ? — Some of the tenants I 
 offered— 
 
 I did not ask you what you offered. — I was going to 
 say that I offered some of the tenants 4s. in the 
 pound, and they would not take it. I gave some of 
 them 6s. 
 
 Do you mean that the average reductions did not 
 exceed 30 per cent. ? — They might. 
 
 You told us you claimed 2s. 6d. a day when they 
 absented themselves from work ? — Yes. 
 
 How much credit did you give them when they did 
 the work ? 
 
 The Pkesident. — What is it you are trying to con- 
 vince us of ? 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — What I want to convey is that this man 
 is an extortioner (laughter) when he claimed 
 2s. 6d., but only allowed Is. when the work was done. 
 
 The President. — You do not expect to get him to 
 confess he is an extortioner. 
 
 Mr. Biggar.— What I want to show is how much he 
 valued the work at when they did it. 
 
 Witness. — Sometimes the work would have been 
 worth more than 2s. 6d. to me. For instance, if a 
 storm came on it would be worth more to me than 
 2s. 6d. , 
 
 What is the ordinary rate of wages for any labourers 
 you pay ? — Sometimes I give about Is. 6d. 
 
 Is not Is. a day the ordinary rate of wages ? — 
 Sometimes it is more. 
 
 You take these men's work at seed time and 
 
 harvest ? — Yes, some of them I have out digging 
 
 » 
 potatoes. 
 
 Did you borrow any money under the Relief Act of 
 Government ? — I did not. Any work I have done I 
 did it out of my own pocket. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — You were asked by 
 Mr. O'Connor as to this shooting, and I understood 
 you to say that Mrs. Bingham was on your left and 
 the young lady who was shot was by Mrs. Bingham's 
 side ? — Yes. 
 
 And you say you saw the man who fired ? — Yes, he 
 was going up the hill. He fired two shots and then 
 went away. 
 
 Have you ever heard it suggested before to-day that 
 you shot this young woman ? — There was some 
 wild talk, but there was no such occurrence. 
 
 Is there one word of truth in the statement that you 
 shot her ? — Not a word. 
 
 What statement did you make about the school teacher, 
 do you know ? — I made a report on what my son told me. 
 
 Mr. Davitt asked you about the Steel Boys. When 
 sdid you first hear of them ? — I heard my mother speak 
 
 some years ago of hav^g made my father give up 
 being a magistrate through these Steel Boys. 
 
 That was an old affair ? — Yes. 
 
 Had they anything to do with persons taking evicted 
 farms ? — No. 
 
 Have you ever heard of any other boys ? Have you 
 ever heard of moonlighters ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 When first ? — Between three and five years, when 
 the Land League was established. 
 
 Mr. ASQTJITH.— May I ask your Lordships if you have 
 come to any decision as to the other documents ? 
 
 The Pbesident. — I do not think there is anything 
 we have to say on the subject now. Whenever the first 
 occasion arises out of any question of evidence, that 
 will be the time ; but there is nothing calling for an 
 expression from us now. 
 
 Bridget Barrett was next called, and examined by Mr, 
 Atkinson. She said, — I am the widow of Thomas Barrett. 
 I know a man named Reilly. I do not recollect his 
 showing me a notice he got. I recollect his giving up 
 a grazing and my husband taking it. He had it about 
 the 3d of May, 1882. Up to the time he took this 
 place he was on good terms with his neighbours. 
 About seven days after he took it I recollect some 
 people calling at the house at night. My husband 
 was shot as he was getting into bed. The shot was 
 fired through the window. I immediately gave up the 
 grazing. From the time I gave it up I never received 
 any annoyance. Except taking this grazing I do not 
 know that my husband had given any cause for his 
 being shot. He was very fond of whisky. (Laughter.) 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — You say that he took 
 this grazing about seven days before he was murdered i 
 — Yes, on the 3d of May. 
 
 Before this horrible murder was committed did you 
 receive any unkindness from your neighbours ?— 
 No, Sir. * 
 
 Up to the very date he was murdered you received 
 no unkindness ? — No, indeed, Sir, I did not. 
 
 So that this shot that night was the first cruel thing 
 that was done to you ? — It was, Sir. 
 
 And at that time you thought you were on good 
 terms with everybody ? — Yes, up to the very moment. 
 
 Did your husband ever say anything to you about a 
 man named Carter being wounded ? — He did. He said 
 that there was some dispute about 11 years ago be- 
 tween Carter and a friend. My husband had said 
 " Surely that is the man who shot Carter." 
 
 Did your husband say that some particular man had 
 shot Carter ?— Yes. 
 
 What was the man's name ? — Martin Hannan. 
 
 Was he tried ? — He was. 
 
 Was he convicted P — He was innocent, and got off. 
 
 Did your husband tell you whether he had been say- 
 ing that elsewhere to many people f — I never heard 
 him say that except at that time. 
 
 Did he tell you that he had said anything of the kind 
 at the fair ? — I don't know whether he did or not. I 
 
 Mr. Arthur Shaen Bingham. 
 
 Bridget Barrett., 
 
 19 
 
578 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 138S. 
 
 never heard him say anything of the kind except on 
 this occasion. 
 
 You said that your husband had said that somebody 
 had quarrelled with Carter 11 years ago ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Was it 11 years before he told you ?— No, the night 
 he -was killed. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. A. O'CONNOK. — Was Martin 
 Hannan at the fair at Ballinrobe ?■ — No, he was delicate 
 in health, and was not at the fair. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — When was Carter 
 shot ?— Some time before him. I cannot say how long. 
 I never kept it in my mind. I don't know whether it 
 was three or four months. 
 
 Michael Brown, examined by Mr. Ronan, said, — I 
 live at Ballina, county Mayo, and am a tenant of Miss 
 Knox. I have about 13 acres of land. 
 
 Do you remember when the Land League was started 
 in your neighbourhood ? — I know nothing about it. 
 
 Were you asked to join it ? — I was. I did not join 
 it. I took a farm from which a man named Anderson 
 was turned out. 
 
 When was that ? — I am not very sure. 
 
 Do you remember the night shots were fired into 
 your house ? — I do. It was at that time or there- 
 abouts. There were three shots fired. It was about 
 2 o'clock in the morning, as far as I can recollect. 
 
 Did the shots come into the room ? — No, into the 
 kitchen. 
 
 Did you see a notice put up about you on the forge ? 
 — No, I never saw it ; somebody told me there was a 
 notice. 
 
 In May, 1882, do you remember Pat Carbine going 
 away ? — Yes. I took the grazing of the land he had 
 had. He went away of his own accord and got com- 
 pensation. 
 
 About a month afterwards do you remember five men 
 coming to you ? — I do. They asked me was I Michael 
 Brown, and I said I was. They asked why I had 
 taken the land, and I said the land was never evicted, 
 and two more had had it before me and there was 
 never a word about it. 
 
 What did they do ? — I was standing up, and they 
 took me one on each side and two more fired shots. 
 
 Had they a book ? — Yes. ■ * 
 
 Did they swear you on it ? — They swore me on the 
 book, " Was I Michael Brown ?" and they swore me 
 to give up the land. 
 
 How many shots were Cred ? — Three. 
 
 Did any one say anything about firing low ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Do not lead, please. 
 
 Witness. — One of them said to aim at my feet. 
 They fired and hit me below the kneo. 
 
 Were you beaten ? — Indeed I was. 
 
 With sticks ? — I could not say. 
 
 Had they sticks ; what did they strike you with ? — 
 With sticks. (Laughter.) 
 
 After that did you give up Carbine's land ? — I did. 
 Some years after Pat Killoran took it for two years. 
 1 took it after him. 
 
 When you took it a second time had you police pro- 
 tection ? — No ; it was the first time. After that 
 Carbine came home from America and I gave it up 
 again. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid.— Somebody had been 
 evicted from Anderson's farm ? — Yes. 
 
 Was Carbine's evicted land ? — No, he never was 
 evicted ; he surrendered and got £5 compensation to 
 give up possession. When he came back again I gave 
 the land back to him. 
 
 As a matter of fact did you take Carbine's lapd from 
 him ? — No, I took it from the landlord's agent. 
 
 Was it stated in the neighbourhood that you had 
 grabbed that land ? Was it regarded as land-grabbing ? 
 — Oh, no. Sir, it was no land-grabbing at all. 
 
 Did other people think it was lana-grabbing ? — No, 
 Sir, it was no land-grabbing. 
 
 Was it looked upon as what is called land- 
 grabbing ? — No, no, it was no land-grabbing at all, 
 because he was not evicted. 
 
 Was it the view of the neighbourhood that it was f 
 — No, I know it was not land-grabbing. 
 
 Now, as regards the second visit of the moon- 
 lighters, did you ever suspect anybody ? — No. 
 
 Did you ever say it was a man named Killoran and 
 his brother ? — I did not. Did you never say it was 
 Killoran and his brothers-in-law who fired at you in 
 order to get Carbine's holding ? — I did not say anything 
 of the kind. 
 
 Is it a fact that any persons were looking after that 
 farm, desiring to get it ? — The agent took it himself 
 first. 
 
 At the time you Lad got it did you know that other 
 persons were desirous of getting it ? — No, I did not. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You think it was bad neighbours 
 that caused the outrage ? — Yes, the whole cause of it. 
 
 Then you never told anybody that the Land Leagoe 
 had anything to do with it ? — No, and I do not think it 
 had. 
 
 George Scott was then called and examined by Mr. 
 Ronan. He said, — I am a proprietor and tenant in 
 county Mayo. In 1881 I had a farm near Crossmolina 
 from which others had been evicted. I remember the 
 night of the 28th of February, 1881. That was after I 
 took the farm. On that night shots were fired ; one 
 came into the house and three others hit the side ; I 
 came downstairs and a bullet was fired through the 
 hall door at my feet. I returned the fire. 
 
 Next morning did you find this notice (handing docu- 
 ment to witness) ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the name of your land ? — Fairfield or the 
 Waste Holding. 
 
 Will you read the notice P 
 
 Witness then read it as follows : — " Sir, — You got a 
 caution before to give up the Fairfield land and 'all 
 waste land, or if not, in yocr travelling, in spite of 
 coercion laws, your life will be in our hands. This 
 is a caution. (Signed) B. C. D." 
 
 Did you give up the farm after this ? — About 
 
 Michael Brown. 
 
 George Scott. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 579 
 
 12 months afterwards. Before I gave it up 
 I was boycotted. A herd left me, and his son, who 
 was working on the same farm, was ordered off. After 
 I came home one day I found he was not working, and 
 he said a man had ordered him off. 
 
 Did you go to the servant boy's house a short time 
 afterwards ? — He came to me next morning and said to 
 me that a shot had been fired, and I went over. I re- 
 ported it to the sergeant of police, and they in- 
 vestigated the case and found a bullet. 
 
 How long did you have police protection ? — About 
 two and a-half years. 
 
 After you gave up this evicted farm had you any 
 further annoyance ? — No, I left the place altogether 
 and went to about nine miles off, where I live now. 
 
 Except your taking this evicted farm, do you know 
 any reason why your house should have been fired into ? 
 —None whatever. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — How many times 
 were you subjected to outrage ? — Once ; on that 
 night. 
 
 What is the name of the place where you live ? — 
 Stonehall-house. 
 
 Before you went to occupy that house was it 
 occupied by your brother ? — Yes. 
 
 And you lived then with your father at BarnSeld ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Was there some little dispute and you had to leave 
 Barnfield and go to live at Stonehall ? — No, that is 
 wrong. 
 
 Did the shot that was fired at Stonehall hit any- 
 body ? — It very nearly killed my child. 
 
 Very nearly ? — Well, it passed right over its head. 
 
 Do you know a man named John Gillespie ? — 
 There are several people of that name about. 
 
 A sheriff's officer ? — Yes, I know him by appearance. 
 
 I want to ask you whether it is not a fact that you 
 said to him and John M'Kill that the shot had been 
 fired by yourself ? — That is a lie. 
 
 I put it specifically to you ; did you tell these two 
 persons that you wanted to got back to Barnfield and 
 that you fired the shot yourself, taking care not to 
 hurt anybody ? — I never said anything of the kind. 
 
 Did you go back to Barnfield ? — My father died. 
 
 Besides your child, was there any one in the room 
 when the shot was fired ? — Yes, my wife. 
 
 Did you report this at the time ? — Yes, I never 
 stirred that notice until I sent for the district in- 
 spector. 
 
 That is the only outrage you have spoken to ? — Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — How long were you in Barnfield ? — 
 Seven years. 
 
 Were proceedings ever taken against you with refer- 
 ence to rates ? — No. 
 
 Or county cess ? — No. 
 
 Was there a charge of misappropriation of poor- 
 rates ?— There was some mistake made by my clerk, to 
 whom the payment had been made. 
 
 Re-examined by Sib H. James. — You say that there 
 
 was some mistake ? — Yes, my clerk made a mistake in 
 paying in some money, and I paid it. 
 
 How near were your wife and child to where the 
 shot struck ? — They were within a few yards. It was 
 about half-past 12 at night. 
 
 Is there any foundation whatever for the statement 
 that you suggested that you fired that 6hot ? — None 
 whatever ; I never stated any such thing. 
 
 Have you ever heard this suggested before ? — Never ; 
 this is the first time I heard of it. 
 
 Did you ever discuss the matter with Gillespie and 
 M'Kill ? — Oh, "no, never. 
 
 Did you give this evidence at a trial in Cork, where 
 a man was convicted ? — Yes, and I was examined and 
 cross-examined, and that question was never put to 
 me. 
 
 You never heard of it before ? — Never. 
 
 Do you still hold your appointment ?— No, I re- 
 signed it when I got my father's place. 
 
 The next witness was Joseph Hogan. Examined by 
 Mr. Mukfhy, he said, — I live at Crossmolina,and farm 
 about 400 or 500 acres. 
 
 Do you remember the formation of the League in 
 your district ? — I remember something about it ; I do 
 not remember the time ; I did not join it ; it was 
 known in the neighbourhood that I was opposed to it. 
 Up to the time of its formation I was on very good 
 terms with the neighbours. 
 
 In December, 1880, had it come to your knowledge 
 that there was a notice posted up about you ? — Yes, I 
 took it down. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I am instructed that the original of 
 this notice is lost. I am in a position to prove its 
 loss. (To witness.) Is that a copy of the notice ? — It 
 is. 
 
 The following notice was then read : — 
 
 " Take notice that Joe and Billy Hogan, both of 
 Crossmolina, are boycotted for endeavouring to tarnish 
 the reputation of C. S. Parnell and his co-labourers, 
 and any person known to have any communication, buy- 
 ing, selling, or working for said men, will meet their 
 deserved end. Now is the time to show the Govern- 
 ment and your enemies that you are determined to 
 win. Now or never you must be free. Down with 
 your enemies. Cut off the Hogans. The land for the 
 people." 
 
 Examination continued. — On January 26, 1881, a 
 shot was fired into my house. On October 6, 
 1882, I was returning from putting my cows 
 into the field, when a shot was fired from behind 
 a hedge at me. It lodged in my thigh. I saw 
 the man who fired the shot, but I did not know 
 him. He said nothing and ran away. A man named 
 Monnally, whom I had previously seen about the gate 
 of the field, was arrested and convicted of conspiracy 
 to murder. James Kirby's mare was stabled with me. 
 He cams to my house and took the mare away. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reio. — I have occupied 
 land for a good many years. I could not tell the 
 origin of the ill-will between myself and my neigh- 
 
 George Scott. 
 
 Joseph Hogan. 
 19-2 
 
580 
 
 The Special Commission, December 7, 1888. 
 
 bours. I know of no cause except that I did not join 
 the Land League. That is the only thing I can attri- 
 bute it to. 
 
 Just try and recollect. Have you never had any 
 quarrels with people ? — I never had any in my life. 
 
 Do you know when the Land League was started in 
 your neighbourhood ? 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— Where is your farm 
 situated ? 
 
 Witness. — Crossmolina, county Mayo, my Lord. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — I was never asked to 
 join the Land League. No one ever troubled me on 
 the subject. I cannot think of any other reason why 
 I was shot at except that I would not join the 
 League. That is my only ground for saying so. I saw 
 the man who shot me quite close, but I could not 
 identify his face. No one was prosecuted for shooting 
 at me, but Monnally was conricted of conspiracy to 
 murder me and others. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — You say your 
 only idea as to why you were shot at was 
 because you would not join the League. Had 
 you known many people who would not join 
 the League ? — I do not know many ; I know some. 
 
 Do you mean that every one else except yourself in 
 your neighbourhood joined the League ? — I do not mean 
 that. 
 
 Do you know any one else in your locality who did 
 not join the League except yourself ? — I know one. 
 
 Was he shot at ? — No. 
 
 Are you a shopkeeper or general merchant ? — I am 
 not. 
 
 You do not lend money ? — I do not. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. Jambs. — Who was the other 
 man in your district whom you knew who would not 
 join the League ? — He is my brother. 
 
 He is a shopkeeper and you are a farmer ? — He is a 
 shopkeeper and I am a grazier. 
 
 Did you talk about the League in any way ? — I said 
 I did not approve of it. 
 
 Did anything happen to your brother ? — He was only 
 boycotted. 
 
 Then he was boycotted ? — Of course he was. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 James Kirby, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I 
 live at Crossmolina, and I lent a horse to William 
 Hogan, the brother of the last witness. Both William 
 and Joseph Hogan were boycotted at the time. I lent 
 it to William Hogan to do some spring work. That 
 was in the early part of January, 1881. On the night 
 of January 6, 1881, a shot was fired through my 
 window, breaking my lamp. The next day my father 
 went to Joseph Hogan's and brought the horse away. 
 
 William Hogan, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I 
 live at Crossmolina and am a shopkeeper. I did not 
 join the Land League. Prior to the starting of the 
 Land League I was on the best terms with my neigh- 
 bours. I received a threatening notice which my brother 
 
 Joseph took down and I handed it to the police. Michael 
 Lyons was in my employ as a carter. A threatening 
 letter came for him threatening him if he remained in 
 my employ or my brother's. I handed the notice to the 
 police. I know a man called Thomas Daly, who keeps 
 a shop at Crossmolina. There were two carters in my 
 employ named O'Harras. They left me suddenly, 
 giving as their reason for leaving that they had re- 
 ceived notice to cease working for me. Thomas Daly 
 was one of the men convicted in the Crossmolina 
 conspiracy case. While Daly was in prison a 
 new house was built for him. The allegation 
 was made that it was built by the League. 
 After receiving the notice I was boycotted, 
 and my customers fell off. I do not know any 
 reason why they should fSll off except that I would 
 not join the League. I had not praised the League 
 much. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — Was that some time 
 in 1880 ? — It was about then. 
 
 Were you asked to join the League ? — I do not say 1 
 was. They had not the courage to ask me. (Laughter.) 
 They thought I was hostile to it. 
 
 When did your boycotting begin ? — At the end of 
 1880. 
 
 Did you have any threatening notices before the one 
 you have mentioned ? — Only the one my brother handed 
 to me. 
 
 Had you had any quarrels with your neighbours ? — I 
 do not remember quarrelling with any one since I was 
 a boy. 
 
 With regard to Thomas Daly, who you say had. his 
 house built for him while he was in gaol, was that 
 before the Crossmolina conspiracy prosecution ? — His 
 house was built while he was in gaol. 
 
 Daly was tried and convicted of conspiracy to 
 murder, was he not ? — I believe so. He was tried in 
 Cork. 
 
 Do you remember when he was tried? — In December, 
 1883, or the spring of 1884. He was tried twice. 
 
 And the house was built for him some time in 1881 i 
 —Yes. 
 
 Then he was only in prison as a suspect ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — You are a large 
 shopkeeper, you are considered a large merchant ? — 
 Fairly so. 
 
 And a prosperous man ? — I am not doing badly. 
 
 I suppose in Crossmolina, like most country towns, 
 there are many small shopkeepers ? — No doubt. 
 
 And the small ones are jealous of the success of the 
 large ? — You will always find that. 
 
 They fear that the large shops will crush them out ?— 
 There are many shops in Crossmolina as large as mine. 
 
 But the small dealers are jealous of the success of 
 the large ones ? — There is always trade jealousy. 
 
 Re-examined by SIR H. JAMBS. — There were many 
 other large shopkeepers in Crossmolina besides you ; 
 were they ever attacked ?— Not at all, they were 
 members of the League. 
 
 They were all tight f—Yes. 
 
 James Kirby. 
 
 William Hogan. 
 
The Special Commission, December 7 and 11, 1 
 
 581 
 
 You have^lived many years in Crossmolina ? — Yes, I 
 was born there. 
 
 Before 1880 there were small shopkeepers as well as 
 large in Crossmolina. Was there any more trade 
 jealousy then than afterwards ? — No. 
 
 Thomas Wood, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I 
 am bailiff on Sir E. Palmer's estate in Mayo. On 
 December 17, 1880, a party of men knocked at my 
 door. There were six of them, one had a gun and 
 another a revolver or a pistol, I am not sure which. 
 They swore me not to go to William Hogan's shop nor 
 to deal with him. In consequence of what occurred I 
 abstained from going to Hogan's shop for some time. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Before the Court adjourns, my Lord, I 
 should like to mention the question of the banking 
 accounts as to which inspection has been ordered. 
 There are three accounts. The first is a private ac- 
 count, as to which Mr. Biggar says that if any one 
 wishes he has no objection to its being inspected. 
 The second is a deposit account, as to which also there 
 is no objection to its being seen. The third is the Par- 
 liamentary account, which Sir H. James said yesterday 
 he did .pot desire to see. The account took its origin 
 in 1886. I hope under these circumstances your Lord- 
 ship will not direct inspection of that account. 
 
 Sir H. JAMES. — Your Lordships made an order 
 on the 16th of October that certain accounts 
 should be inspected from the commencement of 
 1879 to 1884. We say that on the 25th of Jan- 
 uary, 1886, a joint account was opened at the 
 National Bank by Mr. Justin M'Carthy, to which cer- 
 tain sums were paid in, and which is said to be a Par- 
 liamentary account for the payment of members of 
 Parliament and for other political purposes. I have 
 not the slightest desire to see the account dealing with 
 the payment of members of Parliament. That does not 
 relate to this inquiry. What I ask is that there should 
 be some guarantee or assurance that this account, 
 which, in the words of the affidavit, is " for other 
 political purposes," refers exclusively to the payment 
 of members of Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— I am assured by Mr. Biggar that the 
 account refers entirely to the payment of members. 
 
 Sir H. James.— This affidavit only goes up to 
 January, 1886. If there is any, subsequent account it 
 should be mentioned. 
 
 Mr. Reid, — If there are other accounts my affidavits 
 will, of course, go to them. 
 
 The President. — That is if it becomes necessary. 
 
 Sir H. James.— What I would suggest is that some 
 person who should give an assurance that the result of 
 the inspection should not go beyond his knowledge 
 should be allowed inspection. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— I am instructed that we do not desire 
 any one to see the account. 
 
 The President. — I cannot call upon them to assent 
 to the course proposed, but if it is not assented to it 
 becomes more necessary for the affidavits to be ex- 
 plicit. 
 
 Thomas Wood, 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — I have not the slightest objection to 
 make a fresh affidavit. It is only the account relating 
 to payment of members that we do not want to be 
 seen. 
 
 The President. — We all agree, Mr. Biggar, that it 
 is not necessary to see it, but we want the assurance 
 as to wliat the account is. 
 
 The Commissioners adjourned at five minutes past 4 
 o'clock. 
 
 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 28th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court 
 of the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On the Commissioners taking their seats, the exami- 
 nation of witnesses called on behalf of The Times was 
 continued. 
 
 District-Inspector Thomas Pitzsknmons, Royal Irish 
 Constabulary, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I was 
 formerly stationed at Crossmolina. I have made search 
 for the original of the threatening notice relating to 
 Joseph and William Hogan, but cannot find it. There 
 was a letter addresssed to Michael Lyons on January 7, 
 1881. The original document is lost, but I produce 
 a copy made by the head constable under my super- 
 intendence. It is as follows : — 
 
 " January 4, 1881. 
 
 " Michael Lyons if you don't 'umbly give up the 
 herding for Joe Hogan also working for him if not by. 
 Heavens you will fall by it ! You know ■ 
 
 well 
 
 he has been boycotted by the public at least. I won't 
 notice any person from this forth but take them 
 
 down. By G ! you don't know the minute from 
 
 this forth. If ever you are seen entering Billy Hogan's 
 shop or working for either him or Joe you may lose 
 your life by it for I will noon night and morning 
 and I will meet you perhaps outside the barrack door, 
 A nod is as good as a wink for a blind horse. You 
 know my principal. 
 
 " (Signed) Rory or the Hill." 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— Your Lordships will find this matter 
 referred to in the notes of William Hogan's evidence 
 in which he says (Question 27,541) : — 
 
 " Was there a man named Michael Lyons in your 
 employment as a carter ? — There was. 
 
 ' ' Did he hand you a letter that he received ?— He 
 did not, but the postmaster delivered the letter to me 
 for him, and I opened it. 
 
 " Did you open it ?— I opened it. I had some suspi- 
 cion of it because of the post mark. 
 
 ' ' Have you got the letter there ? — I gave it to the 
 police." 
 
 District-Inspector M'Ardle, Royal Irish Constabulary, 
 examined by Mr. MURPHY, said,— In February, 1882, 
 I was stationed at Swinford, in county Mayo. I pro- 
 duce copies of three threatening notices found posted 
 in my district. Tho originals were so firmly posted up 
 that they were destroyed in removing them. The 
 copies have been taken from the records in the Con- 
 stabulary office of the district. The notices are as 
 follows :— 
 
 " To the people of Ireland.— The Government of 
 
 District-Inspector Thomas Fitzsimmons. 
 District-Inspector M'Ardle, 
 
582 
 
 The Special Commission, December II, 188S. 
 
 England* has declared war against the Irish people. 
 The organization that protected them against the 
 ravages of landlordism has been declared unlawful and 
 criminal. A reign of terror has commenced. Meet the 
 action of the English Government with determined 
 passive resistance. The No Rent banner has been 
 raised^ and it remains with the people now to prove 
 themselves dastards or men. 
 
 " Pay no Rent. 
 " Avoid the Land Court. 
 
 " Such is the programme now before the country. 
 Adopt it and it will lead you to free land and happy 
 homes. Reject it and slavery and degradation will be 
 your portion. 
 
 " Pay No Rent. 
 
 *' The person who does should be visisted with the 
 severest sentence of social ostracism. 
 
 " Avoid the Land Court. 
 
 " Cast out the person who enters it as a renegade to 
 his country, and to the cause of his fellow men. 
 
 " Hold the Harvest 
 
 is the watchword. To do that effectually you 
 should as far as possible, turn it into money. Sell your 
 stock when such a course will not entail a loss. Make, 
 a friendly arrangement with your creditors about your 
 interests in your farms. A short and sharp struggle 
 now and the vilest oppression that ever afflicted 
 humanity will be wiped away. 
 
 " No Rent. 
 
 " Your brethren in America have risen to the crisis, 
 and are ready to supply you with unlimited funds pro- 
 vided you maintain your attitude of passive resistance, 
 and 
 
 " Pay No Rent. 
 " No Rent. 
 
 " ' The tenants of Ireland have still one tremendous 
 move in their power, and that is to quietly stay at 
 home and pay no rent. I believe that if they uniiedly 
 adopted a policy of passive resistance, which I do not 
 see how it would be possible for the landlords to com- 
 bat, it would lead to one of the greatest revolutions that 
 Ireland has ever known.' — Nassau William Senior, Pro- 
 fessor Political Economy, University of Oxford. 
 
 " ' I do not suggest an impossible hypothesis to your 
 Majesty when I state the possibility (I might state it 
 more strongly) of the tenantry of the country refusing 
 to pay tithes or rents. The clergy and the landlords 
 might have recourse to the law, but how is the Jaw to 
 be enforced ? How can they distrain for rent or tithes 
 upon millions of tenants ?' — The Duke of Wellington 
 to the Sing. 
 
 ' ' ' The land, therefore, of any country is the common 
 property of the people of that country, because its 
 real owner, the Creator, who made it, has transferred 
 it as a voluntary gift to them.' — Dr. Nulty, Bishop of 
 Meath. 
 
 " Pay No Rent. 
 
 " By order, 
 " Patrick Eoitr, Treasurer." 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I am now 
 living in Belfast north. I was in Mayo from 1881 to 
 1887. I am a native of Kilkenny. Before I went to 
 Mayo I was stationed at Kildare, also in Down and 
 Carlow. I was in Down from 1877 to 1878, and in 
 Kildare in 1878 and 1879. Before going to Kildare I 
 was at Carlow, and after 1879 I went to Swinford, in 
 county Mayo. I am aware that after 1879 and 1880 
 
 the Land League was established practically in every 
 county in Ireland. The League was not restricted to 
 the districts which were more or less disturbed. I 
 cannot speak of my own district, but I believe it was 
 the caso that secret societies prevailed largely in county 
 Mayo prior to 1880. The Fenians were one of the secret 
 societies, but I did not hear of Ribbonism in county 
 Mayo, at least in my district. 
 
 Speaking generally did you find anything more on the 
 part of the people than a desire to ask for the abate- 
 ment of rent, except for a very brief period after the 
 No-rent Manifesto was published ? — They first went for 
 an abatement of rent, and then to pay no rent at all. 
 
 The leaders of the movement, you may remember, 
 were arrested and put in prison, and the No-rent 
 Manifesto was then issued. Prior to the arrest of the 
 leaders of the movement there was no refusal to pay 
 rent ? — Previous to that in Kildare they had refused to 
 pay rent. 
 
 Can you tell me whether under 1'orster's Act in 
 county Mayo there were not a considerable number of 
 prominent men connected with the League put in 
 prison ? — Some were put in. 
 
 Did you find that the withdrawal of the prominent 
 men connected with the Land League was followed by 
 increased crime and outrage ? — I should say not. I 
 think it produced an improvement. 
 
 That is not the general opinion, but let me ask you 
 whether so far as was possible there was not an en- 
 deavour to get the most prominent and respectable men 
 to take part in the Land League ? — The prominent and 
 respectable people held aloof from the Land League 
 for some time. 
 
 Then they joined ? — Yes. 
 
 In reference to Kildare, was there any special 
 reason why no rent should be paid ? — There was. The 
 Duke of Leinster wanted his tenants to take leases, 
 and there was an objection made to it, and Mr. Boyton 
 came down there. 
 
 You are aware that the advisers of the Duke of 
 Leinster put these leases before the tenants in bulk, 
 and required them to sign them. This matter was made 
 the subject of comment in the House of Commons ? — 
 Yes, it was. 
 
 Don't you recollect that it was alleged that the 
 object of this proceeding was to get the tenants to 
 contract themselves out of the Act of 1881 ? — I had henrd 
 so. It was in special reference to these leases on the 
 Kildare and other properties that the No-rent agitation 
 in Kildare arose. 
 
 Now, with reference to your former answer. You 
 have expressed the opinion that it was desirable to put 
 prominent men in connexion with the movement in 
 prison ; is it not a fact that outrages increased after 
 they got there ?— Yes, they did. 
 
 I am going to ask you a delicate question. Did it 
 come to your knowledge in any shape or form that as 
 a counter force to the Land League the Government 
 of the day were backing up any secret societies in 
 
 District-Inspector M'Ardle. 
 
The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 583 
 
 Mayo ? — Not to my knowledge. I have not heard of 
 it. 
 
 I do not mean by " backing up " becoming members 
 or advising the people to become members, but by 
 countenancing them ? — By no means, it never came to 
 my knowledge. I never heard of it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — I was six years in 
 Swinford. I was there from 1871 to 1877. I have 
 been in four other districts in Ireland. During the 
 short time I was at Kildare it was worse than Swin- 
 ford. 
 
 Did you ever say in Swinford that you could keep 
 the peace in the locality without the aid of soldiers 
 or police ? — No, I never said that. 
 
 When you left Swinford you were presented with a 
 purse of sovereigns by the inhabitants, were you not ? 
 — I was. 
 
 Should you not say that the people of the locality 
 are very peaceable people ? — They are peaceable so 
 far as they are not connected with the land agita- 
 tion. 
 
 The land agitation existel there during the time 
 you were there ? — I think so. 
 
 Have you never spoken in public with reference to 
 the peaceable disposition of the people of the dis- 
 trict while you were there ? — That was at petty 
 sessions, when they assisted the police in bring- 
 ing prisoners to the barracks. That was in 
 leference to cases of drunkenness. 
 
 Have you heard of any bogus outrages in that dis- 
 trict ? — I have. 
 
 Did a Mrs. Clements ever make complaint of an 
 outrage ? — She reported it, and I was not satisfied it 
 was real. 
 
 Was any report made of a man being fired at on a 
 car and afterwards being buried ?— I have no recollec- 
 tion of that. 
 
 Re-examined by Sib TI. James. — Were some Land 
 League branches more active than others ? — Yes. 
 
 In what way were they more active ? — In getting 
 people to join and committing outrages and posting 
 threatening notices. 
 
 What secret societies, if any, did you recognize as 
 existing in Mayo ? — The Fenians ; none other. 
 
 What time were you in Mayo ? — I went there in 
 July, 1871, and continued there till January, 1881. 
 
 Now, as to the date of the No-rent Manifesto. Where 
 were you when it was issued P — When the manifesto 
 was issued from Dublin I was in Kildare. 
 
 Did the outrages increase after the No-rent Mani- 
 festo was issued ? — They did. 
 
 Was the No-rent Manifesto enforced in your district? 
 —I never saw it in my district. 
 
 At what date, then, do you put the period of the out- 
 rages increasing ? — In 1882 and 1S83 the outrages in- 
 creased. 
 
 Forster's Act, I think, ceased in 1883. You have 
 said that after suspects were arrested under Forster's I 
 
 Act outrages increased. Are you speaking generally or 
 of Kildare ? — I was speaking of Mayo. 
 
 Will you give me the time you were in Mayo ?— The 
 whole of 1882. The No-rent Manifesto sent by the 
 Dublin branch I did not see posted in Kildare. 
 
 Are you speaking of another manifesto ? — The No- 
 rent Manifesto was issued by Mr. Parnell in Decem- 
 ber, 1881. The one I found was posted after. 
 
 Where were you when the first manifesto of Decem- 
 ber, 1881, was issued ? — In Kildare. I know nothing 
 of Mayo at that time. 
 
 Was the manifesto of 1881 enforced in Kildare ?— It 
 was. 
 By what means ? 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— I object to that form of the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Did outrages take place after that ? 
 — They did. People also refused to pay their rents and 
 allowed their cattle to be seized and sold, when they 
 were bought in by representatives of the League. 
 
 Supposing people paid their rent against the mani- 
 festo, what happened then ? — Then an endeavour 
 was made to boycott them, but there was no 
 boycotting while I was in Kildare. 
 
 When did you go back to Mayo ?— I was in Mayo 
 in 1881. 
 
 You have just said that in December, 1881, you 
 were in Kildaro. At the time the No-rent Manifesto of 
 December, 1881, was issued were you in Kildare or 
 Mayo ? — I do not like to say without referring to 
 books. 
 
 A book was handed to the witness which he ex- 
 amined. 
 
 Witness. — I find that I went to Mayo on July 1, 
 1881. The No-rent Manifesto was found posted in 
 Mayo on November 13, 1881. 
 
 The President. — That was the manifesto addressed 
 to the people of Ireland ? 
 
 Witness. — Yes, my Lord. Similar notices to this were 
 found posted in the district in 1881. 
 
 After that notice was posted was it enforced ? — It 
 was. 
 
 By what means 1 — Houses were attacked by armed 
 parties. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell.- My Lords, I must object to the 
 form of the question. 
 
 Sir H.James (to witness). — Did outrages take place 
 after that ? — Yes. 
 
 Of what character ? — Houses were attacked at night 
 by armed parties. 
 
 You have been asked whether outrages increased 
 after the arrest of suspects. Did outrages increase 
 after that manifesto was issued ? — They did. 
 
 At the time of the manifesto and afterwards were 
 there any secret societies in Mayo beyond the 
 Fenians ? — No, none except the Fenians that I am 
 aware of. 
 
 Did you have moonlighters at any time ? — No, not in 
 that district. I have not heard them called by that 
 name. 
 
 District-Inspector M'Ardlo. 
 
584 
 
 The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 Were the people who attacked houses known by any 
 name ?— Simply as the " Boys." 
 
 Ann Gallagher, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — 
 My father's name was John White. He lived at Kyle- 
 more,near Swinford. My father had a farm of 10 or 11 
 acres. He is now dead. I remember a party of men 
 coming to his house one night at 11 or 12 o'clock. 
 That would be about seven years ago next Candlemas. 
 
 Were they disguised at all ? — They were dressed in 
 black clothes like the police. (Laaghter.) Their 
 faces were not blackened. I did not know any of 
 them. When they came in they asked where my 
 father was, and my father said, " I am here." 
 They pulled him out and said, " He is the only man 
 we want." They thrashed him down, and I threw 
 myself on the top of him. They then dragged him 
 out of the door and fastened the door on me. 
 
 Did they beat him ? — I do not know what they did 
 when they closed the door. They gave me a few 
 blows when I threw myself upon him. 
 
 Did they say anything about the rent ? — They asked 
 my father about the rent. They told him to keep his 
 rent in his pocket to fortune his daughter with. 
 
 Did you see your father after these men went away ? 
 — Yes, I took him into the house. He had marks upon 
 him. His jaw was wounded. 
 
 There was no cross-examination of the witness. 
 
 Patrick Sloyne, examined by Mr. MURPHY, said,— I 
 aiu a farmer. I hold about 16 acres from Mr. 
 M'Carrick at Kylemore, near Swinford, in county 
 Mayo. I remember one night a party of men coming 
 into my house. About three or four came in. They 
 were strangers to me. They told me to open the door. 
 I said I would do so if they gave me time. They then 
 thrust in the door, and when they came in they said, 
 "Did you pay the rent?" I said, "Yes." They 
 then 'pulled me out of the door and gave me a few 
 strokes. Before I opened the door they fired a shot 
 through the door. They told me to keep away from 
 the door, but an ass of mine was standing opposite the 
 door, and received the shot. 
 
 How far do you live from John White's house ? — 
 Under half a mile — about a quarter of a mile. 
 
 Can you tell me the year in which this happened ? — 
 It will be seven years ago on February 4 or 5 next. 
 
 Do you know that on the same night White's house 
 was attacked ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Kussell.— Did you hear of 
 any other visit by these men on the same night besides 
 White's and yours ? — Yes. There were several on the 
 same night. 
 
 When they came to your place you said you would 
 open the door if they gave you time ? — Yes. 
 
 They told you to stand away from the door when they 
 fired the shot ? — Yes. 
 
 That was to keep you out of the way of harm ?— I 
 suppose so. 
 
 And then they fired the shot ?— Yes. 
 
 Was there not a Scotch bailiff in the neighbourhood, 
 and was he not one of the people whose houses were 
 visited that night ? Do you recollect ?— -Yes, there 
 was a Scotch bailiff. 
 
 What was his name ? — Matthew Scott. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You are a banker on a small scale, 
 I believe ; otherwise a gombeen man ? — Yes, I often 
 do the like of that. 
 
 Would you tell me what interest you charge, if it is 
 not an impertinent question F — Three shillings in the 
 pound. 
 
 Did you never charge 6s. in the pound ? — Never. 
 
 For how long did you charge 3s. in the pound ?— For 
 12 months. 
 
 Did the people of Costello give you I U's ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you ever say you were raided by these men in 
 order that they might get from you these I TJ's ? — 
 No. 
 
 Will you swear that f — I never said anything of the 
 sort. 
 
 I suppose you know the Costello men had the reputa- 
 tion for being fond of fighting ? — No, Sir, never. 
 
 Did you lend any money to a man named William 
 Gallagher ?— Yes. 
 
 Did he send you money from England from time to 
 time ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you process his widow in his absence ? (Laughter.) 
 —No. 
 
 Did you process his wife ? — I did. 
 
 Will you swear this was not a cause of ill-feeling 
 against you in the locality ? — It was not. 
 
 Will you swear it was not the cause of ill-feeling 
 on the part of Mrs. Gallagher's relatives ? — No, it was 
 not. 
 
 Was there not some trouble over the post-office orders 
 afterwards ? — There was not. 
 
 Was it reported in the district that you denied 
 having received money from Gallagher ? — Yes, it was 
 reported. 
 
 Was that true ? — I did not deny that I got the 
 money. 
 
 You are a member of the National League at Swin- 
 ford are you not ? — Yes. 
 
 Who is your landlord ? — Mr. M'Carrick. 
 
 That is at Kylemore f— Yes. 
 
 Re-esamined by Sir H. James. — When was this affair 
 about Gallagher's wife ? How long ago ? — I am sure 
 I cannot say. -Time flies. 
 
 About how long ? You have told us that it was 
 about seven years ago that these nieu came to your 
 house. Did you process Gallagher's wife before or 
 after that ?■ — I think it was before that. 
 
 Did these men say anything about Gallagher's wife 
 whe:> they came ? — No, they said nothing about it. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I am now in a position to give the 
 date of the outrage from the inspector's book. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Give the date, then. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— February 5, 1882. Then Sir Charles 
 will lake it from me. 
 
 Ann Gallagher. 
 
 Patrick Sloyne. 
 
The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 585 
 
 Martin Horgan was then called. 
 
 The President. — Does this refer to the same night f 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Yes, my Lord ; but for the cross- 
 examination of the last witness I should not have 
 called this man. 
 
 In answer to Mr. Murphy, the witness said, — I 
 hold 20 acres of land and bog at Kylemore, near 
 Swinford, in Mayo. I remember a number of men 
 coming to my house one night. They had blackened 
 faces. I was in bed. They " put in " the door and 
 walked up to my bedside and started beating me. All 
 they said from first to last was, " Will you pay your 
 rent again ? " 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 David Freely, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — 
 I had a son called Patrick Freely. He was 26 years 
 of age. I had a farm on the Taaffe estate. In 
 January, 1882, I paid my rent. Shortly after paying 
 my rent a number of men came to my house one night. 
 They broke in the door. They were not disguised. 
 I did not know any of them. They called out, 
 
 " rent-payer." They were in the kitchen 
 
 when they called this out. I was in a room off the 
 kitchen. My son Pat was with me. He called out to 
 me to escape, and I made my escape into the loft and 
 left my son behind me in the room. My wife and 
 daughters were also in the room. I kept the door of 
 the room closed against these people. They broke 
 into the room, and some said, " He is gone," and 
 another one of the party said, " The young man is 
 here," and he was ordered to take him out. They 
 proceeded to take my son oat. There were a great 
 many outside, and he was greatly beaten by them, but 
 he escaped from them and got into the bedroom again. 
 They followed him in, and told him to free himself. 
 My wife said he was not the man who paid his rent, and 
 that he dnuld free himself. They took him out a 
 second time as far as the kitchen door and asked what 
 they should do with him, and one of the party outside 
 said, " Shoot him/' 
 
 Did you hear a shot fired ?— I heard the report of a 
 gun. I came down from the loft then and saw my son 
 dead before me. 
 
 Up to this time on what terms were you with your 
 neighbours ? — I had been on very good terms with 
 them. They had paid their rent along with me. 
 
 Do you know of. any reason for this outrage except 
 that you had paid your rent ? — No, I do not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Kttssell.— What was the 
 rent you paid in January, 1882 ? — I could not say. 
 
 Would it be the gale due in 1881 ? — I could not 
 say. 
 
 Did you get any abatement ? — I got 25 per cent. 
 
 Did the neighbours pay the rent as well as yourself ? 
 —Nearly all of them. 
 
 Everybody paid their rent with 25 per cent, reduc- 
 tion ?— Yes. 
 
 Were you yourself a member of the Land League P — 
 ,Yes. 
 
 And continued to be a member until it was sup- 
 pressed ? — Yes. 
 
 How long were you a member of it ? — About ten 
 months, I believe. 
 
 And then it was suppressed ? — It was. 
 
 You continued a member until it was suppressed ?— • 
 I was a member about ten months. 
 
 Very well. Now, I want to ask you a few questions 
 about this. Did you ever hear that the Land League 
 objected to the payment of rents on a 25 per cent, 
 reduction ? — No, they did not object to it. 
 
 Do you know they approved of the payment of rent 
 upon getting a fair reduction ? — They did. 
 
 Where was the nearest branch of the League to where 
 you lived ? — It was within a few miles. 
 
 When this cruel murder of your son took place do 
 you know whether or not the Land I^eague denounced 
 it ? — The Land League did denounce the murder, and 
 the priest denounced it from the altar. He said it was 
 a deplorable murder, and should be denounced. The 
 Lord Archbishop himself, when he came there, de- 
 nounced the murder. 
 
 Who was the Archbishop you refer to ? — Dr. 
 M'Evilly. 
 
 What was the name of the priest ? — Father Hennelly. 
 
 Were these denunciations made in the different 
 chapels ? — They were, Sir, all round the place. 
 
 Were these priests you say denounced the murder 
 members of the Land League ? — I believe they were. 
 
 I just want to know this — before there was any Land 
 League there, was there not a police hut somewhere 
 in your neighbourhood ? — No. 
 
 Was there not ? — No. 
 
 When was the police hut put up, and where ? — About 
 two miles from my place. 
 
 When was it put up ? — I cannot exactly say. 
 
 How long before your poor son was murdered ? — It 
 was not.before. 
 
 Not before ? Are you sure of that ? — I am. 
 
 I want now to ask you about another matter. You 
 have lived all your life in Mayo ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you heard of the existence of secret societies 
 there ? — I did not hear of them, but I think there was 
 something of the kind. 
 
 Did not the priest denounce them ? — Yes ; and any 
 man who would join in them. And the Lord Archbishop 
 also denounced them. 
 
 Do you know whether the secret societies which 
 were denounced were opposed to the Land League or 
 not ? — That I cannot say. 
 
 Have you heard that they were ? — I have heard that 
 they were. 
 
 Was there a secret society in Mayo which was 
 opposed to Mr. Parnell ? — Well, I. do not know. 
 
 Just let me understand. In addition to being a 
 member of the Land League you were a member of the 
 committee of the Land League, were you not ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, did any of the Land Leaguers or any branch of 
 it, as far as you know, ever complain that you or your 
 
 Martin Horgan. 
 
 David Freely. 
 
5S6 
 
 The Special Commission, December 11, 188s. 
 
 neighbours had paid your rent, getting a reduction of 
 25 per cent. ? — I did not hear of it. 
 
 This is a sad story for you, but tell us candidly, have 
 you any reason to suppose that the Land League had 
 anything to do, in any shape or form, with the murder 
 of your son ? — Well, I cannot say. 
 
 Have you any reason to suppose that they had ? — I 
 have not. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — To what motive 
 do you attribute the murder of your son ? — Well, I 
 cannot say. 
 
 To no motive ? — None that I know of. 
 
 Just think. Do you know of any cause whatever for 
 that murder ? — I do not know of any cause. 
 
 Had you paid your rent, and had you advised your 
 neighbours to pay their rent ? — Yes, and they con- 
 tinued to pay it by the instruction of Canon Geroghty. 
 
 Do you rcmemSer the Land League being suppressed ? 
 —I do. 
 
 Were you a member of the League at the time of its 
 suppression ? — I had left it. I did not like to have 
 anything further to do with it. 
 
 How long had you left it before it was suppressed ? 
 —Not long ; a few weeks, I think. 
 
 What was the date of your son's murder ? — The 22d 
 of February, 1882. 
 
 By the President. — Why did you leave the Land 
 League ? — I wanted to have nothing more to do with 
 it. I had a great deal to do. 
 
 Ee-examination continued. — Father Hennelly had 
 left it too. Was that after your son's murder ? — It was 
 at the time of my son's murder. 
 
 Was your son murdered after or before you left it ? 
 —After, I think. 
 
 Just tell me how long it was after you left the Land 
 League that your son was murdered ? — I do not know. 
 
 Was it a month ? — I cannot say exactly. 
 
 Would it be some weeks before ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 How long before your son was murdered was it that 
 you attended a committee meeting of the League ? — 
 About two months before. 
 
 Did the priests leave the Land League at the same 
 time that you did ? — Yes, Father Hennelly did. 
 
 Is there a place called Milebush, about a quarter of 
 a mile from your house ? — Yes. 
 
 On the Sunday before your son was murdered was 
 any meeting held there ? — I was told there was. 
 
 Was it a Land League meeting or not ? — I could not 
 say. I do not think that it was a Land League meet- 
 ing. 
 
 Then all you can tell me is that some meeting was 
 held there just previous to the murder ? — Yes. 
 
 I will not press you if that is all you can tell me. 
 Do you know Martin Connolly ? — I do. 
 
 Had he anything to do with the Land League ? — I 
 do not know. He had nothing to do with the Land 
 League branch I belonged to. 
 
 What position did he hold in it ? — I do not know. 
 
 You said that the Lord Archbishop said that the 
 murder was to be denounced ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it after that that the priests denounced the 
 murder ? — They denounced it both before and after. 
 
 When the Archbishop denounced the secret societies, 
 what did he say ? — He said that any man joining that 
 society ought not to ccme to church— he was not 
 worthy of it. 
 
 When Father Hennelly denounced the murder had he 
 left the Land League ? — He left the League at the 
 same time that I did. 
 
 Sib 0. Russell. — My learned friend has introduced 
 some new matter in his re-examination, and with your 
 Lordships' permission I will put a question or two to 
 the witness in reference to it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— Ycu told us 
 that you were a member of the committee of the 
 Land League ? — Yes. 
 
 And Father Hennelly was also a member of it, was 
 he not ? — Yes. 
 
 And almost all of ycur friends and neighbours were 
 members of it, were they not ? — The majority of them 
 were. 
 
 Does Father Hennelly live in the same neighbour- 
 hood still ? — No, he lives in Galway. 
 
 In the same diocese ? — Yes. 
 
 You mentioned the name of some priest. You 
 mentioned some other priest as having denounced the 
 murder ; are they still in the same parish ? — Yes. 
 
 You spoke of the Archbishop denouncing some 
 societies ? — Yes. 
 
 Were they secret societies that he denounced ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir H. James was about to put a question to the 
 witness when 
 
 The President said, — What is the fresh point raised 
 by this cross-examination that you wish to re-examine 
 upon? 
 
 Sir H. James.— Well, my Lord, I think I ought to 
 be entitled to the la6t word at any rate. (Laughter.) 
 
 Reexamination continued. — What was the secret 
 society that the Archbishop denounced ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Did you hear him ? — I did. 
 
 Do you recollect what he said ? — He denounced that 
 and any other society. « 
 
 District- Inspector Carter, examined by Mr. Atkinson. 
 —I am a district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabu- 
 lary. I was stationed at Claremorris from September, 
 1878, to October, 1881. I know two farms on the 
 Ormsby estate which were held by two men named 
 Walsh and M'Quin. Those men were evicted, I 
 believe. A Land League meeting was afterwards held 
 on their farms, at which I was present. It was held 
 on May 3, 1880. I knew several persons who were 
 present. Among them were the Rev. Mr. Corbet, the 
 Roman Catholic curate of the parish. 
 
 Who was he ? — He was chairman of the Claremorris 
 branch of the League. A Mr. Boyton, whose Christian 
 name I do not know, was also present. I saw him on 
 the platform at a meeting that was held at Irishtown 
 the previous day. 
 - Who was on the platform with him ? — I saw Mr. 
 
 David Freely. 
 
 District-Inspector Carter, 
 
The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 587 
 
 Parnell there. I also saw Mr. Nally, who is known 
 as Scrab Nally, there. 
 
 Did Mr. Nally speak at Irishtown ? — He made a 
 short speech. 
 
 In the presence of Mr. Parnell ? — I do not remember 
 that Mr. Parnell was on the platform at the time. 
 
 Was Mr. Parnell present at the meeting on the 
 evicted farm the next day ? — No. 
 
 Who was present at the meeting on the next day ? — 
 A number of people, about 300. Among others Scrab 
 Nally, Pat Nally, and M'Gough were present. The 
 latter was a commercial traveller. I do not know 
 whethfr he was a' member of the League. They 
 assembled to till the farm, and they did till it. I 
 saw a placard posted, giving notice that the farm was 
 a Land League farm. The notice was on a board 
 which was nailed upon a post. I do not recollect the 
 exact words of the notice. I did not take the notice 
 down. After the notice was put up, the farm was 
 known in the district as the Land League farm. 
 Father Corbet spoke at the meeting, but I do not 
 recollect what he said. Mr. Boyton also spoke. I 
 heard that in the autumn of 1880 a number of people 
 went to the farm and cnt the crops. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — When were 
 Walsh and M'Quin evicted ?— In 1879 or 1880. 
 
 Do you not know that the six months' period for 
 redemption after the actual eviction had not expired 
 when the meeting was held upon the evicted farms ? — 
 I do not know. 
 
 The people collected to till the farm and in the 
 autumn to reap the crops ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biggar. — Do you know the 
 Ormsby property ? — Yes, a part of it. 
 
 Have not great clearances taken place on it ? — I 
 really cannot say. 
 
 Do you not see the remains of homesteads of the 
 former population on it ? — I do not know. 
 
 Nathaniel Cole, examined by Mr. Atkinson. — I was 
 formerly a sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary. 
 I was stationed at Claremorris in 1881. I recollect 
 seeing a number of persons coming from the 
 evicted farms referred to by the last witness in 
 the autumn of 1880. They had cut corn with 
 them, and they were carrying corn sheaves on poles, 
 and were singing " Hold the Harvest " and " Pay no 
 rent." 
 
 Did you see among those taking part in the proces- 
 sion persons whom you knew ? — Several. 
 
 Did you see among them any members of the Land 
 League ? — All I saw there were members of the Land 
 League. 
 
 Did you see Father Corbet there ? — I did. 
 
 Who else ?— P. G. Gordon, Scrab Nally, Pat Nally, 
 and several others too numerous to mention. 
 
 Do you recollect Mrs. Connell taking the iarm ? — 
 Yes, in 1882 she took six months' grass on it. 
 
 Was she an old woman ? — Yes, she was over 70 
 years of age. 
 
 Who was in possession of the farm in 1881 ? — It was 
 in the landlord's hands. 
 
 When did the landlord get possession ? — In October, 
 1880. He had to go into the Court to get possession 
 of it. He hail to take it from the League. It was 
 known from the time of the eviction as the Land 
 League farm. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — I am now 
 living at Claremorris. I am in no business, but have 
 retired on my pension. I was in Claremorris from 
 November, 1877, until November, 1887, when I 
 retired from the constabulary. 
 
 Then probably you can give me some information as 
 to the condition of the district during the time you 
 were there. Was there a good deal of distress there 
 during 1878, 1879, and 1880 ?— Yes, there was a little. 
 The people complained very much of being curtailed 
 in the prices of their produce in the market. 
 
 Do you recollect the failure in the potato crop in 
 1878 and 1879 ?— Yes. 
 
 There was undoubtedly a good deal of misery and dis- 
 tress in the district at that time, was there not? — Yes. 
 
 And at that time were not a great number of proceed- 
 ings for eviction against tenants taken ? — No, not so 
 many ; thtre were a few. 
 
 I am not speaking of actual evictions, but were not 
 ejectment proceedings commenced against a consider- 
 able number of tenants ? — Yes. 
 
 Of those, of course, only some were carried out to 
 the extent of actual eviction ? — That is so. 
 
 On whose property were the tenants living against 
 whom those proceedings were chiefly taken ? — On that of 
 the late Mr. W. F. Bourke and on that of Mr. Ormsby. 
 
 Now, does not a large class of the people of Mayo 
 consist of the tenants of small holdings ? — Yes, the 
 majority. 
 
 Do not the males of the families go away to work and 
 come over to England and Scotland during the season, 
 and in that way manage to earn their rent ?— Yes. 
 
 Without doing that, could they live upon their hold- 
 ings ? — I cannot say that. 
 
 If they did manage to live upon their holdings with- 
 out doing that, would it not be by a great struggle ?— 
 I am not in a position to say that they cannot live 
 upon their land. Of course, that would in a great 
 decree depend upon their industry. 
 
 Have there not been great clearances in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Claremorris within your recollection ? — 
 No, not many. 
 
 Not in your time ? — Not in my time, nor before. 
 There was an odd one, to and fro, on the late Mr. 
 Bourke's property. 
 
 Where there were formerly a good many houses are 
 the holdings now turned into grass lands ? — Yes. 
 
 Is it your observation that, generally speaking, the 
 greatest amount of population, the most congested 
 districts, are where the land is worst ? — Yes, there 
 are more villages where the land is worst. 
 
 Has it come to your notice that some so-called out- 
 rages have been manufactured ? — It never came to my 
 
 Nathaniel Cole. 
 
588 
 
 The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 notice. Whenever outrages have been recorded they 
 were genuine. 
 
 I am not speaking of recorded outrages. I will 
 mention a case to you. Do you know Lord Oranmore's 
 property ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you recollect a man named Cowley, a herd of 
 Lord Oranmore, represBnting that ilia house had been 
 fired into on the 22d of January, 1885, and do you 
 recollect that he Was caught firing into his own house, 
 and was fined ? — I am aware that he was found with 
 arms outside his own house, but he was not fined for 
 firing into his house. 
 
 Do you know that he complained of the outrage ? — I 
 do not. He was fined under the Excise laws for having 
 arms. 
 
 What arms were these ? — It was a fowling-piece. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar.— Did yon ever hear of this landlord 
 fining the young daughters of tenants for getting 
 married ? — No. 
 
 Or of his fining farmers' sons for getting married ? — 
 No. 
 
 By Mr. RED.— You have spoken of Mr. Walter M. 
 Bourke as the landlord upon whose property processes 
 were served. Was that the Mr. Walter Bourke who was 
 afterwards shot ? — Yes. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. JAMES. — I suppose you do 
 not know the actual number of processes or evictions 
 and the number of persons' readmitted as caretakers ? — 
 No. I know that a good many were let in as care- 
 takers. 
 
 Do you know the circumstances under which these 
 processes were taken ? — For non-payment of rent. 
 
 How much was in arrear ? — Some four or five years' 
 rent. 
 
 Mr. Bourke was the person who was shot after deal- 
 ing in land in this way ? — He did all that he could 
 to settle with his tenants. He offered to let tenants 
 off with a quarter's rent when they owed five years'. 
 
 He was afterwards shot ? — Yes. 
 
 John Connell, examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — I 
 am the son of Bridget Connell, who holds a farm near 
 Jlaremorris, in the county of Mayo. My father is 
 dead. I do not remember exactly the time when the 
 Land League was established in Claremorris. I re- 
 member the rent being paid in April, 1879 or 1880. 
 After it had been paid a shot was fired outside the 
 door of our house, and a threatening letter was pinned 
 on the door. The letter was kept in the house for 
 some time, and was then given to the police. I could 
 notj^epeat the contents. 
 
 Do you remember a farm which was called a Land 
 League farm ? — Yes, I believe it was so described. I 
 saW a board erected near it on which were the words : 
 — " Let no man take this farm." In May, 1882, I 
 took a portion of this grazing land for my mother. 
 After that a notice was posted on the gate. I took it 
 d own and kept it for some time. Finally it was lost, 
 I believe. I remember part of the contents. It said , 
 
 that if the land was not given up my mother and I 
 should lose our lives, as Lord Mountmorres lost his. 
 
 Was there any change in the demeanour of the 
 people after that ? — Sometimes they called after us 
 and shouted " land-grabber." 
 
 Were cattle turned upon your land ? — I cannot say 
 that. Cattle sometimes trespassed. 
 
 Did you go to England then ? — Yes, and when there 
 I saw a report as to an injury done to my mother. 
 Then I returned. 
 
 What had happened to her ? — She had been fired at 
 and wounded in the left hand. 
 
 Badly?— Yes. . . 
 
 Is she a very old woman ? — She is over 70. She is 
 not able to come here. 
 
 Was she ill for a long time after she was shot ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you give up the farm ? — We had only taken it 
 for six months. 
 
 Was there any cause for this outrage upon your 
 mother except the fact that you held this grazing land ? 
 — I knew of none. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. .Russell.— I understand 
 that you took this grazing land for six months and then 
 gave it up ? — Yes. 
 
 It is unpopular, is it not, to take land from which a 
 man has been evicted ? — Yes. 
 
 And that has been the case as long as you can recol- 
 lect ?— Yes. 
 
 Who were the prominent people connected With the 
 Claremorris Land League ? — I cannot tell you. I knew 
 nothing about it. 
 
 Can you tell us when the Land League was esta- 
 blished in Claremorris ?— I cannot. 
 
 Was it established in 1880 ?— I believe it was ; but 
 I am not sure. 
 
 After one of these outrages upon you did you apply 
 to the police ?— Yes ; a police hut was erected close 
 to our honse. 
 
 And did you supply the police P — No. Anything they 
 wanted to buy they could get elsewhere. 
 
 Did you supply them ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you make a profit put of them ? — No, Sir ; I do 
 not know. 
 
 Was a threatening notice found in the thatch of your 
 house when the police were about to be withdrawn p— 
 No. 
 
 Well, at a house close to your own ? — Yes. I heard 
 there was. 
 
 And that was when the police were about to be 
 withdrawn ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you a brother ? — I have two, Patrick and 
 Thomas. 
 
 Have they been prosecuted by the police for putting 
 up threatening notices?— One of them was accused and 
 acquitted. 
 
 Who prosecuted him P — The police. 
 
 Who was the policeman who prosecuted him ? — I do 
 sot know. 
 
 John Connell. 
 
The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 589' 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — One of your brothers got married, I 
 believe ? — Yes. 
 
 And your mother obtained £300 or £400 as compensa- 
 tion ? (Laughter.) I mean for the outrage perpetrated 
 upon her ?— She got £100. 
 
 Was there a quarrel between yourself and your 
 brothers about this money ? — No. 
 
 Did Thomas charge his brother with having fired at 
 your mother ? — No. 
 
 You are sure ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you heard it stated in the locality that that 
 was the fact ? — No. 
 
 Ee-examined by Sir H. James. — You say you took 
 this grazing for six months. Was it during that period 
 that your mother was shot at ? — Yes. 
 
 John Dillon, examined by Mr. Eonan. — I live near 
 Loughboy. My father, Luke Dillon, was a tenant on 
 the estate of Mr. Farrell. He accompanied the sheriff 
 when there were some evictions on the estate in 1881. 
 Up to that time I had been on the best of terms with 
 the neighbours. I remember my father's going oat on 
 November 17, 1881. 
 
 Did he return ? — No. The next morning a man named 
 Leonard came to our house, and I accompanied him 
 and found my father lying dead on the road within 500 
 or 600 yards of the house. There was a bullet in his 
 chest and another in his head. 
 
 Except that your father had attended with the sheriff 
 on the occasion of these evictions, was there any 
 cause that you know for this murder ? — No. I do not 
 know of any cause. 
 
 Did you apply for compensation for the murder of 
 your father ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you receive a threatening notice warning you to 
 withdraw the claim ? — I did. 
 
 In 1884 did you take an evicted farm at Brookfield ? 
 ■ — Yes. I had some hay on the farm, and the hay was 
 burnt. My herd left. He did not tell me why. He 
 said he would not stop any longer. 
 
 Do you know any cause for his leaving ? — No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Did you make 
 any claim for the burnt hay ? — I applied for compensa- 
 tion, but I withdrew the claim. 
 
 Did you come to the conclusion that it might have 
 been an accidental burning, and not a malicious affair ? 
 — I was told that it might have been accidental, and I 
 did not persevere with the claim. 
 
 Are yon bailiff on Mr. Nolan Farrell's property ? — I 
 am bailiff and manager. My father had held that post 
 for 15 or 16 years. The man who held it before him 
 was Curran. 
 
 After Curran's death did a man called Delany apply 
 for the post ? — I do not know that. 
 
 Did not Delany marry Curran's widow ? — Yes, some 
 time afterwards. 
 
 Was there any quarrel between your father and 
 *Delany ? — I do not know that there was. 
 
 Was not your father very popular in the neighbour- 
 .hood ?— Very. 
 
 Up to the time of his death ? — Yes, indeed. His 
 murder was a thing we never expected. 
 
 Did not his neighbours lend him money when 
 he was in difficulty ? — No ; he never wanted aid. Ha 
 always helped his neighbours. 
 
 I see ; it is my mistake. You say that your father 
 lent money to the other tenants ? — Yes, and gave the 
 neighbours goods when they were in need. 
 
 When he died, did not the people attend the wake in 
 large numbers, and also the funeral ? — The funeral was 
 very respectable and very large. 
 
 Was there a police hut near the spot where your 
 father was murdered ? — About a mile off. 
 
 How long had that hut been there ? — For about 
 two years before the murder. 
 
 The hut, then, was there in 1879 ? — Yes ; I suppose 
 so. 
 
 What was the hut erected for ? What was the dan» 
 ger that was feared ? — I could not say. 
 
 Had there been any outrage or murder near the 
 place ? — I did not hear it. 
 
 Now, I do not want to mention his name, as the 
 man is not here ; but was a policeman charged in con- 
 nexion with your father's death ? — Well, I heard some 
 rumours about it. That is all I know about the 
 matter. 
 
 Did you know that your father had been in the habit 
 of visiting this police hut and playing cards and drinking 
 there ? — I never heard it. 
 
 Did you never hear of his playing cards there ?— • 
 Never. 
 
 Nor of his drinking there ? — Never. 
 
 Is there a shebeen house close to the hut ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 Where had your father been that night ? — I could 
 not say. 
 
 Do you know of any business which he had to 
 transact which took him away from home ?— No. 
 
 He had not been at any fair or market ? — No ; not 
 that day. 
 
 Did you hear afterwards that the policeman about 
 whom you heard the rumour was removed from the 
 district ? — I heard he was removed. 
 
 And that he was dismissed the force ? — No ; I 
 did not hear that. 
 
 Did you hear of his attacking a fellow-constable ? 
 
 Sm H. James. — Is this evidence, my Lord ? We 
 have not objected to any matters of ^general report and 
 rumour, but this is a question as to a specific detail 
 about the action of a particular man. Is not this, 
 pressing cross-examination too far ? 
 
 The President.— I think it is. I think, Sir Charles, 
 you are not entitled to ask this question. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Then I will not persevere. 
 
 The President. — The first answer is all that you arej 
 entitled to. He said that he had heard rumours. 
 
 Sir C. RusselX.— After your father's funeral, did 
 not the people show you and your family a kindly 
 sympathy ? — Very much. 
 
 Has there been anything like boycotting*!; ^showinjj 
 
 John Dillon. 
 
590 
 
 The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 you the cold shoulder ? — No, indeed, I cannot say 
 that. 
 
 Where was the nearest branch of the Land League ? — 
 I do not know anything about it. 
 
 Was Claremorris the nearest branch ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 Were you a member of the Loughboy Cricket Club ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Was that a club got up by the members of the 
 League ? — No ; it was open to anybody. 
 
 There were many members of the League in it ? — 
 There may have been. I do not know, as I was not 
 connected with the League. 
 
 Was there any kind oE ill-will shown against your 
 father at any time by your neighbours ? — No. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — You have mentioned a herd ? 
 Was his name Frank Prendergast ? — Yes. 
 
 When did he leave your employment ? — Imme- 
 diately after the hay was burnt. 
 
 Was he seeking a rise in wages ? — No. 
 
 Was there no dispute between you about his wages ? 
 —There was not. 
 
 Was he not asking for more ? — No. 
 
 By Mr. Eeid. — When this murder took place, had 
 you any reason to believe that your father's pockets 
 had been rifled ? — No ; except that I could not find any 
 sum of money worth mentioning upon him, although he 
 was in the habit of carrying money in his pocket. 
 
 He was in the habit of carrying a good deal of 
 money about him ? — Sometimes he did. 
 
 Did you believe that on this occasion he had as 
 much as £40 with him ? — I do not think he can have 
 had as much as that. He may have had with him £5 
 or £4, or perhaps £10. 
 
 Were you at the inquest ? — I was. 
 
 Did you hear the doctor give his evidence ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you hear him say that the bullet found in your 
 father's body was a constabulary bullet ? — I did not 
 hear him say that. 
 
 Or a military bullet ? — I did not hear him describe 
 the bullet at all. 
 
 Be-examined by Sir H. James. — When did your 
 father begin to act as bailiff ?— In 1867 or 1868. 
 
 Do you know why the police hut of which you have 
 spoken was put up ? — I do not. 
 
 Was your father acting as bailiff when it was put 
 up ?— -He was, and long before. 
 
 Had there been any evictions on the estate shortly 
 before the hut was erected ? — I do not remember. 
 
 Do you remember whether your father had attended 
 the sheriff before the hut was erected ? — I think it 
 was afterwards, but I am not sure. 
 
 Was any charge ever made against any policeman for 
 firing at your father ? Was any policeman put upon his 
 trial for it ? — No, I never heard of it. 
 
 Did the police authorities make any inquiry as to the 
 conduct of the policeman ? — Well, I do not know. 
 
 Did you find this paper (produced) among your 
 father's documents ? — Yes, I did, that is the notice. 
 
 Yes ; I think that is the notice I got among the papers 
 after his death. 
 
 Sir H. James.— My Lords, this document I put in 
 in consequence of suggestions that were put in cross- 
 examination. I confess my inability to read it ; per- 
 haps your Lordships will allow Mr. Eonan to read it. 
 
 Mr. Eonan thereupon read the document, which 
 was incoherent in parts, and which ran as follows : — 
 
 " Good morrow to you, friend Luke Dillon For 
 my words words you will attend, says tbo Shan van 
 Voght ; the poor old gentry is to shake hands to you 
 before long in consequence of your tricks and tyranny 
 to the tenants. You have refused to take a year's 
 rent from a part of the tenants that has it, and all 
 other landlords in Connaught is pleased to take pounds 
 of money at a time, but in their case they want no 
 evictions. You blackguard. Dillon will, and the mean 
 little wasp Frank Conway, from the county of Gal way, 
 will soon get two new suits of dresses. The cloth will 
 be timber ; the tailor will want no needle or thimble, 
 because it will be two coffins to have you both silent 
 in the churchyard. There is not a less mercied pair of 
 rogues within the walls of Ireland these days than you 
 both. There was many a high-up tyrant shot, and it 
 is time now to shoot the mean tyrants. Where there 
 is a bad bailiff must be shot without delay. For the 
 future there are but a few tenants all over the pro- 
 vince of Connaught ; but they are four years' rent gone 
 off, and six years' rent and seven years' rent and 
 eight years' rent, and agents and landlords would be 
 very glad to receive a half-year's rent and bestow the 
 arrear. You are only robbing Mr. Nolan, and if Mr. 
 Nolan kept the holding for tillage the crop will be 
 turned into cinders. I mean to let you know that there 
 was about 120 men present to this letter when it was 
 written, and every one of them is sworn to shoot you 
 on their turn, so I hope that the first man will have you 
 down with the help of God Almighty. If yourself and 
 Frank Conway was shot all the bad weeds would be 
 cleared out of the country for good. You are a pair of 
 lepers in the congregation. You are the two black 
 foxes, and it is time to start the hounds to hunt you 
 off for ever more." 
 
 Sir H. James (to witness). — Shortly before your 
 father's death did you hear his name mentioned in 
 the chapel ? — No. 
 
 Did you yourself receive a notice ? — Yes, I did. 
 
 Was that after you claimed compensation ?— Yes. 
 
 For what ? — For my father's murder. 
 
 Was it a threatening notice ? — It was. I do not know 
 what became of it. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lords, will you allow me, in 
 respect of this being suggested to be a police 
 murder, to call the district inspector and to ask him 
 whether he has ever heard of such a statement ? 
 
 The President. — It stands at present that the 
 witness never heard of anything of the kind. 
 
 District-Inspector Carter was recalled and said, — I 
 knew Luke Dillon, the man who was killed, very well. 
 I was not district inspector at the time of the murder. 
 
 Sir C. Er/SSELL (to the witness John Dillon).— Did 
 you know when he received that threatening notice ? 
 — I never knew anything about it until after his death, 
 when I found it among his papers. 
 
 I want to ask you this question. That letter refers 
 
 John Dillon. 
 
The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 591 
 
 to a farm on Mr. Nolan Farrell's property which had 
 been vacant for some 15 years ? — I do not know any 
 farm on that estate which had been vacant for that 
 time. 
 
 Mr. Espine Henry Tatlow was next called and 
 examined by Mr. Konan. 
 
 Mr. Ronan.— My Lords, this is partly in connexion 
 with Cornelius Regan, and witness is a land agent 
 from Cork who was not able to appear before. 
 
 Witness said, — I am a solicitor practising in Dublin, 
 and in 1885 I became agent for Mr. Thomson's estate in 
 Killabrahcr. In August or September, 1885, I applied 
 by circular to the tenants on the estate for the rent. I 
 have the circular here. 
 
 Mr. Ronan was about to put in the document, when 
 
 Sir C. Russell said, — How is this evidence ? 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — Because it comes from the Land 
 League (reading). 
 
 " We, the undersigned, tenants on the Thomson 
 property, in the townland of Killabraher North, do 
 hereby undertake not to pay our rents without an 
 abatement of thirty (30) per cent. — John Cnlhane, 
 Michael Lyuch, Jeremiah Galvin, Ellen O'Connell, 
 Simon Galvin, Martin O'Dorinell, John Regan, Ellen 
 Herlihy, James J. Galvin. 
 
 "Signed this 13th day of September, 1885, in presence 
 of Timothy Macmahon Brown, president of the Dromina 
 branch, Irish National League ; also Patrick Quinn, 
 hon. secretary Dromina branch, Irish National League. 
 
 " To Espine H. Tatlow, Esq., 9, Home-street, 
 Dublin." 
 
 Now, my Lords, there is a resolution which will 
 come inhere. The date is September 13, 1885. 
 
 Sir, n. James. — Will your Lordships allow my friend 
 Mr. Atkinson to read the resolution ? 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then read an extract from United 
 Ireland of September 19, 1885 : — 
 
 " Dromina. Meeting on Sunday, Mr. T. Macmahon 
 Brown in the chair. A discussion took place with 
 regard to the holding of a monster meeting. Mr. Daly 
 6aid that he would suggest that every member of the 
 branch double their former subscription. Mr. D. 
 O'Brien said he had subscribed £1 towards the monster 
 meeting to be held at Shandrum, and he would do the 
 same here. John Morrissey came to answer a charge 
 that he kept company with Michael Wall, who is 
 denounced by this League. He admitted the charge 
 and said he would not do so again, and was forgiven. 
 Resolved,—' That we call on the farmers of this parish 
 to give no work to any person who is not a member of 
 thisLeague,and also on the labourers not to work for 
 any farmer who is not a member of this League.' The 
 tenants at the Killabraher North property came before 
 the League and pledged themselves not to pay their 
 rents unless getting a reduction of 30 per cent." 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — After that, Mr Tatlow, did you receive 
 another letter from the tenants ?— I did ; it was dated 
 September 21. Witness here read the letter, which 
 was as follows : — 
 
 " Killabraher, Charleville, Sept. 21, 1885. 
 
 " sir, — We, the undersigned, tenants on G. W. 
 Thomson, Esq. 's, property at Killabraher, request your 
 honour will come to Charleville or on the lands and 
 
 show your authority as receiver, and we will pay you 
 as far as we are able to make up." 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — Now after that did you go to Charle- 
 ville ?— On December 9, I met the tenants. They 
 refused to pay unless they got 30 per cent. Cornelius 
 Regan was not present at that interview. Regan had 
 paid me his rent early in September in answer to one 
 of the first applications for rent in 1885. In December 
 again I had written to the tenants. I wrote after I 
 came back to town, and I received from them this 
 document :— 
 
 " December 26, 1885. 
 
 " Sir, — In reply to your letters dated 23d inst., we 
 cannot possibly pay our rents unless you allow us an 
 abatement of 30 per cent. In requesting this abate- 
 ment we do not consider we are unreasonable, as it is 
 far from being commensurate with the fall in prices of 
 all farm stock and produce. Neither do we intend to 
 pay any smaller reduction, let the consequences be 
 what they may." 
 
 It is signed by the same parties, with the addition of 
 two other signatures. The next month I issued writs 
 against the tenants, among them being one man named 
 Martin O'Donnell. After that he paid me the rent I 
 had asked for in full, with costs. That rent was 
 £22 10s. 6d., March gale, 1885. 
 
 The President. — Yes, yes ; but what was the reduc- 
 tion you had made ? — I did not allow him any re- 
 duction. 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — Was that all that was due from him ? 
 — No ; he owed the September, 1885, rent ; but when 
 he was willing to pay the March, 1885, rent, of course 
 I took that. After he had paid I received a letter 
 dated February 23, 1886. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, how is this letter evi- 
 dence ? 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — There is no harm in mentioning the 
 purport of the letter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes, there is. 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — It is on the same footing as the letters 
 produced by Mr. Leonard, by which people who had 
 paid asked to have actions against them. Will your 
 Lordships look at the letter ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is not the way to test the 
 matter at all. 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — Surely, my Lords, when the man 
 wishes the action to go on against him 
 
 The President. — Under those circumstances I think 
 you may put it in. 
 
 Mr. Ronan. — Will your Lordships look at it ? 
 
 The President. — If a man writes beforehand and 
 says, " I want to pay my rent secretly," I think it 
 may be received in evidence. 
 
 The letter was then handed to their Lordships. 
 After reading it, 
 
 The President said, — We think it can be admitted 
 just as the other letters were,. 
 
 The witness then read the letter as follows : — 
 
 " Killabraher, February 23, 1886. 
 
 " Sir, — I respectfully require from you as an act ot 
 kindness a letter dated 10th of February, acknow- 
 ledging receipt for £22 10s. 6d. with £2 10s. costs 
 
 Mr. Espine Henry Tatlow. 
 
592 
 
 The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 (received on the 8th of February), demanding balance 
 in full by return, or the law will take its course, as 
 judgment is marked against yon. My life and the lives 
 of my family are in danger, and have no other means 
 of protection but this. My hay was tossed about and 
 trampled on Saturday night last. I suspect the tenants 
 on their return from Cork to have done so . My children 
 are boycotted in the schools and are being hooted on 
 the way home by erery one. One of them is 
 monitress. I am in dread to stir outside my own land ; so 
 I request with gratitude your honour will send me the 
 required by return of post, so that I can" produce it in 
 order to save my life. 
 
 " I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " Martin O'Donnell." 
 
 Mr. RonAN. — This man O'Donnell paid, Eegan paid, 
 and Mrs. Herlihy paid ? — Yes. 
 
 Were they the only tenants who paid ? — John Regan 
 also paid, a portion after proceedings were taken 
 against him ; and another man had paid a portion 
 before. 
 
 Your partner, Mr. Thomson, was owner of this pro- 
 perty 1 — Yes. 
 
 Before you became agent you were familiar with 
 the estate ? — Yes. 
 
 Up to 1885 were the rents paid punctually ? — Yes, 
 there was no trouble with the tenants. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sie C. Russell. — When were you 
 appointed agent ? — In June, 1885. I knew about the 
 property because my partner was the proprietor of the 
 property ; but I had not been acting as agent. 
 
 Had there been any abatement in 1878, 1879, or 1880 ? 
 ■ — No, not to my knowledge. 
 
 Or up to 1885 ?— No. 
 
 Then I take it that it was not considered proper on 
 the part of the landlord or the agent to make any abate- 
 ment during those years ? — It was not considered 
 proper. 
 
 You were aware of the state of things in 1879 — of 
 the failure of the potato crop ? — Yes, I was. 
 
 What was the average reduction of the judicial rents 
 in this neighbourhood ? — I cannot tell that, because I 
 was not connected with any other property in that 
 neighbourhood. 
 
 Was it between 25 and 30 per cent. 1—1 cannot tell. 
 
 In 1884 and 1885 was there again a serious fall in 
 prices ? — I do not think there was. 
 
 In 1886 ?— I think not. Things were not so bad in 
 1886. 
 
 You never heard of the Cowper Commission 1 — Oh, 
 I did. 
 
 Of the report ?— Yes. 
 
 And the tables ? — I didn't see the tables. ■ 
 
 Do you think now there was a fall ? — I think there 
 was. 
 
 A great fall ?— I cannot say. 
 
 Do you know whether there is, under the Act of last 
 Session, systematically and automatically applied a 
 reduction even of judicial rents 1 — I know there is. 
 
 You made no reduction voluntarily up to 1885 ?— No. 
 I don't think it was asked tor. 
 
 What 1—1 think it was asked for once. 
 
 Here is a document dated September 13, 1885 :— 
 ' ' We, the undersigned tenants, undertake not to pay 
 any rent without a 30 per cent, reduction." Now, do 
 you mean to say there was no reduction applied for till 
 1885 1—1 think one. 
 
 Was that in 1879 or 1880 ?— I think it was in 1879. 
 
 When you received the notice from the tenants 
 asking jou to come to Charleville and show your 
 authority, did you go ? — I did not. 
 
 Did you discuss the matter with them ? — I tried to 
 discuss that in December, but not what abatement 
 was fair. 
 
 Were you not without authority to make abatement 
 at all ? — I was without any direct authority, but would 
 have allowed 15 per cent, on my own discretion. 
 
 Do you know, apart from the reduction of the 
 judicial rent, that the automatic reduction means 15 
 per cent. ? — I believe it does. 
 
 As a matter of fact, you did not propose any abate- 
 ment ? — I said I would at my own discretion give 15 
 per cent. i 
 
 Did you say so ? — I did in December. 
 
 Did you give it to Martin O'Donnell p — No. 
 
 To any who paid ? — No. 
 ^ Not one penny to any of them ? — No. 
 
 The branch of the League nearest to this place was 
 Dromina ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know that that branch of the League was 
 dissolved by the authority of the central body in 
 Dublin in the autumn of 1885 1 — I did not hear' it, but 
 it is in my mind that I did see it in the papers. 
 
 By Mr. Reid. — In regard to the diminution in prices 
 of produce and stock in 1886, am I to understand that 
 you dispute that there was a remarkable and most 
 abnormal fall in prices ? — I do not think there was. 
 
 I do not mean an ordinary fall, but the prices 
 reached the lowest that they have touched for 
 a great many years, quite abnormal ? — I am aware 
 there was a fall. 
 
 My Lords, to make my point clear, I would refer 
 your Lordships to appendix C of the Cowper Commis- 
 sion, page 953. The first return I refer to is the 
 estimated total value of the crops in Ireland in 1855, 
 1865, 1875, and 1885, and each of the years from 1881 
 to 1886. In 1881, £46,000,000 ; 1882, £33,000,000 ; 
 1883, £42,000,000 ; 1884, £41,000,000 ; 1885, 
 £35,000,000 ; and in 1886, £31,000,000. That is the 
 smallest it has been in any one of the years referred 
 to, beginning in 1855 and coming down by decades to 
 1886. 
 
 Re-examined by Sib H. James. — I say the smallest 
 return before the December of 1885 is £35,000,000 ; 
 you did intimate your readiness to give a reduction in 
 1885 — was that accepted ? — No, I believe only one ap- 
 plication for reduction was made between 1879 and 
 1883. The rents had been paid with great punctuality. 
 
 You offered the 15 per cent, in 1885 and the 
 tenants would not take it ? — Yes. 
 
 Sie H. James.— Your Lordships will remember that 
 the notice put in dated September 13, 1885, said that 
 
 Mr. Espine Hemjy-Tatlow. 
 
The Special Commission, December 11,- 1888.' 
 
 593 
 
 the undertaking was signed in the presence of T. 
 Macmahon Brown, president,and P. Qainn,hon. secretary. 
 I will now read from the Cork Daily Herald of August 
 19, 1885. 
 
 Sir O. Russell. — I only wish to observe that no 
 connexion has been proved with this paper of any of 
 those I represent. 
 
 Mr. Reid.- — Will your Lordships allow me to read 
 the figures of agricultural produce in Ireland, which I 
 omitted ? 
 
 The President.— Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — The figures with regard to live stock are 
 on page 956 of the report, and are as follows for 
 the years 1881 to 1886 :— 1881, £50,000,000 ; 1882, 
 £53,000,000 ; 1883, £52,000,000 ; 1884, £50,000,080 ; 
 1885, £43,000,000 ; and in 1886, £41,000,000. 
 
 The extract from the Cori. Daily Herald was then 
 read by Mr. Atkinson, as follows : — 
 
 " Dromina. A meeting was held here on Sunday for 
 the purpose of electing officers to conduct the branch 
 for the coming year. The numbers were so large that 
 the meeting was held in the open air. A large amount 
 of subscriptions having been handed in, the election of 
 officers then took place under the superintendence of 
 Mr. John Rea, the president of the Shandrum branch 
 of the National League, who acted on behalf of the 
 Central League Mr. Brown was ap- 
 pointed president, Mr. J. O'Donnell treasurer, and 
 Mr. P. Quinn secretary. The president then took the 
 chair, and the first branch meeting was formally held. 
 Mr. Stephen Hickey stated that Michael Wall, D. 
 Coglan, and Michael Culhane were aiding and assisting 
 a local land-grabber and associating with him. It was 
 decided to form a vigilance committee in each 
 townland to watch parties associating with obnoxious 
 persons and report them to the meetings. Mr. John 
 Barke, Newtown, brought his case before the meeting, 
 and the resolution passed by the Shandrum branch was 
 adopted, and a woman named Mrs. Farrell, of New- 
 town, was censured for working for the Troys, who 
 held Burke's farm contrary to the popular wish." 
 
 Sir H. James. — May I point out to your Lordships 
 that the president of the Shandrum branch was Mr. 
 Rea, who acted on behalf of the Central League. We 
 were unable to show it previously. (To witness.) Do 
 you know Rea ? — He bid at the sale in Cork. 
 
 Did you observe anything in his conduct ? — He was 
 bidding in a very bumptious manner. 
 
 Well, I do not think very much about that ; that is 
 not uncommon. (Laughter.) Did he say anything about 
 the landlord ? — He did. He made a slight speech before 
 each case, saying that he thought the landlord had 
 acted very badly in not making an abatement. 
 I cannot remember all he said. 
 
 Did he say he acted on behalf of the tenants ? — He 
 did ; he was bidding on their behalf. 
 
 Thomas Fahy, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I 
 live at Ballinrobe, in Mayo. I am an Army pensioner. 
 After serving some years I returned and took a farm 
 near Ballinrobe. A man named King had formerly 
 had that farm, and had been evicted. The farm had 
 been in possession of my grandfather before I went 
 
 into the Army. The farm was vacant iwhen I took it, 
 I went into it in September, 1880. On ithe night ofi 
 the 19th of July, 1881, I remember being inched and) 
 being awakened by a bullet coming in through tha 
 door, about half-past 11 o'clock. Two shots were firedj 
 I was not struck ; the bullet passed over the mother 
 and child in bed. I heard a voice saying outside,! 
 " That was enough." Next morning, on the 20th of 
 July, at 7 o'clock, I found a notice, with a coffin on 
 it, and gave it to the police, who took it away with 
 them, 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — My Lords, I am in a position to> 
 prove the loss of the original. (Handing document tov' 
 witness.) Is that a copy ? — It is. 
 
 Mr. Murphy then read the notice, as follows : — 
 
 " Tom, — If you don't give up caretaking you will 
 lose your life ; and the next time Rory visits you it 
 is not through the door but yourself we will put a 
 ballet." , 
 
 Did yon find the walls thrown down round yoirr\ 
 farm ? — Yes, and other notices, the same as the one' 
 read, were placed on pieces of board about. 
 
 Did you ever join the League ? — No. 
 
 Had you ever any trouble with any of your neigh* 
 bours ? — No ; not with any of them. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 James Mollowney, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, 
 — Bight years ago I took a farm from Mr. Ormsby, 
 which had formerly been occupied by a man named 
 Gallagher, who gave it up. On the 14th of June, 1880, 
 some men came to my house. There were so many I 
 could not tell the number. They took me out of bed 
 and brought me out on to the street and showed me the 
 force that was there. They bandaged my eyes, and 
 then they asked me was I going to give that land up 
 to the landlord, and I said I would if they gave me 
 some time to sell my cattle. They carded roe, and 
 bored my ear through, and knocked me down and 
 kicked me. I was undressed at the time. They fired 
 a shot over me, but it did not do me any harm. 
 
 Did you give up the land ? — Yes. 
 
 Why ? — I took it till November, and kept it till 
 November, and then gave it up. 
 
 Had you any further trouble after giving up the 
 land ?— No. 
 
 f. Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Were not pro- 
 ceedings taken against Gallagher by the landlord ? — ■ 
 No. 
 
 But had not Mr. Ormsby's agent taken proceedings 
 against him ?— I think not. 
 
 Had Gallagher been promised any money when he 
 gave it up ? — No, there was a man before Gallagher 
 gave it up. 
 
 Was not Gallagher promised some money for giving 
 it up 1 — No, not Gallagher, the man before him. 
 
 How long had you taken this grazing ? — From May 
 to November. 
 
 Where was Gallagher living at the time when this 
 party visited your house ? — In the next village. 
 
 Thomas Fahy. 
 
 James Mollowney. 
 
594 
 
 The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 What was he doing ? — I do not know ; he had land 
 on the property — on the Ormsby property. 
 
 Now.^ when you were treated in this barbarous way, 
 had you intended to keep the land longer ? — Well, I 
 would have kept it as long as I liked bat for their 
 coming to me. 
 
 You were frightened ? — Yes. 
 
 Except this visit, was any incivility shown to you ? 
 —No ; they kept a little dark from me while I had 
 the land, but they were all good neighbours after I 
 gave it up. 
 
 Mr. George T. Shaen Carter, examined by Mr. 
 Atkinsox, said, — My father had an estate in the 
 barony of Erris, in the county of Mayo, near Bel- 
 mullet, and another in Westmeath. After my father's 
 death in 1875 I acted as his executor. I became well 
 acquainted with the circumstances of my father's 
 property. He had a very large rental, and I had to go 
 round and take copies of the last receipts. My brother 
 succeeded to the property. 
 
 When your brother succeeded, what was the feeling 
 of the tenantry ? — I had no fault to find with them ; 
 they paid their rents very punctually ; as a rule we 
 had to write out the receipts beforehand. That 
 changed in 1879. 
 
 Do you remember the establishment of a Land 
 League branch ?— I remember a meeting being held in 
 the early part of 1880 at Glencastle, about three miles 
 from Belmullet. 
 
 Before that had any threatening notices been posted 
 in that district ? — There were notices posted at Bel- 
 mullet, I think in 1870, saying that if Carter and 
 Reilly did not deal fairly with their tenants they 
 would be served the same as Lord Lei trim. 
 
 At the beginning, of 1880, was another threatening 
 notice received ? — Yes ; I received one through the 
 post. That was in the early part of 1880. 
 
 Have you got that notice ?— No ; I placed no value 
 on it. 
 
 What was the purport of it ?— That I would be 
 served the same as Lord Mountmorres if 1 did not 
 reduce the rent. 
 
 Did it say how much reduction ? — No. 
 
 Now, did you observe any change after that in the 
 demeanour of the people towards you ? — I noticed a 
 change in their habits in the rent-room ; they were 
 rather more independent. 
 
 Were you able at mis lime to get people to work 
 for you ?— I was able to get people to work for me 
 when I was paying the money for tha relief of dis- 
 tress. In the early part of 1881 there was a marked 
 change in the demeanour of the people. 
 
 Were you able then to get people to work for you ? 
 —I was always able to get people to work for me ; 
 they were only too happy. 
 
 In that year do you remember a number of people 
 coming and holding a meeting when your people were 
 working for you ?— Yes ; my men were reaping. It 
 
 was a place which was in my own hands, but which 
 people wished to obtain as grazing land. 
 
 Had this crowd any banners with them ? — They had 
 one flag ; I could not see what was on it. 
 
 Did you know who the persons were who composed 
 the crowd ? — Yes ; some were my own tenants, and 
 others came from the townlands and different places 
 about. 
 
 Were there any members of the League, there ? — I do 
 not really know : I believed them to be members of 
 the League. 
 
 Did the police arrive on the scene ? — Yes. I sent a 
 man riding on horseback when I saw the threatening 
 attitude of the crowd. I had to send him some 13 
 English miles. 
 
 After that occurrence were you able to get people to 
 save the crops off this land ? — No, I was not ; they 
 had to rot, except a little I managed to save myself. 
 
 The President. — What did the crowd do ? — They 
 came across the boundary and came into the field 
 where we were, and began to jeer and hoot and tried 
 to stop the labourers from working. Some of the men 
 refused to stop, and they caught hold of one man's 
 scythe. I thought it better to move, so we had our 
 dinner. 
 
 Examination continued.— You say you were ob- 
 liged to leave the crops to rot ? — Yes. After 
 we had dinner it was late in the evening and 
 we began to go home. On our way home the 
 crowd with the flag formed four deep ; we found 
 another contingent before us. We went on between 
 the two, and after going about three miles we met the 
 police and Sub-Inspector Stritch. He asked the 
 people what they had against Mr. Carter, and they 
 replied " Nothing, but they would not allow the 
 labourers to go up. They did not mind the polico 
 going, but the labourers were not to go." 
 
 You subsequently served some ejectments ? — Yes. 
 We went again about three days afterwards with some 
 police to try and cut tho crops, but had to retire- 
 There was a crowd of 700 or 800 people. 
 
 Did you know any of these people by name ? — Oh, 
 yes. 
 
 Were any of them members of the local League ?— 
 On the second occasion I saw a man, Macdonough, 
 whom I believe to be a member of the League. 
 
 Did you serve any ejectments ? — Yes. 
 
 About what time ? — It was in 18S0. Every year I 
 had to serve them. 
 
 I am speaking of after this occurrence of the crowd? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Did yon settle with all except four or five ? — All 
 except about a dozen. 
 
 Were they much in arrears ? — From three to five 
 years. 
 
 Do you remember the death of your brother in 1882 ? 
 —I do. 
 
 Did you then become entitled to the property ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you remember attending shortly after this at a 
 
 Mr. George T. Shaon Carter. 
 
The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 595 
 
 fair at Belroullet ?— Yes, I do. It was on March 15, 1882. 
 On my return that evening I was flred at, and was shot 
 in the knee. The road was crowded with people and 
 carts going home from the fair. I drove back to Bel- 
 mullet, a mile distant. When I was shot no one came 
 to my assistance. My pony became very restive, and 
 I had to ask a young fellow, who turned out to be one 
 of the tenants, to get up in the trap. I told him I was 
 shot, and he became alarmed, and asked me to let him 
 down when we got to the town. I did so, and drove 
 the rest of the way myself. A week afterwards my 
 koee was amputated. I can assign no other reason for 
 my being shot at than my position as a landlord. 
 
 After the usual midday adjournment for luncheon, 
 
 Witness was cross-examined by Sik C. Russell. — 
 You have spoken of some men coming over the hills 
 and frightening the men who were working on your 
 farm ; what was the original cause of that ? — I don't 
 kunw. 
 
 This was not an evicted farm ? — It was grazing land 
 in my own hands. 
 
 It had been on your hands for a number of years ? — 
 Since 1874. 
 
 Surely there must be something more than you have 
 told us ? — I do not know of anything more. 
 
 Were you not one of the landlords who borrowed 
 money under the Landlords' Eelief Act at 1 per cent ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Without interest for two years and afterwards at 1 
 per cent, and £2 8s. 6d. per cent, for sinking fund for 
 the capital ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there any dispute or dissatisfaction at the way 
 you were employing your tenants with that money and 
 at your not paying their wages ? — No, there was no 
 dispute. The tenants were employed, and earned their 
 money, and were paid it. 
 
 Were they paid it ?— Yes, they were. 
 
 Was there not a priest, Father Devanny, who came 
 to expostulate with you about it ? — He did not. 
 
 Did he not say that your tenants were on the verge 
 of destitution, and that you were not paying them for 
 the work, and that you were holding it over for the 
 rent ? — I do not recollect passing a word with Father 
 Devanny in my life. 
 
 Did you not write to Father Devanny in answer to 
 his expostulation ? — 1 may have done. 
 
 I do not know who is right or wrong, but were there 
 not complaints made by the tenants as to the way in 
 which you were treating them as to this relief work ? 
 — I never received any complaint to my recollection. 
 
 What, then, did you write to Father Devanny about ? 
 — It has escaped my recollection. I am not going 
 behind what I have written. 
 
 Tell me whether, rightly or wrongly, the meu were 
 complaining that, instead of being paid for the relief 
 work which the Government intended them to get by 
 this loan, they were not paid fairly ?— I was paying 
 them. I paid them weekly or fortnightly. 
 
 Yes, but did they complain ? — I do not recollect 
 receiving any complaint. 
 
 Was the party which came to prevent your men 
 working headed by a girl, a woman, and a school lad ? 
 — I don't know. There were about 100 people. They 
 were headed by some one with a flag. But now you 
 mention it, Father Devanny did come with them. He 
 was the first person I saw in connexion with this stop- 
 ping the reaping of my oats. 
 
 What time do you fix for that ? — September, 1881. 
 
 Was it not in that very month that you were in corre- 
 spondence with Father Devanny ? — I believe it was. 
 
 When the party came, headed by a girl, a woman, 
 and a sciiool lad, guided by a priest, did not your own 
 men turn tail and walk away, glad of an excuse to do 
 so ? — They were not glad of an excuse, they were very 
 bold. 
 
 You have not mentioned whether on this unhappy 
 occasion when you were shot you were alone or not ? — 
 I was not. There were plenty of people on the road. 
 
 Was there any one with you in the trap you were 
 driving ? — Yes, Mr. Froome. 
 
 Have you never expressed your belief that it was 
 Mr. Froome they shot at and not you ? — No ; he was a 
 sub-agent. 
 
 Have you heard any complaints made of his brutal 
 conduct at evictions ? — I heard complaints made, but 
 I do not recollect any brutal conduct at any evictions 
 that occurred with me. 
 
 Ycu know probably the question I am referring to — ■ 
 viz., the eviction on the property of Mr. O'Donnell ?— 
 I do not know anything about him. 
 
 Do you know that Froome was greatly disliked for 
 the part he had taken in evictions ? — No. I do not 
 think he was liked any more than I was. I was dis- 
 liked on account of evictions. 
 
 This occurred about a mile from Belmullet ? — About 
 an Irish mile. 
 
 When you speak of a number of people on the road, 
 it was a fair, was it not ? — It was. 
 
 Belmullet is one of th.3 largest fairs of thft district, 
 and people came to it from long distances ? — Yes. 
 
 This shot occurred at the lodge gate, and Froome got 
 out, and you pluckily drove back to Belmullet with 
 your knee injured ? — Yes. 
 
 You say you were disliked yourself on account of 
 evictions ? — Yes. I was told it would be the cause oi 
 my death. 
 
 During your father's life and after his death, before 
 you succeeded to the property, you were looking after it 
 in the interest of your brother, who was not able to do 
 so himself ? — I was. 
 
 How long were you receiver ? — From 1878 to 1882. 
 
 And in 1882 you succeeded to the property ? — Yes. 
 
 What abatement of rent did you give in 1878 ?— 
 None. 
 
 And in 1879 ?— I do not think I gave any in 1879. 
 
 In 1880 ? — I do not think I gave any abatement till 
 the Commissioners came on the land. Yes, I did on 
 one townland. When the Commissioners came they 
 raised some of the rents, as they thought the land was 
 too cheaply let. 
 
 Mr, George T. Shaen Carter. 
 
596 
 
 The'Sjpecial Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 You are quite entitled to say that. In one case you 
 say you made an abatement, how much ? — So far as my 
 memory goes it was 4s. in the pound. 
 
 On what gale did you make that abatement ? — 
 I think it was March, 1882 or 1883. I think 1882, as 
 I was shot in 1882, and some one else managed for me 
 in 1883. 
 
 How many proceedings in ejectment had you taken 
 altogether ? — Speaking from memory I believe I issued 
 about 50. They, all settled except about eight or ten. 
 I wanted one year's rent out of about three to five 
 years' rent. 
 
 I have the return here as to reductions of rent. I see 
 many reductions, but I cannot see any increases. You 
 were managing your brother's property in 1882 ? — Yes. 
 
 Manally was a tenant of your brother's P — Yes. 
 
 Sir C. RU3SEDL. — I will read you some cases : — 
 James Manally, Poor Law valuation, £3 4s. ; former 
 rent, £5 10s. ; judicial rent, £4. Then there are 
 others. I will not trouble with the names. Former 
 rent, £6 lis., reduced to £5 ; £4 9s. to £3 10s. ; 
 £5 8s. to £4 ; £± 15s. to £1 8s. ; £4 to £3 ; £2 6s. to 
 £1 15s. ; £2 4s. to £1 17s. ; £3 10s. to £3 ; £5 2s. to 
 £4 ; £4 to £3. 
 
 Witness. — I can give you the name of a man' in 
 Brisca where the rent was increased. It was James 
 Lynn. 
 
 Sir C. Russell, — It is not in the official return ? — 
 The rent was increased, but the increase was not 
 exacted, and the man was kept at his old rent. 
 
 Do you undertake to say there was another case ? — 
 Yes ; a good number were increased on some parts of 
 the estate. 
 
 I think I am right in saying that in two pages of 
 this return relating to your estate there is not a single 
 case of increase, but a considerable number of reduc- 
 tions ? — There were many increases. 
 
 In the case of Peter Monaghan, of Brisca, his Poor 
 Law valuation is £6, former rent £18 19s., judicial 
 rent £6 10s. ; the reduction is thus £12 9s. ?— That is a 
 misprint for £8 19s. His rent was not £18 19s. 
 
 I cannot find anywhere a single increase ? — There 
 were two in Ballinanally and several in Killcullagh. 
 The rents generally were reduced so little that my 
 rental at the present day is almost the same as before 
 the Commissioners came. 
 
 That is out of 600 tenants ?— Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Reid. — Did I understand you to say that, 
 taken as a whole, your rents were not substantially re- 
 duced by the Land Commission ? — I should say they 
 were more substantially reduced by myself than by the 
 Commissioners. I do not think they were substantially 
 reduced in the county of Mayo. 
 
 You have spoken of an increase made in some of 
 your rents, which, by the way, we have not yet been 
 able to find. I want to ask you whether it is not the 
 fact that, taking these reductions by the Commis- 
 sioners, your rents were reduced— I am judging by 
 itfunning my eye over them — about 20 or 30 per cent. ? 
 (— I did not give the Commissioners much chance of re- 
 
 ducing my rents. I do not think they were sub« 
 stantially reduced. 
 
 The President. — That you are reading from, Mr. 
 Reid, is a record only of those cases that went into 
 Court? 
 
 Mr. Reid.— Yes. 
 
 The President (to witness). — I want to understand 
 your evidence. 
 
 Witness. — I speak of my rents as a whole. 
 
 The President.— Then you mean that in other cases, 
 not mentioned there, you made reductions ? 
 
 Witness. — Yes, my Lord. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Let there be no misapprehension 
 here, my Lord. Wherever there were reductions made 
 merely by voluntary agreement, or so-called voluntary 
 agreement, between the landlord and the tenant those 
 are filed as consent rents, and are put on the record 
 in the Land Court. 
 
 The President. — I want to see if I can get a clue 
 to the difference between you. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— I will try to make it clear. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— How many cases have 
 you in that book ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — About 50 or 60, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — That is out of 600 
 tenants. That seems* to explain the matter. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Will your Lordships allow me to follow 
 it up ? We have 60 or 70 in one page. We have not 
 found them all out, though we have looked at a good 
 many. (To witness.) I want first to get this from, 
 you. The Land Act of 1881 created a certain class of 
 tenants with fixed rents, called " present tenants "?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Unless the tenant either went before the Court or 
 made an agreement which was recorded in the Court 
 he did not get any benefit from the Land Act of 1881 
 at all r— That is so. 
 
 Therefore consents are recorded here as well as 
 judicial examinations 'I — Yes. 
 
 Now, I want to ask you how many of your tenants 
 went into the Land Court ? — I could not tell you ; but 
 very few. 
 
 Would you say 150 went into the Court ? — I won't 
 swear to the number. 
 
 Either by consent or otherwise ?— I decidedly say 
 that by consent more than 150 settled with me. 
 
 That is another point. I want to know how many 
 of your tenants became tenants under the Land Act at 
 a fixed rent ?— I don't know. 
 
 How many of your tenants were leaseholders at that 
 time ? — Only about 40, perhaps. 
 
 Were any of them kept out by owing arrears ?— ■ 
 They came under the Arrears Act, and they had their 
 year's rent made up by the Government under the 
 Arrears Act. 
 
 I want to know if any were kept out ? — I do not 
 think that any of my tenants were kept out of going 
 into the Land Court. 
 
 The number we will find out afterwards. I want to 
 ask you this again. Will you deny that these rents 
 
 Mr. George T. Shaen Carter. 
 
The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 597 
 
 fixed by the Court were at least between 20 and 30 
 per cent, less than the previous rents ? — I should be 
 very much astonished if the reductions amounted to 
 over 20 per cent. 
 
 By Mr. LOCKWOOD. — I have gone through the 
 returns for July, August, September, October, Novem- 
 ber, and December, 1883, and I think it will appear 
 from these returns that the greater number of your 
 tenants sought relief in the Judicial Courts in the 
 month of November, 1883. Do you remember that to 
 be so ?r— I believe it to be the case, but I was not in 
 the country at the time. 
 
 I find that in the previous months up to November 
 there were five. It is fair to say that in one case in 
 which the man's rent was £30, his rent was upheld. I 
 believe the most substantial month was November. 
 Now (reading), we see Anthony Danlevey. Was he 
 one of your tenants ? — Yes. 
 
 His rent was £2 15s., and it was upheld. The nest, 
 James Mullaghan, rent £4. That was reduced to £2 5s. 
 — I expect the Commissioners must have judged that 
 case by the man himself. He was very old and 
 decrepit. 
 
 Well, we will not go behind the decision, please. 
 The next case is that of Anthony Connor, £5 10s., 
 reduced by consent to £3 10s. — That was on account 
 of the bad land. 
 
 Then Bridget Hargreaves, £1 10s. That was upheld. 
 Owen Glenaghan, £2 2s., reduced to £1 7s. ; William 
 Tupper, £2 14s., reduced to £2 ; Michael Conway, 
 £4 19s. 4d., reduced to £3 5s.— Yes, but these had 
 nearly all cut away the bog. It is nearly all stone. 
 
 If it is nearly all stone, why do you charge these 
 rents ? — The land was double the value before the 
 people reduced it by cutting away the bog. 
 
 Then Dominic Keary, £10, reduced to £8 10s. ; Pat- 
 rick Keary, £10, reduced to £8 10s. ; Patrick Ruddy, 
 £1 18s., reduced to £1 5s. Those, my Lords, are the 
 applications in 1883. Again in January, 1884, Martin 
 Coyle, £3, reduced to £1 10s. ; Henry Coyle, £12, 
 reduced to £5. The Poor Law valuation of that land 
 was £4. Your rent was £12. James Sweeney, 
 £3 7s. 6d., reduced to £1 12s. ; James Sweeney, 
 senior, £5, reduced to £3. 
 
 The President. — I do not know, Mr. Lockwood, 
 what your object is in carrying this out in detail. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The witness rather challenged 
 the statement, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I understood the witness to say 
 that so far from there being a reduction of rents by 
 the Commissioners, the rents had been in some cases 
 increased. I have now got to the last case I want to 
 mention, and I think I am in a position to give your 
 Lordships the only two cases in which an increase 
 took place. 
 
 Witness. — There were more than two cases. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I ask you then to point them out 
 to me. 
 
 Witness. — You will not find that done on any other 
 landlord's property. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — These are the only two cases .1 
 have been able to iind. A tenant, James Riley, rent 
 £2 14s., increased to £3 ; and William Ruddy, rent 
 £4 12s. 6d., increased to £5.. Those are all I can 
 find. 
 
 The President.— Riley and Ruddy 1 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The witness was understood to say that there were 
 many cases in which rents had been increased in two 
 particular townlands, the names of which were not 
 understood, addinfi " I am sure of it." 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — With reference to this land to 
 which the crowd came, was it not all grazing pre- 
 viously ? — Decidedly not. 
 
 Had not the people in the neighbourhood some rights 
 over it ? — They had not. 
 
 Did they claim any rights over it ?— They did not. 
 
 You said something about this being grazing land, 
 which you sowed afterwards with oats. Did the 
 people claim any right at all over it as grazing land 
 before 1874 ?— No. 
 
 You have referred to a woman who was evicted by 
 you and you did not give her name. Was she a widow ? 
 — I do not recollect. 
 
 Do you recollect using offensive language to her ?— 
 I do not know of any widow I turned out. I never 
 used any offensive language. 
 
 You did not refer to her children as " cubs " ?— • 
 Never. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — One of the complaints made 
 against these people is that they were very indepen- 
 dent in their manner. Do you consider that that is a 
 crime ? — Decidedly not. I think it is a sign of a man 
 being a man. 
 
 Sir H. James..— May I ask whether one of my 
 learned friends will mention the number of cases which 
 are judicially settled in these returns ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We will give the figures. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — As far as I can judge we have cast our 
 eye over 80 or 90 cases. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. Jame3. — Some of this land 
 was bog land P^Yes, and the tenants had cut away 
 the turf. 
 
 And when the turf was cut there was nothing left but 
 stone ? — No. 
 
 You are right in saying that in addition to the 
 judicial record, you did come to an arrangement by 
 consent with many of your tenants? — I did. 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson, examined by Sir H. James, 
 said, — I was born in county Kerry, and have known it 
 all my life. I know the district about Castleisland. 
 I lived near there. I was very young at the time and 
 living with my parents. My father left me his 
 interest in the lease of a farm he had near Castle- 
 island. I took possession of that farm in 1871. My 
 father occupied it until that time. I lived with him 
 on it and have occupied it from that time until now. 
 The landlord is Mr. Herbert, of Muckross. The farm ia 
 
 Mr. George T. Shaen Carter. 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson. 
 
598 
 
 The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 337 acres in extent. There are no sub-tenants on the 
 farm. 
 
 Did you also at any time have to manage 
 any other property ? — Yes, a property belong- 
 ing to Mr. Hurley. Mr. Hurley died in 1878. 
 After his death I occupied the position of trustee in 
 relation to his property and had the management of 
 it entirely. There were some children and I was left 
 as guardian over them and trustee of the property. 
 
 Between 1878 and 18S3 what share did you take in 
 looking after the property ? Did you take any active 
 or practical share ? — Yes. 
 
 To what extent ? — I went over it constantly and 
 looked after it. I did not receive the rents until 
 after 1883. Between 1878 and 1883 Mr. Hussey 
 managed the property, but he consulted me as to all 
 matters of importance in connexion with the pro- 
 perty. 
 
 Were you thoroughly acquainted with that property ? 
 — Yes. I know every tenant and every farm upon it. 
 The largest portion of the estate lies between Castle- 
 island and Listowel,and is about 8,000 acres in extent. 
 There is another portion of the estate, where the resi- 
 dence is, another near Tralee, and another near Kil- 
 larney. The property about Tralee is about 200 acres 
 in extent, that about Killarney about 500 acres, and 
 the other about 700 acres — in all about 1,500 acres. 
 Those properties were let out to different tenants. 
 
 About how many tenants would there be on the 
 Hurley property ? — About 50 on the property near Lis- 
 towel, eight on the Killarney property, four or five on 
 that near Tralee, and about eight or nine on the re- 
 maining portion. Since 1883 I have had this property 
 in hand and looked after it personally myself. 
 
 First taking your own property prior to 1880, on 
 what terms had you been with your neighbours and the 
 people in the district ? — Perfectly friendly. 
 
 Had you any differences at all in relation to your 
 connexion with the Hurley property before 1880 ? — 
 No. 
 
 Had you known of any outrages with regard to 
 evicted farms by Moonlighters, or anything of that 
 sort ? — No. 
 
 Now, you were aware, I believe, of the meeting 
 that took place in October, 1880, at Castleisland ? — 
 Yes, I was living at Fenit at that time — that is, at 
 the Hurley house. 
 
 Asking the question generally, when did you find any 
 disagreement arising between you and the tenants of 
 the Hurley property or your own ? — About that time. 
 
 Before or after the meeting ? — It became very much 
 worse after the meeting. 
 
 Sir H. James. — We will just fix the date. 
 The learned counsel then called attention to the 
 following extracts from the Kerry Sentinel of January 
 28, 1881 :— 
 
 " A meeting of the Kerry Central Land League was 
 held as usual on Wednesday. Mr. James Lyons pre- 
 sided. The others present were Messrs. E. Harring- 
 ton. Morris Kearney, M. B. Stokes, and about 20 
 
 others. Mr. Dawson said he was on last Saturday 
 served with a Dublin writ for half a year's rent by 
 Miss Thompson, of Fenit, and he hoped the League 
 would defend the case, which was to come on next 
 Monday. The chairman. — Who else are going to be 
 served ? Mr. Dawson. — Morris Quinlan and Mr. O'SulIi- 
 van. Mr. Power. — What lands do you hold from Miss 
 Thompson ? Mr. Dawson. — Cahervisheen, near Tralee. 
 I paid her a gale in advance, and she wants now not to 
 allow me that at all. Mr. Kearney. — Then I say that 
 there is no gale due now. The chairman said Mr. 
 Dawson and the others informed him of this on Satur- 
 day, and he wrote to the Dublin Land League then to 
 defend the cases when they would come on for hearing 
 next Monday. He expected a letter to-day, but he had 
 not received it on account, he supposed, of the State 
 trials. In his letter to the League he related the 
 whole facts. He told them that Miss Thompson 
 wanted to appropriate the improvement for which Mr. 
 Dawson would be allowed under the Land Act of 1S70. 
 In his opinion, this was a case that the League should 
 take up. Mr. James Power said that Mr. Dawson 
 should be sustained against the rapacity of Miss Thomp- 
 son. Mr. Kearney. — I bet you that no one will take 
 your farm. Mr. Dawson. — I bet £5 that my farm will 
 be taken in 45 hours if I am ejected. Mr. Kearney. 
 — There is not a farmer in the country would take it. 
 Mr. Dawson. — There is not a farmer, but a magistrate. 
 Mr. Kearney. — I think this is a case of hardship, and one 
 which the League should defend. Mr. Stokes. — Is she 
 proceeding now against others ? Mr. Dawson.— She 
 has not served any one of them yet but me. Mr. Stokes. 
 —Do you think if we defended this she would get a 
 writ against you ? Mr. Harrington suggested to ask 
 the opinion of Mr. Broderiek, solicitor, whether it 
 would be worth defending or not. This was agreed to, 
 ai.d the meeting adjourned." 
 
 What were the facts in Dawson's case ? — He was a 
 shopkeeper who held town fields, and he refused to 
 pay. I told him that he must be forced to pay. They 
 all, I believe, offered to pay if I would give them 
 two receipts, one to keep and one to show the League. 
 Dawson sold his interest then or immediately after- 
 wards. The property here is all grass town fields. I 
 suppose I applied for six months' rent. It is my 
 brother's land. I did not endeavour to take advantage 
 of any tenant's improvements. They all paid when 
 they got the writs. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I will now read an extract from the 
 Kerry Sentinel of April 8, 1881 :— 
 
 " Report of the Duagh Land League. The Bev. R. 
 Scanlan, C.C., presided. The tenants of Miss Thom- 
 son and Mr. Sandes stated that as they had already 
 offered a very fair rent — namely, a Griffith and a-half 
 — and as that was not accepted, they resolved to act to- 
 gether and resist to the bitter end the extravagant and 
 unjust demands of their landlords." 
 
 I wish also to read the following — Kerry Sentinel, 
 April 19, 1881 :— 
 
 " Kerry Central Land League. Mr. T. Harrington 
 presided. The other members present were Messrs. T. 
 O'Rourke, H. Brassil, Michael Kearney, J. Kelly, and 
 a large number of tenant farmers. A tenant named 
 Patrick Slattery, who resides at Fenit, appeared 
 before the meeting, and stated that he was served with 
 a Dublin ejectment by Miss Thomson, who manages 
 the Hurley property. The president said Miss Thomson 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson. 
 
The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 599 
 
 tried her hand with Mr. Slattery before. She brought a 
 summons against him at the petty sessions as a care- - 
 taker, but Mr. Broderick, who represented the tenant, 
 raised a point upon which the magistrate dismissed 
 the case. Now he found that Miss Thomson brought 
 an ejectment against Slattery in a Superior Court. 
 Mr. Kelly.— What is the rent ? Slattery.— SiG. Mr. 
 Kelly.— And the valuation ? Slattery.— £29 10s." 
 
 Sip. C. Russell.— That must be wrong. Can the 
 valuation be so much higher than the rent ? 
 
 Sir II. James. — It may be wrong, but I am reading 
 the report as printed : — 
 
 " The president suggested that the case be referred 
 to the Dublin Land League as to what action would 
 be taken on it. Mr. Kelly said there are so many 
 writs being served lately upon the tenants by the land- 
 lords that it would be well if every branch subscribed 
 to Stubbs's Gazette. It was decided to employ 
 Mr. O'Connor Hogan, solicitor, to defend two cases at 
 the next petty sessions." 
 
 What were the facts in that case ? — The man owed 
 three gales of rent, and he was served with an eject- 
 ment. He was put back as a caretaker, aDd I told him 
 to act as steward. He did so and brought me £60 on 
 account, which I took, and then they tried to make out 
 that that created a fresh tenancy, and he told me that 
 the Land League in Dublin had paid for legal assist- 
 ance to prove that there was a renewal of the tenancy. 
 
 During 1881 were references made to you in the 
 Kerry Sentinel ? — I have been told so, but I make it a 
 point never to read the paper. (Laughter.) In 1880 
 did you institute proceedings against the tenants on 
 the Hurley property ? — There were some tenants whose 
 leases fell in at that particular time. I had been making 
 arrangements about new lettings, and the tenants were 
 apparently satisfied until about 1880. There were 
 certain improvements, such as roadmaking, which 
 it was understood were not to be undertaken until the 
 leases fell in, but the tenants asked me to begin the 
 roadmaking without waiting for the leases to expire. 
 I did as they wished, and when the roads were made 
 they refused to sign anything binding them to resume 
 their holdings either as tenants or caretakers. 
 
 What roads were these ?— -They went through two 
 townlands and were beneficial to all the tenants. I 
 spent £2,500 altogether. The tenants were to pay a 
 certain proportion of the interest on the money ac- 
 cording as they were benefited by the expenditure, 
 but they refused to carry out the arrangement. The 
 money was borrowed from the Board of Works and I 
 was not able to get any of it back. 
 
 Did you evict any tenants in 1881 ? — I do not recol- 
 lect. All upon whom processes were served had the 
 option of going back as caretakers, everyone of them. 
 They did not go back. They told me that they were 
 afraid of the League. Huts were erected for them. I 
 was told they were erected by the League. The 
 tenants destroyed their houses. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Did you see them do it? — I have 
 seen their houses destroyed. 
 
 Sib H. James. — Who were the tenants who told you 
 that they were afraid to remain as caretakers on 
 
 account of the League ? — Several told me. Pat Quill 
 and Michael Malony, among others. 
 
 How many houses did you see pulled down ? — Every 
 tenant as he left his house pulled it down. 
 
 How many houses did you see so treated ? — About 12. 
 
 Did the tenants who had previously occupied these 
 houses then live in the huts ? — Yes. 
 
 Could they have lived in the houses if they had 
 chosen ? — They had the option of returning as care- 
 takers, but they did not do so. They said that they 
 would not got money from the League if they had 
 done so. 
 
 Are any in the huts now ? — Yes. I have seen cw„ 
 quite recently, and there may be more. 
 
 What has become of the land ? — They grazed it 
 steadily until 1883. They had the land for nothing 
 from 1830 to 1S83. I got no rent and had to pay the 
 taxes. The Land Corporation have now taken the 
 whole place. In 1883 I went to Sir Robert Hamilton 
 and told him the whole story. 
 
 Were police huts put up ? — Yes. 
 
 How long did they remain up ? — Until Sir Redvers 
 Buller came to Kerry. He removed them. 
 
 You have spoken of the persons who were evicted. 
 What became of your other tenants ? — They have all 
 paid regularly. They all went to the Court. . They 
 paid the old rents before that, and they have paid the 
 judicial rents since. 
 
 Have you made inquiries as to the means of the 
 tenants to pay ? — I never asked for rent without ascer- 
 taining exactly what stock 'was on each farm, and 
 when the rent had been paid I took the greatest 
 pains to ascertain whether any animal, such as a horse 
 or cow, had been sold which ought not to have been 
 sold. 
 
 You took a personal interest in your tenants and 
 made personal inquiries ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you at any time received rents sent by messen- 
 
 gers 
 
 ?— Yes. 
 
 Was that rent paid openly or furtively ? — Not 
 openly. In one case money was brought, and I was 
 not even asked for a receipt for it. That was in 1880 
 or 1881. 
 
 Were you ever asked for two receipts ? — Yes, con- 
 stantly ; one receipt for the rent absolutely paid and 
 one to show the League. I have been asked to do this 
 50 or 60 times, but I would not do it. 
 
 Were you managing property for your brother ? — 
 Yes ; his property is small. It consists of town fields 
 near Tralee. 
 
 Were you at any time boycotted ? — Yes, ever since 
 1SS0. It began in harvest time when there was a 
 quantity of barley down, and I was surprised at not 
 being able to get men to save it. However, we got 
 emergency men and men from Tralee and set all the 
 tenants to work and we saved it. 
 
 Were there any other acts of boycotting ? — Nobody 
 would ccme and work, and we were obliged to get a 
 rogular staff of workmen from a distance. Up to 1880 
 there was no difficulty about getting labourers. 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson. 
 
600 
 
 The Special Commission > December 11, 1888. 
 
 Had you any difficulty in getting threshing 
 machines? — Yes ; in every parish there are one or 
 two, and before 1880 I could hire them from the 
 owners. Afterwards the owners refused to let me have 
 the machines, saying that they were afraid of their 
 being broken. 
 
 Did they say by whom ? — I cannot recollect. 
 One man, a merchant in the town, asked me not to 
 ask him for his machine as it might be made an excuse 
 for boycotting him. 
 
 Did you get a machine at an expense of £50 to meet 
 this difficulty ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you ever had to cut your corn at night ? — We 
 had to thresh it at night this last September. That 
 was because the owners wanted the machine back. I 
 could not get a threshing machine from the persons 
 who generally let them out. Their machines have 
 been let to other people who are not boycotted. 
 
 Sib H. James then read an extract from the Kerry 
 Sentinel, September 27, 1881 : — 
 
 " Tralee Land League. Mr. John Kelly, T.C., 
 presiding. He wished to remind them that there was 
 to be a meeting at Fenit on to-morrnw, Sunday, and 
 it would be as well if they all mustered there to pro- 
 test against the cruel eviction which had recently 
 taken place there, and Miss Lucy A. Thomson was to 
 be no more sacred than any other when she had shown 
 the cloven foot of the exterminator." 
 In the same paper, the next column, appears a report of 
 this meeting. 
 
 "Land and Labour meeting at Fenit. On Sunday 
 last about 3,000 persons assembled at Fenit within 
 view of the farm from which Patrick Slattery -was 
 evicted by Miss Lucy A. Thomson." 
 The whole of this, my Lords, can be read if my 
 friend wishes it. I will only read very shortly : — 
 
 " Now they should not forget that the principal 
 object of their meeting to-day was to protest against 
 a heartless eviction in this neighbourhood. The 
 notorious lady who holds sway over this place, Miss 
 Lucy A. Thomson, has become famous as an ex- 
 terminator. Near Aglish, at the village of Coorroe, 
 four huts stand on a hill as a memorial of her 
 tyranny." 
 
 Is that where the police huts were ?— No, one or 
 two tenants who were evicted ; there is a collection of 
 Land League huts there for the whole neighbourhood. 
 
 SlE H. James (continuing) :— 
 " The speaker then referred at some length to those 
 evictions, and said that as it cost Miss Thomson £10 
 per week to keep those poor people out of their 
 homes, she would soon be glad to be afforded an 
 opportunity of leaving them in again. He said in con- 
 clusion that no matter how determined in this case 
 Miss Thomson seemed to be they would be surprised 
 some day to hear of her giving in, as she would find 
 that an obstinate policy would not pay." 
 
 Sib H. James (to witness).— What was the case of 
 Slattery, please ?— He got a writ and was put back as 
 caretaker, and allowed to manage the farm ; and I 
 took £60 from him on account. 
 
 You were boycotted from the end of. 1880. Have you 
 ever been released from that boycotted position ? — No. 
 
 Has it continued to the present day ?— Yes. 
 
 With . regard to your police protection. How 
 many police accompany you ? — Two accompany me. 
 There are others living in the house. It is prac- 
 tically a police barrack for the whole neighbour- 
 hood ; there is no other police barrack within four 
 miles. I have always two police with me, and if I go 
 to some places I have four, according to the district I 
 go to. I first received protection in 1882 or 1883, 
 when Mr. Herbert was murdered. I recollect on May 
 19, 1883, going to see a house put in order for a care- 
 taker. I went in the daytime, and anybody could see 
 me going. I left it fit for occupation, and I was about 
 half a mile from it when it was set on fire. In June, 
 1883, a tract of mountain grazing was burnt, and in 
 the same month a horse, belonging to a man named 
 Thomas Connor was stabbed. That man had been 
 bringing food to the police at my house. I saw 
 where the horse had been stabbed. Oh August 11, 
 1883, two houses were burnt at Dromoddamore. Those 
 houses were on the Hurley property. I saw where 
 they had been burnt. On July 12, 1885, two bullocks 
 were slaughtered ; they belonged to the Land Corpora- 
 tion. In consequence of what had occurred I let 
 about 3,000 acres out of 8,000 to the Land Corpora- 
 tion. I had about 50 tenants still remaining. The 
 land I let to the Land Corporation was vacant land. It 
 had become so on account of these tenants leaving. 
 About eight leases fell in ; but they covered about 
 12 families, I think. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I am told, my Lords, it is 22 
 families. 
 
 Sik H. James (To witness). — Do you think it is 22 ? 
 — I think I can give you the names. I think it is 12, 
 families. The Land Corporation has to work under 
 great difficulties ; it has paid the rent very nearly and 
 has paid it to the clay. They find it very difficult to 
 get herdsmen. There are three under tenants on the 
 farms of the men who were evicted who were paying 
 £2 an acre to the tenants who went out, and the Land 
 Corporation would have given them 15s. a week as 
 herds. They were delighted at first, and afterwards 
 they did not herd the cattle, as they were threatened. 
 On December 21 six bullocks were slaughtered. I went 
 to Knocknaylough to fetoh the herdsmen to swear the 
 information. When I came baok there was a wall built 
 upon the road to upset the cart. In April, 1887, while 
 I was going back from the same property there was a 
 wire across the road to upset the horse. I was badly 
 bruised and got a bad blow on my head. It was an 
 inside car, and I was thrown against it. Two children 
 gave me some information ; they were coming up 
 from the other direction crying, and they told us that 
 there was a wire there across the road lower down 
 that had cut one of these poor little creatur.es' face. 
 It was very dark at this time, and I suggested that 
 we should go down to their home, and they said they 
 were afraid to be seen with us. We had two police- 
 constables with us. They said they were afraid of the 
 " night boys," I think they said. In May, 1887, 1 had 
 some mountain land burnt. It was on the ■ same pro- 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson. 
 
The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 601 
 
 perty which the corporation had. There were 800 
 yards of fencing burnt. During this year I had 500 
 acres of mountain land burnt, and in June of this year 
 a house was burnt which I was having fitted up for a 
 caretaker. In 1883 there was a man named Noel who 
 had a threshing machine, and who told me that I 
 could get it at Ballyseedy. He suggested that I should 
 send my steward to Ballyseedy to seize it by force, 
 and that he would summon me. It would be all right ; 
 so as to keep him clear of the League. The steward 
 brought the machine from Ballyseedy and threshed the 
 corn, and Mr. Noel came over on a bicycle and abused 
 me ; but we finished the threshing. He did not 
 surrtmon us. I know a man of the name of Flaherty ; 
 that was at the time of the run on the Bank of Ireland. 
 He was a tenant on the Hurley property. He paid his 
 rent ; on the previous occasion when he was paying his 
 rent he told me that he preferred \ being served with a 
 writ. I recollect the mason working at the shooting 
 lodge. He was beaten by some men. I saw him after 
 he was beaten. His eye was nearly put out, and he 
 was black from head to foot. He was beaten into a 
 jelly. He had been working at the shooting lodge. I 
 know a man named Horan. He is a very tall man and 
 one whom nobody could mistake. He went into Tralee 
 when I was about to receive rents. I saw him walk- 
 ing up Nelson-street, and observed that he wore very 
 stiff new boots. He went into the Sentinel office, and I 
 went and stood at an office above. I saw this man 
 come out of the Sentinel office. Mr. Edward Harring- 
 ton followed him out and seemed very much amused. 
 Horan directed my attention to his boots, and de- 
 clared he had not the price of boots to carry him home 
 and had no money to pay hts rent. When he came 
 out of the Sentinel office he wore a tattered, 
 dreadful pair of boots. He swore most positively he 
 had not the money for his rent and could not 
 pay it, and would not pay it. But he finally pro- 
 duced it, tied up, from his pocket. His name was 
 Michael Horan and his rent was £6 10s. for the half- 
 year. I told him pretty firmly he must pay, and he put 
 his hand into his pocket and pulled out the rent, tied 
 up in a piece of paper. I cannot say where Mr. Harring- 
 ton was then. I was in another office a few doors off 
 from the Sentinel office — in Mr. Haggard's office. 
 
 Had it beeu the habit of the neighbours to assist in 
 haymaking and at harvest time ? — Yes. 
 
 Up to what time did that continue ? — Up to 1879 and 
 1880. After that time they never came again to help 
 until this year. I think things are better in this neigh- 
 bourhood this year. 
 
 Have you ever had any violence to yourself at all ? 
 ■ — I had my foot trampled on once. 
 
 Where was that ? — Just at the corner of Denny- 
 street. I think it was in 1882. 
 
 Sib H. James then read another extract from the 
 Kerry Sentinel, September 27, 1881. The extract was 
 from a speech by Mr. Edward Harrington, who 
 said : — 
 
 " A great deal is heard about the cowardliness of 
 
 attacking women, but their position respecting the 
 Land League is that of the man who is publicly 
 assaulted by a woman and thinks it cowardly to run 
 away. Therefore he was not sorry that the (illegible) 
 was broken, though perhaps it might appear a little, 
 ungentle." 
 
 Cross-examined by SlK C.KCSSELL.— I want to explain 
 the position of caretaker. A caretaker is a man who 
 has been legally evicted from his farm and let in under 
 the name of caretaker ? — Yes. 
 
 And his position is that he • has no right of holding, 
 and can be ,. turned out on a magistrate's warrant ?-— 
 Yes. 
 
 I understand that on this estate you cleared the 
 tenants — whether rightly or wrongly — on 3,000 or 4,000 
 acres of it ?— Yes. 
 You say that represents 12 families ?— Yes. 
 Perhaps the discrepancy between your estimate and 
 mine arises in this way, that some of those holdings 
 were sub-holdings, occupied by labourers ?— There 
 were three who had the option. 
 
 I am not speaking of what option they had ; there 
 were three of these holdings ? — Yes. 
 
 That would make 15 ? — I think I am right in saying 
 the number was 12. 
 
 That wonld,with these three, make 15. Will you under- 
 take to say that the total did not represent 22 families ? 
 —I do not think there were 22 ; I think I can undertake 
 to say there were not. 
 What kind of families had they ? — I cannot say. 
 When you took such an interest in the people ? Did 
 they average eight or nine ? — As a matter of fact I 
 think there were some who had no children. 
 
 Would it be fair to say that they averaged five or 
 six? — I think so. 
 
 Now, I want to know the circumstances with regard 
 to this estate, and I will go straight to the matter. 
 You resided with. Mr. John Hurley? — Yes. 
 
 And at his death, in 1878, you were made trustee ? 
 Was he a widower ? — No ; his wife was still living. 
 I was made trustee for the children. 
 
 Did Mr. Hurley succeed to the property about I860 ? 
 •—No, he bought it. 
 
 Well ; did he at one bound double the rents of the 
 tenants, giving them 21 years' leases ? — No, that is 
 not an accurate description of what occurred. 
 It was all let to middlemen, and he did away with 
 the middlemen and charged the real tenants something 
 less than the middlemen had. 
 
 But did he in point of fact largely increase tha 
 rents ? — Not of those tenants who were evicted in 
 1880. 
 
 l'or a large class of tenants ?— No, it was the same 
 way with all ; the whole property was leased, and 
 ho took the sub-tenants as his own tenants. 
 
 You s?.y he did not increase the rents ? — He charged 
 larger rents than were obtained when he bought the 
 property by getting rid of the middlemen. These 
 tenants, I think, did not pay larger rents. 
 Did the leases expire in 1880 ?•— Yes. 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson, 
 
602 
 
 The Special Commission, December 11, 1888. 
 
 And did you yourself make a large increase ? — No, 
 the increase was of money to be spent on roads. 
 
 Was not — please answer Aye or No — was not this 
 increase in the form of rent — in the form of yearly 
 payment ? — Yes, in consideration of improvements. It 
 was to be added to the old rent. 
 
 What was the percentage ? — It varied in each case. 
 
 What was the highest ? — The highest was in the 
 case of Maloney ; the old rent was £33, and £45 was 
 what he had to pay. 
 
 And what was the lowest ? — Seme had no increase 
 to pay at all. 
 
 Maloney's case would represent an increase of about 
 36 per cent. ; what was the lowest percentage ? — There 
 were four on whom no increase was charged. 
 
 What was the lowest ?— The lowest was £2 10s. 
 
 What was the yearly rent ? — The old rent was £50, 
 and £5 was added, which was divided between two 
 brothers. 
 
 Was this money borrowed under the Relief of Land- 
 lords Act ?— No, because that Act was not in exist- 
 ence when I began. There was some borrowed after- 
 wards under Mr. Forster's Act. 
 
 How much was borrowed ? — £1,800. 
 
 Were these additions in rent, whatever form they 
 took, to continue for all time ? — I suppose so. 
 
 How much do you say was laid out on Maloney's 
 land ? — The new road ran through his farm, and then, 
 when he did not continue as tenant, money did not 
 continue to be laid out on his farm. 
 
 Was there any outlay on the land he continued to 
 hold, either on houses, farm -buildings, draining, ditches, 
 or gates ? — No. 
 
 Then a road was made through his land ? — Yes. 
 
 For the convenience of all ? — Yes. It benefited 
 him more than the rest. 
 
 And for that his rent was to be raised from £33 to 
 £45 ? — A house was to be built, and some other im- 
 provements made, and his son was to be allowed to 
 have half the farm. 
 
 But in fact nothing was done for him ? — No, because 
 he went out. 
 
 What was the object of the road ? — To open up the 
 property, and allow the tenants to bring loads. 
 
 'then it was for the convenience of the other tenants 
 on the property ? — Primarily it was for the conveni- 
 ence of the tenants ; it joined another road. 
 
 Mrs. Quill was one of the tenants? — Yes. 
 
 She lived for some time in a hut erected by the 
 Land League ? — Yes. 
 
 Was her rent originally £21 when Mr. Hurley 
 succeeded ? — I do not know. 
 
 Was it raised by Mr. Hurley to £43 when she got a 
 lease ? — It was £43 at the expiry of the lease ; I do 
 not know what it was then. 
 
 Did you at the termination of the lease demand an 
 increase of £10 ? — No ; £6 as an increase, of money 
 to be spent on the holding. 
 
 Now, will yon tell me how much was spent on Mrs. 
 
 Quill's land ? — Something over £400, in drainage, 
 fencing, and improvements. 
 
 What percentage would the contemplated outlay on 
 Maloney's land have come to ? — I cannot say, because 
 he gave up the holding and the works were never 
 carried out, but I think about 3 per cent. 
 
 What was the estimate of the outlay on his land ? — 
 I do not remember ; some hundreds of pounds. 
 
 You were charging 3 per cent, in perpetuity, and you 
 were borrowing it at 1 per cent. ? — No, that was after- 
 wards ; this was ordinary money, for which we were 
 paying per cent. 
 
 When you borrowed money under Mr. Forster's Act, 
 it was repaid principal and interest ; no interest for 
 two years, and after that, £3 Ss. 6d. sinking fund and 
 interest ? — Yes ; they were not to be charged interest 
 for two years. 
 
 How do you justify charging 3 per cent, as regards 
 the £1,800 you were getting at 1 per cent. ? — The 
 arrangement was made before the cheap money could 
 be got, and they went out before that took place. 
 
 Did you ever say that the interest was to be less 
 after you got the fresh loan ? — Yes, I told Denis 
 Scanlan and Maloney, who were more intelligent men, 
 and I think I told Ahern also. 
 
 What did you tell Maloney ? — It is very difficult to 
 explain, because he did not try to get back on to the 
 land. I cannot say what I told him, but I said he 
 would be only charged the lesser interest. That was 
 before the Land Corporation went into the land. 
 
 Did you say how much it would be P — I cannot re- 
 collect at this moment. 
 
 Did you ever tell him what it was to come to ? — He 
 agreed to pay £45, and then he said that he was in- 
 timidated. We would have been satisfied to take £40. 
 
 Did you offer it to him ? — I think so, in the early 
 part of 1883. 
 
 Now I will take some case3 of increase of rent. 
 Denis Scanlan, original rent £8 5s., increased by Mr. 
 Hurley to £20 ; further demand made by you ir 
 June, 1882, of £5 more ? — I do not know what it was 
 originally. 
 
 Michael Ahern, original rent £13 10s., increased to 
 £38 by Mr. Hurley ; in 1881-2 further demand made 
 by you of £10 '/ — No, I happen to know they were new 
 tenants. My recollection is that it was £6 — £3 each. 
 
 John and Michael Ahern, original rent £13 10s., in- 
 creased to £38, and you demanded a further increase of 
 £10 ?— I think it was £6— or £3 each. 
 
 Garrett Fitzgerald, original rent £20, increased by 
 Mr. Hurley to £43, and £10 demanded by you in 
 1881-2 ?— No ; he re-took it at £49, that is £6 increase. 
 
 Did you demand £10 ; — No ; I am sure. I think not. 
 
 You only think so ? Now, about some of these 
 evictions. I find evicted in 1881 Jeremiah O'Connor, 
 rent £56, valuation £26 10s. ; owing at eviction one 
 year's rent, including hanging gale. His rent had beer 
 increased by £15 10s. on marriage, and one year's 
 rent paid as fine ? — I do not know of my own know- 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson. 
 
The Special Commission, December 11 and 12, 1888. 
 
 603 
 
 ledge what it was, but it was not increased on 
 marriage. 
 
 Is it true that he only owed two gales of rent when 
 he was evicted ? — I dare say, but one gale would 
 have been accepted. 
 
 Did he only owe two gales ? — Yes. 
 
 Denis Mahoney, evicted in July, 1881, rent £25, 
 valuation £15 5s., owing one year ; J. Connor, 
 Coolroe, rent £29'8s. 3d., valuation £14, owing gale 
 and running gale when evicted ?— I suppose that is all 
 right. 
 
 Is this true, that in 1876 his rent was raised from 
 £21 to £29 8s. 3d. ?— The rents were the same in 1883, 
 but during the famine years much less was taken from 
 them. The rents on which they were evicted had been 
 in existence since 1833. 
 
 Is it true that the rent was raised in 1876 from £21 
 to £29 8s. 3d. ?— No, inasmuch as the rents of 1833 
 were still in existence in 1876. 
 
 When did that come to an end P — I do not know ; 
 there was a life in the lease, and I do not know 
 whether it has come to an end. 
 
 Is it true that in 1876 he was paying £21 and that 
 in 1877 and afterwards he was paying £29 8s. 3d. ?— 
 Yes, that much is true. 
 
 Then there is the case of Jeremiah Connor, rent 
 £37 10s., valuation £18 10s. ; owed two years' rent ; 
 his rent was raised on marriage from £26 to £37 10s. 
 Is that true ?— Not that I know of. 
 
 You know that this system of fines on marriage is 
 not uncommon in parts of Ireland ? — I have heard of 
 it, but I do not know an instance. 
 
 Is not that an instance ? — Not that I know of. 
 
 Then we have the case of Michael Dwyer, of Bally- 
 trasna, rent £60, valuation £33, evicted in 1884 ; 
 Thomas Talbot, valuation £16, rent £28. There was 
 the case of Jeremiah Connor, of Coolroe, whom you 
 had reinstated ?— No, he took the farm in 1880 or 1S81 ; 
 he came in as a new tenant. 
 
 In 1878 did you make any reduction to any of these 
 tenants ? — No. 
 
 In 1879 ?— No. 
 
 In 1880 ? — There was a reduction ; I am not sure 
 whether it was in 1880 or 1881. I think it was in the 
 end of 1880. 
 
 In 1881 ? — I really cannot tell you. They all had 
 leases. 
 
 What proportion of your tenants had leases in 1881 ? 
 — I think all but two. 
 
 Existing in 1881 ?— Yes. 
 
 None expired in 1880 ? — I cannot quite answer that. 
 
 Did you make any reduction in 1881 ?— I cannot tell 
 you whether it was 1881 or 1882. 
 
 Did you ever give any reduction until after the Land 
 League was started in your neighbourhood ?— No. 
 Do you recollect the passing of the Land Act ? — No. 
 How many of yourtenants went into Court? — Only two. 
 The cross-examination of the witness was not con- 
 cluded when the Court adjourned at a few minutes 
 past 4 o'clock. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 29th sitting to- 
 day, at half-past 10 o'clock, in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On the Commissioners taking their seats. 
 
 Sir C. Russell said, — I have an application to 
 make to your Lordships, of which I have given my 
 learned friends notice. It is with reference to Thomas 
 O'Connor, from Kerry, who, your Lordships may recol- 
 lect, mentioned the name of Mr. Timothy Harrington. 
 It is desired that his cross-examination should bo 
 finished before the Court rises for Christmas, and I 
 ask that it should be taken on Friday morning. 
 
 The President. — Yes, as far as possible. 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson, who was under cross-examina- 
 tion when the Court rose on Tuesday, again entered 
 the witness-box. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — You have spoken 
 of the case of a tenant of yours named Slattery ; in 
 that case was the proceeding against him by what is 
 known in Ireland as a Dublin writ ? — Yes. 
 
 Is that the mode of proceeding generally adopted ? — 
 Yes, since the agitation, because so many more wit- 
 nesses would have to go into the smaller Court. 
 
 I do not quite follow you ? — It is done by affidavit 
 in the higher Court. 
 
 And when the tenant does not appear you are able 
 to make affidavit and get judgment ? — Exactly. You do 
 not by that means put the lives of the bailiffs and 
 other people in danger. 
 
 Then, may I take it that it is consideration for the 
 bailiffs and other persons who have to prove the cases 
 that is the cause of your bringing your proceedings in 
 the superior Court ? — Yes. 
 
 But the costs of the superior Court are considerably 
 greater than in the inferior Courts ? — Yes. 
 
 Was not that course adopted partly to punish the 
 agitators ?— No ; in my case to protect the people. 
 The primary reason was that the bailiffs might not be 
 called on to prove the rent. 
 
 Was that the sole reason ? — I think I may say the 
 sole reason. 
 
 Do you say so ? — Yes. 
 
 The expense is pretty nearly quadrupled, is it not ? — 
 No ; I don't think so. 
 
 Were those proceedings writs of ejectment, or to 
 recover rent, or did they partake of both ?— Both, I 
 should think. There were 13 families evicted alto- 
 gether, and in addition to those cases there were other 
 proceedings which did not result in actual eviction. 
 
 How many proceedings have you instituted in the 
 different Courts since 1880 ? — I cannot say. 
 
 A great many ? — Tfes. 
 
 You consider yourself a good landlord ? — Yes. 
 
 Humane ?— Yes. 
 
 Merciful to your tenantry ? — Yes. 
 
 Kindly interested in their well-being? — Yes. 
 
 What was your first disagreement with them ? — It 
 was after the leases fell in in 1880, and had reference 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson. 
 
604 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 to an increase in their yearly payments consequent on 
 their having come to me and asked me to make road 
 improvements for their benefit. I spent £2,500 on 
 those improvements. The number of holdings to 
 which that expenditure applied was about 30, and their 
 rental about £600. The tenants were not asked for 
 an increase of rent in the ordinary sense, but for a re- 
 imbursement of the amount expended at their request. 
 
 As regards your other tenants, was any abatement in 
 rent demanded by them ? — They asked for an abate- 
 ment after the bad seasons of 1879. I cannot say 
 whether they asked for it in 1880 or 1881. 
 
 As" regards these evicted tenants, would you, even 
 at this moment, be willing to reinstate them upon the 
 terms of their having a fair rent fixed ? — No ; not in 
 the ordinary sense. They sent their priest to me about 
 a month ago, and I said I would be willing if they 
 bought on fair terms. 
 
 Who is the gentleman whom you call their " priest" ? 
 —Father Dillon. 
 
 You have not, and never have, been willing to allow 
 them to go into Court to have their fair rents fixed, 
 and to reinstate them on those terms ? — No. 
 
 You would be willing, I understand, provided they 
 would buy under Lord Ashbourne's Act ? — If they 
 bought on what I consider fair terms. 
 
 That would strike you as being a very voluntary kind 
 of arrangement ? — They must be very anxious to get 
 back, as they send to me constantly. 
 
 And you know that, above all other things, the Irish 
 peasant and farmer dreads eviction P — I think it 
 depends on circumstances. 
 
 You remember 1878 and 1879 ; did you make any 
 abatement in rent until the tenants went into the 
 Land Court ?— No. 
 
 Your k.npression was that the rents they were pay- 
 ing were fair rents ? — That is my belief. 
 
 You look upon the Land Court as an abomination ? 
 •—I do not look upon it as fair. 
 
 And that the tenants were well able of themselves to 
 make perfectly fair bargains ? — Yes. 
 
 In fact that they were paying too little rent ? — In 
 many cases. 
 
 You think that they would be much happier and 
 better off if the old high pressure rents had been 
 kept up ? — I think they were much happier before the 
 agitation. 
 
 I will call your attention to some of these rents of 
 yours. There is the case of Honoria Dee; former rent, 
 £150 ; judicial rent, £110 ; Poor Law valuation, £88 10s. 
 That rent was raised in 1853 from £110 to £150. The 
 value of the tenancy is recorded in the judicial reports 
 as £400, that would imply, would it not, that Honoria 
 Dee or her predecessors had acquired a valuable 
 interest in the holding by improvements or otherwise ? 
 —I think not. They were new tenants. 
 
 I said their predecessors in title ?— Yes. 
 
 Then there is John Bulley ; valuation, £8 10s. ; 
 former rent, £15 ; judicial rent, £11 10s. Michael 
 Callaghan ; valuation, £18 5s. ; former rent, £37 10s. ; 
 
 judicial rent, £27, or about 30 per cent, reduction ? — I 
 do not think Callaghan is one of my tenants. There 
 were two J. C. Hurleys. 
 
 Then you have nothing to do with that case ? — No. 
 
 These are yours, tell me if I am wrong. Patrick 
 Murphy; valuation, £28 15s.; former rent, £65 ; judicial 
 rent, £47 15s. Dennis Sullivan; valuation, £29 5s. ; former 
 rent, £65 ; judicial rent, £46 10s. John Murphy ; valua- 
 tion, £63 10s. ; former rent, £147 ; judicial rent, £100 ; 
 that is a reduction of 30 odd per cent. Then M'Carthy ; 
 valuation, £32 10s. ; former rent, £78 10s. ; judicial 
 rent, £48 0s. ; that rent was raised in 1856 from £60 
 to £78 10s. James Murphy ; valuation, £28 10s. ; 
 former rent, £69 ; judicial rent, £43. 
 
 The President. — Does this always mean the rent of 
 the actual occupier ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Always. 
 
 The President. — There was a statement made 
 about doing away with the middleman. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That was the act of Hurley and 
 not of the witness. Then there is Parker ; valuation, 
 £32 10s. ; former rent, £78 10s. ; reduced rent, £47. 
 Mary Connell ; valuation, £5 ; former rent, £19 ; 
 reduced rent, £16. Nolan ; valuation, £13 ; former rent, 
 £45 ; reduced rent, £27. Carey ; valuation, £8 13s. ; 
 former rent, £35 ; reduced to £18 10s. or nearly 50 per 
 cent ? — The proper rent is £22 10s. in the last case. 
 
 But £18 10s. is the official record ? — That was the 
 rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners, and on appeal it 
 was fixed at £22 10s. He had only gone in a year or 
 two on his own proposal. 
 
 You are rather fond of appeals ? — Yes. 
 
 There was one unfortunate man — but perhaps I 
 should not call him unfortunate — a man named Delane, 
 who held under lease, and then continued in occupa- 
 tion after the lease expired ? — No. 
 
 He claimed to continue after the lease expired ? — 
 No ; he claimed that the tenancy was divided by Mr. 
 Hurley, and by mistake he got two receipts from Mr. 
 Hussey's office. 
 
 Because under the Land Act there was a pro* 
 hibition of division of a tenancy you claimed 
 that he was not entitled to any relief ? — No. 
 I only disputed the two receipts for rent. They 
 were not correct and were not entered in the rent 
 ledger. 
 
 . Was not the result of the dispute that yon denied 
 him a right to relief under the Act ? — No. 
 
 What was the appeal to the House of Lords about ? 
 — He boasted to me that ho was backed up by the 
 League, and that they fought the appeal for him. 
 
 You fought it against the League ? — Yes, practi- 
 cally. 
 
 Originally the Court decided in his favour ; you 
 appealed to the Commissioners, and they decided in 
 his favour ; and you appealed to the House of Lords, 
 and they decided in his favour ? — There were two 
 judgments in our favour. 
 
 Yes, but the House of Lords decided in his favour f 
 -Yes. 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson, 
 
The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 605 
 
 Now, what chance would this wretched man — I do 
 Cot know whether I should call him a wretched man 
 — have had if he had not had the League to help him? 
 •—Well, there would not have been any fight. 
 
 And he would not have had his right established ? — 
 No. 
 
 What was the amount of rent he was seeking to have 
 reduced ? — He was not seeking a reduction of his rent, 
 but a division of his tenancy. His rent was £50. 
 
 And how many hundreds of pounds of costs were 
 there ? — Six or seven. 
 
 Did you pay the costs on both sides ? — Yes. 
 
 And they only came to £600 or £700 ?— Yes. 
 
 That was a cheap luxury. Now, let me read you 
 some more cases. Sheaby, his valuation was £4, 
 former rent £14, reduced rent £8 ; Maloney, Poor 
 Law valuation £7, former rent £22 10s., reduced rent 
 £15 5s. ; John Nolan, valuation £7, former rent 
 £22 10s., reduced rent £15 5s. ; Nolan, valuation 
 £9 5s., former rent £25, reduced rent £16 5s. ; 
 Margaret Mallach, valuation £6 5s., former rent 
 £15 5s., reduced rent £8 10s. 
 
 Witness. — You have not mentioned those fixed this 
 spring by the Commissioners. 
 
 Sik C. KtrsSBLL. — I have not got them. They are 
 not yet reported, I believe ; but I will take care to 
 call the attention of the Court to them later. 
 
 What was the total rental of the estates when 
 Hurley purchased them ? — I can't say. 
 
 He purchased them from a Lady Loch ? — Yes. 
 
 What did he give for them ?— I think £26,000 for 
 the Fenit and £14,000 for the Mountain. 
 
 What was the total rental in 1878 ?— I could not 
 tell you that without adding it up. 
 
 How much has the total rent been reduced in the 
 Land Court?— About 28 per cent. I cannot say positively. 
 
 Is it not in some cases as much as 50 per cent., and 
 is not the average within a fraction of 30 per cent. ? 
 — There is no case of reduction by as much as 50 per 
 cent. 
 
 But I read one. You say you suffered annoyance, 
 the people refused to work for you, and you employed 
 what are called emergency men ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you first employ them ?— In 1881. 
 
 When did you let the 3,000 acres to the Land 
 Corporation ? — In June, 1883. 
 
 You told Sir Henry James that the trouble began 
 in 1879 and grew worse in 1880 and 1881 ?— Yes. 
 
 What time in 1879 did it begin ?— I could not say 
 exactly. It did not take any serious form at first, but 
 only in incivility and change in the mannerB of the 
 people. 
 
 They did not call you up to that time " Your Eoyal 
 Honour " ? — They never called me by that name. 
 
 We have had one instance of this designation. You 
 Bay their manner was not civil. What was that owing 
 to ? I think it was just the spirit of the time. 
 
 That was before any Land League was established ? 
 —It might not have been established, but it was 
 certainly brewing. 
 
 In the air ? — Yes. 
 
 You know as a fact that it. was not established any- 
 where when this change iu the manners of the 
 people first began ? — I don't know that it was not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — In answer to 
 Sir Charles Russell you said that 28 per cent, would 
 represent the amount of reductions in your rental which 
 has been brought about by judicial proceedings ? — I 
 said I was not sure, but I thought it was about that. 
 
 That was taking cases that have gone into Court. 
 As a matter of fact, are the tenants still going into 
 Court ? — I think there are only two more who have 
 to go in. 
 
 From first to last since you have been connected 
 with the property, you yourself have made no abate- 
 ment of rent ? — No, but in one or two instances where 
 I have known there has been any reason for giving 
 time I have given ample time for payment. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — I believe Mrs. 
 Hurley was a confirmed invalid before her husband's 
 death ? — Yes ; she was partially paralyzed. 
 
 She never took an active part in the management of 
 the property ? — No. 
 
 In all you have done with reference to this estate, 
 have you been acting on behalf of Mr. Hurley's chil- 
 dren ? — Yes, to the best of my ability. 
 
 Has any money ever gone into your pocket ? — No, 
 never. On the contrary, I have suffered great loss. 
 
 I understand that Mr. Hurley bought this property 
 with the leases existing on it. What was the property 
 called? — Yes; we always called it the Listowel pro- 
 perty. 
 
 To your knowledge were there middlemen and sub- 
 leases existing on that property ? — The bulk of the 
 present tenants are herdsmen. It is very common in 
 Ireland to allow herdsmen to graze so many milch 
 cows instead of giving them wages. 
 
 Were the persons holding the land lessees direct to 
 Mr. Hurley, or were there middlemen ? — There were 
 people who had leases from Lady Loch. 
 
 What I want to know is whether the people who 
 held the land were sub-lessees or lessees direct to the 
 predecessor of Mr. Hurley ?— I do not quite under- 
 stand. 
 
 Who occupied the land ? Were they lessees or sub- 
 tenants ? — They were sub-tenants in some cases.and in 
 others they were the direct lessees. 
 
 Did the direct lessees occupy the houses on the 
 lands ? — Oh, no, they lived in different parts of the 
 county. 
 
 Were there only herdsmen, then, in occupation ?— • 
 Yes, with a very few exceptions. 
 
 Did the herdsmen farm the land ?— There was no 
 farming to be done. The land was simply covered 
 with droves of cattle. 
 
 The Pbesidbnt. — Were these herdsmen paid wages 
 by somebody, or did they pay something for the use of 
 the land ?— Instead of being paid wages they were 
 allowed to graze so many cows on the land. They 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson. 
 
606 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 herded the cattle for the lessees, who were occupying 
 the land but not living on it. 
 
 Give the date again when Mr. Hurley took possession 
 of the property. — I think it was in 1870. 
 
 Did some of the leases expire before you had the 
 management of the property ? — They all expired during 
 Mr. Hurley's time. As each lease fell out Mr. Hurley 
 made the herdsmen the direct tenants. 
 
 Were the rents then raised or diminished ? — The 
 rents were fixed according to the value that these men 
 had been paying and their grazing. 
 
 The President. — They valued their grazing rights. 
 
 On this property had there been aDy evictions since 
 your time ? — There were no evictions except those I 
 told you about and two other cases. 
 
 Those evictions were made on the property through 
 which the roads were to pass ? — Tics. 
 
 When was it that the arrangement was first made as 
 to the expenditure of money on roads ? — As far back 
 as 1874 or 1875 the new leases and the making of the 
 roads were talked about. 
 
 When did you first come to a definite arrangement ? 
 —I personally did not come to any arrangement ; Mr. 
 Hurley did it all originally in his lifetime. I knew 
 of the existence of the arrangement. 
 
 As far as yon knew, when you came into the manage- 
 ment, were the tenants acquiescent in that expenditure 
 being made ?• — They were most anxious for it, and 
 asked me to begin the roads before the leases fell out. 
 
 What was the state of things in 1880 with respect 
 to this expenditure ? Had the expenditure been made ? 
 ■ — One of the roads was nearly made then. 
 
 Take any one of the leases that was affected in this 
 way. By way of example, in Moloney's case, the rent 
 was raised to £35 or £40. When did he first object to 
 that ?— I think it was in 1880. 
 
 What reason did he give for his objection ? — They 
 all objected, saying they were not going to pay the 
 rent they paid in old times. Afterwards Moloney said 
 that he was told that he would not be allowed to 
 live on the farm if he paid a higher rent. He was 
 one of those who had original leases, and always 
 had bis land cheaper on that account. 
 
 What was the length of the leases ? — I do not know 
 what it was when Mr. Hurley bought the place. In 
 1880 Moloney had a 21 years' lease, but he surrendered 
 that and allowed his farm to have a different boundary 
 allotted to it. The lease which expired in 1880 was 
 for 21 years. 
 
 When he agreed to pay this sum of money on account 
 of the expenditure on roads, was there any fresh 
 agreement as to a new lease ? — Oh, yes, he was to 
 have a new lease for 31 years. 
 
 He would have to pay, then, for that expenditure 
 during the 31 years the new lease was to run ? — Yes. 
 
 This took place on the Listowel property, I be- 
 lieve ? — Yes. 
 
 Were the persons who quitted their holdings on that 
 property ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they do so because they refused to pay for this 
 
 expenditure 1 — There were three of these went out 
 with the rest. They all said they thought it was 
 better to be paid by the League than by me. 
 
 It was on this property, then, that the Land League 
 houses were erected ? — Yes. I offered to allow these 
 people to return to their holdings as caretakers, but 
 they refused. Two of them are still there and have 
 raised 40 cows on the land without paying any rent 
 or taxes. They lived in the Land League houses. 
 Those were the houses that were partially destroyed. 
 
 I suppose on this property and on the other pro- 
 perties there are other occupiers beside the lease- 
 holders ? — Yes. 
 
 Is that the property the Land Corporation have 
 taken ? — Yes, it is about 3,000 acres. 
 
 And it is upon that property that the 13 or 22 
 families have been dispossessed ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they refuse to pay any rent or only the previous 
 rent ? — They first refused to pay the previous rent, 
 and afterwards any rent at all. They said the time 
 for paying rent was over. 
 
 When were proceedings taken ? Was it before or 
 after the # tenants had refused to pay any rent at all P — 
 It was after they bad refused to pay any rent at all. 
 
 Did you take any proceedings until there had been 
 a refusal to pay any rent ? — No. 
 
 My friend has asked you whether you are willing to 
 take these piersons back now. When did they leave 
 the lard ? — The Sheriff was in possession of the land 
 in 1831. The tenants had had it for nothing until 
 1883. They had their full stock on the land until 
 1883 without paying rent or taxes, and then the Land 
 Corporation took it. All that time, from 1881 to 
 1883, Mr. Hurley's children were receiving nothing 
 from the land. 
 
 The President (To witness). — I forget whether you 
 were legal trustee or not ? — I was legal trustee. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Under a will, my Lord. 
 
 Sir H. James (To witness).— What were the differ- 
 ent ages of the children when you took charge of 
 them ? — The boy was 15, I think, and the girl 17 or 18. 
 
 Mr. LOCK wood.— That was in 1878 ?— Yes. 
 
 Sir H. James. — And this property was their means 
 of subsistence ? — This and the other property. 
 
 In 1881 these people refused to pay any rent at all, 
 saying that the time for rent paying was over ? — Yes. 
 
 At that time would you have taken them back at a 
 fair rent ? — Yes. 
 
 And they refused ? — Yes. 
 
 They remained in possession until 1883, paying 
 nothing at all ? — Yes. 
 
 And after that you let to the Land Corporation ? — ■ 
 Yes. Even in 1881 they owed one year, so they had 
 it three years for nothing. 
 
 You remained legal trustee ana guardian to tne 
 children until they reached the age of 25 ? — Yes. 
 
 You have been asked as to the eviction of Jeremiah 
 Connor. He was evicted in 1881 ?— Yes, there were 
 two gales owing. 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson. 
 
The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 607 
 
 Was that man paying ycu anything ? — No, he refused 
 to pay anything at all. 
 
 Did you make any offer to him that if he would pay 
 any rent, you would allow him to remain in ? — I do 
 not recollect what offer was made at that time, but I 
 offered all the leaseholders the same terms, and I 
 would have taken thjm back on those terms, but they 
 refused. 
 
 I want to know about this man. Are you quite sure 
 he was refusing to pay any rent at all ? — Yes. 
 
 My friend also asked you whether in 1878, 1879, 
 and 1880 you made any reductions at all 
 
 The President. — I am anxious to be able to dis- 
 criminate between the property this lady is dealing 
 with as trustee and her own. The cross-examination has, 
 to some extent, been mixed. The cross-examination 
 this morning seemed rather to relate to her own pro- 
 perty. «■ 
 
 Sir II. James. — I think it related chiefly to the pro- 
 perty she managed. I am referring to the trust pro- 
 perty alone. 
 
 The President.— It is obvious that the two posi- 
 tions are totally different. A lady having to administer 
 a property as trustee would be bound to get the best 
 rent she could, but with regard to a property of her 
 own the considerations would be different. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Sir Charles Russell was, I think, 
 referring to the trust property alone. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — That is so with regard to the in- 
 stances given from the book. 
 
 The President.— Sir Charles Russell used the ex- 
 pression " your own property " unfortunately, as if he 
 were referring all along to this lady's own property. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I think all the questions were 
 directed to the property over which this lady has con- 
 trol. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— Except where otherwise expressly 
 stated. 
 
 Sir II. James.— (To the witness.) Mayl take it that 
 in all the cases of these 13 families, to which refer- 
 ence has been made, there was a refusal to pay any 
 rent at all ? — Yes. 
 
 At that time if the rent or a fair rent had been paid 
 would you have kept them on ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell asked you whether you would 
 be willing now to take them back at a fair rent, and 
 you said " No." To what tenants did you regard that 
 question as applying ? — To the leaseholders merely. 
 
 What is your reason for saying now that you would not 
 take back the leaseholders ? — -Well, one must protect 
 oneself, and if I let back part of them there are no 
 fences on the land, and the others would come and 
 graze upon it. 
 
 Are these the lands of which the Land Corpor a- 
 tion is in occupation ? — Yes. 
 
 You are receiving some rent from the Land Corpora- 
 tion ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you take the view that improvements had been 
 made on these lands ? — No, it is all grass land. The 
 
 rent that has been spoken of as a rise was only the 
 old rent which was charged before the famine year. 
 
 When you speak of the famine year you refer to 
 1848 ? — I refer to the potato famine. 
 
 At that time the rents did fall lower ? — Yes. 
 
 And new rents were made in 1869 ? — It was earlier 
 than that. 1S59, I think. 
 
 What did you say was the alteration made at that 
 time ? — The rents were put back to the figure charged 
 before the famine. 
 
 That is to say, the old original rent ? — Yes. 
 
 My friend gave you a particular instance in which 
 the tenant was a new tenant, and had made no improve- 
 ment. Do you know whether he paid anything on going 
 into the farm ? — I do not know anything about what 
 he may have paid to the outgoing tenant. I am sure 
 he did not pay anything to Mr. Hurley. 
 
 What was the character of this land ? — We call it 
 butter land. 
 
 For grazing cows ? — Yes. 
 
 The Tralee land was grazing land ? — Yes. It is 
 within a quarter of a mile of the market-place at 
 Tralee, and the tenants make the rent by selling the 
 milk and butter there. 
 
 During this time, after your inquiries, what was your 
 view of the ability of your tenants to pay their rents ? 
 I mean the whole of the tenants. — I think that 
 with two or three exceptions they were perfectly 
 well able to pay their rents. 1 gave ample time to 
 those who I thought wanted it. 
 
 Was it grazing land at Listowel ? — Yes, the land the 
 Corporation have. The Tralee land is very much 
 better, because milk brings so good a price at 
 Tralee. 
 
 The question has been asked you, do you recollect 
 what occurred in 1880, when the Land League was 
 established ? Did you see a marked difference in the 
 conduct of the people after that ? — Yes. 
 
 In what way ? — Oh ! they spoke much more openly 
 and defiantly, and said they would pay no more rent. 
 
 Up to 1S79 had you any difficulty in getting your 
 rents paid ? — No. The people grumbled sometimes, 
 but the rents were paid. 
 
 The President. — This lady spoke of something that 
 occurred before the actual establishment of the Land 
 League. I do not remember that we have yet had any 
 speeches which were made in anticipation of the Land 
 League. Nothing is brought into existence instantly. 
 I suppose there were some speeches made earlier, I 
 think as early as April, 1879. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Certainly there were some 
 speeches in 1879, but I am not sure whether your 
 Lordships have had them yet. They certainly form a 
 part of our proof, and I will see that your Lordships 
 have them. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — Will you let us have 
 the 1879 speeches in the sime form as the 1880 
 speeches? The 1880 speeches are in a very convenient 
 form. 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson. 
 
l G08 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12,- 1888. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I -will see that that is 
 done, as far as possible. 
 
 Witness. — Sir Charles Russell seemed to make a 
 great point of the difference between the Poor Law 
 valuation and the rents. The Poor Law valuation means 
 nothing except:low taxes,which is a great advantage to 
 the tenant, because the taxes are paid on the valua- 
 tion and not on the rents. 
 
 By Mr. Retd. — You have said that the man Jeremiah 
 Connor when he' was evicted declined to pay any rent 
 at all ?— Yes. 
 
 I wish to put this to yon for a specific reason, 
 whether he did not offer to pay a valuation and a half 
 and you declined it ? — No. 
 
 Fifty per cent, above the Government valuation ?— 
 No. 
 
 I gathered from what you told Sir Henry James that 
 the tenants who had been evicted had all refused to 
 pay any rent. Is that true ? — Yes ; every one — that 
 is, substantially. 
 
 I must put this to you. Did not they all offer to 
 pay the old rent the same as they had paid up to 
 1880 ? — I cannot say whether they offered to do so 
 before the Board of Works money was asked for, but 
 afterwards, when the storm threatened, before the 
 sheriff went there, they refused to pay anything. 
 
 Your demand was for the full amount ? — Originally. 
 
 Did you ever offer any abatement ? — Afterwards. 
 Before they were absolutely put out I should have 
 been satisfied to take the old rent. 
 
 I thought that you told Sir Charles Russell that you 
 never offered any abatement ? — It is as I told you. I 
 offered to forego the interest on what was spent and 
 to accept the old rent. They were not satisfied with 
 that. 
 
 Was your offer made in any formal way ? — All the 
 offers went through the sub-agents. 
 
 I do not want to protract this discussion upon a 
 question of fact ; but I put it to you generally, were 
 not all these tenants whom you evicted willing, and 
 did they not actually offer to pay, the old rent which 
 they were paying before 1879 and 1880, and is it not 
 the fact that you refused to accept that rent ? — 
 Originally they may have been willing to do so, but 
 they were not after 1881. 
 
 And you insisted upon having all the costs in 
 addition ? — Before any costs were incurred it was 
 explained to them that, if they allowed the proceed- 
 ings to go on, the expenses would be heavy, because 
 the evictions were upon the title. They told me that 
 they did not care, as they would not have to pay the 
 costs. 
 
 You say yon offered to let the leaseholders hold at 
 the same rent as the judicial rents ? — Yes, but on the 
 Killarney property only. 
 
 Not upon the other estates ? — No. 
 
 Did you make that offer formally P — Yes. 
 
 Can you give me the date of that offer ? — It was 
 made in 1883. 
 
 To whom ? — It was made to all the tenants — to one 
 
 or two in a formal way and to the others verbally. 
 I think it was made at Mr. Hussey's office. 
 
 Re-examined by Sib H. James. — You say that the 
 tenants told you that they would not have to pay the 
 costs. By whom did they tell you that the costs 
 would have to be paid ? — I cannot recollect whether 
 they distinctly stated that they would be paid by the 
 League, or whether they only implied it. 
 
 The persons on whom the road money was spent 
 were leaseholders, on whose property the expense of 
 the roads was chargeable ? — They were leaseholders. 
 
 The man Maloney, of whom you have spoken so much, 
 was the chief person benefited ? — Yes ; but there were 
 some others who were not leaseholders. 
 
 Then I understand that some of the tenants were 
 evicted because they would not pay what they had 
 agreed to pay — their proportion of the expenditure 
 upon the roads ? — That was so. They were the 13 
 whose leases had expired. 
 
 They refused to pay ? — Yes. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, with refer- 
 ence to what I have said with regard to the speeches 
 of 1879, I think it only right to add that we cannot 
 give them quite in the same way that we have 
 done the other speeches. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Why not ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Because we have not the 
 same means of obtaining reports of the earlier speeches 
 that we have as regards the later ones, as we have 
 to a great extent to refer to United Ireland and other 
 papers for them. Bat still we hope to give them to 
 your Lordships as soon as possible. I did not give 
 the name of United Ireland of that date as the name of 
 the paper, but I stated at the time that we relied on 
 local papers for the purpose of getting these reports. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — With regard to what the Attorney- 
 (jeneral has said, we shall not make any undue diffi- 
 culty upon this point, as we are aware that probably 
 police reports were not taken of the speeches before 
 some period in 1879. At the same time I think that 
 my learned friend will agree that all the speeches he 
 does put in, save and except those which we admit, 
 should be proved in some way or another. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— Would you be willing to 
 accept the reports of the speeches which appear ill 
 the Freeman's Journal 1 
 
 Mr. Reid. — If I recollect correctly the Freeman's 
 Journal was extremely hostile in 1879. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My learned friend really 
 must not say that. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I hope I am not doing wrong to the 
 Freeman's Journal. I am speaking from my own recol- 
 lection. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— What paper would yon 
 like ? (Laughter.) ( 
 
 Mr. Reid. — That is a very pointed question, my 
 Lord. I am not as familiar with the Irish newspapers ' 
 as I should like to be, but if my learned friend will 
 give us a little latitude in putting in- speechessthat' 
 
 Miss Lucy Thomson. 
 
The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 609 
 
 appear in newspapers, we will deal liberally with them 
 in giving them the same facilities. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— 4 cannot enter into any 
 bargain, or into anything in the shape of a bargain, 
 with my learned friend on the subject ; but I will 
 endeavour to indicate to him the sources from which 
 the reports of the speeches come. And I should like 
 to say this. It is distinctly a part of our case that in 
 the early part of 1879 and in the middle of 1879 
 speeches were made by prominent gentlemen exactly 
 on the same lines as the Land League speeches. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I was not disputing that. 
 
 The President. — Will you try between this and 
 Friday to come to an arrangement ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — We will try to do so if possible, my 
 Lord. 
 
 The President. — I should be glad if you could. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — There is another matter of 
 considerable importance to which I think it is neces- 
 sary for me to call attention. I make no complaint at 
 all, but we have been, obliged to keep here for a con- 
 siderable time a number of persons to prove certain 
 speeches which were delivered in 1880 and 1881, which 
 speeches we have furnished to my learned friends, and, 
 of course, it will involve very great additional expense 
 if they have to be brought back again. I should there- 
 fore be obliged to my learned friends if they would 
 as soon aspossible give us an intimation — by to-morrow 
 morning — as to whom they wish called, because, 
 although I am afraid it might possibly prevent our 
 calling other witnesses, , still it would be very im- 
 portant to get rid of these men — reporters, persons 
 who are here to prove 1880 and 1881 speeches, Of 
 which copies have been given to Sir Charles Russell. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My Lords, I shall certainly desire to 
 admit as far as possible and prevent persons from being 
 called unnecessarily, but my learned friend has given 
 us somewhat short notice. If he had said this a week 
 ago we might have spent three or four days in going 
 over the speeches and seeing which of them we could 
 admit. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I may say that this com- 
 munication was made by Sir Henry James to Sir 
 Charles Russell three weeks ago. 
 
 Sir H. James. — The agreement was specific that my 
 learned friend should let us know what speeches he 
 wanted proved, meaning thereby what witnesses he 
 wished called. My learned friends have had the 
 speeches for three weeks, and it is but reasonable we 
 should know what witnesses they desire should be 
 called. 
 
 The President. — It seems to have been made so 
 long ago that the learned gentlemen on the other side 
 have forgotten it. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Reid. — It is quite true that we had the 
 speeches. There is no difference between us upon the 
 point. I am told, however, that some of the speeches 
 were delivered this week. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Yes, those are the later ones, I 
 was speaking of the earlier ones. 
 
 Mr. Reid. —To-morrow morning is somewhat early, 
 but we will see what we can do. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My Lord, I am now 
 obliged to interpose a witness who is compelled to 
 return to Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Edward Moore Richards was then called and 
 was examined by the Attorney-General. — I reside 
 at the Grange, Enniscorthy, county Wexford. 
 
 What is your profession ? — I am an Irish landlord. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Oh, you belong to a despised class, Mr. Richards, 
 but you nevertheless are willing to be a member of 
 that class ? (Laughter.) — Yes. 
 
 How long have you held your present property ? — I 
 have owned that property since 1860. 
 
 And you have lived upon it how long ? — Pretty much 
 continuously since then. I lived abroad before that. 
 My property is about 2,500 English acres in extent. 
 
 Were you your own agent ? — No, Mr. Bolton acted 
 as my agent until his death, and then Mr. Sergeant 
 acted in that capacity. 
 
 When did Mr. Bolton die ?— In 1864. 
 
 On what sort of terms were you with your tenants up 
 to 1881 ? — We were on excellent terms up to 1880 with 
 one exception. 
 
 What was that exception ? — It is a long story. 
 
 Well, we will not trouble you to go into a long story. 
 We will take it that there was some special reason in 
 that case and that you are quite willing to go into 
 the story if my learned friends desire that you should 
 do so. How many tenants had you altogether ?— 
 Between 60 and 70. 
 
 What was the rental of your property up to 1880 ?— 
 About £1,200 a year. 
 
 Had the rents of your tenants been raised in your 
 time ?— Never. 
 
 Therefore from 1860 down to 1880 the rents had 
 remained the same ? — Yes, and some of them had 
 remained the same from 1760. 
 
 Previously to the Land League agitation in 1879-80 
 had you ever heard the expression " land-grabber "?— 
 Never. 
 
 Had you up to that time ever heard a man denounced 
 for taking an evicted farm ? — No, not in my neigh- 
 bourhood. 
 
 Up to that time had you ever known a man 
 punished for having paid his rent, or for taking 
 an evicted farm ? — Never. 
 
 When was the Land League established in your 
 neighbourhood ? — At the end of 1880. 
 
 What was the name of the place where the branch 
 was ? — I do not know the name of the townland 
 where it was established. 
 
 Had your rents been publicly paid up to the time of 
 the Land League agitation ? — Yes. 
 
 Had there been any evictions on your property 
 between 1860 and 1880 ?— Only one, which occurred 
 when I was abroad. 
 
 There had not been any substantial number of evie" 
 
 Mr. Edward Moore Richards. 
 
 20 
 
61U 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 tions upon your property between those dates ? — No 
 only that one. 
 
 Did you notice any change in the demeanour of your 
 tenants towards you after the Land League was esta- 
 blished ? — Just about that time there was a consider- 
 able change in their demeanour in one respect. 
 
 In what way ? — Instead of the tenants' coming 
 together to pay their rents on one day as usual,notices 
 were posted up threatening the tenants with the 
 severest punishment if they came to pay their rents. 
 In December, 1880, they came to me in a body, 
 marching two by two, marshalled by a man on horse- 
 back, whose name I do not know, and who afterwards 
 disappeared. I stood on the steps of my house to 
 receive them. They told me that they were forbidden 
 to pay any rent above the Government valuation, that 
 they were allowed to pay a certain portion of their 
 arrears, but that, as regarded the rent then due, they 
 were forbidden to pay anything beyond the Govern- 
 ment valuation. 
 
 How many of the tenants said that ? — The whole of 
 them except one man, who paid. I asked them their 
 reason for taking such a course. There was consider- 
 able talk, and one of the tenants said, " If we pay 
 our rent we might be shot like dogs ;" and another said, 
 " If we paid our rent our houses might be burnt over 
 our heads." 
 
 Did you agree to grant them an abatement at that 
 time ? — No ; I refused to grant them any abatement 
 whatever, demanded in such a way. 
 
 Had it been the habit of your tenants to come to 
 you on given days in the year and pay their rent ? — 
 Yes, they used to come twice a year. 
 
 Before the autumn of 1880 had any notice ever been 
 put up warning your tenants not to come and pay their 
 rents ? — Not to my knowledge. I am sure that it did 
 not happen. 
 
 Prior to this occasion, had thero been any organiza- 
 tion against the payment of rent in your district ? — 
 Never, there was nothing besides this one. 
 
 After the occasion you have spoken of did you see 
 any of your tenants yourself ? — One came and paid. 
 
 Now, I want to ask your opinion upon this point — 
 whether the fear your tenants expressed was genuine 
 or sham, or whether they were merely making a pre- 
 tence of it in order to excuse themselves from paying 
 their rentB ? — In my opinion the fear they expressed 
 was perfectly genuine, or, at all events, it was in the 
 great majority of the cases. 
 
 Then it was not a mere excuse for not paying their 
 rents ? — Certainly not — that is, speaking generally. 
 
 You have referred to the action of one man, what 
 did he do ? — He left the body of the tenants, and came 
 in and paid his rent. 
 
 What was his name ? — James Burke. But, with your 
 Lordships' permission, I should prefer not to give the 
 names. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Well, no harm is done 
 yet. 
 
 Mr. LOCKWOOD.— The whole of the story of this 
 gentleman was told before the Cowper Commission. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I said that no harm was 
 done in Burke's case because it was a public case, and 
 the way the man was treated is known ; but I will 
 not ask for the names. Did any of your tenants come 
 to you secretly ? — They did from time to time. 
 
 You are not bound to mention names unless my 
 learned friend presses for them, and then we will take 
 their Lordships' ruling upon the point. Did any of 
 them come to you secretly from time to time ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they come alone or together ? — Always alone. 
 
 Did they pay you anything when they came ? — Yes, 
 they paid their rent or else they asked for time and 
 promised to pay. 
 
 What number of tenants came to you in that way — I 
 do not mean all at once or in a week, but in the 
 course of six months or a year — and either paid or 
 asked for time and promised to pay ? — I am afraid 
 that I cannot answer that question. 
 
 About how many ? — I did not pay much attention to 
 the matter. 
 
 At all events several came to you secretly ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember a man- — I will not ask you his 
 name — who was supposed to be a Land Leaguer — who 
 came to you ? — There were so many. 
 
 Do you remember something about a wood in con- 
 nexion with any particular man ? — Yes. I remember 
 such a man. 
 
 He was a man who was not merely a Land Leaguer, 
 but was a prominent member of it ? — I think so. 
 
 Do you recollect his doing anything ? — Yes. 
 
 What ? — He sent word that he would meet me in the 
 wood at night to pay his rent. 
 
 Did you meet him ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he pay you his rent ? — Yes. 
 
 What did he say to you. ? — He said, "For God's 
 sake don't tell anyone that I have paid -my rent." 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Will your Lordships allow me here to 
 interfere and to raise a question in reference to the 
 suggestion of the Attorney-General that the names of 
 the parties referred to by the witness should not 
 be stated. The suggestion is an intelligible one. I 
 understand the suggestion to be this— that the persons 
 referred to are in some kind of bodily peril. I desire, 
 on the other hand, to point out that if the names of 
 the parties referred to are not furnished to us, it 
 takes away from us all possible chance of testing in 
 any way the accuracy of the witness's story or giving 
 contradictory evidence. I do not desire unduly to 
 press the point ; but I must point out that, unless the 
 names are given, those whom I represent will be 
 placed at a grievous disadvantage, for we shall be 
 absolutely at the mercy of any gentleman who makes a 
 statement, without the possibility of testing that state- 
 ment. Under these circumstances, we are placed in 
 a position in which no litigants are ever placed in a 
 Court of justice — namely, that they are obliged to sit 
 down under charges which it is quite impossible for 
 them to meet or to refute. 
 
 Mr. Edward Moore Richards. 
 
The Special Commission, December 12, 1 
 
 611 
 
 The President. — The evidence must be received ; 
 and the question now arises, as I have pointed out 
 several times, if you press for an answer — if we should 
 come to the conclusion that the witness is not bound 
 to disclose the name for reasons which he might give, 
 then it would be, of course, a subject of observation 
 for you, which you have already anticipated. It puts 
 you in a difficulty, and would probably diminish the 
 value and force of this evidence against you. That, I 
 think, is the only way in which we can treat it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I only wish to say, in 
 reference to this matter, as far as I have taken any 
 part in it, that before this case is over we shall have 
 to bring before your Lordshi ps evidence as to what has 
 happened in consequence of the mentioning of names. 
 I merely mention that to show that we are not taking 
 this course in any way wildly. 
 
 The President. — But in this connexion I may say 
 that I am glad to learn that this gentleman's evidence 
 is practically known to you generally. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — The evidence of this gentleman is in 
 print. I am not aware whether other names are 
 mentioned beyond Burke's in that evidence. 
 
 Examination continued. — You said that the man 
 whom you met in the wood said something to you. 
 What did he say ? — He said, " For God's sake, don't 
 betray me." I promised him on my word of honour I 
 would not betray him, and I hope your Lordships will 
 not force me to do so. 
 
 Vou had a banking account, I beliere ? — I had. 
 
 Did your tenants pay their rent into your bank after 
 this, instead of paying you personally ? — They did. 
 
 Had tnat ever been done before ? — Never. 
 
 Do you recollect any women coming to you to pay 
 their husbands' rent after this ? — Yes. 
 
 Had that ever been done before ? — Yes ; sometimes 
 the women had come to pay the rent, but they did not 
 come secretly before. 
 
 Then afterwards they came secretly ? — They did. 
 
 Do you recollect anything being said about a soli- 
 citor ? — When I proposed that they should pay their 
 rent to my solicitor they said that that would be just 
 as bad as coming openly to pay it to me, because 
 every solicitor's office was watched. 
 
 Among the people who spoke in this way were 
 there old tenants who had been upon the estate for 
 many years ? — Yes. 
 
 Men whom you had known ? — Yes. 
 
 Now I again ask you to state to their Lordships 
 whether in your opinion these men were merely 
 shamming and trying not to pay their rent, or whether 
 they were really acting under intimidation ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I must object to the witness answering 
 that question. It is really going too far. 
 The Attorney-General.— Why ? ' 
 Mr. Reid. — Because it is not legitimate evidence. 
 The Attorney-General. — It comes within the rule 
 your Lordships have already laid down. 
 The President. — It is certainly admissible. 
 Examination continued. — You heard my question, 
 
 please answer it ? — I believe that the men were acting 
 under intimidation. 
 
 Did matters get better or worse after that occurrence 
 in the autumn of 1880 ? — They got worse. 
 
 In what way ? — They got worse after I took proceed- 
 ings against the ringleaders. 
 
 How did you know who the ringleaders were ? — I 
 could guess very well. 
 
 Were the ringleaders prominent members of the 
 Land League ? — I think so. 
 
 As far as you know they were ? — Yes. 
 
 Did anything happen to any persons in the neigh- 
 bourhood in the way of intimidation or boycotting ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Did anything else happen to them ? — Yes ; some 
 houses were burnt. 
 
 Anything else ? — Not much. I know what occurred, 
 as I was on the grand jury, and the cases came before 
 me in that way. I did not see the houses in flames. 
 
 Do you know whether you were personally de- 
 nounced ? — I know I was. 
 
 How do you know f— I saw printed notices posted 
 up. They were sent by post to men who rented grass 
 land. I saw a written notice nailed to a tree in my 
 demesne. 
 
 State what were the contents of that notice. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, I was not here when 
 this evidence began, or I should have taken your 
 Lordships' opinion with regard to it earlier. I under- 
 stand that it relates to the county of Wexford. 
 :The President.— Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Then I want to know whether we 
 are to extend the inquiry beyond all my learned friend 
 opened, and as to which he gave us more or less vague 
 notice. Of course it follows that by adopting that 
 course the area of the inquiry will be largely in- 
 creased. I wish to know whether that is deliberately 
 proposed to be done at this stage of the inquiry. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Your Lordships will 
 kindly remember that I stated in the course of my 
 observations — which were far too long — that I gave 
 distinct notice of the character of the case I was 
 about to prove ; but my difficulty was this — that if I 
 had properly performed my duty I should have gone 
 through a great many more counties. I said that I 
 should take out certain specimen instances, and that I 
 proposed to 6how, not to anything like the same 
 extent, by evidence of a general character by people 
 living in the localities, that this Land League agitation 
 and terrorism had its effect to exactly the same extent 
 in the other counties. 
 
 The President. — We cannot, of course, exclude the 
 evidence ; but I take the opportunity which is now 
 afforded me of saying that we contemplate the future 
 with alarm. We have been engaged now for I know 
 not how many days in this inquiry, and we have not got 
 to the end of any one branch of the subject. We have 
 already entered upon two of them, and there remain 
 several others of at any rate not less importance than 
 those branches of the subject which have been already 
 
 Mr. Edward Moore Richards. 
 
 20—2 
 
612 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 entered upon. Now it is impossible for us, 
 sitting as a Court of justice, to interfere. The 
 only ground upon which we could interfere would 
 be that the evidence tendered is irrelevant. 
 Bat we, of course, will not say that that evidence is 
 irrelevant before we have heard the whole of the case, 
 including among other things the examination of the 
 persons charged. Therefore, all I can do is to express 
 my earnest hope that the utmost will be done to com- 
 press the evidence within limits which have been, I 
 think, somewhat exceeded, in -some instances at any 
 rate. It must be remembered that rarely, if ever, any 
 legal investigation can be exhaustive. Life is not long 
 enough. We are, therefore, led to entertain the hope 
 that years of our lives may not be consumed in this 
 inquiry. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General.— This matter, my Lord, has 
 been most anxiously considered by us, and I should 
 like to say that, with reference to this necessary part 
 of the inquiry, we have done our utmost only to call 
 persons who are representative and who can speak to 
 matters from personal knowledge, our object being 
 not to be obliged to go into minute particulars. 
 
 Sib 0. Russell.— We have had this kind of protest 
 all along the line. It has been a matter of serious 
 consideration with ur whether we were justified in not 
 objecting to a great part of this evidence and in being 
 here while it was being given, at very considerable 
 expense to the parties. I take it that now the time 
 has arrived when your Lordships should invite my 
 learned friend to approach that part of the case which 
 has been shadowed forth and with reference to which 
 they have not made a step forward — namely, the con- 
 nexion between the persons charged and the charges 
 made. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith.— Gentlemen on your 
 side, Sir Charles Russell, have not curtailed their cross- 
 examination. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — That invariably follows when the 
 examination in chief is long. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith. — I was not suggesting 
 that it was not the natural course of things. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — When witnesses are brought forward one 
 after another and questions are asked — Did such and such 
 a thing happen before the Land League and after the 
 Land League ? — the learned Judge will not expect that 
 we should refrain from cross-examination. What we 
 say is this, that there are a certain number of things 
 —chiefly crimes — appearing in constabulary reports 
 and Parliamentary returns which we have again and 
 again expressed our readiness to admit. Nevertheless, 
 a vast period of time has been taken up in proving 
 matters which we were ready to admit — how so-and-so, 
 fer example, went to bed and how then a shot came 
 through the window. This, that, and every detail has 
 been given which is calculated to create sympathy and 
 compassion for those who have suffered, although the 
 circumstances may be substantially the same in every 
 case proved, 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — I wish to say a word as to what has 
 
 been said with reference to the length of cross-exami- 
 nation. I hope your Lordships will accept it from 
 me that I have made every effort — representing some 
 30 gentlemen who are implicated by these charges— 
 that I have earnestly endeavoured to limit my cross- 
 examination on their behalf, and I do hope that I have 
 not in any case transgressed. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith. — I do not think you 
 have. My observation was that there had been some 
 long cross-examinations, and naturally the other side 
 followed. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— We follow the other side. Your 
 Lordship puts the cart before the horse. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — There are some 65 persons charged 
 in these particulars. Supposing that all these gen? 
 tlemen were separately represented, the proceedings 
 would of course be much longer than they are now. 
 We have endeavoured earnestly to limit our cross- 
 examination. 
 
 The President. — I really do not doubt it in the 
 least. This is a very difficult inquiry for all of us, and 
 I have no doubt that counsel on both sides have in 
 good faith endeavoured to limit their examination, 
 but they are sometimes unconsciously drawn into 
 greater length than they themselves realize, and I 
 do not think that they are always willing to accept 
 that check which it is the duty of the Bench to 
 apply. What I said was in "the hope that the efforts, 
 which I will assume have been made, will be continued 
 and will be more successful ; and I ought to add that, 
 of course, I can only judge of the evidence which 
 has been given. I do not know what has been with- 
 held. 
 
 The Attobney-Genebal. — That is exactly what 
 your Lordship cannot know. But I do not want to 
 make any reply to my learned friends, and your Lord- 
 ship probably wishes that I should not. Your Lord- 
 ship has not forgotten, I am sure, certain statements 
 which have been made as to witnesses who were to be 
 called. 
 
 Examination continued. — You have seen certain 
 written notices hung up on your trees ? — Yes. They 
 were notices warning the tenants not to pay their 
 rents. 
 
 Do you remember being named in any of them ? — I 
 cannot say that I was named in the written notices. I 
 was in the printed ones that were shown to me. I 
 have not got any of these notices now. When I have 
 received threatening notices I have tossed them away. 
 
 What kind of notices did you receive ? — Oh, the 
 usual thing ; notices threatening me with the fate of 
 Lord Mountmorres. 
 
 What happened to James Burke, who paid his rent ? 
 — He was not boycotted for that ; but he took an 
 evicted farm two years afterwards, and he was then 
 severely boycotted and fired at. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — How do you know that he was 
 fired at ? — I saw the hole made by the shot in the 
 window. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENEEAL.'-Ynu are prepared, if 
 
 Mr. Edward Moore Richards. 
 
The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 613" 
 
 peoessary, to give details with reference to acts of 
 boycotting and terrorism that occurred in your neigh- 
 bourhood ?— Yes. 
 
 This concluded the examination in chief. 
 
 Sir C. Ettssell. — I do not ask anything. 
 
 Mr. Eeid.— Nor I. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — Nor I. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — You said you were 
 an Irish landlord by profession ? — That is my condition 
 now. 
 
 You have also told us that you were abroad. Where 
 were you ? — Principally in the United States. 
 
 You did not hear or learn much in the United States, 
 I suppose, about agrarian troubles ? — Troubles where ? 
 
 In the United States itself. — Well, I remember 
 some. I remember the troubles on Livingstone's estate 
 when they shot the sheriff. 
 
 Any more ? — Yes, some. 
 
 There were not many, I suppose, if the number of 
 holdings be taken into account ? — The witness was 
 understood to reply in the negative. 
 
 Captain Boycott, examined by Sir H. James, said, 
 — In 1873 I was appointed agent to Lord Erne over 
 his Mayo estates. 
 
 Has Lord Erne property situated near Ballinrobe and 
 Castlebar ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you become tenant of a farm of his near Lough 
 Mask ? — Yes, a farm of about 500 acres. 
 
 Until 1879 did you live on terms of perfect friend- 
 ship with your neighbours ? — With every one of them. 
 
 I believe you were a magistrate ?— Yes. 
 
 And you used to take part in field sports and always 
 mat with friendly treatment ? — Yes, wherever I 
 went. 
 
 On August 1, 1879, was a threatening notice posted 
 on your gate ? — Yes. 
 
 Was Lord Erne at that time offering a redaction of 
 2s. in the £l^that is, 10 per cent. ? — Yes. 
 
 Was the rental of the property £130 ? — Yes, of the 
 Lough Mask property.excluding the land which I farmed 
 myself. 
 
 Was the Poor Law valuation £398 ?— Yes. 
 
 If a reduction of 10 per cent, were made the rental 
 would be reduced below the Poor Law valuation ?— 
 Yes, £11 Is. 8d. below. 
 
 How many tenants were there ? — Between 30 and 
 40. 
 
 How many paid on this offered reduction ? — All but 
 three. 
 
 Did the threatening notioe mention any sum which 
 you were to be allowed to receive ? — No. 
 
 What did it say ? — It threatened me if I should force 
 the tenants to pay without a further reduction. 
 
 You received the reduced rent from all but three 
 tenants ?— I received the rests from all of them, but 
 three had to be processed, and they forfeited the 
 reduction. 
 
 How many processes did you issue in 1880 ? — Eleven 
 were taken out and three tenants had to be served in 
 
 September, 1880. That was for the rent technically 
 due in November, 1879, and properly recoverable in 
 1880. 
 
 What happened with regard to the rent due in 
 1879 ? Would they pay ?— No ; they asked for 5s. in 
 the pound. They came to my office and handed in 
 memorials to Lord Erne. I sent the memorials to 
 him, and he replied that he would allow 10 per cent, 
 reduction and no more. 
 
 Was that a fair reduction ? — It was a very fair re* 
 duction. The general cry was for Griffith's valuation, 
 and the reduction would have brought the rent below 
 that. 
 
 Did they give any reason for refusing ? — They said 
 they dared not accept the reduction, and that they 
 ought to get 5s. in the pound. That, they said, waa 
 the law of the land. 
 
 In consequence of this refusal had you to issua 
 processes ? — Yes ; they were issued against 11, but 
 only three were served. 
 
 Was an attempt made to serve these processes in 
 September, 1880 ? — Yes. I was not at home when 
 the attempt was made, but during the evening I found 
 that the police and the process servers had retreated 
 to my house, and next day I found that my servants 
 had been turned off by a mob. The men told me they 
 were sorry to go and to lose their wages, but thej 
 dared not remain. In the evening, as I returned home 
 from Ballinrobe,! received a communication from the 
 police, and two mounted constables rode home with 
 me behind the car. 
 
 That brings you to the 22d of September. Now, 
 Captain Boycott, please tell us in your own words 
 what your life became after that ? — I had to get up at 
 4 o'clock in the morning and go to the stables, where 
 I fed the horses. Then I would go to the cows, and 
 thence to the fields, where I would pull turnips and 
 throw them to the cattle. Then I would go home, 
 have a bath and breakfast. (Laughter.) 
 
 The President. — In short, you had to do on the 
 land everything which you would not have dona 
 could you have got some one to do it for you ? 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Witness. — Yes. 
 
 Sib H. James. — Did these people give any reason 
 why they would not work for you ? — They said they 
 dared not. Take, for instance, the smith. He said 
 he was very sorry, but he dared not shoe my horses 
 for me, and it was not till the 19th Hussars came 
 down that I was able to get their farrier to do it for 
 me. On the 1st of November I went to Ballinrobe. I 
 was going to call at the infantry barracks. There I 
 was hooted and hustled by a mob of about 500 people, 
 and I had to get the police to protect me. I got into 
 the barracks, and the barrack gates were shut. The 
 infantry were called out, and a police escort had to 
 take me to Castlebar, where the next day I received 
 the rents from Lord Erne's tenants with the reduction 
 of 10 per cent. In consequence of all this I had to 
 obtain men.who were afterwards called emergency men. 
 
 Captain Boycott. 
 
614 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 These came voluntarily about the first week in 
 November. Meanwhile my walls were thrown down, 
 and cattle driven about. One sheep had its leg broken 
 in being driven over the wall, and a mare had her eye 
 knocked out. 
 
 When you went into the public road how were you 
 treated ? — I was hooted at, and people would spit as I 
 passed. I had to carry provisions to my cart myself. 
 I could not get anybody to do it, and afterwards I 
 could not get provisions at all. They had to be 
 brought by steamer. 
 
 In consequence of this treatment I believe you left 
 with your wife and niece at the end of November ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you go to the Barman Hotel in Dublin ? — Yes : 
 but I was not allowed to remain there. The landlord 
 showed me a threatening notice he had received, and 
 told me he dared not let us remain. The next morn- 
 ing I came on to London, and for some time afterwards 
 was in the United States. 
 
 Now did you (after being away for some time) in 
 the middle of September, 1881, return to Lough Mask ? 
 — Yes ; at the end of the month I went to a stock 
 auction at Westport. I was hooted and mobbed there, 
 and my effigy was first hanged, and then burnt in the 
 market-square. I had to be protected by the police. 
 
 A number of threatening letters and notices were 
 then produced and handed to the witness, who deposed 
 to having received them. 
 
 SlK H. James. — I will read this one as a speci- 
 men :— " Heburn, Nov. 14, 1881. Sir,— Yon have 
 caused a great deal of disturbance in the country during 
 the last few months about your crop. You need not 
 give yourself any trouble about the affairs of this 
 world, for if you had all the police and soldiers 
 under the control of Her Majesty's Government you 
 shall fall. You will not have protection at all times. 
 You need not leave Ireland to go to London. There 
 is too many of your countrymen there. The best thing 
 you can do is to pray for your soul, for there is no 
 mercy on this side of the grave for you. One of the 
 Leitrim heroes is on the banks of the Tyne. and I 
 hope that ho and me will in time put a crop in the 
 ground which will bear no fruit.— Rory of the Hills. 
 Here lies the body of the tyrant Captain Boycott (re- 
 presentation of a coffin)." 
 
 Sir C. Kussell (after inspecting the document). — 
 Obviously it is from Jarrow, the place which the 
 gentleman whom wo saw the other day came from. 
 
 SIR H. James. — Another notice runs : — " If you do 
 not want to have yourself as we did Lord Leitrim, you 
 won't come to collect any more rents, because you're 
 
 a robber, and this is what you will get. Remember 
 
 that Rory always warns before he kills." 
 
 Examination continued. — After a time matters grew 
 better. I was allowed to go about in peace. In 
 1882 I went about just the same as I had done before. 
 I have left Ireland now. I knew no cause whatever 
 beyond the matter of collecting rents for the treat- 
 ment I received. I think the first meeting of the 
 
 Captain Boycott. 
 
 Land League in that part of Ireland took place at a 
 place called Irishtown. I do not know whether it was 
 in 1879 or 1880. Whether the League was established 
 or not, meetings were held about the land. I think 
 Mr. Davitt came to Irishtown. 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not ask anything. 
 
 Sergeant Elliott was next called and examined by 
 Sib H. JAMES. Witness said, — I am a sergeant in 
 the Royal Irish Constabulary, and in November, 1880, 
 was stationed at Ballinrobe. I recollect Captain 
 Boycott being attacked. I was on duty on November 1, 
 1880. Captain Boycott attended the petty sessions on 
 that day, and then left the court and went to the 
 clerk's office. He was groaned at in the street. Ho 
 entered the petty sessions office, and 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We have already had this. 
 
 Sir H. James. — No, indeed, we have not. My 
 Lords, I have a reason for asking this. 
 
 Witness (continuing). — He remained a few minutes 
 inside, and after coming out the people assembled in 
 great numbers. The pressure of the people was very 
 great, and he said he would go back to the military 
 barracks and on going down Bridge-street the crowd 
 pressed on us very much. There were 14 persons prose- 
 cuted for this riot. On December 14 I found two 
 notices posted on the market-house at Ballinrobe. 
 One referred to Thomas Gildea and to P. J. O'Malley, 
 and warned the people against dealing with them. The 
 other referred to another person. The men were 
 defended for riot at the petty sessions by Mr. Daly, a 
 solicitor. Mr. Moynihan, the president of the 
 League, was sitting in 1he court with Mr. Daly on 
 that day. I was aware of the police protection 
 afforded to Captain Boycott. In my opinion it was 
 quite necessary to his sufety. 
 
 The next witness was Peter Lavender. Witness 
 said, — I am a constable in the Royal Irish Consta- 
 bulary, and have been stationed at Balla since De- 
 cember, 1879. Since then I have seen Mr. Michael 
 Davitt at Balla. He stopped at the house of a person 
 named William Walsh. There was a sou named John 
 Walsh. I saw Mr. Davitt attend a LandLeague meet- 
 ing on May 1, 1880. I also saw Mr. Thomas Brennan 
 in December, 1879. He stopped with William Walsh. 
 I believe Mr. Daritt was there at that time. On the 
 10th of June, 1880, I was on duty at Balla, and 
 
 I saw painted up that day notices to pay no rent and 
 " Down with the land-grabbers." I saw J. W. Walsh, 
 a son of William Walsh, paint them up. I knew John 
 W. Walsh was president of the Balla branch of the 
 Land League. On November 8, 1880, it was fair day 
 at Balla. There is a man named John Thomas Nally 
 at Balla. He showed me a telegram. On November 
 
 II I was on duty at .Ballinrobe. I went to a place 
 near Claremorris with the police and the military. 
 Near there I met a number of police and military 
 escorting labourers who were going to work at Lough 
 Mask for Captain Boycott. There were crowds follow- 
 
 Sergeant Elliott. 
 Constable Peter Lavender. 
 
The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 615 
 
 ing them. These labourers were strangers to the place 
 — came from a distance. The crowd was hooting and 
 groaning atthe labourers. There was P. W. Nally there. 
 He went on from Claremorris to Ballinrobe. He 
 seemed to be the principal in getting up the row 
 against the labourers. I could not hear anything of 
 what he said, because he went along quicker than I 
 did. He was groaning and encouraging the people to 
 keep hooting the labourers. The mob accompanied the 
 labourers some distance from Claremorris to Ballin- 
 robe. P. W. Nally was there the whole time. I am 
 not sure whether he had anything to do with the 
 League. I think not. I had charge of this man Nally 
 on May 16, 1883. He was then in my custody. I had 
 a conversation with him. I very seldom saw P. W. 
 Nally at William Walsh's house. I have seen J. W. 
 Nally there on several occasions. I could not say 
 whether I ever saw him there when Mr. Davitt was 
 there. I think I saw him there in 1880 and 1881. 
 
 SIR H. James. — My Lords, I have abstained from 
 asking what P. W. Nally said. I understand that he 
 was one of the persons charged, and therefore I pre- 
 sume I may have what he said. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, this witness has stated 
 that P. W. Nally had nothing to do with the Land 
 League. 
 
 Sir H. James. — He is specifically charged byname. 
 
 Sir C. Kdsskll.— How do you charge him? Meiely 
 as a person with whom certain other persons 
 associated. 
 
 Sir H. Jambs. — My Lords, the charge in respect of 
 this man Nally comes under the heading in the particu- 
 lars — " The following are persons who are guilty of 
 crime or advocates of treason, sedition, assassination, 
 or violence, with whom it is alleged the said members 
 of Parliament continued to associate." Now, there 
 thus comes in that way, ur.der that heading, the 
 alleged specific association with this man Patrick 
 Nally. In United Ireland, November 7, 1885, is re- 
 ported a meeting of the League Convention for the 
 county of Mayo under the presidency of Mr. Pamell. 
 Selections were made for the representation of the 
 four constituencies of the county. The convention 
 closed about 4 o'clock, and a public meeting was theu 
 held in front of the hotel, and then Mr. Pamell made 
 this speech : — 
 
 " Your Convention to-day has done a great and noble 
 work for Ireland. Delegates from all parts of this 
 vast county assembled together to discuss the compli- 
 cated and difficult question of the representation of 
 your county. They have listened to everything that 
 was to be said on one side and on the other with 
 an impartiality that was creditable to the country, 
 and have come to the conclusion in the end, and that 
 conclusion was a unanimous one, in favour of four 
 candidates, who were appointed. But they were 
 assisted in coming to this conclusion in no small 
 degree by the spirit of self-sacrifice which was ex- 
 hibited by the candidates who were not chosen. There 
 were other candidates, and foremost among them I will 
 mention the name of Mr. P. Nally ; and I wish to say 
 of Mr. P. Nally that he is a man who performed great 
 
 and important services in the cause of the Land 
 League when it was formed in this county — the county 
 of its birthplace. I believe of Mr. Nally that he is 
 one of the victims to the infamous system which 
 existed in this country during the three years of the 
 Coercion Act. I believe of Patrick Nally that he is a 
 victim of the conspiracy which was formed between 
 Lord Spencer and the informers of their country for 
 the purpose of obtaining victims of what they call 
 law and justice by any and every means, whether 
 they were innocent or not. I am convinced, after a 
 fair and impartial examination of the facts of his case, 
 which it was my duty to make in common with many 
 other eases, that Mr. Nally is one of the many victims 
 who at present innocently occupy prison cells in this 
 country, that he was guilty of no crime even against 
 English law, and that he was innocent specially and 
 in a marked degree of the offences with which he was 
 charged . " 
 
 And so forth. To carry it a step further, my Lords, I 
 will now ask your Lordships, after that association 
 being so clearly and distinctly admitted, if your Lord- 
 ships think we may now give evidence of what Mr. 
 Nally said. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My learned friend is proposing to 
 ask a witness what a prisoner in his custody — viz., P. 
 W. Naily — said on May 16, 1883, the justification for 
 it being a ttutement made by Mr. Pamell in No- 
 vember, 1885— thut is to say, two years and six months 
 afterwards. Now, my Lords, the only way in which 
 this has any bearing on the matter at all is because 
 the name of Mr. Nally — P. W. Nally — is, with mary 
 others, associated in connexion with this statement— 
 that these persons, Mr. Nally among them, were 
 persons with whom the members of Parliament con- 
 tinued to associate. 
 
 The President. — I suppose — I have not the context 
 — that anything that they had 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Of course, the intendment, the 
 meaning, is that they knew it. '* The following are 
 persons who are guilty of crime or advocates of crime 
 with whom it is alleged the said members of Parlia- 
 ment continued to associate." I ask my friends to 
 bear in mind, in endeavouring to support this, that 
 these particulars cannot and do not extend the scope 
 of thj charges and allegations against certain persons 
 made in " O' Donnell v. Walter," and therefore it is 
 in case ihis man's name is introduced in these parti- 
 culars that it is admissible. I call upon my learned 
 friend, therefore, to justify by any reference any 
 allegation in " O'Donnell v. Walter." 
 
 The President. — It would not be necessary for him 
 to be referred to by name if he were referred to by 
 description. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — He should be referred to in some 
 way as a person against whom they were making 
 allegations. All that this head of the particulars entitles 
 them to do is to prove certain association of Mr. 
 Pamell with this man, not the statement which this 
 man makes to the constable. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My Lords, it is not suggested that 
 Nally's statement is evidence upon the ground that he 
 was the agent of any of the C5 members to make a 
 
 Constable Peter Lavender 
 
616 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 statement. Hat is not the way it is put. It is put 
 on the ground that it is an admission or confession 
 or statement by one of the persons against whom 
 allegation is made. That is to say, he is a principal to 
 make admissions in regard to himself. The whole 
 point, therefore, is, Is he one of the persons against 
 whom the charges and allegations are made ? It is 
 not so stated in the particulars, and I submit there is 
 nothing in the proceedings in " O'Donnell v. Walter " 
 to show that Nally is one of the persons whom they 
 are entitled to put forward. 
 
 The Attobney-Oeneeal.— I may remind your Lord- 
 ships that we were not ordered to give any particu- 
 lars with reference to the persons charged, bat in 
 reference to the members of Parliament. I admit 
 that we ought to show that Nally is, either as a 
 member of a class or by name, referred to as one 
 of the persons who, we allege, were engaged in 
 getting up this organization, with these, as we allege, 
 improper objects. We have already proved, with refer- 
 ence to both these Nallys, certain speeches made, and 
 I opened others. 
 
 Sip. C. Russell. — Not both. 
 
 The Attorney-Ueneeal. — As regards both, when 
 ihis was being proved my learned friend, with refer- 
 ence to J. W. Nally, alleged that he was never re- 
 garded as a person of any importance at all, and, with 
 reference to P. W. Nally, that he was opposed to the 
 Land League. Therefore, the relation of J. W. and 
 P. W. Nally with the Land League may become of 
 very considerable importance. In " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter," page 88, I said :— 
 
 " On the 17th of October. 1880, at Westport, county 
 Mayo, Brennan, the secretary of the Land League, 
 delivered this speech a few weeks after Mr. Parnell's 
 speech at Ennis. There were present Patrick Moran, 
 of the Land League, Lowden, Walsh, Nally, and Thomas 
 Brennan spoke." 
 
 For the purposes of my case I will make no difference, 
 because I am going to prove as part of my case that 
 both these men were prominently mixed up with the 
 organization of the Land League. The only point of 
 that meeting was that there was a speech of very 
 violent language by Brennan in the presence of Nally 
 and others. Ou page 117 I quoted " Parnellism and 
 Crime." I will read the actual passage, which begins, 
 after quoting speeches by Mr. P. J. Gordon at Oaher- 
 listrane, county Galway, and Abbeyknockmoy, county 
 Galway, " J.W. Nally, Malachi O'Siillivan, Muffeney, 
 and other patriots and Leaguers were equally out- 
 spoken." I am not certain whether that one is Scrab 
 Nally. The particular point is with reference to the 
 action of both these Nallys. The allegation we had to 
 make was wjth reference to the persons with whom 
 the members of Parliament continued to associate. 
 Your Lordships did not require us to give particulars 
 of the persons charged. The other persons who were 
 associated with the members of Parliament particulars 
 were to be given of, and among others P. W. as well 
 as J. W. Nally is included. I submit that, assuming 
 
 a statement to have been made by P. W. Nally with 
 reference to his connexion With the Land League, that 
 is a statement admissible as showing how the Land 
 League organization was being worked— a statement 
 which would go to show that a man admitted that he 
 was either a member or was not, and one of those who 
 were engaged in working up the organization of the 
 Land League. Mr. Parnell states in 1885 that Mr. P. 
 W. Nally had been most active in getting up the 
 organizations in this very county of Mayo, and as of 
 1880 not 1885. It is a part of what we have to prove 
 with reference to the Nallys, both of them. Though 
 this particular matter may not be very important, I 
 submit a statement made by P. W. Nally is admissible. 
 
 The President.— Is he a person charged ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— In " Parnellism and 
 Crime." He is most certainly one of the persons I 
 referred to in " O'Donnell v. Walter," page 88. I 
 have a distinct belief that that was P. W., and not 
 J. W. 
 
 The President.— We must not act upon that. It 
 must be proved. 
 
 . Sie C- Rcssell. — As well as I recollect I believe 
 I am accurate— upon the evidence of Constables Irwin 
 and 0'Malley,who spoke to the meeting — in saying that 
 that is not the case. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I will postpone it if you 
 wish. With reference to the statement of Sir C. 
 Russell that P. W. Nally was violently opposed to 
 it, I believe that was incorrect. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell.— And I adhere to it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I believe it, on my in- 
 structions, to be inaccurate and contrary to Mr. 
 Parnell's own distinct statement with respect to 
 P. W. Naljy. I shall prove it was P. W. Nally who 
 was present at that Land League meeting, and I intend 
 to show evidence that he is mentioned. 
 
 Sie C. Russell.— My recollection is as I said, but 
 I am not positive on that point ; but of this I am 
 positive — that not one single witness has ever intro- 
 duced the name of P. W. Nally as present at any 
 meeting at all. Apart from that, my learned friend 
 has failed to establish that which ought to be the 
 very first position — namely, that P. W. Nail} is a 
 party charged in " O'Donnell v. Walter." 
 
 The.PEESlDENT. — If he is a party charged, then it 
 appears to me that this would be evidence against him, 
 but not against anybody else. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I quite agree, but the hardship of 
 the position is this — that if he is a party charged he 
 ought to have been given notice to be here, and to be 
 called. 
 
 The President.— Oh, no ; it is for any person 
 charged to come in if they wish to be here. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— What I mean is that if it had 
 been in the minds of those who are conducting this 
 case that he was a party charged, I should have 
 thought they would have been bound to call attention 
 to it. 
 
 The President. — No, there is nothing- in the Act of 
 
 Constable Peter Lavender. 
 
The .Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 617 
 
 Parliament with regard to that. Everybody is bound 
 to take notice of an Act of Parliament. We are only 
 conducting an investigation. 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — But here is a man in gaol. 
 
 The President. — I do not know whether he is in 
 gaol or not. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Is a man who is in gaol bound to 
 take notice of what occurs in London ? 
 
 The President. — Whatever the hardship is, ii»is a 
 hardship imposed by the Legislature. The Act of 
 Parliament takes no notice of that. We are to con- 
 duct an inquiry with regard to certain persons, and 
 whether they are able to defend themselves or not, we 
 are bound to conduct that inquiry. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— There is a passage in 
 " Parnellism and Crime " which mentions members of 
 the Land League as implicated in crime. 
 
 After consulting with his colleagues, 
 
 The President said, — We will give our decision 
 later. At present we do not think that this evidence is 
 relevant. 
 
 Michael Farragher was then called and examined by 
 Sir Henry James. He said, — In 1881 I was living 
 with my father, Patrick Farragher. On the 7th of 
 March Captain Boycott's steward sent for me to do 
 some work. He asked me to do a week's work. I 
 did so. 
 
 On the Sunday night after you went home was a 
 shot fired at your father's house through the door ?-— 
 I did not see it. 
 
 Was there a ballet ?— I did not see it. There was 
 a hole in the door. 
 
 We only want the truth from you ; you will not get 
 into any difficulty. What do you think made the hole in 
 the door ? — I do not know, unless it was a bullet. 
 
 Did you hear the report of a gun ? — I did. 
 
 And then did you see a hole in the door that had not 
 been there before you heard the report ? — I do not 
 know whether it was. 
 
 Then what did you think made the hole in the door ? 
 Did yon tell the police of this ?— I did. 
 
 Did you work more than a week for Captain 
 Boycott's steward ? — I did not. 
 
 Do you know any reason why this bullet was fired 
 through the door ? — I do not ; none at all. 
 
 Were you a member of the League ?— -There was no 
 League at the time. 
 Sir C. Ettssell. — I do not ask him anything. 
 
 Thomas Gildea, examined by the Attorney- 
 General, said, — I am a publican and shopkeeper at 
 Ballinrobe, and let cars for hire. I had known Captain 
 Boycott for some years, and had let him cars. On 
 the 7th of November, 1880, I was driving a two-horse 
 car. I was alone. About that time I had been letting 
 cars to Captain Bojcott. I remember meeting a Land 
 League band, 
 
 Michael Farragher. 
 Thomas Gildea. 
 
 What branch of the Land League was it ? — I could 
 not say. 
 
 Was there a Ballinrobe branch ? — I am not aware. 
 
 What did they do ? — They turned me back when I 
 got a mile from the town. There were a great 
 number of people, between 300 and 400. 
 
 Now, about that time did you see a notice posted 
 up ? — I did not see it. 
 
 After that did anything happen to you ? — I was boy< 
 cotted for a month or five weeks. I held on letting 
 cars to Captain Boycott until he went away. 
 
 Do you know any i other reason for your being boy« 
 cotted except that you supplied cars to Captain 
 Boycott ? — No, unless it was driving constables. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do -not ask you anything. 
 
 Constable W. Philips, examined by the Attorney- 
 General, said, — I was stationed at Ballinrobe in 
 1880. I remember some processes having to be served 
 on Lord Erne's estate. 
 
 Was *that the one which Captain Boycott managed ? 
 — Yes. I went with Sayers, the process-server. 
 
 What did you find ?— There was a large number of 
 people. I only knew one man, a man named Fitz- 
 maurice. 
 
 Now, what did they do to you ? — We were not able 
 to serve the processes. I think Sayers served two or 
 three, and then the road was closed against him. We 
 wore pelted and hooted by the crowd. We went back 
 to Captain Boycott's house. 
 
 l! Did you prosecute two men at Castlebar Assizes ?--*. 
 Yes. 
 
 Who defended them ?— Mr. P. J. Daly, a solicitoi 
 in Ballinrobe. 
 
 Did you see Fitzmaurice instructing Daly ?— Yes. 
 
 What was he doing ?— He was standing by Daly all 
 the time, speaking to him. 
 
 Had Fitzmaurice anything to do with the League ? — 
 I believe he supported it. 
 
 Do you know a man named Duffy ? — Yes. 
 
 What was he ?^I believe he was secretary to the 
 League. 
 
 Had he been there on the day of the crowd ? — He 
 was. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— You said you only knew Fitz« 
 maurice there. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Excuse me, Sir Charles, 
 you can cross-examine him afterwards. 
 
 Examination continued. — It was afterwards that I 
 knew Duffy. 
 
 Were you able to prosecute him ? — No ; he went ta 
 America. 
 
 Do you remember the day the informations were 
 laid ?— Yes. 
 
 Was there a great crowd there ?— There was, cheer« 
 ing them. 
 
 Did you see a man named Monaghan there ? — Yes. 
 
 What was he doing ? — He was in the Petty Sessions 
 Court daring the time the trial was going on. I 
 believe he was the president of the Land League 
 
 Constable W. Philips. 
 
G18 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 branch. I used to see him attending in the com- 
 mittee room beside the barracks. 
 
 What branch of the League ? What place is it in 1 
 —Just beside the barrack at Eallinrobe. 
 
 Now, did you see Monaghan taking the men who were 
 charged anywhere after they went out of the Court- 
 house ? Did he keep a publichouse ? — Yes, in the 
 main street. 
 
 Did you see the men going there ? — I saw them from 
 time to time, repeatedly, going there. 
 
 Where were the meetings of the League held ? — 
 They used to meet in the committee room, a few doors 
 From the barracks ; it was within about 150 yards of 
 Monaghan's house. 
 
 Had he anything to do with the house ? — No ; it was 
 the house of a Mrs. O'Malley. 
 
 Silt C. Russell. — I do not ask you anything. 
 
 The Attorney-General.*— I propose now, my Lords, 
 to call one of the Kerry inspectors, to fill up the 
 Kerry evidence. I explained to your Lordships the 
 other day that it was impossible to have all the dis- 
 trict inspectors over here at the same time. 
 
 District-Inspector Alexander Gambell was then 
 called and examined by the Attorney-General. He 
 said,— I was charged with the Tralee district from 
 February, 1886, to the present year. I have been 20J 
 year6 in the police service. Before February, 1886, I 
 was stationed first iu Armagh from 1868 to 1875 ; then 
 in county Galway for three years, iu county Dublin 
 two years, and in county Antrim nearly five years; then 
 I went to Kerry. 
 
 Previously to 1881 had you ever known of any case 
 of persons being punished for paying their rent ? — No. 
 
 Or any case of persons being punished for taking 
 evicted farms ? — No, I cannot call any case to remem- 
 brance. 
 
 Do you know of any organization, prior to 1880 or 
 1881, that preached against the payment of rent and 
 the taking of evicted farms ? — No. 
 
 When did you first hear of the offeDce of moonlight- 
 ing ? — In connexion with county Kerry. 
 
 I want to know the earliest date when from your 
 experience you have heard of it ; did you ever hear 
 of it before 1880 ?— No, I did not. 
 
 You have investigated several outrages ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you ever able to trace any outrage to any 
 secret society ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I object to that question. What 
 does it mean ? It means that the witness is to be 
 asked the result on his mind of a number of circum- 
 stances which your Lordships have not before you. I 
 object to his giving either an affirmative or a negative 
 answer. The witness must lay the facts before your 
 Lordships. It is for the Court to draw inferences, and 
 not the witness. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I would remind your 
 Lordships of what has happened. We have had wit- 
 nesses called to prove facts, and then, having proved 
 the facts, they have, in answer to subsequent ques- 
 
 tions, said that they never traced any outrages to 
 secret societies. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Will you refer me to one in- 
 stance ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am satisfied there are 
 half-a-dozen. I have put the question myself several 
 times, and my learned friend has cross-examined those 
 witnesses on the point. The only thing I have done 
 here is to reverse the order ; I have asked this ques- 
 tion before going into the particulars of outrages. I 
 submit this is a perfectly proper question to put. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My learned friend seems to forget 
 the difference in the position of examining and cross- 
 examining counsel. I have the right to put questions 
 in order to suggest other causes for outrages, but that 
 doe6 not allow him to ask a witness to pronounce judg- 
 ment on a set of circumstances — positive or negative — 
 with regard to which your Lordships have not the 
 materials before you. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — How can my friend stop 
 us from giving this evidence ? I contend that it is 
 admissible. 
 
 The President. — We are of opinion that the evi- 
 dence is admissible. The tendency of cross-examira- 
 tion has been to suggest that instead of outrages beirg 
 due to the Land League they were rather to be re- 
 ferred to the existence of secret societies. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Among other causes. ' 
 
 The President. — Among other causes, of course. We 
 have now before us a district-inspector of police, 
 whose business it is to investigate crime ; therefore it 
 is legitimate for him to be asked whether he ever 
 had traced any of these crimes to secret societies. 
 
 Examination continued. — Did you ever trace any 
 outrage to any secret society ? — No, except moon- 
 lighting societies. 
 
 Tell me exactly what you mean by moonlighting 
 societies. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Again, is this admissible f- 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It is only an explanation 
 of his answer. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Are we to have witnesses to ex- 
 plain what moonlighting is ? 
 
 The President. — I think he may explain what he 
 means. 
 
 Examination continued. — In county Kerry I found 
 there were gangs of moonlighters in different parts of 
 the district, and they were constantly in the habit of 
 committing outrages in connexion with land. 
 
 Did you find any connexion with the Land League ? 
 — I found that in several instances of outrages the 
 persons had been previously denounced by branches of 
 the Land League. I find, from returns taken from exami- 
 nation of the criminal statistics with regard to Kerry, 
 that there were no moonlighting outrages prior to 
 1830. 
 
 Do you know one way or another whether where 
 moonlighting gangs existed there were Land League 
 branches also ? — There were. 
 
 Do you know from jour investigations whether any 
 
 District-Inspector Alexander Uambeu. 
 
The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 619 
 
 moonlighters were members of the Land League ? — 
 Yes, I believe there were. 
 
 The President. — That is not quite an answer to the 
 question. Can you mention any names ? — I am not in 
 a position to say decidedly. 
 
 Examination continued. — What was the condition of 
 the Tralee district when you went there ? — It was dis- 
 turbed, turbulent, unsettled. 
 
 How many active branches of the Land League wero 
 there ? — Nine — Tralee, Church Hill, Lixnaw, Ard- 
 fert, Ballyheigue, Causeway, Ballyduff, Kilflyn, and 
 Abbeydornev. 
 
 During 1886 were they doing active work ? — They 
 were all active in 1886. 
 
 Had you to do anything with reference to the police 
 force in 1886 ? — Yes ; I had to have it increased con- 
 siderably. 
 
 To what extent ? — When I took charge of the dis- 
 trict there were 12 stations, protection posts, and buts 
 only. Owing to the increase of turbulence in 1886 
 the number had to be increased until it ultimately 
 reached 20. In addition to that the stations were 
 strengthened in numbers. 
 
 Was there intimidation in the district at that time ? 
 — Yes, a great deal. 
 
 Of what kind ? — There were outrages committed on 
 persons throughout the district, and resolutions pub- 
 lished in the public Press denouncing individuals. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Let us have thj resolutions ; I 
 object to having it in this way. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If we go through this 
 matter and prove these facts in detail, we have in the 
 first place cross-examination as to motive, and then 
 my friends say, " We object to detail." On the other 
 hand, if we call witnesses to give general evidence, 
 then we are called upon for proof. 
 
 Sir C. Kussell. — I have never objected to general 
 evidence. My friends and myself have repeated over 
 and over again that we will take the police returns of 
 outrages, which we have some means of testing by the 
 Parliamentary returns, and so save the time expended 
 in going into a large number of very brutal transac- 
 tions. But when my friend endeavours to show intimi- 
 dation by resolutions published in newspapers we are 
 entitled to see them. 
 
 The President. — I understood that the Attorney- 
 General was going to put them in. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — That is the proper mode of doing 
 it. 
 
 The President. — It is sufficient to take the objec- 
 tion that the Attorney-General must give evidence of 
 the particular resolutions to which he refers. (To the 
 Attorney-General.) Can you undertake to give evidence 
 as to what they were ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I can. I cannot, however, 
 do so by every single witness at the same moment. 
 
 Examination continued. — Had you any trouble with 
 sheriffs' officers ? — I was constantly obliged to furnish 
 protection to them ; they generally made seizures 
 under cover of the night and under police escort. I 
 
 was obliged to furnish protection for various officers of 
 the law, also for caretakers, landlords, bailiffs, agents, 
 collectors of county cess, process-servers, and sheriffs' 
 officers. 
 
 Prior to yoar being in Kerry, did yoa ever in your 
 police experience have to do anything of that kind be- 
 fore ? — I cannot call to mind a single instance. 
 
 After the usual mid-day adjournment for luncheon, 
 
 The examination of the witness by the Attorney- 
 General was resumed. 
 
 How many persons were there under police protection 
 in the year ending 1886-8" ?— Forty-six. 
 
 Have you taken out from the constabulary returns of 
 Tralee the number of outrages in county Kerry from 
 January 1, 1888, to November 1, 1888 ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Will my learned friend produce the 
 book ? 
 
 Witness. — I have not that book here. I have only 
 the outrage-book of the district. 
 
 The Attorney-Ueneral.— The returns which yon 
 have furnished are for the whole county of Kerry ?— 
 Yes, there are eight districts. 
 
 Mr. ReId. — If the list of outrages is to be put in, of 
 course it can be done in the extremely convenient 
 form of the monthly Parliamentary returns. I suggest 
 that the Attorney-General should put them in. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I do not believe there is 
 any substantial difference between the two, but I know 
 the source from which this list comes, and I am not 
 certain whether the Parliamentary return includes 
 everything. 
 
 The President. — Is there any objection to our 
 having all these Parliamentary returns ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Not only is there no ob- 
 jection, but it is part of our case to tabulate them for 
 your Lordships. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— If there is any difference between what 
 this gentleman, who was not in the district in 1886, 
 compiled from the books of earlier years, and the Par- 
 liamentary returns, I should require that the difference 
 should be proved. 
 
 The President. — I do not understand the Attorney-? 
 General wants to give particular evidence. 
 
 The Attorney-Geseral. — I propose to put in the 
 constabulary books with the returns of all the outrages 
 in Kerry for ten years. My belief is it in no way 
 contradicts the Parliamentary return. If my friend re- 
 quires mcto produce all the books of course I must do so. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I am afraid I must insist on ray objec- 
 tion that if these differ from the Parliamentary return 
 the difference must be proved. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Then I must get witnesses 
 from the districts and produce the books. This book 
 has been kept in the ordinary way. (To witness.) I 
 wish to refer to particular outrages now which you 
 investigated. Did you investigate a case of shooting 
 at Timothy O'Connor ?— Yes. The name should be 
 Thade O'Connor. 
 
 Did you endeavour to find out the cause of the out- 
 rage ?— Yes 
 
 District-Inspector Alexander Gambell. 
 
620 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 Did any one say anything to yon as to that ? 
 
 Mr. Eeid.— Thia raises the old point again. If it 
 appears in the book it is admissible. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— It is because it does not ap- 
 pear in the book that I am entitled to give evidence of it. 
 
 The President.— The book is to be taken as primd 
 facie evidence, but it cannot exclude evidence from 
 being given by the witness if the witness is able to give 
 Buch evidence. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — This raises a question which may be 
 important. The witness is asked whether he has in- 
 quired and ascertained the motives of the outrage. 
 
 The Attorney-General — This witness investigated 
 a particular case in order to supply that which in 
 many of the books is actually written out. In the 
 course of his investigation he makes inquiries and is 
 informed of certain facts. I submit that in proving 
 the facts of the outrage the statement of the outraged 
 person is entitled to be proved. 
 
 The President. — That is certainly my impression 
 and represents my present state of mind. What the 
 person outraged stated to the police officer during his 
 inquiries would be admissible. I do not think that 
 the result of his inquiries round about would be 
 admissible ; but I think what he got from the outraged 
 person would be admissible on the principle I have 
 laid down. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — When entries of motive appeared in the 
 books by consent the strict rule of evidence was 
 relaxed and they were admitted. Now the Attorney- 
 General seeks to prove 'facts or supposed facts from 
 what was said to the inspector. That is quite 
 different. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I propose to prove by 
 original testimony the same thing that would have 
 been admitted if the entry had been made. 
 
 The President. — If there is something not in the 
 book which is material this witness can prove the 
 fact. The question is, whether this witness should be 
 allowed to be asked what he learned from outraged 
 persons at the time. My impression has always been 
 that it was admissible evidence. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Suppose the outraged person said to the 
 witness, " I paid my rent. I gave no other offence," 
 I submit that that fact is not admissible from the 
 mouth of this witness, because it is mere hearsay. 
 
 The President. — Suppose a man said, " They did 
 this to me, saying it was because I had paid my 
 • rent." Is not that admissible ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I should say it is not admissible. The 
 person in whose presence the thing was said might 
 prove it as a part of the outrage, but not as evidence 
 that the outrage had been committed because the rent 
 had been paid. If this witness be permitted to say 
 what these people told him, it is only evidence that 
 they reported that circumstance. 
 
 The President. — That is my impression. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I humbly submit that this 
 is a Commission of Inquiry, and I have never argued 
 that your Lordships are bound by the same rules of 
 
 evidence as an ordinary judicial tribunal. As regards 
 specific charges against particular persons, I must re- 
 spectfully press that it is competent to your Lordships 
 to admit this kind of evidence. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Might I ask your Lordship to ask the 
 witness whether this same Timothy O'Connor is not in 
 London at the present time f 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My friend has no right to 
 ask such a question. It, however, shows the amount of 
 information at the disposal of my friends. It is neces- 
 sary to prove motives somehow or" other. The funda- 
 mental part of our brief is to show that there is no 
 apparent motive for the outrages except that which we 
 believe to exist. 
 
 Mr. T. HARRINGTON.— Might I be allowed to say that 
 there are other reports made besides those in this book ? 
 There are reports made as to motives from evidence 
 collected by the constabulary from time to time and 
 reported to the superior officers. Would it not be 
 better if these reports were produced ? 
 
 The President. — I suppose they are not here in this 
 case. 
 After consulting with the other Commissioners, 
 The President said,— I regret that the objection is 
 taken, because I am afraid it will lead to the multi- 
 plication of witnesses. I am afraid it will minimize 
 the effect of the admission of the outrage-books very 
 seriously. However, we must act upon the legal ob- 
 jection if we think it a good one. I have more than 
 once had occasion to explain the view which I took 
 and which my colleagues have also taken on the sub- 
 ject. These statements, made by the persons outraged 
 to the police at the time, are in our judgment ad- 
 missible to this extent only — that they are statements 
 made to a constable by the persons who have had the 
 injury done to them, and we cannot reject what 
 happened as a fact when the complaint was made. But 
 if it is objected that this is not proof of the facts so 
 stated against particular individuals, we are of 
 opinion that to that extent the objection is a valid 
 one. The effect is it would make it necessary in all 
 of these cases to call the persons who were concerned 
 in the outrages tp state what took place. Now, apply- 
 ing that to this case, I am of opinion that the report 
 which was made to the inspector at the time by th« 
 individuals injured is evidence of that fact only, 
 and is not evidence against the persons charged. 
 It may have a variety of bearings in other respects, 
 but not against the persons charged. I am of opinion 
 that evidence collected round about a place by an 
 inspector is not admissible at all. His statement must 
 be confined to statements made to him by the persons 
 injured upon inquiry made of them, or upon their 
 volunteering a statement. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— It will, I am afraid, have 
 the effect you fear, my Lord. (To witness.) Now 
 confine yourself to answering my questions distinctly. 
 Did Connor make a statement to you ?— Yes. 
 
 I mean with reference, of course, to the outrage ?— • 
 Yes. 
 
 District-Inspector Alexander Gambell. 
 
The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 621 
 
 What was that statement ?— He detailed the circum- 
 stances of the outrage and assigned a reason for it. 
 
 What did he say ? — He mentioned two circum- 
 stances. One was his having evicted a woman some 
 years before, and the other that he had refused an 
 abatement of rent. 
 
 Did he say how long before that eviction took 
 place ?— In 1883, I think. 
 
 Did he say what abatement had been asked ? — I 
 cannot remember. 
 
 Did he make any other statement to you with refer- 
 ence to the outrage beyond that ? — — 
 
 The President. — You will remember, Mr. Attorney, 
 that we are quite clear on this point — that it is not 
 evidence against the persons charged. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Perfectly, my Lord ; but, 
 having got out these two statements, I thought that if 
 any other was made to him it was only fair to get it 
 out at the same time. (To witness.) Now, June 18, 
 1886 
 
 The President. — How is it that there is no book 
 corresponding to that which has been called the 
 outrage book in other cases ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — There is such a book, my 
 Lord ; but it has not got recorded in it the motive. 
 
 The President. — Quite so ; but we have got an 
 inkling of a book being in existence in some form 
 which contains an equivalent to that. (To witness.) 
 Is there such a book in existence in this case ?— Yes, 
 my Lord. 
 
 Would it show the motive for the crime ? — It would. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Is that a book which con- 
 tains confidential reports ? — Yes ; it is the letter book, 
 the correspondence book. 
 
 It is not an outrage book ? — No. 
 
 Does it contain confidential reports ? — Yes ; some. 
 
 The President. — The circumstances are such that I 
 should have thought he might have produced this 
 book, keeping back those parts which are confi- 
 dential. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am simply here repre- 
 senting The Times, my Lord 
 
 The President.— Oh, I know that. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— All I can say is that if I 
 could get the book I should be only too glad. « 
 
 The President. — But, Mr. Attorney, that objection 
 must always be taken by responsible persons. If this 
 book were handed in, of course I should ask, " Do 
 you object to my looking at the confidential reports ?" 
 
 Mr. LOOKWOOD. — The same objection has been taken 
 before, yet the book was shown to us, and of course 
 we respected the objection and should do so again. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — No book corresponding 
 to this has been produced, nor anything like it. The 
 book you saw was not of the same character as this 
 book. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington.— It is quite true,my Lords, that 
 the book was not produced, but the reports, or oppies 
 of thereports,to the Inspector-General were produced, 
 and the originals or copies could be produced in this 
 
 case. Your Lordships will remember that that was 
 done in the oase of Inspector Bell, who went at great 
 length into these matters. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — All I can say is that I 
 shall endeavour to follow up your Lordship's suggestion. 
 (To witness.) On June 18, 1886, was there a case of 
 firing at and wounding John Shea ? — Yes, I visited 
 him on the 18th. He was shot in the foot. He told 
 me that a band of moonlighters came to his house 
 and asked him whether he worked for Mr. Thada 
 O'Connor, and that they fired a shot which grazed his 
 foot. 
 
 Did he 3ay anything else except that he worked for 
 Mr. O'Connor ? — He told me he intended to cease 
 working for Mr. O'Connor, on whom an outrage had 
 been committed in the preceding May. 
 
 Mr. Keid.— -He has been examined, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — In order that we may see whether 
 we are likely to get anything more — (to thewitness.)— 
 Did you not enter that on paper at all ? — Yes, my 
 Lord, it is entered in the outrage-book. 
 
 And the motive ? — That was put in the report to the 
 Inspector-General. 
 
 The President.— There is the very thing we 
 want. It would be much better to have what the 
 man put on paper at the time than what he gives 
 from his recollection. 
 
 The Attorney-General (to witness). — I do not 
 know whether you have any copies of these reports 
 here ? — No, I have not. 
 
 The President. — There would be no objection to 
 them. They would come within the admission. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The books themselves 
 were entered differently after a certain date, and the 
 motive was filled in in a different way after a certain 
 time. Now, I have got the date June5,1886,snooting at 
 Cornelius Kearney. Did you investigate that ? — I did. 
 
 Did Kearney say anything as to his case ? 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — As I understood it, your Lordship 
 has just called the attention of the Attorney-General, 
 to the fact that if there is a record it would be much 
 better that we should have it before us. 
 
 The President. — Certainly, I think so. It seems to 
 me highly desirable that we should be able to get this. 
 If we had these documents they would be admissible. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I accept that intimation 
 at once. I will do all I possibly can. I will en- 
 deavour, if I can, to supplement this evidence by get- 
 ting hold of the reports. (To witness.) Have you pre- 
 pared from the Tralee district books an analysis of out- 
 rages from January 1, 1878, to November.l, 1888 ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you also prepared a return of evictions in the 
 same district ? — I have had it provided by the district 
 inspector at present in charge of the district. 
 
 The Tralee outrages are taken from the outrage- 
 book ?— Yes, by myself. The evictions are taken from 
 the records and are supplied by the district inspector. 
 
 I want to call attention to one or two particular 
 points. Will you, please, take moonlighting ? Were 
 
 District-Inspector Alexander GambelL 
 
622 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 there any moonlighting offences before 1830 ? — None 
 previous to 1880. 
 
 When did moonlighting begin, then ? — In 1880. 
 
 Give the figures, please. — In 1880 there were five 
 moonlighting offences ; in 1881, 22 ; in 1882, ten ; in 
 1883, four ; in 1884, none ; in 1885, six ; in 1886, 
 30 ; and in 1887, 13. 
 
 We know, of course, that the Crimes^ Act was in 
 force from July, 1882, until July or August, 1885. 
 You cannot, of course, tell us whether the Land 
 League was active in the Tralee district in 1881 and 
 1882, because you were not there ? — I could not tell 
 you of my own knowledge. 
 
 But you can tell us about 1886 and 1887 ?— Yes. 
 
 Now, I want to call attention to threatening letters. 
 Give me the numbers, please ? — In 1878 there were 
 two ; in 1879, Ijwo ; in 1880, 77 ; in 1881, 58 ; in 
 1882. 80 ; in 1883, 21 ; in 1884, eight ; in 1885, 82 ; 
 in 1886, 30 ; and in 1887, six. 
 
 Now I call attention to malicious burnings. What 
 are the figures ? — In 1878, nine ; in 1879, seven ; in 
 1880, 19 ; in 1881, 15 ; in 1882, five ; in 18S3, seven ; 
 in 1834, one ; in 1885, four ; in 1886, four ; and in 1887, 
 seven. 
 
 Now I will ask you to look at evictions, please. 
 What is the total number of evictions in the years I 
 mentioned ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — This witness does not prove these him- 
 self ; it is put in de bene esse. 
 
 Witness.— In 1880, one ; in 1881, 24 ; in 1882, 22 ; 
 in 1883, 37 ; in 1884, 14 ; in 1885, 19 ; in 1886, 14 ; 
 and in 1887, 34. 
 
 Examination continued. — The next column gives the 
 readmission of tenants and the readmission of care- 
 takers ? — Yes. i 
 
 And the total number of evictions must be made up 
 by adding together the second and third columns and 
 taking them from the first ?— Yes. 
 
 I will now endeavour at once to put in the extracts 
 from the Kerry Sentinel. These relate to other places 
 besides actually to Tralee, but they are all im- 
 portant, because the Kerry Sentinel circulates through 
 the county. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — While drawing attention to these reports 
 about evictions, I should be exceedingly glad if my 
 learned friend could give us not only the evictions in 
 the Tralee district, but also the books and papers re- 
 ferring to the total number in the county of Kerry, 
 because the book last handed in refers to the whole 
 county. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— No, no ; it refers to the 
 Tralee district. I will call over each particular paper, 
 as I want, if I can, to save my learned friends 
 trouble. The first is an extract from the Kerry Sentinel, 
 of the date May 8, 1885 :— 
 
 " Dingle Branch. 
 
 " Rev. Canon O'Sullivan in the chair. 
 
 " Resolved — 'That we heartily condemn land-grabbing 
 and grass-grabbing, as contrary to the principles of the 
 
 Irish National League and of moral justice, though 
 sanctioned and fostered by British-made coercion laws.' 
 
 " The Rev. Canon O'Sullivan said that the evictions 
 that had taken place in the district were perfectly 
 justified, as they only took place where there were 
 five or six years' rent due, and they had been read- 
 mitted." 
 
 *' Dingle Branch, 
 " 30th June, 1885. 
 
 " Thomas Kelleher, jun., in the chair. 
 
 " Resolved — ' That we hereby express our cordial 
 approval of the Kerry Sentinel, as conducted by Mr. 
 Edward Harrington, for its fearless exposure of land- 
 lord oppression, as well as for its able and unflinching 
 advocacy of popular rights upon all occasions.' " 
 " Dingle Branch. 
 " 21st August, 1885. 
 
 " Thomas Kelleher, sen., in the chair. 
 
 " Mr. P. Devane, Dingle, proposed, and Mr. 
 Timothy Flaherty seconded, the expulsion from the 
 League of Patrick Griffin, Dingle, cooper and cattle 
 dealer ; also the expulsion of Thomas Devane, Mil- 
 town. The former for having sold cattle for an evicted 
 farm, and the latter for having bought a cow from ofi 
 the same farm, and of which Sam Hussey is the land- 
 lord. Both were unanimously expelled, 
 
 " Proposed by Maurice O'Shea, and seconded by 
 Michael O'Donnell, and carried unanimously — ' That 
 any person dealing with any one known to assist or 
 hold communication with the emergency men in charge 
 of the Miltown, or any other evicted farm, shall be 
 looked upon as an enemy to the national cause.' 
 
 " Proposed by John Kelleher, seconded by Patrick 
 Kennedy, and carried unanimously — ' That we record 
 our condemnation of the introduction of emergency 
 men into our locality by the notorious evicter, Sam 
 
 Hussey.' " 
 
 " Ferriter League. 
 " i!5th September, 1885. 
 
 " Thomas Kelleher in the chair, 
 
 " There was a large number enrolled in this branch, 
 whici took a considerable time, after which several 
 charges were made against four shopkeepers for selling 
 goods to emergency men. One of the parties, Mr. T. 
 O'Connor, being present, cleared himself satisfactorily 
 by showing that it was altogether outside his know' 
 ledge, and undertook that there should never again be 
 reason to complain of him. The others being absent, 
 the secretary was directed to communicate with them 
 to attend at the next meeting. 
 
 " A carman in the employment of Captain De 
 Moleyns, agent to Lord Ventry, on hearing that he 
 wal*to be boycotted for taking goods to one of his lord- 
 ship's evicted farms, sent in a letter asking" the pardon 
 of the League, and stating that he would prefer to go 
 with his family into the workhouse rather than have 
 his car made use of for such purposes." 
 " Ferriter Branch. 
 " 2d October, 1885. 
 
 " Rev. William Egan in the chair. 
 
 " That we, the members of this branch of the Irish 
 National League, do express our unbounded confidence 
 in the Irish Parliamentary party so ably led by 
 Charles Stewart Parnell, and that we pledge ourselves 
 to support loyally at the polling booth the candidate 
 for this division of Kerry that will be duly selected 
 with Mr. Parnell's approval at the county convention 
 for Kerry. 
 
 " That we hereby pledge ourselves neither to take 
 a farm from which another has been evicted, nor to 
 
 District-Inspector Alexander Gambell. 
 
The Special Commission, December 12, 1S88. 
 
 623 
 
 buy stock or grazing or any sort of produce of such 
 farm, and that we brand all that do so or work upon 
 such farm and all those who in any way deal with 
 such abominable traitors to their fellow men ; that 
 we, the members of this branch, do hereby pledge our- 
 selves to give score ground to labourers at a rate of 
 payment not exceeding 5s. or five days' work per 
 hundred. 
 
 " Mrs. Fitzgerald, of Gallereus, a widow evicted 
 by Lord Ventry last spring, and who has had some ex- 
 perience of the tenderness of the Crimes Act Court 
 and the mildness of Tralee Gaol discipline, sent her 
 son to ask the assistance of the branch. After a long 
 discussion as to the method it was finallv decided it 
 should be granted her." 
 
 " Dingle Branch. 
 " 6th October, 1885. 
 
 " Thomas Kelleher, sen., in the chair. 
 
 " Two shopkeepers named Peter Houlihan and 
 Michael Moriarty appeared to acquit themselves 
 of charges brought against them at the previous 
 meeting for having sold shop goods to an emergency 
 man, and, having shown that they did not know who he 
 was, and having promised never again to have any 
 dealings with that class of persons, the meeting held 
 them excused. 
 
 " Mr. Dissett then said that no one had come for- 
 ward on behalf of John Atkins, who was similarly 
 accused, and as he or his representative had not con- 
 descended to appear at the meeting, the people knew 
 how to treat such disrespect towards the National 
 League. 
 
 " A carman in the employment of Atkins obtained 
 admission to the League after stating that he would 
 not again work for obnoxious parties. 
 
 " A tailor accused of making a pair of trousers for 
 an emergency man had been excused and admitted to 
 the League on clearly showing that he had not known 
 the fellow, and proved he had since refused to make 
 a suit of clothes for him." 
 
 " 6th October, 1885. 
 
 " The boycotted man Devane, who some weeks ago 
 bought a cow from oif one of Mr. Hussey's evicted 
 farms, got to understand he would be forgiven after 
 disposing of the old cow, which he promised to do at 
 the Balfaclare or next Dingle fair. The unfortunate 
 man had a most wretched appearance, the result of 
 the powerful weapon of boycotting." 
 " Ferriter Branch. 
 " 30th October, 1885. 
 
 *' Rev. William Egan in the chair. 
 
 " Eesolved — ' That from the conclusion of this 
 meeting no person be admitted to membership of this 
 branch without being proposed by one member of the 
 branch and seconded by another at one meeting, and 
 finally approved and adopted by at least a majority of 
 the committee present at the succeeding meeting. 
 That all disputes between members of this branch be 
 settled by arbitration.' " 
 
 " Ferriter Branch. 
 " 27th November, 1885, 
 
 " Rev. William Egan in the chair. 
 
 " After considering a very grave charge brought 
 aeainst a certain party, arid the charge proving to be 
 groundless, the general members were admitted. The 
 chief offender of the boycotted Blasket Island men 
 attended to seek forgiveness, and, on promising to 
 keep clear of boycotted persons in the future, and to 
 abide by the principles of the League, he was 
 pardoned, and as the others had settled at the special 
 
 meeting held on the previous Sunday, but would not 
 then be admitted to membership on account of the 
 chief offender not being with them, their cards were 
 forwarded to them. 
 
 " Mr. Maurice Bowler, sen., of Farran, who hap- 
 pened to be boycotted since the preceding Sunday, 
 came also to ask forgiveness, and on promising to sin 
 no more was fully pardoned ; he also wanted to be 
 admitted to membership, but as the committee con- 
 sidered the green card too distinguished a decoration 
 to bo conferred on a man situated as he was then, he 
 will have to wait some time longer before he can 
 raise himself to that coveted dignity. Charges were 
 preferred against several other members, the con- 
 sideration of which was postponed until the next 
 meeting." 
 
 " Dingle Branch. 
 " 15th December, 1885. 
 
 " Thomas Kelleher, sen., in the chair. 
 
 " The several parties against whom complaints 
 were made at the previous meeting appeared to give 
 explanations, with the exception of Gregory Connor, 
 farmer, John and Denis Connor, boot and shoe makers. 
 The following resolution was then unanimously 
 passed : — ' That we, the members of the Dingle 
 branch of the National League, shall have nothing to 
 say or do with those people for supporting the enemies 
 of the people.' " 
 
 " Camp Branch. 
 " 5th January, 1886. 
 
 " Rev. J. Molyneux presiding. 
 
 " The first consideration of the meeting was with 
 reference to the circulars issued by the trustees of 
 the Day estate to the tenants on the part of the pro- 
 perty situated in this district,asking them to purchase 
 their holdings under the Land Purchase Act. He 
 offered to sell at 18 years' purchase. The meeting 
 came to the conclusion that the tenants meet the 
 agent of the estate, William Phillips, Esq., Portarl- 
 ington, at Tralee in a body on Monday, 11th inst., and 
 offer 12 years' purchase. 
 
 " Attention was also directed by Mr. Moriarty, the 
 labourers' representative in the committee, to the 
 question of con-acre. This has occupied the attention 
 of the meeting during the last few Sundays, and as 
 yet it can scarcely be considered finally settled. The 
 rev. chairman proposed that each farmer whose land 
 was near or bordered on the sea give to one labourer 
 a quarter of an acre of his best land for £1 2s. Cd. 
 This met with the entire approval of the labourers, and 
 was immediately carried. Some new members were 
 enrolled, including William Stilt, a Scotchman, who 
 subscribed 10s. to the funds of the League, after 
 which the meeting adjourned." 
 
 " Ferriter Branch. 
 " 5th January, 1886. 
 
 " A special meeting of the above branch was held 
 on Sunday, 27th. 
 
 " Several complaints were disposed of, and were 
 postponed until the next meeting. 
 
 " A certain party who happens to feel the force of 
 popular disapprobation came before the meeting, and 
 went as he came — unrepenting, unpardoned. 
 
 " The following resolution was unanimously 
 adopted : — 
 
 " 'Resolved — That we sympathize with the executive 
 of the Dingle branch in its struggle to maintain the 
 principles of the League ; and that, while deploring 
 the conduct of some of the members of said branch in 
 becoming the tools — the unconscious tools, perhaps — oi 
 
 District-Inspector Alexander GambelL 
 
624 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 the designing enemies of the branch for working its 
 destruction, we at the same time confidently hope that 
 even those members will see the error of their present 
 line of action, and make reparation for their present 
 scandalous conduct by their future loyalty to the 
 cause.' " 
 
 " Ferriter Branch. 
 " 15th January, 188C. 
 
 " The Eev. W. Egan, P.P., in the chair. 
 
 " The tenants on Lord Cork's property in the dis- 
 trict attended to consider what course they should 
 adopt next Thursday, as Mr. Kearney, the agent, has 
 notified them that he will attend in Dingle on that day 
 to receive the rents. 
 
 " Almost all the tenants were for memorializing 
 Lord Cork to remit the present half-year's rent 
 altogether, as under any circumstances the great 
 majority of them could not pay a penny at present. 
 But in deference to the rev. president it was finally 
 agreed to ask an abatement of 50 per cent., and those 
 that could to pay at that figure on condition that the 
 others who could not were to get adequate terms." 
 
 " Fronin-Ma-Cool (Ventry). 
 " 12th February, 1886. 
 
 " John Adams in the chair. 
 
 " Some charges held over since last meeting against 
 parties for acting contrary to the spirit of the Land 
 League were inquired into, when it was found the 
 accused had a satisfactory explanation to offer and 
 were accordingly exonerated. 
 
 " Tho secretary read the .rules of the League and 
 exhorted all present to observe strictly the instruc- 
 tions of the Central League, and to say or do nothing 
 which could be considered illegal. He reminded them 
 this was a very critical period to the country. The 
 smallest act of illecality would be magnified into an 
 outrage and put forward as a plea to delay or refuse 
 the first demands of the people. All promised 
 obedience." 
 
 Your Lordships will mark the date of this. 
 
 " Bally heigue. 
 " 8th September, 1885. 
 
 " Resolutions were proposed, seconded, and passed 
 unanimously, regarding the payment of rents On two 
 estates in this parish and advising the tenants to pay 
 their rents when they got abatements of 25 and 30 
 per cent." 
 
 " Ballyheigue. 
 " 11th December, 1885. 
 
 " A meeting of this branch was held on Sunday, and 
 in consequence of the pressure of business a special 
 meeting was called for the following Wednesday to 
 investigate the charges against persons who had 
 violated the rules of the League, contrary to tho 
 resolution proposed here last October, respecting an 
 abatement of 25 per cent, on the March rent. The 
 following resolution was proposed and carried 
 unanimously : — ' That the parties mentioned be ex- 
 pelled from this League except they satisfactorily 
 account for themselves on next Wednesday.' " 
 
 " Kilflynn. 
 " 25th September, 1885. 
 " A meeting of the above branch was held on Sun- 
 day. There was a largo attendance of members. The 
 following resolution was proposed: — 'We, the mem- 
 bers of tho above branch, denounce land-grabbing and 
 grass-grabbing, and hereby resolve to hold no inter- 
 course with any parties guilty of such practices.' " 
 
 " Ballyduft. 
 " 8th September, 1885. 
 
 " Two members of the branch were charged with 
 violating the resolutions passed by the above branch : 
 — ' Be it resolved that they be expelled at the next 
 meeting and that their cards of membership be 
 demanded.' The charge was for assisting exterminat- 
 ing landlords by taking their grazing." 
 " Killorglin. 
 " 6th April, 1886. 
 
 " Some matters of local interest were discussed, 
 after which a deputation consisting of three members 
 was introduced and made a complaint that a trader in 
 this town was in the habit of supplying a man who 
 had taken a farm from which another had been evicted. 
 It was resolved to call upon this gentleman for an ex- 
 planation of his conduct, and that he be asked to dis- 
 continue this mode of action, and that if he should 
 not an extraordinary meeting be called for the purpose 
 of taking very serious account of his conduct, which 
 could not be allowed to go on unchecked.' " 
 " Ferriter Branch. 
 " 21st May, 1886. 
 
 " Thomas Moriarty, D.V.P., in the chair, and after- 
 wards Rev. William Egan. 
 
 ' ' There were complaints against several persons for 
 dealing with boycotted parties, some of which were 
 settled satisfactorily and others postponed until the 
 next meeting. The tradesmen of the district com- 
 plained that the Dingle tradesmen and shopkeepers 
 were dealing with the boycotted parties of this dis- 
 trict indiscriminately. 
 
 " The secretary was ordered to communicate with 
 the Dingle branch on this subject. 
 
 " The rev. president intimated that the proper course 
 would be to call a friendly conference of the neigh- 
 bouring branches on the conduct of the boycotted 
 parties, but the meeting decided that it was the 
 business of this branch alone, and that they did not 
 want any interference from outsiders in the matter. 
 The rev. president then suggested to write to the 
 central branch on the subject, but the meeting again 
 decided : — ' That this branch having taken a definite 
 line of action, it was for any person who felt wronged 
 to appeal to the central branch, and not for them.' " 
 " Ballyduff. 
 " 11th June, 1886. 
 
 " A charge was made against a tradesman for work- 
 ing by night for the notorious Edward Herbert, but it 
 could not be proved to the satisfaction of tho meeting." 
 " Firies Branch. 
 " Jan. 22, 1886. 
 
 "The Rev. P. O'Connor, P.P., presided. 
 
 " The first case considered was that of Thomas Sul- 
 livan, Lixnaw, who was charged with holding com- 
 munication with Arthur Uloster, Lord Keumare's 
 boycotted bailiff, and visiting his house. He was 
 unanimously expelled." 
 
 " July 6, 1886. — The following resolution was pro- 
 posed by Mr. Aeneas Daly and carried with acclama- 
 tion. Resolved, — ' That at the approaching harvest we 
 are resolutely determined to avoid the purchase of 
 meadowing, or patronize in any form those few non- 
 members who declined to cast in their lot with the 
 people, and that any member infringing or violating 
 this maxim be expelled forthwith." 
 " Dingle Branch. 
 " 29th June, 1886. 
 
 " Rev. C. Scully, CO., in chair. 
 
 " Proposed by Rev. C. Scully and seconded by John 
 
 District-Inspector Alexander Gambell. 
 
The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 625' 
 
 Leo : — That whereas the Commissioners under the Land 
 Purchase (Ireland) Act have sanctioned the purchase 
 of the farm of Patrick Kennedy, of Ballingra.no, near 
 Dingle, at 20 years' purchase, on the non-judicial rent 
 of £50 a year, the valuation of which is only £21 10s., 
 and whereas this purchase at the instance of S. M. 
 Hussey was consented to only when the tenants had 
 fallen largely into arrears and had been actually 
 evicted, and then only in order to be reinstated to his 
 holding, we, the members of the I.N.L. of Dingle, 
 hereby condemn the action of the Commissioners in 
 the matter as an ill-judged administration of the Act, 
 as calculated to defeat the beneficent object the Legis- 
 lature had in view on independent prpprietary, and 
 failing thus far in this object, as nothing less practi- 
 cally than a waste of public money, to prevent a re- 
 currence of a similar ill-judged action of a like 
 nature now before the Commissioners and guard 
 against the misery the sanction of such sales is sure 
 to entail on the unfortunate tenants, we respectfully 
 call upon our worthy representative, Mr. E. Harring- 
 ton, to direct the attention of the Executive to the 
 subject at the earliest opportunity. 
 
 " That we, the Dingle Branch of the I.N. League, 
 do hereby strongly condemn the heartless and inhuman 
 conduct of Mr. John Kennedy, solicitor, of Dingle, 
 in his new capacity of Sheriff's Assistant, in his 
 efforts, under the terror of the law, to exact rack-rents 
 from the honest but impoverished tenants of the Earl 
 of Cork, and at a time, too, when they are appealing 
 to the Government for relief from threatened starva- 
 tion, and also because he (Mr. Kennedy) addressed 
 the tenants in opprobrious language calculated to 
 . provoke a breach of the peace, while the latter are 
 only trying to prevent their cattle and like stock 
 — their only support — from seizure at the hands of the 
 Brigade. 
 
 " And that we likewise condemn the action of 
 William Collier, Sam Hussey's agent and factotum in 
 Dingle, for having allowed the cattle thus seized to 
 be placed at Milltown upon one of the many evicted 
 farms of Hussey and in charge of Emergency bailiffs. 
 
 " And we further condemn John Flahive, of Dingle, 
 the rent-warner of Lord Cork and tenants' deceiver, 
 for having assisted at said evictions, and thereby 
 aiding to exterminate from their native soil the noble- 
 hearted but long-oppressed peasantry of West Kerry. 
 
 " The copies of the above be printed and forwarded 
 to all the branches of the National League in Kerry." 
 " Camp Branch. 
 " 2d July, 1886. 
 
 " P. Dunne, P.L.G., in the chair. 
 
 " After the general routine of business had been gone 
 through, the secretary read a copy of resolutions 
 received from the Dingle branch relating to certain 
 eyiction grievances. This branch entirely concur in 
 condemnations expressed in these resolutions. He also 
 read some other local complaints, but as they ap- 
 peared to be one-sided bitterness and contradictable, 
 they were let stand for fuller and clearer evidence. 
 
 " It was also determined to give seven days' notice 
 to the few in this locality who have not yet joined the 
 League, and after that (should they persist) to consider 
 them dissenters to the cause. 
 
 " A labourer oomplained of a member f or not supply- 
 ing him with conacre plot at a reduced rate, passed for 
 his class on 27th December last. The member is called 
 to attend the next meeting for explanation," 
 
 " Glencar Branch. 
 " July 2, 1886. 
 " The case of Patrick Breen our former secretary was 
 then gone into and after a little deliberation all the mem 
 bers present expressed their indignation at his conduct 
 in secretly and ignominionsly communicating with the 
 rent-office and paying his rent without the consent of 
 his brother tenants or the sanction of the branch. 
 The members of the committee, after entering into 
 council, came to the following decision in his case : — ■ 
 ' That, having fully considered the recent cowardly 
 conduct of Patrick Breen, our former secretary, who 
 we find has been guilty of special treachery to the 
 tenants' cause, who had violated the resolutions of the 
 Marquis of Lansdowne's tenantry recently passed at 
 our branch, and who, without the consent or know- 
 ledge of his brother tenants, had gone secretly to the 
 rent-office and paid his rent, therefore betraying the 
 great body of the other tenants who had struck against 
 the payment of their rack-rent unless their reasonable 
 demands were acceded to, therefore we consider him no 
 longer a member of our League and an enemy to the 
 country's cause, and we direct our secretary to for- 
 ward his subscription and to direct him to hand us 
 back his card of membership.' " 
 
 Mr. Rbid. — Will you allow me to correct one 
 thing ? In the first place my learned friend, no doubt 
 by error, read Peter Breen. The name is Patrick 
 Breen, and the difference is that Peter Breen was 
 Ehot and Patrick Breen was not shot. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith. — But he was shot in 
 July, 1884. 
 
 Mr. Beid. — I do not suggest that it was an 
 intentional inaacuraoy. Patrick Breen was the name. 
 Beading of the extracts continued — 
 
 " Dingle Branch. 
 
 " July 2, 1886. 
 " The secretary then informed the whole house that ha 
 had been in communication with Mr. Leahy, hon. secre- 
 tary, Tralee Branch, during the previous week respecting 
 the visit of Teahan and Savage Junior to the town 
 in connexion with the fair. Both being obnoxious 
 the members highly approved of the steps taken 
 and as strongly condemned the disgraceful conduct of 
 Teahan and Savage. The former foolishly imagined 
 that Dingle was behind the age, and thought nature 
 wisely intended him to be its enlightener ; but per- 
 haps he learnt a thing or two on the occasion of his 
 last memorable visit. Dingle possesses within its 
 bosom a treasure — true patriotism — which neither his 
 Australian nor Land Corporation money can over pur- 
 chase. Savage, too, knows that though he may have 
 money, and be intsnded to buy cattle for his father, 
 until death he will not get them, either for love or 
 money, for the Land Corporation. A letter was read 
 from the Tralee branch congratulating the Dingle 
 branch for its activity, &e., under all the circum- 
 stances. Mr.. T. Harrington also wrote that any case 
 of grabbing or the like which occurred in 1879 could 
 not be entertained by any branch. Other business 
 having been concluded, Mr. Michael Goold, butcher, 
 in Dingle, as well as Mr. John Casey, in 
 Lispole, having surrendered the lands at Mill- 
 town and Lispole respectively which they grabbed 
 and for which they were condemned a few days 
 before only, the meeting adjourned." 
 
 Districtrlnspector Alexander Gambell. 
 
626 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12, 1888. 
 
 " Ballyduff Branch. 
 " Sept. 18, 1885. 
 
 " That no member hold any communication with the 
 notorious Edward Herbert, Ballyduff, who is going all 
 over the country doing the dirty work that other bailiffs 
 or process-servers will not do, and who, in addition, 
 holds two evicted farms from which the families had 
 to fly to America. One of them returned and claimed 
 his farm, but Herbert would not give it up, and there- 
 fore had to go back to America." 
 
 " Ballyduff Branch. 
 " June 11, 1886. 
 
 "A charge having been made against a tradesman for 
 working by night for the notorious Edward Herbert 
 it could not be proved to the satisfaction of the meet- 
 ing." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — You know, Mr. Gamble, 
 that that Mr. Herbert was shot on June 24 ? — Yes ; 
 it is the same man. 
 
 Heading of the extracts continued : — 
 " Tarbert Branch. 
 " July 13, 1886. 
 
 " A letter was read from Mr. D. W. Mulvihill, who 
 complained very severely of the conduct of John Sulli- 
 van, of this town, who has taken the grazing of a farm 
 from which Mr. Mulvihill has been evicted quite re- 
 cently. Proposed by Mr. T. Guiney. — ' That any mem- 
 bers who support felonious landlordism by purchasing hay 
 or meadowing from landlords, agents, or land-grabbers 
 deserve our strongest condemnation, and are unfit to 
 longer remain members of this League. The resolu- 
 tion was seconded by Mr. T. Lehane, who, with his 
 usual eloquence, denounced any person who would be 
 guilty of such conduct." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Was there a man named 
 Hannafin, who was caretaker on an evicted farm ? — 
 Yes, Sir. I was obliged to take elaborate precautions. 
 Towards the end of July his son and daughter were 
 assaulted, badly assaulted, and I prosecuted some men 
 for the assault, and they were sent to gaol for various 
 terms of imprisonment. There is a reference in that 
 paper, towards the end of the resolution, that all who 
 are engaged in any capacity upon the evicted farm are 
 to be severely boycotted in the future. 
 
 Was that expression " severely boycotted " one 
 whish was often used — " severely left alone " ? — I 
 have heard it frequently used. 
 
 Reading of extracts continued :— 
 " Ardfert Branch. 
 " July 16. 
 
 " It was unanimously agreed that all who are 
 engaged in any capacity on Leahy's evicted farms at 
 Eathoneen, and Mrs. Fitzmaurice's farms at Brandon- 
 well (evicted by Mr. T. Orosbie), are to be severely 
 boycotted in future." 
 
 " Irremore. 
 " July 27, 1886. 
 
 " The first business was a complaint against 
 several persons for holding communication with 
 Thomas Stack, of Lissihane, who has been re- 
 cently expelled from the League as a land-grabber. 
 The League asked that those who have been com- 
 plained of would be asked to como forward on next 
 Sunday and give an explanation. The rev. chairman 
 then gave an explanation of how he saw evicted lands 
 used in the county Clare by using them as a common- 
 
 age for goaling, &c, and said it was far better than 
 moonlighting. The rev. chairman condemned the 
 latter, together with all sorts of raids." 
 
 Was there a man named James Kirby ? — It was 
 before my time ; but I understand there was. 
 James Kirby was a caretaker, and on the farm which 
 had been held by a man also of the name of Kirby. 
 
 Beading of extracts continued : — 
 
 " Ardfert Branch. 
 
 " May 26, 1886. 
 " Mrs. Kirby complained that James Kirby was 
 still care taking for the landlord the farm from which 
 she was evicted some time ago, although he sat on the 
 6tool of repentance before the League a few months 
 ago and publicly promised to have nothing further to 
 do with the farm. A carpenter named Griffin was 
 also complained of as having made a gate for the farm. 
 The subject will be considered at the next general 
 meeting." 
 
 "Ardfert. 
 
 " July 16, 1886. 
 " The minutes of the previous meeting have beeil 
 read and signed, the business of the day commenced 
 with the consideration of the case of a carpenter named 
 Griffin, who was charged with having made a gate for 
 Mrs. Denny for Kirby 's evicted farm at Liscahanc. 
 Grifhn attended and asserted positively that he made 
 the gate in question for Kirby's mother, who, it 
 appears, still occupies a house and a small potato plot 
 on the evicted farm. Mr. Carmody, on being inter- 
 rogated, said the gate was necessary for the protec- 
 tion of the crop ; whereupon Griffin was at once ex- 
 onerated from all blame." 
 
 Was that farm taken by Patrick Burke ?— Yes ; I think 
 he took it in March, 1887. He was murdered on Novem- 
 ber 8, 1887, while he was still in occupation of the farm. 
 
 In that case was anybody brought to justice ? — Yes, 
 James Kirby and Patrick O'Neil. One was executed 
 and the other was sentenced to penal servitude. 
 
 Many of these notices, of which I have been reading 
 the extracts, came to your notice while you were in 
 charge of the district ? — Yes ; several of them did. 
 
 Now, I ask you, was there or was there not, while 
 you were there in charge of this district, intimidation 
 prevailing in the district ? — Yes, to a very great 
 extent ; it was widespread. 
 
 Do you think these resolutions of the League were 
 treated as waste paper or not ? — I do not. In some 
 instances they were followed by outrages. 
 
 Heading of extracts resumed : — 
 
 " Castlegregory Branch. 
 " February 1, 1887. 
 
 " Rev. J. Mollyneux in the chair. 
 
 "Mr.Coakley drew attention to the eviction of Denis 
 Sullivan, of Ancachla, which occurred on Wednes- 
 day, 19th inst., and said he had heard with surprise 
 that a member of this branch of the League had 
 assisted the evictions on that occasion by pointing out to 
 them the house of the victim of the day's proceedings. 
 Mr. Coakley said the man who pointed out Sullivan's 
 house for the evicting party is Timothy Moynahan, of 
 Carragaha, who by some stratagem managed to become 
 a member of our branch, although I was quite opposed 
 to his getting a card of membership. As we are fully 
 convinced that he pointed out Sullivan's house on this 
 
 District-Inspector Alexander Gambell. 
 
The Special Commission, December 12 i , 1888. 
 
 627 
 
 occasion, I beg to move that Timothy Moyiiab.au, of 
 Carragaha, havirg violated the rules of the League by 
 directly assisting at an eviction, be forthwith expelled 
 from our branch. " 
 
 " Camp Branch. 
 " 16th July, 1886. 
 
 " Thomas O'Donnell, V.P., in the chair. 
 
 " Proposed by Daniel Griffin, and seconded by James 
 J. O'Donnell, and unanimously adopted — ' That no 
 farmer in this parish employ a labourer or tradesman 
 who is not a member of this branch of the Irish 
 National League, and that no tradesman or labourer 
 work for any farmer who is not a member of it. That 
 we buy no meadowing hay nor corn from any one who 
 is not a member of the Irish National League, that 
 no common fine favours, such as drawing home their 
 turf, be done for such stand-asides.' " 
 " Dingle Branch. 
 " 16th July, 1886. 
 
 " Robert O'Sullivan, V.P., presided. 
 
 " Mr. John Flahive, rent-warner to Lord Cork, 
 who, in conjunction with Collier and Kennedy, of 
 Dingle, was lately declared obnoxious, came before 
 the League and explained himself. He showed that 
 he did nothing whatever to deserve the censure of the 
 League beyond attending the eviction of Tom Hussey 
 of Keask, which eviction took place at Hussey's 
 request, as he (Hussey) wished to get rid of a son of 
 his. The secretary satisfied the meeting that Mr. 
 Kearney, Lord Cork's agent, said the same thing, and 
 for these reasons the meeting exonerated John 
 Flahive. but on the clear understanding that he is not 
 to attend any evictions in future. A complaint was 
 then lodged against the Clyde Shipping Company's boat 
 — viz., that she is bringing goods to every obnoxious 
 person in the district, which complaint is under con- 
 sideration, and will soon be properly dealt with. 
 Several other complaints were lodged against persons 
 who by their conduct are injuring their neighbours. 
 Those parties will in due time repent of their foolish 
 (if not unjust) acts, it is to be hoped. The members 
 of the branch were informed that fortniehtly meetings 
 only would in future be held, and that they should 
 renew their subscriptions shortly. Other routine 
 having concluded, the meeting adjourned." 
 " Ferriter Branch. 
 " 3d September. 1886. 
 
 " 1. Long, V.P., in the chair. . 
 
 " The secretary read a letter which he had received 
 from Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., declining to interfere 
 in the ease of John M'Donnell, of Emila, who is con- 
 demned by the branch for some of his actions. As 
 Mr. Harrington said it was to be decided by the local 
 parties, the meeting resolved to uphold the resolution 
 against John M'Donnell." 
 
 " Dingle Branch. 
 " 30th June, 1886. 
 
 " Mr. John Moriarty, D.V.C., presided. 
 
 " The minutes of the previous meeting were read 
 and signed. Some obnoxious fellows were next called 
 upon to retire, which they did only with reluctance. 
 Evidently they meant to force their (face) friendship 
 on the members present, who despised it, as, of 
 course, they were expected to do so. Mr. Michael 
 Goold, butcher, who lately made himself very un- 
 popular, but, seeing the folly of his way, repented, now 
 presented himself as a member, and, having been duly 
 proposed and seconded, and not objected to, was 
 admitted on paying the usual subscription and pro- 
 mising to have nothing more to do with Denis 
 
 Murphy's farm at Miltown after he has removed the 
 crops he claims as his. His admission was hailed with 
 delight, and a ringing cheer accompanied it. A very 
 lively discussion took place over three respected 
 men.b9rs of the committee, who spoke in a friendly 
 way to Mr. Goold while he was obnoxious, which 
 ended properly when it was evident no harm was 
 intended by them, and only an oversight was com- 
 mitted. All the carriers in the town joined the 
 League in order to have some grievance they complain 
 of attended to, which otherwise would not be enter- 
 tained, but will be now," 
 
 " Dingle Branch. 
 " 13th May, 1887. 
 
 " Jeremiah O'Shea in the chair. 
 
 " Resolved — ' That Patrick Lynch, of Ballinassig, 
 having grabbed the rocky hillside from which John 
 Teahan was evicted, we declare the said Patrick 
 Lynch expelled from this branch of the Irish National 
 League, and call on him to deliver up his card of 
 membership to our secretary, his disgraceful conduct 
 rendering him unworthy of retaining that honourable 
 badge. Lynch reluctantly left the room amid a storm 
 of booing." 
 
 " Dingle Branch. 
 " 1st July, 1887. 
 
 " Jeremiah O'Shea in the chair. 
 
 '* Complaints coming against persons at the pre- 
 vious meeting for assisting a landgrabber were re- 
 considered, but the parties accused, not giving satis- 
 factory explanations of their reprehensible conduct, were 
 left in statu quo. Some local carmen complained that 
 the neighbouring farmers who had promised not to 
 intrude on the town car work had broken their pro- 
 mise to the League not to do so, as they were con- 
 stantly sending their cars into the town, and taking 
 up the work which was the sole means they, the 
 carmen, had of support. The secretary was directed 
 to call the attention of the merchants and traders of 
 Dingle to the following resolution : — 
 
 ■' ' Resolved, that as a matter of principle the 
 farmers do leave the car work of the town to the car- 
 men who are at present in want of employment, and that 
 we call on the merchants and traders of Dingle to 
 give the locai carmen a preference of such work.' " 
 
 The reading of these extracts having come to an end, 
 
 The Attorney-General, after a pause, asked 
 whether Mr. Reid or Mr. Lockwood wished to cross- 
 examine the witness. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I understand the examination is not 
 
 finished . 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It is very likely that it 
 is not this witness who will produce the reports. I do 
 not undertake to bring him back for general cross- 
 examination. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Were there any outrages in Dingle 
 when you were there ? — I was not in the Dingle dis- 
 trict at all. 
 
 Do you know the Dingle branch was suppressed ? — 
 I know nothing of it. 
 
 Sir H. James. — We propose to put in the Connaughi 
 Telegraph, a newspaper published at Castlebar. We 
 have the certificate here of 1888. It is the most 
 recent one published, and states that the proprietor ia 
 Mr. James Daly. These certificates are published 
 yearly, and this is the last. If my learned friends wish 
 
 District-Inspector Alexander GambelL 
 
628 
 
 The Special Commission, December 12 and 13, 1888. 
 
 us to obtain all the previous ones, of course we must 
 do it. 
 
 The President.— Who appears for Mr. Daly ? 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — Nobody, my Lord. I am informed that 
 Mr. Daly is a decided opponent of the League. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Pardon me for a moment. 
 We have given notice that we desire to prove that a 
 person named Daly, about whom we have some evi- 
 dence, is the proprietor of this paper. I will say at 
 once that he was actually secretary of the Land 
 League, so far from being opposed to it. 
 
 The President. — He might have become opposed to 
 it. Is he one of the persons charged ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — No, my Lord. We there- 
 fore wish to know whether my learned friends require 
 lis to prove that he was proprietor of the paper in 
 1879, 1880, and 1881. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— We do require it. 
 
 Sergeant James M'Dermott was then called^ 
 
 The President. — You will seek to prove that he 
 was the proprietor of the paper and also a member of 
 the Land League ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Yes, my Lord ; at present 
 we are concerned only with the paper. 
 
 The witness was then examined by Mr. ATKINSON. 
 He said, — In 1879 and 1880 I was quartered near 
 Castlebar. I know James Daly ; he lives in Castlebar. 
 I know the office of the Ccmnaught Telegraph. I have 
 frequently seen him at that office. The Telegraph was 
 published there, and I have bought it myself there. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — He is represented in 
 the paper as being proprietor, according to the 
 statute. The paper is stated to be " printed and 
 published for the proprietor, James Daly, at Spencer- 
 street." (To witness.) Is that where you bought 
 the paper ? — Yes ; that is where it is published and 
 bought, and where I have seen Mr. Daly. 
 
 Have you seen Mr. Daly attend Land League meet- 
 ings ? — Yes, on two occasions. I have not seen him 
 take the chair on any occasion. 
 
 Who were on the platform when you saw him ? — 
 On one occasion Davitt, T. Brennan, and P. J. 
 Sheridan. Daly made a speech on that occasion; and 
 also Mr. Davitt. The second occasion was at Turbot, 
 He was also on the platform there. 
 
 Did you see either of the Nallys there ?— No. I saw 
 one of them at the first meeting I spoke of, at Straid. 
 
 Did Daly speak at the second meeting ? — Only a 
 short speech ; he was going to demand a reduction 
 from the landlords. 
 
 Has the Land League rooms at Castlebar ? — I could 
 not say ; I was cot stationed in Castlebar. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. REID. — What is the date of 
 these meetings ? — The meeting at Straid was on the 
 1st of February, 1880 ; I cannot exactly say the date 
 of tho other. It was in 1880 ; about the same time. 
 
 Were they public meetings ? — Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Do you happen to know whether, 
 Bince 1881, James Daly has not been an opponent of 
 
 the Land League and afterwards of the National 
 League ? — After that some time I heard that he was. 
 
 Ee-examined by Sir H. James. — You say " some 
 time " afterwards ; when was that " some time " ; 
 how long after 1881 ? — I could not exactly say. 
 
 About how long ? — I think about the end of 1881 or 
 the beginning of 1882 I heard it. 
 
 Do you know from whom you heard it ? — I could 
 not say. 
 
 The Court adjourned at 4 o'clock. 
 
 THUBSDAY, DECEMBER 13. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 30th sitting to- 
 day, at half-past 10 o'clock, in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Eoyal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On the Commissioners taking their seats the exami- 
 nation of witnesses called on behalf of The Times was 
 resumed. 
 
 Sergeant Denis Feely, Eoyal Irish Constabulary, ex- 
 amined by Mr. Murphy, said, — I was stationed ac 
 Claremorris, county Mayo, from July 10, 1878, to May 
 14, 1883. When I first went the country was quiet. 
 There was then nothing more than the ordinary amount 
 of crime. On April 20, 1879, I saw a large number of 
 people going to a meeting at Irishtown, some being on 
 foot and others on horseback and in cars. In the pro- 
 cession I noticed J. W. Nally and P. W. Nally and P. 
 J. Gordon. At the head of the procession was J. W. 
 Nally on horseback. He wore a green sash, and others 
 in the crowd had a similar emblem. The people 
 seemed to be looking up to P. W. Nally. I was not 
 at the meeting itself. The crowd going towards Irish- 
 town numbered about 1,000. On returning from Irish- 
 town some people went to Martin Hughes's hotel at 
 Claremorris. Mr. Michael Davitt went into the hotel, 
 as did also Mr. O'Connor Power, J. W. Nally 
 (" Scrab " Nally), P: W. Nally, Thomas Quin, and 
 P. J. Gordon. From the window of the hotel Mr. 
 O'Connor Power, Mr. Davitt, and several others 
 spoke. I took no note, but the gist of what Mr. 
 Davitt and Mr. O'Connor Power said was advice to 
 the people to organize and unite. N° police reporter 
 was present at the meeting. After this, in execution 
 of my duty, I took note of the part these gentlemen 
 took in the various demonstrations. On June 12, 
 1879, I attended th6 arrival of the 10 49 a.m. train. 
 John W. Nally, of Balla, arrived by it. He left town 
 at the head of a precession of about 400 people for 
 Crossboyne and Scardown, where Land League meet- 
 ings were to be held. At the same time P. J. Gordon 
 and John O'Kean left by car for the same place. P. 
 W. Nally did not go to the meeting that day. I think 
 he came by a later train and remained in the town. 
 On the 12th of July Michael Davitt arrived in Clare- 
 morris by the 2 41 p.m. train. So did John Walsh, of 
 Balla. At 3 p.m. J. W. Nally, of Balla, arrived in 
 the town walking. They entered Martin Hughes's 
 hotel and Henehan's publichouse. The meeting took 
 place the next day, July 13. It was one of the largest 
 
 Sergeant James M'Dermott. 
 
 Sergeant Denis Feely. 
 
The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 629 
 
 meetings I have ever seen ; about 13,000 people were 
 there. On the platform were P. W. Nally, J. W. 
 Nally, Michael Davitt, John Dillon, M.P., and James 
 Daly, of Castlebar, the proprietor of the Connaught 
 Telegraph. I was among the crowd. I heard the 
 speeches, but took no note of them. J. J. Louden, of 
 Westport, was at the meeting. After the meeting 
 those I have mentioned went to Hughes's hotel, which 
 was generally used by the agitators when in Clare- 
 morris. On July 23 I attended the train arriving at 
 11 a.m. and saw J. W. Nally, of Balla, and J. J. Lou- 
 den, of Westport, arrive by it. They entered Hughes's 
 hotel and Henehan's publichouse, and the reading 
 and League room in company with John Walsh. 
 Louden left by the 3 p.m. train. While in the League 
 rooms they were joined by W. Delaney, of Bally- 
 haunis. On September 21, 1879, 0. J. Louden, of 
 Westport, James Daly, of Castlebar, J. W. Nally, of 
 Balla, P. W. Nally, of Balla, Michael Davitt, and 
 Hickey left Claremorris by car for the Tuam Land 
 League meeting. They went alone. J. Walsh, of 
 Balla, also went to the meeting. They came home 
 within a short time of each other, and went to Martin 
 Hughes's hotel. Louden, Walsh, Davitt, and P. W. 
 Nally left by the 1 17 a.m. train in the direction of 
 Balla ; J. W. Nally remained the night in Clare- 
 morris. On October 20, 1879, I was on duty at the 
 railway station ; Michael Davitt travelled from the 
 direction of Balla in company with John Ferguson, of 
 Glasgow. They were met at the railway station by 
 J. W. Nally, of Balla, and P. J. Gordon, of Clare- 
 morris, and had a conversation together. Davitt and 
 Ferguson afterwards went on to Dublin. On October 
 26, 1879, I saw Joseph Quinn, of Claremorris, leave 
 the town by car, accompanied by William Flateley, 
 for a Land League meeting at Kilkenny. That was 
 about half-past 11 o'clock, and shortly afterwards J. 
 W. Nally, of Balla, James Daly, of Castlebar, and 
 J. J. Louden left for the same meeting together. At 
 12, John O'Kean, P.J. Gordon, andFrancisM'Grathleft 
 for the meeting also. Quinn, Flateley, Daly, Nally, 
 O'Kean, Gordon, and M'Grath returned to town at 
 7 p.m. At 11 p.m. Michael Davitt arrived in Clare- 
 morris, entered Hughes's hotel, and remained there 
 with O'Kean, Nally, Louden, and Daly, the latter 
 leaving at 1 30 a.m. for Castlebar. On November 13, 
 1879, I saw Quinn, Daly, Walsh, and P. W. Nally 
 leave for Dublin. 
 
 Mr. MtTEPHY. — Will you produce your longhand note 
 of the speeches given at Loonamore, near Balla, on 
 November 22, 1879 ?— Witness (reading) :— 
 
 " J. J. Gordon, of Westport, moved to the chair, and 
 proposed the first resolution. He said, — Fellow country- 
 men, I am very proud to see you assembled in the mighti- 
 ness of your numbers, legally to carry out this agitation. 
 At this late hour of the day it is not my intention to 
 trespass on your patience (cheers), as you will have to 
 hear Ireland's greatest man, who is among you to-day, 
 Charles Stewart Parnell. (Voices. — ' He is welcome.') 
 Within a recent time arrests have been made of men 
 
 who have done their best for the emancipation of the 
 people of Ireland (cheers for Davitt, Daly, and Killen), 
 and I am of opinion other arrests will be made in the 
 same direction. (Voices. — ' Others will fill up the 
 gaps.') If any arrests be made do not attempt to resist 
 them, the reptile Press of Dublin (groans for the Irish 
 Times, which was burnt by John O'Kane, of Claremor- 
 ris, and the Freeman's Journal) and the English Press, 
 which misrepresents every constitutional agitation in 
 Ireland. (Groans for the Saxon satellites.) A good 
 Government or a bad one has no right to take away the 
 rights of the people. If the landlord evict you take 
 him to the law Courts, and he must compensate you for 
 improvements in manures, roads, and fences. In con- 
 clusion, be true to one another. (Cheers, and voices, 
 'We will, we will.') 
 
 " The second resolution was spoken to by John Walsh, 
 of Balla, who said that the land of Ireland belonged to 
 the people of Ireland. Mr. Thomas Brennan, of North 
 City Mills, Dublin, spoke to the next resolution, as 
 follows : — Mr. Chairman and fellow countrymen, I 
 second the resolution f ora threefold object, against the 
 eviction of any of God's creatures, and against the un- 
 constitutional arrests of three of our leaders, who are 
 suffering in prison for the people's cause. (Cheers for 
 our martyrs.) We will continue to agitate against this 
 feudal landlordism, even though the Government come 
 to their rescue, and though you and I may have to 
 follow the three. Our cause is a just one, our lives 
 are no longer our own, they belong to the country 
 and to justice, and we must sacrifice them in 
 the cause for which our friends are suffer- 
 ing. What were the words used by Mr. Davitt 
 at Gurtuly meeting ? I repeat them to-day, be- 
 lieving in my soul they were the words of truth. 
 The time for speech-making is gone (cheers), 
 the hour of action has arrived. I know by the manly 
 determination that rests on your brows that you are 
 ready. (Voices. — ' We are.') Think of that poor man 
 in yonder cabin, the fever going through his brain. I 
 hope his eyes may never see himself evicted. 
 (Cheers.) Countrymen, the majority of people have to 
 work to support landlords in idleness (groans for the 
 landlords) ; think of '47. Think of starvation, death, 
 and bottomless graves. Will you be true to one 
 another (voices. — ' We will, our blood is up'), offer an 
 unbroken front to the common enemy. I am sorry to see 
 one portion, the most intelligent of our people, I mean 
 the Royal Irish Constabulary. They are going to"-becoroe 
 the destroyers of their countrymen. (Groans for the Eoyal 
 Irish Constabulary.) Now the lands of Ireland belong 
 to the people of Ireland. (Cheers for the teachings of 
 Parnell.) Pay no rents, take no land from which 
 another man has been evicted, cast out the man who 
 does, let no man buy with him, or let no man sell 
 with him. We must take off our coats and fight, 
 millions to fight for Davitt. (Voices. — ' Three cheers 
 for Mr. Brennan.') 
 
 "The next resolution was spoken to by Charles 
 Stewart Parnell, M.P. After an eloquent speech 
 from Mr. Brennan, Mr. Parnell said, I cannot say much, 
 but I tell you, as he has told you, these are the days 
 not for words but for actions. Come determined to 
 your duty ; you can distinguish what your duty is to 
 your countrymen, to Ireland's most intelligent sons, 
 Davitt, Daly, and Killen. (Cheers for the martyrs ; 
 groans for Lord Beaconsfield.) The movement that 
 began in Irishtown in the plains of Mayo in February 
 last I can congratulate you on your victory. Keep a 
 firm grip upon your homesteads ; maintain your atti« 
 
 Sergeant Denis Feely. 
 
630 
 
 The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 tude ; let nothing take you away from your duty, even 
 if your leaders are arrested. (Voices. — ' More will 
 take their places.') After conquering the Zulus, the 
 Government have come to our countrymen." 
 
 Mr. Mr/RPHY. — I do not know whether my learned 
 friend would meet me in this way, as the witness has 
 now proved that this is a copy of the speech he made, 
 and allow me to hand it in. It is the only opportunity 
 I have had of reading it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— We have had no copy of the 
 speech. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— Neither have I. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Let him go on. 
 
 Witness, continuing reading : — 
 
 " To our countrymen. — My countrymen, I could not 
 allow you to face the danger, and shun it myself. 
 This was the first eviction since the formation of the 
 Irish Land League. This is a great victory for Mayo 
 this evening. You have a right to the soil of Ireland. 
 Our country is worth fighting for. Maintain your atti- 
 tude ; stand until the last plank of the Constitution is 
 torn from under your feet. (Loud cheers.and 'We will.') 
 
 " The next resolution was spoken to by John Dillon, 
 of Dublin. He said : — The resolution that had been 
 carried read to them a great lesson ; never break it. 
 (Voices. — ' We will not.') Protest against the assault 
 on the Constitution in arresting Michael Davitt. 
 They knew Michael Davitt had an organized move- 
 ment in Mayo. I hold Mr. Davitt did not transgress 
 even against the stern law of England. The purpose 
 of this meeting is to proclaim to England, Ireland, 
 and America our condemnation of evictions and the 
 secret arrests. (Groans for the police commingled 
 with cheers for the police.) Act up to the spirit of 
 the resolution under your leaders who brought up your 
 columns so well and marshalled you there. The pur- 
 pose of you coming is to protest against evictions. 
 Let no man take the land another has been evicted 
 from, and instead of you going to the landlords, the 
 landlords will be coming to the people. (Cheers, and 
 ' We will fight for our rights.') 
 
 " The next resolution was spoken to by Mr. Sexton, 
 of Dublin. He said : — Fellow countrymen, — Give the 
 Government no excuse for coercion. Keep within the 
 law, but with noble discipline and sternly, and Ireland 
 will be a prosperous country. 
 
 " John Walsh, of Ballagh, spoke to the next resolu- 
 tion as follows : — I would not attend to-day, as my 
 health is bad, but it might be said John Walsh 
 deserted you in danger. 
 
 " The next resolution was spoken to by Mr. 
 Costello, of Kiltimagh. He said he flogged local 
 editors before now for not publishing landlord tyranny. 
 If Lord Beaconsfield is a bad Premier, put in a good 
 one next year. Put into Parliament men such as Par- 
 nell (cheers) and O'Connor Power. (Cheers.) 
 
 " Mr. O'Connor, of the Nation, spoke to the next 
 resolution, as follows : — Do not give occasion to the 
 police to visit your houses or the soldiers to shoot you 
 down ; do nothing that will bring you within the 
 meshes of the British law. 
 
 " Joseph Quinn, national school teacher, Clare- 
 morris,in putting a vote of thanks, spoke as follows :— 
 * Countrymen, — It is the first time for me ever to 
 address such a meeting, but when the opportunity 
 arrives I will not be found wanting in my duty.' The 
 mottoes on the banners were ' God rest our martyr 
 three,' ' Welcome Paruell,' ' God save Ireland.' " 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— That was on November 22, 1879 ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 In January, 1880, do you remember being on duty to 
 protect a process-server named O'Donnell ? — I do. 
 
 Give me the date ? — I know it was somewhere in the 
 beginning of January. It was at a place called Kil- 
 vine, near Irishtown. About 2,000 people assembled 
 to resist the service of the processes. 
 
 Had they any leader ? — Yes, Joseph Quinn and 
 Dermoy. 
 
 Did they resist the police ? — They did. We had to 
 fix swords and to load with ball cartridge for our own 
 protection, and it was by great work we got away 
 without having to shoot them down. The police were 
 pelted with stones and old pots. 
 
 Prior to this occurrence did you see any notices 
 about rent ? — There were notices posted up between 
 the holding of the meetings for people not to pay 
 rent. 
 
 My friend Sir C. Russell asks if you have reported 
 all the other speeches. I have not seen a copy. — Yes. 
 I have them. 
 
 My Lords, I do not propose to read them. (To 
 witness.) What was the date of that ? — March 7, 
 1880, at Ballyvine. 
 
 Was the police force small or large in 1878 and 
 1879 ? — In 1878 it consisted at Claremorris of 20 men. 
 In the following June it was strengthened by several 
 police and seven cavalry. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— When did you 
 go to Claremorris ? — July 10, 1878, and I left there on 
 May 14, 1883. 
 
 Where are you now ? — At Ballagh. 
 
 You spoke of a meeting on April 20, 1879, and of 
 speeches made from Hughes's hotel. Among others you 
 said that Mr. Davitt spoke. Yon are quite sure about 
 that ? — My recollection is that he spoke from the 
 hotel with Mr. O'Connor Power and Mr. Killen. I 
 have no note in my book. 
 
 Are you aware you have sworn he was there ? — I 
 said I believed he was. 
 
 Would you swear he was there at all ? — I will swear 
 he was at the meeting. 
 
 You are as clear about that as anything you speak 
 about ?— I took no note of it. 
 
 Would you be surprised to hear he was not there at 
 all — not even in the county — that he was in Dublin at 
 the time ? — I have no note about it. I believe he was 
 there. 
 
 What do you say ?— I have no note, but I believe he 
 was there. 
 
 Are you aware that you have just sworn he was 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — I do not think the witness did say 
 that. 
 
 Witness. — I have no note, but I believe he was 
 there. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Did you not in your evidence put 
 some words in the mouths of Mr. Davitt and Mr. 
 O'Connor Power ? Did you not say something about 
 
 e-Sergeant Denis Feely. 
 
The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 631 
 
 their advising the people to be united ? Just look at 
 your note. — Yes, April 20, 1879. 
 
 Bead what you have there. — " Davitt and O'Connor 
 Power said when two or more would be together on 
 the hillside they were to organize and be united, for 
 there was nothing more glorious than to fight on the 
 hillside for their country," That is a general note of 
 what occurred, which I took at the time. 
 
 Give me that note. Whose writing is this in ? — My 
 own. 
 
 Did you write this on April 20 ?— Yes. 
 
 On April 20 ? — A day or so after. I wrote it im- 
 mediately after the meeting of April 20. 
 
 Very well. We will follow this out, please. Davitt, 
 Power, and Killen spoke. Will yon swear Killen was 
 there ?— Yes. 
 
 Davitt said, " When two or more would be together 
 on the hillside "—or something or other — " they 
 would be united." So that is a note of what Davitt 
 was suppused to have said from Hughes's hotel on 
 April 20, and you still persist in saying that Davitt and 
 Killen were there ?,— I persist in saying I made that 
 note immediately after the speeches were delivered. 
 
 Do you persist in saying that Davitt was there on 
 that day and mads that speech ? — Yes. I made that 
 note immediately after the speeches were made. 
 
 Do you persist in saying that Mr. Davitt was there 
 and made a speech ? — I was not well acquainted with 
 Mr. Davitt at the time. 
 
 Why did you put down his name ? — I was told he 
 was there. 
 
 You see Mr. Davitt now and you have seen him 
 since. Do you still believe he is the man who was 
 there on April 20, 1879 ?— I believe he is. 
 
 Do you say' that he made a speech ? — I say that I 
 made a note a day or two afterwards. 
 
 Did you make it the same day or a day or two after- 
 wards ?— I daresay it was a day or two afterwards. 
 
 Will you swear positively that you made it within 
 two or three days ? — Yes. 
 
 Very good. Do you recollect a meeting held at 
 Knock in June, 1879 ?— Yes. 
 
 At that meeting was Archdeacon Kavanagh, the 
 parish priest, denounced ? Did you hear he was de- 
 nounced for cautioning the people against secret 
 societies ? — I do not know that Archdeacon Kavanagh 
 denounced secret societies. 
 
 Sib H. James. — I object to this form of question. 
 I do not object to his asking his general knowledge 
 as a policeman, but to any particular statement of a 
 third person. 
 
 Sir C. Rcssell. — My point is to show the opposition 
 to the Land League on the part of secret societies 
 there, and I submit I may ask this policeman, who was 
 on duty, as to what was going on in the neighbourhood. 
 
 Sir H. Jambs. — I do not object at all to anything 
 that was reported to this witness. • 
 
 Sib C. Russell (to witness). — You said in answer 
 to my question that you did not know that Archdeacon 
 Kavanagh had denounced secret societies ?— That is so. 
 
 Did you hear Archdeacon Kavanagh denounced 
 because he denounced secret societies ? — I heard it was 
 for giving information to the police. That was_ the 
 chief point. 
 
 Was that in relation to secret societies ? — I do not 
 know that it was. 
 
 Sir H. James. — The witness has said he was not 
 present, and it would not be reported to him. 
 
 Was it reported to you that Father O'Kane, of Clare- 
 morris, was the principal speaker at Knock ? — No, it 
 was not. I saw him going to it. 
 
 Do you know he was strongly opposed to the Land 
 League ? — I do not know. On the contrary, I saw him 
 in company with Land Leaguers. 
 
 Do you recollect a mission held by Canon Burke in 
 1879 P— Yes. 
 
 Were secret societies denounced by the missionary 
 fathers ?— They were denounced in general terms. 
 
 Did you afterwards hear, as a policeman, that Canon 
 Burke's crops and wire fencing had been injured ?— 
 Yes, but not in consequence of that. It was in conse- 
 quence of his action as to the Land League. 
 
 You knew there was injury to his crops and his wire 
 fencing pulled down ? — Yes ; and I heard who did it, 
 but could not prove it. 
 
 When was the Land League formed in Claremorris ?— • 
 The meetings began on April 20 at Irishtown. 
 
 Did you not hear my qnestion ? When was the 
 League formed in Claremorris ? — About December. 
 1879, I should say. 
 
 I quite agree. Perhaps rather earlier, in October. 
 Did the prominent men in connexion with the Land 
 League consist of Canon Burke, Rafferty, Thomas 
 Sweeney, and William Judge ?— No. I do not think 
 Canon Burke ever approved of it, because I heard him 
 denounce the meetings of the Land League. 
 
 Do you or do you not say that Canon Burke was a 
 member, and a leading member, of the Claremorris Land 
 League ? — I say he was not. Father Corbett was a 
 leading member. 
 
 Is it not the fact that Canon Burke presided at the 
 first meeting ? — Yes, he did ; but on conditions — f hat nc 
 violent language should be used. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— Never mind that. 
 
 The Peesidest.— It is perfectly fair that the wit- 
 ness should state what he has in his mind. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — But, my Lord 
 
 The Peesident. — I cannot enter into an argument 
 with you, Sir Charles. You appeal to me, and I say I 
 think the witness is entitled to say that. 
 
 Did he make a speech ? — He did. 
 
 Did he denounce strong language and violence ? — 
 Before he began the meeting he said he would not 
 take the chair unless it was understood that there 
 should be no strong language used from the platform. 
 
 He denounced strong language and action ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you a note of his speech ? — No, but I was 
 present. 
 
 Do you say that was the only meeting he presided 
 
 Sergeant Denis Feely. 
 
632 
 
 The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 at ? — That was the only public meeting I saw him pre- 
 side at. 
 
 Whom else did you see at the Land League meet- 
 ings ? — Father Corbett. 
 
 Did he attend the Claremorris meetings and other 
 and later meetings ? — Yes. 
 
 Would you call him one of the most prominent and 
 active members ? — Yes. 
 
 More so than any one in Claremorris ? — Well, he 
 was very active. 
 
 How, Kafferty, Sweeney, and Judge, were they also 
 members 1 — Yes, there was hardly a person in Clare- 
 morris who was not. 
 
 Do'you recollect a meeting of the League being held 
 in May or April, 1881 ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you recollect an attempt being made to break up 
 that meeting ? — I do. 
 
 Was it the members of a secret society or societies 
 who triad to break it up ?•— I do not know that it was. 
 I do not think so. 
 
 Who do you suppose tried to break it up ? — It was 
 a lot of boys, cart-boys'in the employ of Mr. Killen, 
 of Ballinrobe. The meeting was held. 
 
 Were rotten eggs thrown ? — I do not think so. 
 
 Was the attempt suppressed ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it suppressed with the help of the police ? — No. 
 It'was suppressed by the people on the platform and 
 in the meeting. They ran after the boys. 
 
 When did yon make the memorandum you were 
 reading from a little while ago ? — The day after the 
 meeting. 
 
 Was that forwarded to the authorities ? — It was. 
 
 Is that the very copy that was forwarded to the 
 authorities ?— No-; I kept a second copy. 
 
 What is the blue paper you have there ? — That is 
 another matter. 
 
 Sir H. Jame3. — We have not given evidence about 
 that at present. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Very well. Have you taken a very 
 active part in getting up this evidence ? — No, never. 
 
 Have you served subpoenas or caused them to be served ? 
 —No, "never. I have never spoken to Mr. Soames. 
 
 To whom did you speak ? — Mr. George Bolton wrote 
 to. me and sent me a subpoena, and I sent him a note of 
 what evidence I could give. I have never spoken to 
 him myself. 
 
 I call for those notes. 
 
 Sib H. James. — We have not got them. 
 
 Sib C. Eussell (to witness). — Did you send them 
 direct to Mr. Bolton ?— Yes. 
 
 Where to ?— To Dublin. 
 
 Did you get'a letter acknowledging them ? — No, and, 
 what is more, I expected to see them when I got here, 
 but I have not. 
 
 You have not seen them since ? — No. 
 
 Did you ask for them 1—1 looked through the papers 
 there and could not find them. 
 
 Where 1— In the office. 
 
 What office ? — Mr. Soames's office. 
 
 What papers ?— The papers relating to county Mayo. 
 
 Did you ask Mr. Bolton for them ? — No ' 
 
 Did you ask Mr. Soames ? — No. 
 
 You know Scrab Nally very well, do you not ? — I 
 do. 
 
 Did you say you have asked any one or spoken to 
 any one with a view to getting them to make a state-' 
 ment or give evidence for the purposes of this case ? 
 —No, never. ' 
 
 No one ? — Never. 
 
 Positively ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you seen Mr. G. Bolton ? — No. 
 
 Never ? — Well, I have seen him in the street, but t 
 have never spoken to him. 
 
 Did you see him in Mayo ? — No ; but I heard ho 
 was there. 
 
 Has any charge been made against you in your con« 
 duct as a policeman ? — Yes. 
 
 By your superiors ? — No ; by a subordinate. 
 
 What was the nature of the charge ? — I was charged 
 with drunkenness. 
 
 Is that charge still hanging over you at the present 
 moment ? — Yes. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain 
 that I have been 18 years in the force and I have 
 never yet been punished for any offence, and I do not 
 expect to be punished in respect of this charge either. 
 
 By Mr. Eeid. — You have handed us your note of 
 what occurred at the Irishtown meeting, which is 
 not altogether intelligible ; just read it, please.— There 
 are only about ten words. They are these : — "At tha 
 meeting at Irishtown there were present O'C.Power, T. 
 O'Connor, J. W. Nally, B. W. Nally, P. J. Gordon, 
 James Daly, J. J. Louden, Joseph Quinn, and J. 
 O'Kean." 
 
 I see that On the first page you state that you saw 
 these people returning from the meeting, and then on 
 the next page you proceed to state what the meeting 
 was and who were there. Just answer this question — ■ 
 How comes it that, if you were at the meeting and 
 heard what was said, you commence by stating the 
 names of. those you saw returning from the meet- 
 ing ?— I was not at the Irishtown meeting at all. I 
 merely saw the people coming from it. 
 
 The President. — That is what he has stated before. 
 
 Mr. LoCKvrooD. — My Lords, I have only just had 
 these notes handed to me, and I want to ask the wit- 
 ness about them. 
 
 By Mr. Locjtwood. — Do you say that the blue paper 
 from which you read is a transcript of the notes taken 
 by you of the speeches that were delivered ? — Yes. 
 
 What has become of your original notes ? — I do not 
 know what has become of them. I thought I had them,, 
 but I cannot find them. 
 
 Is this a correct copy of your notes ? — It is. 
 
 Of the notes which you'. wrote down at the time the* 
 speeches were delivered ? — Yes ; they were taken by- 
 order. 
 
 And thii is nothing more than a copy of what you* 
 wrote down at the time the speeches were being made ? 
 — I added nothing. 
 
 -Tust attend to me. Is this what you say you wrote- 
 
 ^Sergeant Denis Feely. 
 
The Special Commission, December 13 1888. 
 
 633 
 
 down at the time ? " The next resolution was spoken 
 to by Mr. Charles Stewart Famell, M.P. After an 
 eloquent speech from Mr. Brennan, said Mr. Parnell : 
 — ' I cannot say much ; but I tell you, as he has told 
 you, these are the days not for words,but for actions.' " 
 Is that Mr. Pamell's speech which you took down in 
 longhand as he spoke it ? — Yes, as far as I could follow 
 him. Of course, I could not take down all he said. 
 
 What did you do when you were not able to fellow 
 him ? Did you not copy from a newspaper ? — No. 
 
 Show me the other two papers which you have de- 
 tached from this one ? — There they are ; but they are 
 confidential. 
 
 I do not wish to see any document that does not 
 belong to this matter, but if those two pages are a 
 portion of what I have here I ought to see them. 
 
 Sir H. James (looking at the papers). — These 
 appear to belong to quite another matter. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — May I ask your Lordships to look 
 at the writings ? 
 
 The President (after having looked at the docu- 
 ments). —This appears to be a report of Mr. Erennan's 
 speech made on the same occasion. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — What did you mean by leading 
 Sir Henry James to believe that these writings related 
 to a different matter ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — The mistake was mine. The man 
 made no communication to me. 
 
 The President.— It appears to relate to the same 
 meeting, but it is headed " Confidential report of J. 
 Brennan's speech on the 22d of November, 1879." 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — May I look at it, my Lord ? 
 
 The President. — Yes, I think so. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — Where did you get this con- 
 fidential report of Mr. Brennan's speech from ? — It is 
 in my handwriting. 
 
 Is this a copy of the report you first produced? — No. 
 
 Then you have two reports of Mr. Brennan's speech 
 -one which you handed in and this confidential one ? 
 — I took the second one from a newspaper, but the 
 first was from my own notes. 
 
 Me. Justice A. L. Smith. — The second one is 
 taken from a newspaper. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood. — I do not quite understand 
 where you say the second report comes from ? — I took 
 that from a newspaper ; the other is from my own 
 notes. 
 
 What paper did you take the second from ?— From 
 the Freeman's Journal, I think. 
 
 Why should the newspaper report be headed " con- 
 fidential " while your own is not ? — I never sent on a 
 copy of the newspaper report. I only sent my own. 
 
 Are you then in the habit of writing confidential 
 reports to yourself ? (Laughter.) — No ; I kept that 
 for my own information. 
 
 I see it is directed to " J. C. Carter, D.I. " ?— You 
 •have there a copy of what I took from the paper. 
 
 The President. — You say that you took the second 
 freport from the Freeman's Journal ? — I did, my Lord, 
 tut I never forwarded it on. 
 
 By Mr. Lockwood.— When did you write out from 
 your own note ?— The next day. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— What does this seal mean f Perhaps 
 your Lordship has seen it ? 
 
 The President.— I have. It is the seal of the 
 Special Commission which was stamped on it a few 
 moments ago. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I am much obliged to your Lord- 
 ship. (Laughter.) 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You have already been cross- 
 examined as to my alleged presence at the Irishtown 
 meeting, so I will not trouble you further on that 
 point. You say the agitators went to Hughes's Hotel 
 on that occasion. How many hotels are there there ? 
 —Two. 
 
 And did not the police go to Hughes's Hotel also f — 
 They went to the same house but to a different portion 
 of it, which was detached. 
 
 It was owned by the same proprietor ? — Yes. 
 
 You have said that Mr. O'Connor, of the Nation, was 
 present at the meeting of November 23. Did he tell 
 you that he belonged to that paper ? — I was told so by 
 the people in the crowd. I have never seen them 
 before or since. 
 
 By Sir H. James. — One word as to this charge 
 which you say has been brought against you. How 
 long have you been in the police force ? — For 18 years. 
 
 You are a sergeant ? — Yes. 
 
 Are you still acting in that capacity or have you 
 been suspended ? — I have never been suspended during 
 the time I have been in the force. 
 
 Who was the man who made the charge against you ? 
 — A constable. 
 
 At the same station ? — Yes. 
 
 What position was he in ? Have you made a charge 
 against him ? — Yes. 
 
 Before or after this charge which he brought against 
 you ? — I made it before ; it was confidential. (Laughter.) 
 
 What has become of your accuser ? — He has been 
 transferred to another district. 
 
 And what has become of you ? — I have remained at 
 the same station. I have never been punished for any 
 offence. 
 
 Now, as regards this charge, is it true or false ? — It 
 is false. 
 
 And this is the only charge that has been made 
 against you ? — Yes. 
 
 You had not known Mr. Davitt before, when this 
 meeting in April, 1879, was held ?— No. I had not 
 been long in the county at that time. 
 
 Were you told that Mr. Davitt was present ? — Yes ; 
 the people told me so. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lords, we have the report of 
 the meeting which appeared in United Ireland before 
 us, which leaves it in doubt whether Mr. Davitt was 
 present or not. Perhaps I had better send for the local 
 papers, as I understand that Mr. Davitt says that he 
 was not present. 
 
 Sib C Russell.— What I understand is this— that 
 
 Sergeant Denis Feely. 
 
634 
 
 The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 Mr. Davitt was to have been there but he missed his 
 train and eould not get there. (Laughter.) 
 
 Sir H. James. — Then we may take it that the rumour 
 among the people was that he was there, but that in 
 point of fact, having missed hiii train, he could not get 
 there. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Just so. 
 
 Mr. Sydney Smith was the next witness called. 
 Examined by Mr. Murphy he said, — My father was 
 Mr. John Sydney Smith, who was the agent for the 
 Marquis of Sligo, and also for Mr. Clive on his pro- 
 perty at Ballycroy, in 1879. On September 30 in that 
 year, my father and I started in the morning to drive 
 down to Ballycroy to collect rent on Mr. Olive's 
 property. 
 
 By the President. — What position did you occupy ? 
 '—I was assisting my father. 
 
 Examination continued. — Notice was given to the 
 tenants to meet us at a certain place for the purpose 
 of their paying their rents. We met several of tho 
 tenants there, but they paid no rent. On our way 
 home, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, when we came 
 to a place called Ologgagh mountain, we were fired 
 at. I believe three or four shots were fired at us. I 
 then turned round and saw some men with blackened 
 faces. I fired and shot a man. 'I remember that my 
 father received two threatening letters before this 
 occurred. 
 
 Cross-examined by SIR C. Russell.— Was any 
 branch of the Land League established in 
 your neighbourhood at this time ? — I have no 
 recollection about it. 
 
 With regard to this shooting affair at Cloggagh — were 
 you armed at the time ? — I was armed on that day. 
 
 Were you alone or were you in company ? — I was 
 with my father and the cardriver. 
 
 Was your father armed also ? — Yes. 
 
 So that the condition of things in September, 1879, 
 was such that you and your father judged it prudent for 
 your safety to carry arms ? — We always carried arms 
 going to a distance. 
 
 I was about to get that from you. How long had 
 you pursued that practice ? — For several years. 
 
 That would carry you back to 1875 or 1870 ? — Yes 
 
 From what you knew to be the state of feeling in 
 the country you deemed it prudent to carry arms from 
 1875 ?-Yes. 
 
 Were there any poachers in the neighbourhood where 
 you lived ?— There were nearly always poachers. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Did you'.fire any shot yourself on that occasion ? — 
 Not until after we were fired at. 
 
 Are you sure that you did not fire first ?•— I am 
 perfectly certain I did not. 
 
 I do not know whether you recollect outrages upon 
 landlords and landlords' agents as far back as 181)8 
 and 1869 ?— No, I do not recollect any. 
 
 Do you recollect hearing of the shooting of Mr. 
 Hunter, a landlord of Mayo, in 1869 ?— I do. 
 
 And of Mr. Crotty, of Westport, another landlord, 
 in 1871 ? — Yes, 1 have heard of it. 
 
 Was not some outrage attempted upon your father in 
 tho early part of 1879 ? — I do not recollect it. 
 
 Do you know that in the cases of both Mr. Huntei 
 in 18C9 and Mr. Crotty in 1871 evictions had been 
 carried out on the estates under their management ? — I 
 do not know. 
 
 Do you know that in the case of Mr. Crotty there 
 had been a large number of evictions and that a wholo 
 country side had been cleared ? — I do not. 
 
 By Sir H. James. — I am 30 years old. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Can you tell me 
 whether from 1870 downward various outrages were 
 being committed in Claremorris and Westport, in the 
 shape of the burning of houses, injuring cattle, attaels 
 upon process-servers, and other things of that kind P — 
 I do not know of any such cases. 
 
 Do you not recollect the attack upon a process-server 
 on Sir Robert Long's estate ? — I do not. 
 
 Have there been considerable clearances effected on 
 the Marquis of Sligo's estate '!— Not in my time. Not 
 as long as I can recollect. 
 
 There have been some evictions on the property, but 
 not to any great extent as far as you know ? — There 
 have been very few, as far as I can remember. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — The name of the man I fired at and 
 shot was Howard. I heard that he had been iu the 
 militia. I do not know that he had been sent to prison 
 for poaching. My father did not prosecute him for 
 any offence. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — You have been 
 asked by my learned friend Sir C. Russell with refer- 
 ence to things that occurred before 1879. Did you 
 observe any change in the demeanour of the people 
 after that date from what it had been before ? — It was 
 harder to collect rents after 1879 than it was before 
 that date. I do not know whether the outrage upon 
 my father was denounced by Mr. Davitt. 
 
 Hugh M'Call was the next witness called. He was 
 examined by Mr. MURPHY, and said, — I was herd to 
 Mr. Sydney Smith in 1880 and 1881. I remember a 
 number of men coming to my house on a night in 
 September, 1881. I opened the door to them thinking 
 they were the police, who used to call sometimes from 
 9 at night to 5 in the mprning. 
 
 What did they say to you ?— I said, " Hallo, boys, 
 what is this 1" " Oh, nothing, nothing," says they, 
 " we are giving you notice to quit your service in 
 three days." They then pointed two guns at me, and 
 outside nine guns were pointed at me and my wife. I 
 did not leave the place then, but I got the protection 
 of the police. However, Mr. Smith had to leave the 
 place, so I left also. 
 
 I believe your wife went mad after this and died in 
 an asylum ? — Yes. She got wrong in her mind on 
 account of this affair. She was never right in hei 
 mind afterwards. 
 
 After this did you buy turf from a man ? — Yes. 1 
 
 Mr. Sydney Smith. 
 
 Hugh M'Call. 
 
The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 635 
 
 bought turf from one of the tenants who lived next to 
 me, bat afterwards he came to me and returned mo 
 the money, saying that he would be shot if he sold me 
 any more turf. 
 
 Had you done anything to bring this treatment upon 
 you except herding for Mr. Smith ? — No, nothing. 
 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 James Buckley, examined by Sir H. James, said, — 
 I am a labourer, living at a place called Causeway, 
 about two miles from Tralee. 
 
 In the month of November, I860, were you sworn in 
 a member of a secret society ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the society ? — The Fenian Brotherhood. 
 
 Did any one speak to you beforehand about joining 
 that society ? — Themis Dee. 
 
 How long have you lived in this district ? — Twenty 
 years. 
 
 Before this period of November, 1880, tad you 
 known of any outrages beine committRd in the 
 district ? — Yes. 
 
 Of what character ? — Houghing cattle. 
 
 What outrages, if any, were committed before that 
 tims ? — There was some maiming of cattle. 
 
 Many ? — Not very many. 
 
 You were sworn in on November 15, 1880. Was any 
 Land League established in that district before that 
 time ? — I believe there was a Land League in Cause- 
 way a short time before that. 
 
 Did you know a house occupied by a man named 
 Casey ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you kno w if that house was used for Land League 
 meetings ? — Yes. 
 
 You have said that Thomas Dee spoke to you about 
 joining this secret society ? — Yes. 
 
 What did he say to you or ask you to do ? — He asked 
 me if I would join the Fenian organization. I said 
 yes. He then tsaid he would see John Lynch, who was 
 then secretary of the Land League. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Is what Dee says to him about 
 Lynch evidence ? 
 
 The President. — I do not think we can have what 
 he said. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Your Lordships will see what 
 occurred. Here is a thing done in consequence of 
 something said. 
 
 The President intimated that Dee's statement could 
 not be received. 
 
 Sir C. Russell suggested that the last part of the 
 witness's answer ought not to appear in the report of 
 the proceedings. 
 
 The President. — It is, of course, immaterial. I 
 think, however, that the shorthand writer's note ought 
 to be a faithful transcript of all that passes. 
 
 Sir H. James (to witness). — Dee said something to 
 you. Did you know a man named John Lynch ? — Yes. 
 
 Had he anything to do with the League ? — He was 
 secretary of the Land League. 
 
 After Dee spoke to you, did he leave you for about 
 half an hour and then come back ?— Yes. 
 
 And then did you go with him anywhere ?— I went 
 with him to Ellen O'Connor's publichouse in the 
 village . 
 
 Whom did you meet there ? — Pat Dee and Robert 
 Dissit. Pat Dee was the father of ThomaB Dee. I 
 saw them in the yard of the publichouse. 
 
 Are these two men members of the Land League ? — 
 They were. 
 
 Were you sworn in on that occasion ? — I was. 
 
 What was the nature of the oath you took ? — To be 
 loyal to the Irish Republican Brotherhood. 
 
 After your joining did you attend a meeting of the 
 Fenian Association? — Yes, in the Land League rooms in 
 Thomas Casey's house. 
 
 Who were present at the meeting ? — Robert Dissit:, 
 William Phoenix, Fat Dee, Eugene Fitzgerald, Daniel 
 Dee, John M'Grath, and Maurice Harman. There were 
 about 20 present altogether. 
 
 What was done ? — The meeting was for the purpose 
 of electing sergeants. 
 
 Were sergeants elected ? — Yes ; William Phoenix, 
 Eugene Fitzgerald, Terence Boyle, and T. Driscoll. 
 
 Is John Lynch holding any office in this organiza- 
 tion ? — He was head centre at that time. I was told 
 so by Dee. 
 
 Now, William Phoenix, what was he ? — He was a 
 member of the committee of the Land League, a very 
 active member. 
 
 Is Phoenix in Causeway now ? — Yes. 
 
 Was Eugene Fitzgerald a member of the Le.agce ? — 
 He was. 
 
 Yon have spoken of the Leaguo meetings being held 
 at Casey's house. After you were sworn, did you 
 attend any of those meetings ? — Yes. 
 
 Whom did you see there ? — William Phoenix, John B. 
 Can till on, John Byrne, Edmund Somers, John Lynch, 
 and Eugene Fitzgerald. 
 
 Why do you say that those meetings were meetings 
 of the Land League ? — They were called for the pur- 
 pose of (jntering a protest against the taking of the 
 land of one Thomas Sullivan. 
 
 How many meetings did you attend ? — About a 
 dozen. 
 
 During what period ? — From 1880 until the beginning 
 of 1882. In May, 1881, I remember seeing William 
 Phoenix. He was a member of the committee of the 
 Land League. I saw him in the street in the village. 
 I knew a man named Thomas Sheeby. He was occupy- 
 ing the land of his brother-in-law. Thomas Donnelly, 
 who was dispossessed, on account of money which 
 Donnelly owed him. 
 
 Did Phoenix say anything to yon about Thomas 
 Sheehy ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Is the statement that Phoenix 
 makes evidence ? 
 
 The President. — I understand that he was a mem- 
 ber of the Land League. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Very well, if that is sufficient 
 ground in your Lordship's opinion. 
 
 Sir H. James.— What did Phoenix say to you ?— Ho 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
636 
 
 The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 told me there was to be an attack made on Sheehy's 
 house that night, and that I was to meet Eugene Fitz- 
 gerald and some more of the boys in the village. 
 
 Did he say where you were to meet ?— At Ballin- 
 glanna Fort. 
 
 Where is that ?— About 300 or 400 yards from 
 Sheehy's house. He told me that we were to be met 
 by Eugene Fitzgerald, Daniel Dee, James Looney, and 
 another. He also said that we were to meet a party 
 from Ballyduff . I went to Ballinglanna Fort that night 
 about half-past 10 o'clock. When I got there I saw 
 Phoenix lying on the mound which surrounds the fort. 
 
 Was there any one with him ? — Not at that time . 
 
 What did he do ? — As soon as I saw him he fired a 
 revolver as a signal to the men from Ballyduff, and 
 when he had done this five disguised men approached us. 
 
 Who were they ? — Richard Casey, Samuel Hayes, 
 Patrick Harrington, John Harrington, and Maurice 
 Lawler. 
 
 Where did these men come from ? — Four came from 
 Ballyduff - and Casey came from Killouly. 
 
 How many men altogether met that night ? — Eleven. 
 
 Were they all disguised ? — Yes. 
 
 How ? — They wore white shirts over their clothing. 
 
 Anything over their faces ? — Not at that time. 
 
 Had you any arms among you ? — 'One revolver. 
 
 Who had that ?— William Phcenix. We all had 
 scythes or pitchforks. 
 
 Where did you go after meeting at the fort ? — To 
 Sheehy's house ; about 400 yards from the fort. 
 
 Did you go in one party, or were you divided ? — We 
 divided the men, Phoenix taking charge of one party, 
 and Fitzgerald of the other. 
 
 With whose party did. you go ? — With that of Eugene 
 Fitzgerald. In my party there were Fitzgerald, 
 Maurice Lawler, Patrick Harrington, John Harrington, 
 Richard Casey, and myself. 
 
 What became of the revolver ?— Phoenix handed it to 
 Fitzgerald. 
 
 To what part of the house did your party go ?— To 
 the front. 
 
 When you arrived what happened ? — Fitzgerald 
 knocked at the door for admission, but received no 
 answer. He then fired three shots in succession at the 
 door. 
 
 Was the door opened by means of those shots F— It 
 was not. 
 
 Did Fitzgerald tell you to do anything ? — Yes ; to 
 break the windows in order to make an entrance. We 
 broke the windows. 
 
 Were the windows broken ?— They were, Sir. 
 
 Did any of your party enter the house ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Did anything occur to stop you entering ? — Yes, Sir ; 
 a man belonging to .the party with Phoenix came and 
 said he saw a man escaping through the window, and 
 he thought it was Sheehy. He saw him making for 
 the police barracks. 
 
 That was one of the men from the party that was 
 with Phoenix ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did Phoenix come and say anything ?— He called the 
 
 men together, and said it would be better for us to 
 disperse and go down home. 
 
 Did you do so ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you go home alone or with any others ? — There 
 were two men with us — John Lang and James Doonan. 
 
 As you were returning home did you meet any one ?— ■ 
 Yes, passing through the fields I heard Sergeant 
 Clarke — then one of the constables in the village — ■ 
 calling Sheehy and telling him to " come on quick." 
 When we heard that we sat down in the dyke. 
 
 Did you see whether it was Sheehy or not who was 
 with Clarke ?— I could not be quite certain. I heard 
 Clarke call Sheehy by name—" come on quick." 
 
 Before going to the house had you received any 
 directions from Phoenix as to what was to be done to 
 Sheehy ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did he give them to you alone or in the presence of 
 the others ?— He gave them to all the men, Sir. He 
 told us we were to bring out Sheehy and tie him out- 
 side, in the field, and if he did not promise to give up 
 Donnelly his land he was to be shot. We were to 
 shoot him. 
 
 As far as you know was any one arrested on account 
 of this attack on Sheehy's house ? — No_- 
 
 Is Phoenix still at Causeway ?— Yes. 
 
 In June, 1882, was there a man named Michael 
 Roche living near Causeway ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 To your knowledge had he been a member of the 
 League 'I — He was a member at one time. He had 
 been expelled from it. 
 
 When was he expelled from the Land League ? — 1 
 think in 1881. 
 
 Do you know the cause of his expulsion ? — Because 
 he gave information to the authorities about the 
 working of the League, and he was the means of 
 getting some men arrested. 
 
 Can you say who were the persons who were 
 arrested 1 — William Phoenix was arrested atone time. 
 
 Do you mean either upon the fact or upon the sup- 
 posed information of Roche to the police ? — Upon the 
 supposed information. 
 
 Was there a man who was secretary of the Land 
 League called Henry O'Connor ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 John Lynch, I believe, left the country and went to 
 America ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did O'Connor succeed him as secretary ? — He did, 
 Sir. 
 
 Did Roche make a claim for compensation on 
 account of malicious injury ? — He did, Sir. 
 
 Malicious injury to what ?— To a cow of his and to 
 his house. 
 
 How long was that before June, 1882 ? — I should say 
 it was something about six or seven or eight months. 
 
 Was any opposition raised to his receiving this com- 
 pensation ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 Were subscriptions asked for and obtained to oppose 1 '' 
 this claim for compensation ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Before June, 1882, had William Phoenix and Thomas 
 Dee been in custody as suspects ?— Yes, Sir, 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 637 
 
 Were they released at any time ?— Yes, in May, 
 1882. 
 
 Were you, at any time after Dee's release, in Dee's 
 house ?— Yes, on several occasions. 
 
 Were you there when anything was arranged about 
 this man Eoche ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Was this Thomas Dee's house ? — Fat Dee's house. 
 Thomas Dee was the son of Patrick Dee. 
 
 Who were present when anything was arranged about 
 Eoche ? — Eugene Fitzgerald, William Phcenix, Patrick 
 Dee, and myself. 
 
 When was this ? — In 1882,about the beginning of June. 
 
 At any rate, was it after William Phcenix and 
 Thomas Dee had been released ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 What was arranged about Eoche ?— It was arranged 
 that Eugene Fitzgerald, William Phoenix, and I should 
 shoot Eoche. 
 
 At the meeting, was there any arrangement made as to 
 when or where you would shoot Eoche ? — Fitzgerald and 
 myself were leaving the Court and we followed him 
 
 No, No ! please, one moment. Was a Court held in 
 Causeway that day ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 What Court was that?— The Petty Sessions Court, Sir. 
 
 Was it known to you that Eoche was there, or was 
 to be there ? — I knew he was there, Sir. 
 
 Do you know for what purpose ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 What was it ? — He had some neighbours summoned 
 for trespassing on his land. 
 
 Had any one at this meeting at Dee's house any 
 firearms of any kind ? — Yes, Sir. There was a pair of 
 revolvers there. 
 
 Whose were they ? — Patrick Dee produced them. 
 
 And to whom were they given ? — One to Fitzgerald 
 and the other to myself. 
 
 Did any of you three watch for Eoche leaving the 
 Petty Sessions-house ? — Yes, Sir, Fitzgerald and I. 
 
 What became of Phoenix ? — He was not there at that 
 time. I do not know where he was that day. He did 
 not come. 
 
 Did Eoche leave the Petty Sessions Court-house ? — 
 Yes, Sir, about 3 o'clock in the day. 
 
 How far would he have to go to his house 1— Some- 
 thing about half a mile. 
 
 How did it happen — did any one come away from the 
 Court-house with him ?— Yes. Sir, the petty sessions 
 clerk, Mr. John Eice. 
 
 Did Mr. Eice live anywhere near Eoche's, or beyond 
 him ? — As he was going to his home he had to pass 
 Eoche's ; he lived beyond Eoche's. 
 
 How far did Mr. Eice walk with Eoche ? — He 
 walked within a couple of hundred yards of Eoche's 
 house. 
 
 What determination did you and Fitzgerald come to ? 
 We left the village, and went in a different direc- 
 tion to avoid suspicion. We thought it too dangerous 
 to make any attack on him. 
 
 You did not make any attack on Eoehe then ? — No . 
 
 Did you and Fitzgerald return to the village ? — 
 Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you give up the revolvers ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 To whom ?— To Patrick Doe. 
 
 A few days after this did you meet again at Dee's 
 house ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Who were there ? — Patrick Dee, William Fitzgerald, 
 Phoenix, and myself. I am not sure whether Dissit 
 was there. I do not think he was. 
 
 Does your land adjoin Eoche's ? — I have no land ; my 
 house adjoins Eoche's. 
 
 At this meeting was any other arrangement made con," 
 cerning Eoche ? — Yes, Sir. I was asked if ' I would 
 shoot him and was told I would get costs to America 
 from the funds of the Land League. 
 
 Had you any funds of your own to go to America 
 with ?— No. 
 
 Were any revolvers and weapons given to you ?— 
 Yes, Sir ; I got a brace of revolvers and 24 rounds of 
 ammunition. 
 
 Was anything said to you about your practising with 
 the revolvers ? — Yes, Sir. I was to practise with each 
 one and then take my choice of the two, whichever 
 might be best. 
 
 Were they different kinds of revolvers ? — I did not 
 see any difference. One of them was a little longer 
 than the other. 
 
 Where is Eugene Fitzgerald now? — He is in the 
 village of Causeway. He and Phcenix were there when 
 I left. 
 
 Was this in the month of June or July that you 
 followed Eoche from the Petty Sessions-house ? — In 
 the month of June. 
 
 Did you, after this, one evening meet Eoche ? — Yes, 
 Sir. 
 
 Where ? — As he was driving his cattle into his own 
 land. 
 
 My Lords, I .will just go back for a moment. At the 
 meeting at Dee's house was anything arranged as to 
 what you were to do if you did shoot Eoehe — as to 
 where you were to go ? — Yes. Sir. They said if I 
 shot him I was to make for Dee's house, to enter and 
 to go into the kitchen, and they would swear that I 
 was in the village at the time that the murdei 
 occurred. 
 
 You told me that you met Eoche — I think you said 
 on his land ? — No, Sir ; as he was driving his cattle on 
 the public road. 
 
 It was daylight ? — About half -past 7 on a June even- 
 ing. 
 
 When you saw him did you speak to him ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 What did you say ? — I asked him how he got on at 
 the Court that day. He said he got on very well. He 
 was after fining Mrs. Foley that day and he had 
 summoned some trespassers. 
 
 Was his head turned towards you ? — From me. 
 
 What did you then do ?•— I took out the revolver,Sir, 
 and I fired it, and he heard the click and turned round 
 and said, " Come back to the river ; I want to get 
 a bush in the gap." 
 
 Did the revolver go off or did it miss fire ? — It 
 missed fire, Sir. 
 
 How long did you have the revolver and the cart- 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
638 
 
 The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 ridges in your possession ? — Something about three or 
 four days, Sir. 
 
 Where had you kept the cartridges ? — I had hidden 
 the revolver in a ditch, because I was afraid to keep 
 it in my own house for fear the police might get it. 
 The revolver was loaded and I had put the cart- 
 ridges in the barrels of the revolver before I put it in 
 the ditch. There were six barrels of the revolver, 
 but only five were loaded. 
 
 Koche said to you, " Will you come back to the 
 river to put a bush in the gap ? " — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Where was the river, near you ? — Yes, Sir, very 
 convenient ; it was near to the village. 
 
 Would that be near to the police-station ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you go with him when he asked you to do this ? 
 —No, Sir. 
 
 What did you do ? — I seized him by the collar, 
 pressed him back, and fired three or four shots in 
 succession, but none of the cartridges went off. 
 
 You pulled the trigger and none of the cartridges 
 went off ? — None of them. 
 
 Did he begin to shout out " Murder " ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you then leave him after three or four misfires 
 took place ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you see where Eoche went to ? — He went in the 
 direction of the police barracks. 
 
 To your knowledge was he at this time under police 
 protection of some sort ? — Yes, Sir, he was under pro- 
 tection by night. 
 
 What did you do ? — I made across the field for the 
 village. 
 
 Where did you go to in the village 1 — I went to 
 Dee's house, Sir. 
 
 Did you ran? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Whom did you meet there ? — I met Patrick Dee. 
 
 Any one else ? — No, Sir ; I did not meet any one 
 else, because there was groat commotion in the 
 village and all the people were out. 
 
 Phoenix or Eugene Fitzgerald — were they there? — 
 No ; they kept out of the way. 
 
 But you did meet Patrick Dee ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 How long did you remain ? — Not very long, Sir. 
 The policemen were returning searching for me. 
 
 Did you walk out of the village and walk 
 up to the police ? — Yes, Sir. I walked up to 
 the sergeant who was in charge of the 
 police. I asked him if he was looking for me. 
 He said, " Yes, he was sorry that he would have to 
 arrest me for firing at Koche." Patrick Dee was in 
 th9 village ; I told the sergeant of the police I had 
 been in Dee's house. 
 
 Were you arrested and lodged in gaol that night ? — I 
 was kept in the police barrack that night. 
 
 Were you taken before the magistrate next morning ? 
 — Yes, Sir, I was taken to Tralee. 
 
 Was Roche examined as a witness ? — He was, Sir. 
 
 Did Roche say anything about hearing bullets whiz 
 by his ear ?— He swore that he saw the bullets whizzing 
 past his ear. 
 
 Saw or heard?— Well, heard, Sir. (Laughter.) 
 
 Were any witnesses called for you ? — No, Sir, not at 
 that time. I was let out on my own recognizances to 
 be summoned. 
 
 Then what happened ? — After I was let out I went to 
 Phoanix for the money I was promised to go to 
 America. 
 
 Did you ever go before the magistrates again ? — I did. 
 
 Did you then call any witnesses ? — Yes, Sir. John 
 O'Connor and James Looney. 
 
 For what purpose did you call them, and what did 
 they swear ? — They swore that at the time Roche 
 entered the village from the police they saw me 
 standing at Dee's door. 
 
 And they were examined at the time ? — They were. 
 
 Who are they, do you know them ? — I do, Sir. 
 
 What do you Eay these two men were ? — John O'Con- 
 nor was a labouring man and James Looney was a 
 shoemaker. 
 
 Who got them to give this evidence ? — Patrick Dee. 
 
 Now, were you let out between the two hearings ?— 
 I was. 
 
 Was any pistol or bullet produced or found at any 
 hearing ? — No. 
 
 Now, you told us that there was an arrangement that 
 you were to have money if the shooting took place 'i — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you apply to any one for that money ? — I did. 
 
 To whom did you apply ? — To William Phcenix, 
 Patrick Dee, and Eugene Fitzgerald. 
 
 When was that ? Was it before or after the second 
 time you were before the magistrate ? — It was after 
 the first time. 
 
 What time intervened between the two hearings ?— 
 About two days. 
 
 Was it during that time that you went to these three 
 men for the money ? — Yes. 
 
 What money did you ask for, and in what terms ? — I 
 was to cross to America after the shooting, and there 
 was a certain amount promised. He told me I would 
 get it if I would go to Thomas Diggin, the treasurer 
 of the Land League funds. 
 
 Did you know Thomas Diggin ? — I did. 
 
 Where did he live ? — At Kilcurragh, about two and 
 a half miles from the village. 
 
 What was he ? — A strong farmer—an independent 
 fanner. 
 
 Is he there now ? — He is dead now. 
 
 You say he was at that time treasurer of the Land 
 League ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he known to you as such ?— Yes. 
 
 Now, you said you saw these three men, Dee, 
 Phoenix, and Fitzgerald ; did you see them again in 
 the evening of the same day ?— Yes, in the village of 
 Causeway I saw Phoenix and Fitzgerald. 
 
 Did they give you any money ? — They gave me 50s. 
 
 When they gave you that money did they make any 
 statement to you ? — They said that that was all that 
 was in the hands of Thomas Diggin and belonged to 
 the League. I was not satisfied with the amount. 
 
 Did you say bo to them ? — I did. 
 
 James Buckley, 
 
The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 639 
 
 What did yon say ? — I said they promised me and I 
 had a right to as much as they promised, and they 
 seemed to be displeased because I had not killed 
 Roche. 
 
 What did they say 1 — Phoenix told me I could not 
 expect to get any more, because I did not shoot him. 
 
 And when you objected to this £2 10s., did you give 
 any reason why you objected ? — I said it was not 
 sufficient to take me to America. 
 
 What did either Phoenix or Fitzgerald say then ? — 
 They took me up to Patrick Dee and he wrote a letter 
 and gave it me to take to Thomas Fierce, the president 
 of the Land League, on the same night. 
 
 Was the letter addressed to Thomas Pierce ? — Yes. 
 
 Who is Thomas Pierce ? — He is a gentleman farmer, 
 living about two miles and a half from Causeway. 
 
 Did you take that letter to him ?— Yes, on the fol- 
 lowing day. 
 
 Did you see Pierce ? — I did. 
 
 Did you give him the letter that Patrick Dee had 
 written and given to you ? — Yes. 
 
 Did Pierce read it in your presence ? — He did not 
 read it oat. 
 
 No ; I mean did he open it before you ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you leave that letter with Pierce ? — Yes ; I 
 never got it back. 
 
 After Pierce had read this letter did he say to you 
 what he would do ? — Yes ; he told me to go round to 
 some of the neighbours and he would go round with me. 
 
 For what purpose ? — To collect money to aid me in 
 my escape to America. 
 
 When he told you to go round with him, did you 
 go to any houses ? — Yes. 
 
 Tell me the first house you went to. — Thomas Diggin's. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — That is the treasurer ? — Yes. 
 
 Examination continued. — Is that the person you pre- 
 viously mentioned as treasurer of the League ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you and Pierce see Diggin at his house ? — Yes. 
 
 Was that the first house you went to ? — Yes, that 
 was the first. 
 
 In your presence did Pierce make any request from 
 Diggin ?— He did. 
 
 What was it ? — He told Diggin to get up and give 
 me some money to aid my escape to America from 
 that scoundrel Eoche. 
 
 Did Diggin give you any money ? — Yes. 
 
 How much ? — 2s. 
 
 Was anything said as to the amount or not ? — No, 
 not in my presence. 
 
 Did Pierce give you any money ? — He gave me 2s. more . 
 
 Where is Pierce now ? — Living in a place called 
 Draymacurragh, two and; a half miles from Causeway. 
 
 After going with Pierce to Diggin's, did you go to 
 any other house to collect money ? — Yes. 
 
 Can you give me the names of the persons to whom 
 you went ? — James Halloran and Michael Prender- 
 ville. 
 
 Who were these two men ? — They were farmers who 
 lived in the neighbourhood. 
 
 Now go on. — After Prenderville the next was Patrick 
 Diggin. 
 
 That is another Diggin ? — Yes» 
 
 What is he ? — He is a farmer, and nephew of Thomas 
 Diggin. 
 
 That is four. Do you recollect any other ? — No. 
 
 What request — if any — was made to these persons P — 
 Pierce asked them for money to aid me to go to 
 America. 
 
 Did you get contributions from them ? — No ; they 
 promised it in a few days, but I did not get it. 
 
 Did they give any reason why ? — That they had not 
 got it in the house. 
 
 Now, I gather that from Pierce and Thomas 
 Diggin you only obtained this sum of 4s. ? — That is all. 
 
 That being the case, did you return to Causeway and 
 see the Dees again ?■ — Yes, Patrick and Thomas. 
 
 Did you tell them what had happened ? — I did. 
 
 Did you make any request to them for more money ? 
 —I did. 
 
 For the same purpose, I presume ? — For the same 
 purpose. 
 
 When you did so, did you obtain a letter from either 
 of them ? — Yes, from Thomas Dee. 
 
 To take to whom ? — To Thomas Dowling, of Lixnaw. 
 
 What did you say he was 1 — He was the secretary 
 of the Lixnaw Land League. 
 
 Ho w far is Lixnaw from Causeway ? — About four miles. 
 
 To whom was that letter addressed ? — To Thomas 
 Dowling, secretary of the Land League. 
 
 Did Thomas Dee tell you for what purpose ? — He 
 did. He told me to run round to Dowling and tell him 
 to try to. make up a sum of money to aid me in my 
 escape to America. 
 
 Did you take that letter to Thomas Dowling ? — I 
 did. 
 
 On the same day that you received it ? — No, on the 
 following day. I went over to Lixnaw, and saw him 
 there and gave him the letter. 
 
 Did he open it and appear to read it ? — Yes. 
 
 Having done so, did he give you any money ? — 
 Yes, 5s. 
 
 Did he direct you to go to any other person ? — To 
 Eugene Costello and John Walsh. 
 
 Wno were they ? — They are independent farmers. 
 
 Was anything said, or do you know, about their 
 being members of the Land League ? — They were 
 reputed members of the Lixnaw League. 
 
 What did Dowling tell you to go to Costello and 
 Walsh for ? — To ask them for some help, and to tell 
 Costello that he gave me 6s. himself for the purpose 
 of aiding me in escaping, and to tell them to give me 
 something. 
 
 Did you go to these two men ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you repeat to them what Dowling had told you 
 to tell them ?— Yes. 
 
 Did they give you any money ? — I got 2s. 6d. from 
 Costello, 2s. from Walsh, and Is. from Edmund Walsh. 
 
 That is the man usually called Ned Walsh ? — Yes. 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
640 
 
 The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 How did you come to see him '( — He was on my way 
 home, so I called on him. 
 
 Had his name been mentioned by Dowling ? — Yes. 
 
 After this did you return home to Causeway ?— I did. 
 
 Is that all the money you were able to collect ? — 
 That is all. 
 
 Did the summons afterwards come on for hearing ? — 
 Yes ; I met the officer, and he asked me if I Would 
 be there, and I said I would. I afterwards received a 
 summons and attended the Court. I was bound over to 
 keep the peace for 12 months in two sureties of £10 
 and myself in £20. 
 
 You told me what Roche said. Was it upon this occa- 
 sion you called witnesses to say you were in the 
 village ? — Yes. 
 
 Was the pistol ever found Or produced ? — No. 
 
 What became of it ? — It was handed back to 
 Phosnix. 
 
 Well now, after this was dismissed was any applica- 
 tion made to you for the money back ? — Yes. 
 
 You were set at large ; you did not go to America 
 after this decision ? — No. 
 
 Yon say that application was made to you to give 
 the money back ; who made it ?— William Phcenix and 
 Patrick Dee. 
 
 Did you return it ? — No. 
 
 Did you give any reason for not returning it ?— I told 
 them I was entitled to it, and as I had got it I would 
 keep it. 
 
 What was the result of that refusal ? How did they 
 treat you ? — They expelled me from the association. I 
 did not associate with them "any more. I did not attend 
 Land League meetings any more. 
 
 Did the people speak to you as before ? — Not near 
 on such familiar terms as before. 
 
 ■ Do you recollect at any of the meetings you at- 
 tended any resolution being come to affecting a man 
 named Terence Boyle P — Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Please do not lead. 
 
 Examination continued. — Where was that meeting 
 held ? — It was a Land League meeting at Causeway. 
 
 Do you recollect about what time ? — In the begin- 
 ning of 1882 or the end of 1881, I am not sure which. 
 
 Who were present at that meeting ? — Thomas 
 Diggin, P. O'Connor, William Phoanix, and a lot 
 more. There were about 35 there. 
 
 What was the case of Boyle ? — He had taken some 
 land belonging to one Sullivan, and they wanted him 
 to give up the land, and he would not give it up. He 
 said he had taken it for so many years, and would not 
 give it up. 
 
 Was that discussed at the Land League meeting ? — 
 Yes. Phcenix proposed a resolution condemning his 
 action, and it was seconded by a man named Murphy. 
 
 Are you quite sure this was a Land League meeting ? 
 —I am certain. 
 
 What happened to Terence Boyle ? — His house was 
 fired into and some of his cattle maimed. 
 
 Do you know that of your own knowledge 1—1 do. 
 
 You took no part, I believe, in those acts P — No. 
 
 Now, only just say yes or no — did men make a state- 
 ment to you of their having taken part in those out- 
 rages ? — Yes. 
 
 Are those men known to you P — Yes. 
 
 You could give their names if necessary ? — Yes. 
 
 The Commissioners then adjourned for luncheon. 
 
 After the adjournment the witness was cross-examined 
 by Sie C. Russell. — How long have you lived in 
 Kerry — all your life P — Very nearly. 
 
 Were you born there ?— I cannot say I was born 
 there. 
 
 You are very well known there ? — Yes, very well 
 known. 
 
 Can you name a single respectable person in Kerry 
 who would believe you on your oath unless corro- 
 borated ? — I think I could. 
 
 Who P— Patrick Dee. 
 
 I ask you again if any respectable person would 
 believe your oath unless corroborated ? — I do not 
 understand what you mean. 
 
 (Question repeated.) Witness, after a pause. — I can- 
 not say whether any one would. 
 
 When did you come to London ? — On Saturday week. 
 
 When did you leave Tralee ? — On the night of the 
 6th, and arrived in London on Saturday morning. 
 
 When did you first give any information to the police 
 or to any one ? — On November 25. 
 
 With whom did you come to London ? — With Ser- 
 geant Clarke. 
 
 Was he a constable stationed in Kerry ?— Yes. 
 
 Where ?— Tralee. 
 
 Was it to him that you gave information on Novem- 
 ber 25 ?— No. 
 
 TO whom ? — Mr. Cecil Roche. 
 
 Was he the first person to whom you gave any in- 
 formation P— He was. 
 
 Had you seen anybody or anybody seen you before 
 that ? — I did not see Mr. C. Roche ; I communicated 
 with him by letter. 
 
 I would ask is that letter here ? Where did you 
 write to him ?— From Causeway, Tralee. I posted it. 
 
 Did you get any answer I — No. 
 
 What next happened ? — Sergeant Clarke came out to 
 see me at the Causeway. 
 
 When was that ? — I think it was on November 29. 
 
 And you adhere to the statement that up to that 
 time you gave no information to any one ? — Not con- 
 cerning this case. 
 
 You had never been in communication with the 
 police ? — Never ; not concerning that case. 
 
 Am I to take it from you that you have not been in 
 communication with anybody else concerning this 
 case ? — I did at one time, some years ago. 
 
 What year would that be ? — In 1882, not earlier. 
 
 Who were the police to whom you communicated ?— 
 Sergeant John Kinsella. 
 
 Was that early in 1882 ? — It was in the middle of 
 1882 ; I think in July. 
 
 Was that the first time you had communicated with 
 any one ? — No, with Constable O'Connor. 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
The Special Commission December 13, 1888. 
 
 641 
 
 Then you communicated with Constable O'Connor in 
 June, with Sergeant Kinsella in July, 1882, and with 
 Mr. C. Roche in November of this year. Are these 
 the only two policemen with whom you have commu- 
 nicated ? — The only two with the exception of 
 Sergeant Clarke. 
 
 When did you communicate with him first ? — I think 
 it was in November, 1882. 
 
 Will you undertake to swear that the first time you 
 communicated with the police was on June 1, 1882 ? — 
 I will. 
 
 When Sergeant Clarke came over for you on the 
 29th of November what took place ? — He took me to 
 Mr. Soames's office. 
 
 Then you got no answer from Mr. Roche, but 
 Sergeant Clarke came to Tralee for you on November 
 29. Where did he see you ; at your own house ? — I 
 have no house. He saw me where I was employed, at 
 the house of a farmer named Heelan. 
 
 Did Sergeant Clarke take you anywhere ? — Yes, to 
 the police-barrack at Tralee. 
 
 What took place there ? — Ilmade a sort of statement. 
 
 Was it written down ? — Yes, I made the statement, 
 and he wrote it down. 
 
 Did you give him the story right off the reel, or did 
 he ask you any questions ? — He asked me very few 
 questions. I made the statement myself. 
 
 Was the statement read over to you, and did you sign 
 it ?— I did. 
 
 Did you make any other written statement than that 
 to Sergeant Clarke ? — No. 
 
 You have seen Sergeant Clarke in London. Is he in 
 Court? I think if he is it is desirable that ho should 
 not be in Court. 
 
 Sergeant Clarke was pointed out and, at the request 
 of Sir C. Russell, withdrew from Court. 
 
 Slit C. Russell (to witness). — You say the state- 
 ment you made you volunteered ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he ask you any question's ? — A few, but I disre- 
 member them. 
 
 Did you make any statement to any one else except 
 Sergeant Clarke which was taken down in writing ? 
 — Yes, in London. 
 
 Was that at Mr. Soames's office ? — I believe so. 
 
 To whom ? — Mr. Shannon. 
 
 You made a statement to him, and he asked you 
 some questions ? — Yes. It was the same statement I 
 made to Sergeant Clarke. 
 
 He read the statement over to you and asked you 
 if it were correct ? — I am not certain. 
 
 May I take it that you made no other statements 
 than those to Sergeant Clarke and Mr. Shannon ?— 
 None except those two. 
 
 Am I to take it positively from you that until you 
 wrote to the resident magistrate, Mr Roche, you had 
 not communicated to any one as to giving your evi- 
 dence here ?— No. 
 
 Had you received any communication from Mr. 
 Roche before you wrote to him, or from the police, 
 or any one else ? — No, not from any one. 
 
 You were not here at the " O'Donnell v. Walter " 
 trial ?— No, Sir. 
 
 Now, what communication did you make to Con- 
 stable O'Connor in June, 1882 p — I communicated to 
 him that in the village of Ballyduff there were arms 
 hid in the house of Edmund Summers. 
 
 Nothing else ? — No. 
 
 Did you get paid for that ? — No, Sir. 
 
 What did you communicate to Sergeant Kinsella 
 about the middle of 1882 ? — Constable O'Connor told 
 him of me, and he sent for me to tell him again what 
 I had told O'Connor about arms in Summers's house. 
 
 And you saw no policeman or any one else between 
 the middle of 1882 and November, 1888 ; no one had 
 communicated with you in the meanwhile ? — No one. 
 
 Did you tell Sergeant Kinsella anything else ? — No. 
 
 What was your motive in going to the police sergeant 
 and making a statement ? — I Was under the impression 
 that if I went and gave information there would be no 
 suspicion of me for shooting Roche. 
 
 In other words, you thought that if you gave infor« 
 mation to the police they Would not have any suspicion 
 of you ? — Yes. 
 
 You thought that you might be looked upon as a 
 friend of the police ? — "Very likely. 
 
 As a man who gave information to them — do not 
 laugh, Sir, this is not a laughing matter. — I am not 
 laughing. 
 
 So that if you got into difficulty you might have 
 friends with the police ? — I only wanted to cast 
 suspicion away from myself. 
 
 Did you tell any of your confederates that you had 
 given information ? — No. 
 
 Did you let them understand that you were in com- 
 munication with the police ?— No, certainly not. 
 
 Why not, if your object honestly was — but I will not 
 say honestly, that is a misuse of the word- — to guard 
 against suspicion being thrown upon you ? — I only 
 wanted to guard myself from the suspicion of the 
 police, and I did not want to tell my associates that I 
 had communicated with the police. 
 
 But why not ?— Because they would very soon have 
 done away with me. 
 
 But they did not want you to be convicted ? — I do 
 not think they cared whether I was or not. 
 
 You think that they did not care whether you 
 were convicted or not ? — I believe that so long 
 as they got what they wanted out of me they 
 did not care whether I was convicted or not. 
 
 According to your own account you were a party to 
 the murderous outrage upon Sheehy ? — Yes. 
 
 And you did that with your eyes open ?— I suppose 
 they must have been open. 
 
 And you intended, if Sheehy was not supposed or 
 suspected of having escaped so as to give information 
 to the police— you intended to have taken your part in 
 murdering this unhappy man ? — I was bound to do so 
 by those placed over me. 
 
 You intended to do it ?— Certainly. 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
 5i 
 
642 
 
 The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 The eame as regards Roche ?— Yes, as regards both 
 Roche and Slioehy. 
 
 So that, by your own account, you were a party to 
 these outrages ? — I was induced to go with them. 
 
 You have mentioned the names of a number of 
 persons who took part in this hellish business. Were 
 they all members of secret organizations like your- 
 self ?— They were. 
 
 Without exception ?— Yes. 
 
 Were you ever a member of the Land League in 
 your life ?— Never. 
 
 Never had a membership card 1 — Never. 
 
 And never paid a contribution to it ? — No. 
 
 You said that the Land League met at Casey's 
 house ? — Yes. 
 
 What kind of house is it ?— A good-sized house. 
 
 Is there a room in this house which is the only 
 public room in the village ? — It was the Land League 
 room, the band room, and the Fenian room also. 
 
 Am I correct in saying, with reference to the 
 murderous attack on Sheehy which you entered into, 
 that that was arranged in Causeway in the village 
 street ? — I do not think it was arranged in the 
 street. 
 
 But, so far as you were concerned, the intimation 
 was given you in the street ? — Yes. 
 
 So far as the murderous attack upon Roche is con- 
 cerned, that was arranged at Dee's house ? — Yes. 
 
 So the Fenians did not on this occasion meet at 
 Casey's house ; on any other occasion did a meet- 
 ing take place at Casey's ? — Yes, on the occasion 
 we were to shoot another man we met there. 
 
 Did you in your examination in chief say one word 
 about that ? — I have said that the members of the 
 Fenian organization used to assemble in that room. 
 
 As regards the two meetings with reference to the 
 attack on Roche, held at Dee's house, did you say any- 
 thing about the Fenian or any other meeting being 
 held at Casey's ? — I don't say it now, Sir. 
 
 Are these the only two murderous outrages in which 
 you have taken part ? — Yes, the only two. 
 
 That you swear ? — I swear. 
 
 You have said you were sworn into the Irish Repub- 
 lican Brotherhood in November, 1880 ? — Yes. 
 
 Are you sure it was not earlier ? — Yes. It was on 
 the 15th of November, 1880. 
 
 How do you fix the date ? — It was fair day in Cause- 
 way. 
 
 Did this come once a year ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 I suppose in 1879 ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 And in 1878 ?— Yes, and in 1877. 
 
 Are you 6ure it was not in another year you were 
 made a member of this society ? — I am sure it was not, 
 because I joined the Militia in February, 1878. 
 
 When were you expelled from the Militia ? — Never. 
 
 How did you come to leave it, then ? — I got my dis- 
 charge. 
 
 What for ? — I spoke to the sergeant and he asked me 
 if I would like to leave the Militia, and I said 
 " Yes.'' 
 
 And were you discharged ?— Yes, but not for bad 
 conduct. 
 
 Have you a certificate of character ? — I had one, 
 but I have not got it here. 
 
 Where is it ? — I destroyed it. 
 
 Destroyed your certificate of character on leaving 
 the Militia ? Did you not think it prudent to have 
 some evidence of character ? — I could always get it. 
 
 Mention one respectable person in your neighbour- 
 hood who would give you credit on your oath without 
 corroboration ? — Yes, Michael Heelan, a member of 
 the National League, would, except for what has 
 occurred here by my coming to give evidence. I 
 worked for him nine years. 
 
 He has discharged you, then ? — He discharged me on 
 the night of November 30 last. 
 
 You left your employment, did you not ? — I left for 
 the day ; I did not leave for good. 
 
 Don't forget that you told us that on the 29th you 
 saw Sergeant Clarke at Tralee, and that from Tralee 
 you cam,e on here.— Not immediately. I went back 
 to my work. 
 
 Do you mean to convey that it was known that you 
 had been to see Sergeant Clarke ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you tell the fact to any one yourself ? — I had 
 to go to the police barrack. 
 
 Heelan knew that ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 When was it you destroyed your certificate ? — I 
 should say not quite two years ago. If there is any 
 difficulty about it it can easily be got at Hounslow: 
 
 Where did you destroy it ?— I destroyed it on the road. 
 
 What Militia regiment did you belong to ? — I 
 belonged to the 4th Battalion of the Munster Fusiliers 
 in 1878, and when I came to London I got transferred 
 to the 4th Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment at 
 Hounslow. 
 
 The Hounslow Fusiliers ? (Laughter.) What are 
 they ? — They are not Fusiliers. It was the 4th Bat- 
 talion of the Middlesex Regiment. 
 
 How long were you in that regiment ? — I was in it 
 two years and then left it. 
 
 And you had a discbarge from that regiment ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you two discharges ? — No, Sir, I was only trans- 
 ferred from the Munster Fusiliers. 
 
 Are the Munster Fusiliers known as the Kerry 
 Militia ? — They were once. 
 
 What was your first connexion with Roche ? — My first 
 connexion with Koche ? 
 
 Yes ; what was your first connexion with Roche ? — 
 I do not understand. 
 
 Was he a neighbour of yours ? — He was a neighbour 
 of mine. 
 
 On good terms with you ? — He was not on bad terms 
 with me. We were very cool, no more than that. 
 
 Did you owe the man any animosity ? — No. 
 
 He was under police protection in June, 1882 ? — He was. 
 
 For how long ? — I should say for three or four 
 months. I am not sure. 
 
 Do you know anything about a quarrel between him 
 and his brother-in-law, Jeremiah Ryle ? — Yes. 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 643 
 
 What was that about ? — About a field Kyle had got 
 from Roche. 
 
 Had you anything to do with that quarrel ? — I had 
 very little to do with it. 
 
 What had you to do with it ? — Minding the field for 
 Eyle. 
 
 pid you offer to help Roche in any way ? — I do not 
 think I did. 
 
 Will you say you did not ? — If you will tell me what 
 you mean. 
 
 Did you offer in any way to help Roche ? — Certainly 
 not, Sir. 
 
 In no way ? — In no way. He might have asked me, 
 but I did not offer. 
 
 He might have asked you to give assistance, but you 
 did not offer ? — I believe he was asking assistance from 
 the officers of the Land League at one time. His own 
 first cousin was secretary. 
 
 Did Roche ask you to help him in 
 making an attack on his brother-in-law ? — Never ; 
 he asked me one evening to remove a gate 
 in the field. 
 
 Did you do it ? — I threw the gate across the ditch. 
 
 Did you then go to Kyle and tell him where it was ? 
 —I did, Sir. 
 
 Did you say you would tell him that if he gave you 
 half-a-crown ? — No, Sir. He might have given me 
 half-a-crown out of the half-sovereign he was bound to 
 pay me. 
 
 On the occasion you did that on Roche's instruc- 
 tions you went off to Ryle and told him you could tell 
 him where the gate was ? — The gate was in the ditch. 
 
 Did he pay you half-a-crown then ? — No ; I never 
 asked him for money he did not owe me. 
 
 Did you take Ryle to where the gate was ? — There 
 was no occasion to do that. He knew where it was. 
 
 Have you ever said publicly that you would shoot 
 Roche '—Publicly ? 
 
 Aye. — Never, Sir. 
 
 Where did you say you got the revolver ? — From 
 Patrick Dee. 
 
 Is he old or young ? — He is living there now. He is 
 a man of about 50. 
 
 I should like to ask you one or two points about 
 that. You have mentioned a man called Lynch, who 
 was, you say, the secretary of the League. Is he in 
 the country now ? — He is in America, I believe. 
 
 You have mentioned also the treasurer, Thomas 
 Diggin. Is he in the country ? — He is dead. 
 
 So the secretary is in America and the treasurer is 
 dead ? — O'Connor, the secretary who succeeded Lynch, 
 is still in the town. 
 When did O'Connor succeed Lynch ? — In 1881. 
 
 You are clear about that ? — It must have been in the 
 beginning of 1881. 
 
 So that Lynch was not secretary at either of the 
 
 times these murderous outrages were planned ? — No, Sir. 
 
 And so far as you know, or have been told, O'Connor 
 
 had nothing to do with either of them ? — Not to my 
 
 knowledge. 
 
 When did the treasurer Diggin die ? — I cannot 
 say, Sir. 
 
 What year ? — I cannot say, Sir. I was in London at 
 the time. 
 
 I have asked you before whether you took part in any 
 other outrages. You said you had not ? — No, Sir, not 
 that I am aware of. 
 
 Not that you are aware of ! Surely you would 
 know ? I should like to put some names to you. You 
 mentioned that you went to get subscriptions ?— Yes, 
 Bir. 
 
 To %ld your escape, I think your expression was ?— 
 Yes, Bir. 
 
 What were you to escape from ? — From the police. 
 
 What for ? — The attempt to shoot Roche. 
 
 Do you know that at this time you were friendly 
 with the police, and had been giving information ? — I 
 was not friendly, Sir. 
 
 In this very month of June. Just say if you recog- 
 nize this report. It is a report of this case. You 
 read the Kerry Sentinel, I suppose ? — Sometimes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell was about to read from the Kerry 
 Sentinel, when 
 
 Sir H. James rose and said, — I do not see, my 
 Lords, how that account can be evidence here. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am going to ask him if this is a 
 correct account. 
 
 The President. — That does not make it evidence in 
 regard to the statement not admitted by the witness. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Does your Lordship say I must 
 not put it to him ? 
 
 The President. — You may put the leading points, 
 to him, but you are not entitled to put a statement 
 before us in this way. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (to witness). — When you 
 tried to fire your revolver on the first occasion how 
 close were you to the man ? — I was so close that I 
 had my hand upon him. 
 
 Yes, and all that was heard was the click ? — Yes, 
 Sir, that was all. 
 
 Was it a modern revolver with a needle, or was it 
 fired by cap ? — A needle, Sir. 
 
 Did you then proceed to try and fire the other re- 
 maining barrels ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 One after the other— one, two, three, four, five ? — 
 Only four, Sir. 
 
 Do you mean to say that you deliberately intended 
 to kill that man ? — Certainly, Sir ; that was what I 
 was ordered to do. 
 
 For which you were to get enough to take you to 
 America, I understand ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 So that it was not merely one attempt you made, 
 but one, two, three, four, five ? — I might go as 
 far as four, but not five. 
 
 Very well. Now, I want to ask you, is it true or 
 can it be true, if this was a genuine attempt to 
 murder It was a genuine attempt to murder. 
 
 Yes, so you say ; but can it be true that Michael 
 Roche gave the account he did of it ? — He gave that 
 account, Sir. 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
 21—2 
 
644 
 
 The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 And, notwithstanding that account, you were only- 
 called upon to keep the peace, yourself being bound 
 in £10 and two sureties in £5 each ? — No, Sir, myself 
 in £20 and two sureties in £10 each. 
 
 Well, never mind about that. I think this paper is 
 more likely to be correct than you on that point. 
 Now, unless this was a bogus affair got up between 
 
 you and Eoche, how could 
 
 Sib H. James. — I must object to this, my Lords. 
 That is not a question that can be put to the witness. 
 It is mere argument. What passed in the magistrate's 
 mind cannot be taken into consideration. 
 
 The President. — He may be asked whether it was 
 a bogus affair. 
 
 Sib H. James. — Yes, my Lord ; but that was not 
 my friend's question. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Can you suggest, if you were not 
 giving information to the police and this was not 
 treated as a bogus affair, why you were not sent for 
 trial ? — I can, Sir. Because Eoche gave contradictory 
 evidence, which was not believed. 
 
 What was that ? — He said he heard a bullet whiz 
 past his ear, but he saw no smoke and only heard the 
 click of a pistol. 
 
 Was it not said that " Buckley drew a revolver from 
 under his coat and presented it at him. He fired, but 
 he did not see any fire or smoke. The only report he 
 heard was a click. He merely presented the revolver 
 at him and clicked all along at him. He was wrong 
 in swearing first that he fired at him. He then ran 
 away " ? — That is not the direct examination, Sir. In 
 the direct examination he swore the bullet whizzed 
 past his ear. That is the second examination. 
 
 I want to put it to you. Was there any inquiry in 
 open Court except the inquiry on June 23 ? — There 
 was an inquiry before the magistrate at Tralee. I was 
 taken there. 
 
 That is the only reason you can give ? — That is what 
 I thought. 
 
 You called no witnesses in either case ? — Yes, I 
 got James Doyle and John O'Connor to swear I was in 
 Dee's door at the time. 
 When was that ? — At the second examination. 
 When ? — I do not remember the date. 
 You got these men to swear you were somewhere 
 else ?— Yes. 
 
 Yon knew it was false ? — Yes ; but I did not care 
 so long as I could save myself. 
 
 Let me ask you, on this occasion, the attack on 
 Koehe, what was the hour ? — On the occasion I fired 
 at Eoche it was about half -past 7. 
 In the evening ? — Yes. 
 In the month of June ? — Yes. 
 Clear daylight ?— Clear daylight. 
 A man who knew you well ? — A man who knew me 
 well. 
 And alone ? — And alone. 
 
 In the case of Sheeby, how many were there of 
 you ? — Eleven. 
 Disguised ?— Disguised, 
 
 Faces discoloured ? — They had cloth on their faces. 
 
 And I understand you to say white shirts outside 
 their clothing ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the time of that attack ? — About 10 
 o'clock at night. 
 
 And now, before my Lords, you swear that upon that 
 June evening, alone, undisguised, with a man who 
 knew you well, in your own neighbourhood, you 
 intended this as an attack on Eoche ? — Yes, I swear 
 that. 
 
 How close is there a police barracks to where you 
 attacked Eoche ? — It might be 500 or 600 yards. 
 
 Is it as much as that ? — That is my opinion. 
 
 Were there any police in Eoche's house ? — Not at 
 that time. 
 
 Were they not there to protect him ? — They used to 
 come at dusk. 
 
 And this took place at half-past 7 ? — Yes. 
 
 How close was it to his house ? — About 400 or 500 
 yards. 
 
 Now, I ask you, provided you were giving informa- 
 tion to the police — playing the part of an informer — 
 would it or would it not be likely to insure your safety 
 if you were brought before the magistrates on some 
 charge at the instance of the police ? — I do not think 
 it would. 
 
 Would it not be likely to divert suspicion from you ? 
 — It might do that, but I do not think it would. 
 
 Is your mother living ? — Yes. 
 
 Where is she ? — In the infirmary at Listowel. 
 
 Is that in the workhouse ? — Yes. 
 
 When you were over in London, at Hounslow, did 
 you learn that a sum of money had been left to your 
 mother ? — Yes ; and I heard also it had been stolen from 
 her. 
 
 Do not be in such a hurry. Did you learn that a sum 
 of money had been left to her by her step-brother ? — 
 By her stepson. 
 
 Did you break open her box ? — I might break open 
 her box at one time, but at this time I was in London. 
 If I was in London I could not. 
 
 But you went back to the place ? — I was back seven 
 months before that. 
 
 When did you break open the box ? — I did not say I 
 did. 
 
 When did you break open the box ? — I did not break 
 any box. 
 
 I thought you said you did ? — I said I might have 
 broken a box. 
 
 Were you charged with breaking open your mother's 
 box, and, failing to find the money, severely beating 
 her ? — That is untrue. 
 
 And that was never reported to the police ? — The 
 money, £40, was taken from her while I was in Lon- 
 don, and those who have instructed you wished to 
 throw suspicion upon me. 
 
 Name the names. — I could do it. I know the people 
 who are instructing you. 
 
 Name the names. — Perhaps I could, if I liked. 
 
 Name them.— If I did, I could not prove it. 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 645 
 
 Can you name them ? — I could name a good many j 
 who have instructed you. 
 
 Did your mother become partly insane after this 
 attack that you made upon her ? 
 
 Sie H. James. — Oh, no, you cannot say that. 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — I am suggesting that he did 
 attack her. 
 
 Witness. — It is a scandalous falsehood. 
 
 The President. — You put the question in a form 
 whioh implied that he had admitted the fact. 
 
 Sib 0. Rdssell. — Well, of course, I do not wish to 
 do that. 
 
 When was your mother taken to Listowel Workhouse? 
 —In March. 
 
 I wish to have it plainly from you. Do you say 
 there is no truth in the statement that you broke open 
 your mother's box, and, failing to find the money, beat 
 her badly ? — No, I was in London at the time the 
 money was stolen. I was in London, and can prove ib. 
 . Did you not lesrn that your mother had upon your 
 return deposited the bulk of the money with a woman 
 named Mrs. Hamilton ? — I heard that she had about 
 £20 out of £90. That was a long time after I came 
 back. There was £70 stolen from her, and she was 
 driven mad. 
 
 Then you say it was in consequence of the robbery 
 of the money that she went mad ? — Yes ; but I cannot 
 easily prove it. 
 
 And you had nothing to do with it ? — No. 
 
 Were there any convictions against you at the Cause- 
 way Petty Sessions ?— Yes. 
 
 About how many ? — I should say three or four. 
 
 Were there not in 1882 as many as 17 ? — Seventeen 
 tonvictions, Sir ? 
 
 Yes ? — No, not in all my life. Only four or five. I 
 lope if I live to be as old as any man can that there 
 will not be 17. 
 
 How many were there in 18S2 ? — There was the con- 
 viction for Roche. I was bound over to keep the 
 peace. 
 
 What were the others ? — Once for assaulting the 
 police in the village of Causeway ; that was in 1881. 
 I was fined. 
 
 And next ? — I had three months and a fine for assault- 
 ing the police, and the fine was met by the members 
 of the Land League. They always taught me to be 
 hostile to the police and commended me for it. 
 
 Who were your friends of the Land League who 
 acted in this way ?— Patrick Dee and a good many 
 more. 
 
 Is that the man who was a member of the Fenian 
 Association ? — Yes. 
 
 How long were you in prison altogether in 1882 ? — I 
 do not think that I was in prison at all. 
 
 In August last were you convicted of anything ?— I 
 was fined 2s. 6d. 
 
 For what ? — I was just going to tell you. It was 
 for an assault. I wanted to get from a man some 
 money which he owed me, and one of the men who 
 are hostile to me in consequence of my having given 
 
 information told my debtor not to pay me, and I told 
 this man to mind his own business, and pushed him. 
 
 Did you buy the clothes you have on ?— Yes, in the 
 Edgware-road. 
 
 With 4he money you had received ? — I had only a 
 guinea with my subpoena. I had besides some money 
 of my own. 
 
 Sergeant Clarke paid your expenses over, I suppose ? 
 — I do not know. I suppose so. 
 
 Your board and lodging have been paid for here, I 
 suppose ? — Well, I do not know. I do not mind as 
 long as I get it. 
 
 By Mr. Reid. — What prisons were you in in Ire« 
 land ?— In Tralee. ~ 
 
 No other ?— No. 
 
 Have you been in any prisons in England ? — I have. 
 
 Where ? — Holloway Gaol. 
 
 What was that for ? — I think it was in 1885. 
 
 I asked you what for ?— For assaulting the police. 
 I will tell you about it if you will allow me. 
 
 Do so. — When I came to London I was taken to be 
 an Irish detective, and I was told by some Irish 
 people in Marylebone that my life would be taken, 
 and I went and assaulted this policeman in order to 
 convince them that I was not a detective. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did this happen in London ? — Yes. 
 
 And you did it deliberately ? — Yes. I did it for my 
 own safety. 
 
 You thought you were going to be murdered in 
 London ? — Yes. I heard that I was going to be 
 knocked on the head with a brickbat, and I thought I 
 should not like the sensation. 
 
 Who threatened you in this way ? — (The witness gava 
 a name.) 
 
 Where did you see this man ?— In the streets. 
 
 Had you seen him before ? — No. I have seen him 
 since. 
 
 If you wanted to find this man where would you go ? 
 — I do not know. 
 
 You cannot give me any clue to the man who 
 threatened you in this way ? — He may be in Maryle- 
 bone still, but I have not seen him for years. 
 
 Was anything done to you when, as yon say, you 
 were thought to be a detective ?— - People often shoved 
 me in the streets. 
 
 Can you mention any person whom we can get hold 
 of in London who ever treated you in this way ? — 
 Well, if I could find him, of course I could get him 
 for you. 
 
 Did you complain to the police ? — No. 
 
 Why not ? — Because I wanted to'convince the people 
 that I was not a detective. 
 
 The method yon adopted was to assault a policeman? 
 —I simply threw him and rose him up again. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 And then requested him to take you into custody ?— 
 Yes, I told him to take me to the station, I had no 
 grudge whatever against him. 
 
 You wanted to avoid the chance of death on the part 
 of some Irishmen resident in London ?— Yes. 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
646 
 
 The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 Can you give me their names and addresses ? — I 
 have not their addresses. But I can give the names of 
 Sheeby and others. 
 
 How did you know them ? — They often accosted me 
 in the street. They thought I was a detective. 
 
 Under what circumstances did you come into con- 
 tact with any one of these persons ?— When walking 
 in the streets. 
 
 Tell me the name of the policeman you struck ? — I 
 cannot. 
 
 Can you tell me the name of the police station where 
 you were taken ? — John-street, Marylebone. 
 
 Where were you sentenced to this imprisonment ? — 
 In Marylebone Police-court. 
 
 Were you sentenced in your own name ? — Certainly. 
 
 Was it in the summer or winter that you went to 
 prison ? — In the summer of 1885. 
 
 Have you ever been in any English prison besides 
 this one ? — Never. 
 
 Where was it ? — At Holloway. 
 
 Have you been in Holloway more than once ? — No, 
 Sir. 
 
 Do you know Jeremiah Kyle ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you post a notice to him threatening him with 
 death ? — No, never. 
 
 Do you swear that ? — I do. • 
 
 Did you break a plough belonging to O'Connell ? — 
 No ; the man with me broke it — Fitzgerald. 
 
 Were you a party to it ?— I was present. 
 
 Was it done wilfully ? — (The witness's reply was not 
 audible in the body of the Court.) 
 
 The President.— He says it was an accident. 
 
 Did you ever kill a sheep ?— No ; nor a duck either. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Did you sell therevolver which you say you had ? — No. 
 
 Not to Sheeby 1— No. 
 
 And then make him drunk ? — No. 
 
 And steal £12 from him ? — No, I swear I did not. 
 Was I ever brought to a public Court of justice for it, 
 Sir? 
 
 By Mr. Davitt.— How old are you ? — Twenty-seven. 
 
 When did you flrst hear of the Fenian Brothers ? — I 
 heard of the Fenian rising in 1867. I was a child at 
 the time. 
 
 You have sworn that you were sworn into the Fenian 
 Brotherhood ?— Yes. 
 
 Were you asked, as you say, to join by Patrick Dee ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 How long had you known him ? — Ever since I was 
 able to crawl about. 
 
 Were you a playmate of his ? — Yes, probably. 
 
 You have sworn that in I860 he took you to be 
 sworn into the Fenian Brotherhood ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he ever speak to you about that body before 
 November, 1880 ? — Yes, often. He had often sug- 
 gested or hinted that I should join. 
 
 What is he ? — He keeps a grocer's shop, and sells 
 
 boots as well. 
 Did Dee deal in beer and spirits ? — No. 
 
 You say that you went to a publichouse on Novem- 
 ber 15 and mot Patrick Dee, and that you were sworn 
 in ?— Yes. 
 
 There were only three persons present you Bay ?— 
 Yes, Patrick Dee, Kobert Dissit, and myself. 
 
 Who swore you in ? — Patrick Dee. 
 
 You have sworn that you believe there was a Land 
 League in Causeway before November 15, 1880 ?— I 
 believe there was. 
 
 Upon what do you form your belief ? — I attended 
 some of the meetings. 
 
 How many people do you know personally in Cause- 
 way ? — A good many. 
 
 How many of the people were Land Leaguers ?— 
 Nearly Ihe whole of them. 
 
 Was there more than one meeting-place for the 
 League ? — I do not know. Casey's house was the only 
 meeting-house. 
 
 How many people have you seen go in at any one of 
 the meetings which you call Land League meetings ? — 
 About 40. 
 
 Did you ever see more than 20 at any ? — Yes. 
 
 More than 30 ? — Yes. 
 
 You have sworn that you saw Robert Dissit, Patrick 
 Dee, Eugene Fitzgerald, William Phcenix, and others 
 present at a meeting in Causeway ? — Yes. 
 
 Can you give me any other names or persons present ? 
 — (The witness mentioned three or four.) 
 
 Give me another. — John Henton. 
 
 Give all the people you know ; you say they are all 
 Leaguers. — I did not say that ; that is taking advantage 
 of me, Sir. 
 
 You said they were all Leaguers. — I said some of 
 them were members of the organization, and some 
 members of the League ; bat they all had access to 
 the room. 
 
 Give me the names of the Leaguers who were not 
 members of the organization. — John Burns was one. 
 
 Was he present on any of these occasions ? — He 
 was present on many of these occasions at the meetings 
 of the League. 
 
 When these raids were discussed ? — Oh, no ; I never 
 remember seeing him there then. 
 
 Do you swear these were regular meetings of the 
 Land League, or of the Fenian organization ? — There 
 used to be regular meetings of the Land League on 
 Sundays, and on other days of the Fenian organiza- 
 tion. 
 
 Give me the names of other persons. I want these 
 names in order to communicate with the persons so as 
 to have them here, if possible, as witnesses. — I can- 
 not give you any more. Tom Donnelly was a member 
 of the Fenian organization and of the Land League. 
 He lives there now. Witness mentioned one or two 
 other names, which could not be distinctly heard. 
 
 That would take us up to about 16 ? — Yes. 
 
 There was no one arrested for the raid on Sheeby's 
 house ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Did you ever tell Sergeant Clarke anything about 
 that raid ? — I did at one time. 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
The Special Commission, December 18, 1888. 
 
 647 
 
 When was that time ? — In November, 1882 ; it 
 might be October. It would be something about 15 or 
 16 munths after. 
 
 Will you swear you did not speak to him the day 
 after the raid ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you not on speaking terms with him before 
 that ? — We always saluted each other. It was merely 
 a salute. He might speak to me for a few minutes. 
 
 Did he speak to you the day after the raid on 
 Sheehy's house for a few minutes ?— No, nor within a 
 week, nor within six months. 
 
 You have sworn that you thought Roche was in com- 
 munication with the police. Will you swear that you 
 did not know it ? — (Witness was understood to say he 
 did not know it.) 
 
 Did you visit Heche's house ?— I was often in 
 Roche's house, and he in my house. He is my neigh- 
 bour. 
 
 And do you mean to swear that you did not know, 
 of your own knowledge, that Roche was giving infor- 
 mation to the police ? — I had no way of knowing it, ex- 
 cept what I heard from members of the Land League. 
 
 Did you ever call at Roche's house after he was 
 expelled from the League f — No. 
 
 Are you sure ? — Yes. 
 
 Will you swear that he did not give you some of 
 the money he got ? — I swear on my oath he did not 
 give me a penny. 
 
 Did you ever ask him f — Never. 
 
 Did he come to complain to you about the outrage ? 
 -No. 
 
 Did he speak at all to you about it ? — No. 
 
 I think you say you saw Fitzgerald and Phoenix 
 before you left Causeway to come here ? — I saw them 
 in the village ; I did not speak to them. 
 
 How long is it since you spoke to them ? — I have 
 not spoken to them since 1882. 
 
 About the revolvers you got — did you practise with 
 them ? — I did for a short time in Donnelly's field. 
 
 Did you put up a target ? — Yes, a stone. 
 
 At what distance did you Cre ? Being accustomed to 
 handle firearms you made good points, I suppose ? — I 
 am a bad marksman. I might have hit the stone ; I 
 stood away about 10 or 12 yards. 
 
 Was the stone the size of a man ? — The size of a 
 man's head. 
 
 And at 12 yards you hit it ? — I might have done so ; 
 I do not recollect now. 
 
 Did you ever get a reputation in the Kerry Militia 
 for good firing ? — No. (The rest of the witness's 
 answer could not be distinctly heard.) 
 
 Will you swear that you fired with a revolver at a 
 man of whom you had hold and missed him three 
 times ? — The bullet did not go off ; it failed to go 
 every time. 
 
 About your visit to Mr. Thomas Pierce, the 
 president of the League. You swore that he was 
 a gentleman farmer, and president of the League. 
 Did he give you any money ? — Two shillings. 
 
 He is worth a good deal of money ? — I do not believe 
 he is. 
 
 You visited several other people and you got in all 
 5s. or Cs. ? — No ; I got 2s. more from the treasurer of 
 the League and that was all. 
 
 Now, you have sworn about Boyle's house being fired 
 into. You say you know this of your own knowledge ? 
 — Members of the organization told me they were 
 engaged, William Brien, I'at Brien, Richard Casey, 
 and Patrick Egan. 
 ^ Did any of the others tell you about that raid ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you report this to the police ? — Never. 
 
 When did this happen ? — About 1881 I should think ; 
 I could not exactly tell you. 
 
 You have tojd us you were at several Land League 
 meetings ; and you have sworn, to Sir C. Russell, that 
 you were never a Land Leaguer ?— (Witness was under- 
 stood to say that he swore that he was a Fenian.) 
 
 And you accordingly attended what you call Land 
 League meetings ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Re-examined by Sik H. James. — What was the oath 
 you took in November, 1880 ? — I swore to be true to 
 the brotherhood ; if not I was to be shot. 
 
 Is there anything in that oath about obeying orders ? 
 — Yes, if you did not obey orders you were to be shot. 
 
 With respect to Mr. Roche, who ordered you to do 
 this act '/ — William Phcenix and Patrick Dee ordered 
 me. Phoenix was a sergeant in the Fenian organiza- 
 tion, I was only a private. Phasnix was a man from 
 whom I would receive orders. It was to him I was 
 paying my subscriptions. 
 
 You said you were sworn in 1879, and on reflection 
 you now say it was in 1880 ? — I was always under the 
 iropressioa it was 1879 until I was corrected. I am 
 sure now it was in 1880. 
 
 You have said that, not being a Land Leaguer, you 
 attended meetings of the Land League ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you ever do that before you had taken this 
 Fenian oath ? — No, Sir, I do not think I did. 
 
 After that did any one ever object to your going to 
 these meetings ? — No one ever objected. I even 
 proposed resolutions, and they used to be seconded. 
 
 At these Land League meetings have you proposed 
 resolutions ?— I have, Sir, and Phcenix seconded them. 
 
 Were they discussed and voted upon ? — Sometimes 
 they were submitted to the vote and passed unani- 
 mously. 
 
 Do you know people who belong to the Fenian 
 organization in Cauaeway ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you have meetings of that organization which, 
 were distinct from the meetings of the Land League ? — 
 Yes, Sir, they used to be distinct from them. 
 
 At meetings of the Land League you saw persons 
 who were not members of the organization ? — I did not 
 know them to be members of the organization. 
 
 Did you ever see these persons you have just 
 mentioned attend your organization meetings ? — No, 
 Sir, I did not. 
 
 Did you ever see them attend these Land League; 
 meetings ? — Yes, Sir, 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
648 
 
 The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 And they are people, I suppose, whom no one could 
 mistake ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 About Eoehe ; you persist in your statement that 
 this was intended by you as an act to shoot Koche ? — 
 Yes, Sir. 
 
 Is there any foundation for the suggestion that you 
 ■Were doing this in collusion with the police ? — No, 
 Sir, not a word had I had about it, not one word with 
 the police before I made this attack. 
 
 The President. — I do not understand that to be 
 suggested. I think the suggestion was that it was 
 collusion between him and Eoche. 
 
 SIB H. James. — Yes, but there was a question my 
 friend put whether there was collusion with the police. 
 
 The President.— That escaped me. 
 
 Mr. E. T. EEID.— No, I think he suggested 
 
 Sin H. James.— I think I am right. You were ex- 
 amined, as I understand you, in the first instance the 
 day after the event P — Yes. 
 
 You were then in custody ? — Yes. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My Lord, in the Kerry Sentinel we 
 cannot find any report of that proceeding at all. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington. — That is always a private pro- 
 ceeding. 
 
 SIR H. JAMES.— My Lord, Mr. Harrington has 
 suggested the probable explanation of the fact, that 
 that was a private proceeding. 
 
 Examination continued. — When was it that Eoche 
 said that he heard the bullets whiz by him ? — At the 
 filst inquiry. 
 
 Afterwards, I believe, he made a different statement ? 
 —He did. 
 
 SIR H. JAMES. — My Lord, my learned friend has read 
 it. I do not wish to detract from the accuracy of the 
 Kerry Sentinel at all, but they have mixed up two cases 
 together. It is one of those accidents which, no doubt, 
 occur in the best conducted papers. 
 
 The learned counsel then read the following extract 
 from the Kerry Sentinel of June 23, 1882 :— 
 " Friday evening. 
 " Castleisland Petty Sessions. 
 " (Shooting at a Farmer.) 
 
 " The Queen on the prosecution of Constable Kin- 
 sella, of Causeway, against James Buckley. 
 
 " The accused was charged with having on the even- 
 ing of the 6th of June, at Droumkea East, unlawfully 
 presented a revolver at one Michael Eoche with in- 
 tent to shoot him. The constable, having detailed the 
 nature of the assault, said that the plaintiff's head was 
 all but smashed in, two incised wounds about an inch 
 and a-half in length and a quarter in depth were in- 
 flicted by James Thornton, sen., upon him. Mr. O'C. 
 Horgan, solicitor, Tralee, appeared for the defence, and 
 stated that the whole row was brought about by the 
 Moores themselves, as they attempted to prevent the 
 Thorntons from eutting their own bog at Ahamore, 
 and if they got the worst of the mitte they had them- 
 selves only to blame. James Thornton, sen., was fined 
 10s., and all the other parties were bound to keep the 
 peace towards each other. Thornton having been pre- 
 viously bound to the peace, his recognizances were 
 estreated. 
 
 *' Mr. B. O'Connor Horgan appeared for the defence. 
 
 " From the depositions of the complainant, Michael 
 Eoche, a boycotted farmer, it appears that about 9 
 o'clock on the evening in question he was driving his 
 cattle into a field on his farm at Droumkea. He heard 
 somebody walking down the boreen, and looked to see 
 who it was. He was standing near the gap, and per- 
 ceived it was the defendant, James Buckley. He came 
 up to him (Eoche) and saluted him, and asked did 
 Honoria Connor pay him the costs— meaning the costs 
 in a case of trespass he had against her. He said he 
 offered to take the costs from her husband. The de- 
 fendant then drew a revolver from under his coat and 
 presented it at him. He fired, but he did not see any 
 fire or smoke. The only report he heard was a ' click.' 
 He merely presented the revolver at him and ' ticked 
 it ' all along at him. He was wrong in swearing 
 first that he fired at him. He then ran away, and wit- 
 ness ran and told the police about the matter. Mr. 
 O'C. Horgan examined the prosecutor at considerable 
 length, after which evidence for the defence was 
 called, and resulted in Buckley being bound to keep 
 the peace, himself in £10 and two sureties in £5 each. 
 
 " The Court shortly after adjourned." 
 
 Who instructed the solicitor to defend you ? — 
 Phoenix gave me money for the purpose. 
 
 Did the magistrate express any opinion as to what 
 the truth of the case Was after hearing the evidence 
 given by the two men who swore you were at' Dee's 
 house ?— He said it was very clear evidence, that of 
 these two witnesses. 
 
 The President. — I do not understand why he was 
 bound over. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Was there any proof that you had a 
 revolver in your possession on that day ?— No, Sir. 
 
 Did Eoche make any statement that he was in terror 
 of his life of you ? — I believe he did ; I cannot say. 
 
 You had been in prison for assaulting the police 
 twice, and also for drunkenness ? — Yes, Sir. - 
 
 Have you ever been in prison on any other charge 
 whatever ? — No, Sir. 
 
 You were employed by a person, you say, Mr. 
 HeSlan ? — Yes, Sir ; I went into his employ in 
 March. That was in the place where I was known. 
 I continued working for him from March 18 until No- 
 vember 30. He then dismissed me. He told me a lot 
 of people came to his house and accused him of 
 having entertained an informer for the last nine 
 months. I went away on the night of the 30th. Since 
 that night I have been under police protection. There 
 is no foundation for the charge against me of having 
 robbed my mother. It is made merely to damage my 
 character. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — May I ask two questions I have 
 omitted to ask, my Lords ? 
 
 The President.— Oh, yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — I lived at 44, Lisson- 
 street, Marylebone. I do not think this man of whom 
 I have spoken ever came to the house. He was a man 
 nearly as tall as myself. I think he is a labourer by 
 occupation. He lived in Marylebone at that time. I 
 do not know where he is living now. 
 
 Sir H. James then read the following extract 
 
 James Buckley. 
 
The Special Commission, December 13, 1888. 
 
 649 
 
 from the Kerry Sentinel, Friday evening, March 25, 
 1881 :— 
 
 " Causeway Land League. 
 " (From our Correspondent.) 
 "A largely attended meeting of the local branch of 
 the Land League was held here on Sunday. The Rev. 
 Thaddeus O'Sullivan, C.C., occupied the chair. 
 Amongst the members present were F. G. Pierce, Vice- 
 President ; T. Diggin, treasurer ; T. O'Connor, J. 
 Barry, T. O'Connor, Thos. Mulvihill, P. Dee, &c." 
 My Lords, Mr. Harrington is good enough to say 
 that Mr. Pierce whose name is mentioned is Thomas 
 G. Pierce. Then, my Lords, there is the following 
 extract :— 
 
 " Kerry Sentinel, Tuesday evening, Jane 7, 1881. 
 " Ballyduff Intelligence. 
 
 " Land League. 
 " (From our Correspondent.) 
 " Ballyduff, Sunday. — A meeting of the Land League 
 was held here to-day. Amongst those present were the 
 Rev. T. O'SulliYan, C.C., in the chair ; John Hanlon, 
 Measurer ; Martin O'Sullivan, hon. sec. ; Mr. Power, 
 Mr. O'Connell, James Harty, D. Kelliher, P. Pierse, 
 J. Dalton, N. Nelan, W. Ferris, T. Hanlon, D. 
 Thornton, &c. Every one present sympathized with the 
 1 suspect ' Timothy Dooling, a man whose family con- 
 sisted of five children, wife, father,acd mother-in-law." 
 My Lords, the name I refer to is D. Kelliher. 
 
 Sergeant. Clarke, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, 
 was then called and examined by Sir H. Jambs. He 
 said, — I was stationed at Causeway in June, 1881. I 
 was there from the latter end of 1875 to July or 
 August, 1881. I recollect Thomas Sheehy coming to 
 me in the night time at the Causeway police barracks. 
 He was not fully dressed ; he had only his shirt and 
 trousers on, and a white handkerchief round bis head : 
 he had no boots or stockings on. 
 
 Did he make any complaint to you ? — Yes ; he said 
 that " a lot of night boys had attacked his house and 
 broken his windows." • 
 
 Did you return with him to his house ? — Yes, imme- 
 diately, as soon as I got my clothes on. 
 
 Which way did you go ? — Across the fields, by the 
 chapel ; it was a short path leading to his house, 
 s I do not know whether you recollect the fact or not, 
 but as you were going to the house did you call out to 
 this man to come quickly ? — I cannot say the exact 
 words,but I know he was a little unready to come, and 
 he was behind me in the field. I cannot remember 
 the exact words. 
 
 But as far as your memory goes there was reason 
 to speak to him and tell him to come on ? — That is my 
 belief. 
 
 Now, this does not appear to be disputed at all, but 
 did you find some of the windows broken ? — There was 
 the mark of a revolver bullet through the door, and 
 three windows of the bed room were broken. The 
 kitchen window was also broken. 
 
 Now, do yon know this man Terence Boyle ?— Yes, 
 he was boycotted. I recollect a report of his house 
 being fired- into. That was on the 7th of November, 
 
 1880. He was under police protection for two or two 
 and a half years. 
 
 You know Michael Roche ? — I do. 
 
 Do you recollect anything happening to his house t 
 —His cow-house and piggery were burnt, and hig 
 dwelling-house was burnt down, and I think a cow 
 was injured. I think it was on the 21st of May, 1881, 
 that his house was burnt. 
 
 Did you see a threatening notice posted about him ? 
 — Yes, in January. It called on the people not to 
 speak to him. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I will call your Lordships' atten- 
 tion to the report which has been read from the Kerry 
 Sentinel, in which these words occur >-" The deposi- 
 tions of the complainant Michael Roche, a ' boy- 
 cotted ' farmer " ; the word " boycotted " being in in* 
 verted commas. 
 
 Examination continued. — Was some communication 
 made to you by the last witness ? — No. 
 
 Did you see Buckley ? — Yes ; I saw him. I took 
 down a short statement. It did not go much into 
 detail. I have not got it ; I gave it to my authorities 
 in Tralee in the ordinary course of my duty. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid.— 'What time was 
 it that you first heard that Buckley was going to 
 come and give evidence ; do you remember ? — I heard 
 that Buckley wanted to see me'from communications 
 I received. 
 
 Oh, that is nonsense ; ' from whom did you get in« 
 formation ? — From one of my authorities in Tralee ; 
 from the county inspector. 
 
 Have you got the letter ? — He communicated with 
 me by word of mouth. He asked me did I know of 
 such a man, and I said I did. He said, " He wants 
 to see you." 
 
 About what time was that ?— About the 29th of No- 
 vember. I went out to see Buckley on the same even- 
 ing. That was the first I heard of it. 
 
 Now after that I understand you accompanied 
 Buckley over here ? — I was told to protect Buckley to 
 London. 
 
 Who gave you orders to do that ? — The officers in 
 Tralee. 
 
 Who furnished you with the money ?— I was 
 furnished with it by my own officer ; I got £5 to go to 
 London on protection duty. I have money of my own. 
 
 I am glad to hear that ; but who paid you ? — The 
 officer gave it me. 
 
 What is his name ? — It was Sergeant M'Carthy that 
 handed me the money. 
 
 Before that had you had any communication with 
 Buckley ? — Not until that evening I received the in- 
 formation. 
 
 Has he never made any statement or given informa- 
 tion to you ? — Not since the occasion Of a previous 
 outrage ; I think it was in October, 1882 ; I only 
 had communication with him in regard to what he 
 stated about the outrage. 
 
 What outrage was it ?— Donnelly's outrage Id was 
 an attack on Sheehy's house. 
 
 -Sergeant Clarke. 
 
650 
 
 The Special Comfeiission, December 13 and 14, 1888. 
 
 Ho camo and gave information ? — J>o, I asked him 
 questions in the ordinary course of duty. He told me 
 who had taken part in it. 
 
 Was anybody tried for it ? — No. 
 
 Bid he give you any names ? — He gave me some, a 
 few names. 
 
 , You said " Donnelly's outrage " ; did you not 
 come to the conclusion that that outrage on Sheehy 
 was connected with a family quarrel ? — I knew there 
 had been somo dispute. 
 
 Was not Donnelly a brother-in-law of Sheehy ? — He 
 was. 
 
 And when you spoke of " Donnelly's outrage " did 
 you not refer to (he conclusion you had come to that it 
 was a family quarrel ? — I investigated ihe occurrence 
 at the time and found there was some dispute. 
 
 And that that was the cause of the outrage ? — No, 
 not altogether. 
 
 Why were not these people proceeded against ? — I 
 could not say. 
 
 But if the names were given to you by Buckley, how 
 came that ? — In the ordinary course of duty we might 
 think it more prudent to wait and watch the place. 
 
 It came to nothing ? — Well, I would not say it came 
 to nothing. 
 
 What were the names he gave you ? — Some names he 
 mentioned here — Phccnix, M'Grath, Fitzgerald, and a 
 couple more names I do not remember. 
 
 Was he remunerated or "paid in any way for this 
 information ? — No ; it was in the ordinary course of 
 investigation ; I spoke to him privately and he gave 
 me the information privately. 
 
 Nothing was done upon his information ? — Nothing. 
 
 What was the reason why you took no steps ? — I 
 thought it more prudent in the course of detective 
 duty to watch than to take proceedings at the time. 
 I was glad to get the names. 
 
 Were you a detective at the time ? — I was sergeant 
 at the time and had charge of the district. 
 
 Did Buckley convey to you that he had taken part 
 in the outrage himself ? — Yes ; he said he was pre- 
 sent. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You were very intimate with 
 Buckley, were you not ? — No, I was not intimate with 
 him. 
 
 You say you took a short statement from him ; who 
 did you give it to ? — I handed it to the officer in 
 Tralee in the ordinary course of duty when I got a 
 matter to investigate. 
 
 You came with Buckley to London ; have you lived 
 with him or near him in London ? — We live in one 
 hotel. 
 
 Who came to see you on behalf of The Times ? — No 
 one. 
 
 No one ? — No one at all. 
 
 Where did you take him 1 — I brought him to the 
 Court-house. 
 
 Did you take him nowhere else ? — Well, I took him 
 to the theatre one night. 
 
 With you ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you hand his statement to him to-day ? — No, I 
 have never seen it in London ; I handed in the state- 
 ment to the officer, and I have never seen it since. 
 
 Do you know whether he made another statement 
 in London '! — I believe he was examined at Mr. 
 Soames's office. I was standing at the door, and I did 
 not hear what he was saying. 
 
 Do you know Mr. George Bolton ? — No, I do not ; I 
 never met him. 
 
 Ee-examined by Sir H. James. — I understand that 
 after Buckley gave this information he came under 
 police protection ? — Yes, in November. I have been 
 protecting him in the course of my duty since I got 
 orders to do so, and in accordance with that duty I 
 have been with him in London. 
 
 You were asked why you did not take proceedings ; 
 I 'believe it is the case that it is necessary to corro- 
 borate the evidence of an informer ? — I thought it best 
 to watch events. 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — What was the general character of 
 Buckley in the neighbourhood ? — As far as I heard it 
 was good. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I should like to ask my learned friends 
 whether O'Connor is to be present again to-morrow. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I believe if he is well enough he 
 will be here. 
 
 The Court adjourned at 4 o'clock. 
 
 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 31st sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts ot Justice. 
 
 On the Commissioners' taking their seats, 
 
 The Attorney-General said, — I have to ask your 
 Lordships to sit upon Tuesday morning and to allow me 
 to give notice to Mr. William O'Brien, one of the persons 
 charged before your Lordships, and editor and pro- 
 prietor of United^ Ireland, to attend here in respect of 
 the following article. 
 
 The President. — Is it something that renders it 
 necessary to sit on Tuesday morning when we have 
 already made other arrangements ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If your Lordship will 
 deal with it to-day we shall be quite satisfied. 
 
 The President. — The question is whether it is any- 
 thing which renders it necessary for us to make other 
 arrangements. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Your Lordship will judge 
 of that when you hear the article read. 
 
 Sir C. KtrssELL. — Would it not be better to hand 
 the article in ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I beg your pardon, but I 
 should not bring this before the Court if it were not 
 a most urgent matter. I shall also have to bring before 
 your Lordships an affidavit of what has happened to tfie 
 witnesses who have given evidence before the Com- 
 mission. This is the article. It is headed, "Somewhat 
 Too Much of This " (reading) :— 
 
 ■' The timo is come for very plain speaking on the 
 subject of the Forgeries Commission, which has now 
 
 • 
 
 Sergeant Clarke. 
 
The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 651 
 
 been sitting for twenty-seven days in London without 
 * getting one inch nearer to the subject which the pub- 
 lic understands it was specifically appointed to investi- 
 gate. So far the evidence has been a meaningless 
 parade of eight-year-old outrages,frora all participation 
 in which the victims themselves examined for the 
 ' Forger ' concur in emphatically exonerating the 
 League. The court has been cumbered with files of 
 old newspapers, and stunned with the opinions of 
 policemen, land-grabbers, evictcrs, and of one tuft- 
 hunting Catholic clergyman (thank God there is but one 
 in all Ireland to be found in such company) as to the 
 condition of the country and its causes. True, the 
 waste of time has been in some measure redeemed by 
 an open exposure of the methods of bribery and intimi- 
 dation by which the ' Forger ' aud the Government 
 combined are desperately struggling to escape from 
 the horrible mess in which they have landed them- 
 selves. On all this black business we claim our right 
 of free comment and open exposure. We have no in- 
 tention of waiting till the ' Forger ' gives us leave to 
 speak. With all respect for the Court, we do not care 
 twopence for the opinion of the three Judges specially 
 selected, in the teeth of justly indignant Liberal pro- 
 test, by the ' Forger's ' friends and accomplices. 
 Assuming — and it is a large assumption in the Judges' 
 favour — that the Coercion Government which specially 
 selected them for their partiality were deceived, their 
 judgment is still beside the question. This is not a 
 matter of judicial decision at all, but of intelligent 
 public opinion. The public is entitled to have the 
 vital facts extracted from beneath the mass of rubbish 
 in which the ' Forger ' would fain hide them. The 
 Commission was appointed, it will be remembered, 
 many months ago, to investigate the truth or forgery 
 of certain letters attributed to Mr. Parnell and con- 
 taining direct incitement to assassination. Mr. 
 Chamberlain declared in the House of Commons, with 
 the approval of all parties, that if these letters were 
 proved to be forgeries, the public would care 
 very little for the rest of the charges and allegations. 
 If these letters were genuine, on the other hand, no 
 further charge is needed to damn the character and 
 career of the Irish leader. The Commission has now 
 been Bitting, with brief intermission, for some months, 
 and it has never been allowed even to approach the 
 one subject which the public regards with intensest 
 interest and on which Mr. Parnell has a right to claim 
 immediate investigation and prompt decision. While 
 thus evading the main question at issue, the devices to 
 which the ' Forger ' has resorted, in indiscriminate 
 dirt-throwing, covers it with infamy. James Walsh, of 
 Co. Mayo, is an average specimen of its witnesses. 
 By his evidence it was sought to convict Father 
 O'Hara — almost unanimously selected by the parish 
 priests of his diocese as dignissimus for the vacant 
 bishopric — with violence and intimidation in his 
 capacity of president of the Kiltimagh branch of the 
 League. This witness was sprung upon the Court, out 
 of his order and out of his county, without the faintest 
 notice to the accused of what was coming. There was 
 no hint, from the pious Attorney-General that he was 
 not a young man in whom implicit confidence was to 
 be placed. Before the Commission notice is specially 
 needed for cross-examination, as not merely the nature 
 of the evidence, but the nature of the accusations, is 
 altogether at large. On a false pretence of urgent 
 necessity the Attorney-General got him unexpectedly 
 into the witness-box. By the mere accident of a letter 
 handed to him in Court Sir Charles Russell was 
 
 enabled to expose the nature of the evidence by which 
 the character of a venerable clergyman was assailed. 
 The witness Walsh had been, he confessed, expelled 
 from the National League for embezzlement of the 
 funds. He had been expelled from the Gaelic Athletic 
 Association for embezzlement. As agent for a plate- 
 glass window company he had broken his mother's 
 cabin window, and claimed enormous compensation. 
 As agent of a life insurance company he had attempted 
 to emulate on a small scale the colossal frauds of 
 Belfast. These interesting facts Sir Charles Bussell 
 managed to elicit with the additional confession, that 
 the Attorney-General's pretence of urgent haste in his 
 examination was a fraud, as he was in no hurry out of 
 London. Still more startling was the confession ex- 
 torted by Mr. Davitt, that his evidence was the result 
 of intimidation by the police, who threatened him 
 with criminal prosecution if he did not swear strongly 
 enough against the League. The country has not 
 ceased laughing yet at the wonderful hoax played off 
 on the * Forger ' by Patrick Molloy. But the in- 
 cident has its seamy side in the manifest attempt to 
 bribe the witness to give the evidence suggested by 
 the ' Forger's ' agent, and to bribe him in such fashion 
 that the bribe might be recovered by stopping the notes 
 if the evidence was not found to be value for the 
 money. The case of Father Flood, parish priest of 
 Kingscourt, was the most infemous of all. There a 
 woman of immoral character is bribed with seven 
 pounds, as she herself confessed on her oath, to give 
 outrageous evidence of violence and intimidation 
 against the parish priest who rebuked her for im- 
 morality. To lend a show of substance to her testimony 
 the Castle, after she had been summoned for the 
 ' Forger,' raked up this bogus charge five months after 
 it was first made to the police. Father Flood was 
 actually tried. The abandoned woman, Anne Carroll, 
 was sent back from the ' Forger's ' office in London 
 to perjure herself by swearing that the priest had 
 threatened ' to burn her house over her head, to melt 
 her children and herself, to drag her out by the hair of 
 the head and kick her through the streets.' But even 
 the Removables could not stomach this monstrous 
 story, contradicted by independent witnesses and by 
 the woman's own infamous character. The charge was 
 dismissed, and we do not anticipate that Mistress Anne 
 Carroll is likely, after the exposure, to appear in fhe 
 witness-box before the Commission. These are fair 
 samples of the evidence and the class of witnesses by 
 which the characters of the leaders of the Irish people, 
 lay and clerical, are assailed. We should have no 
 reason to quarrel with this exposure of the impotent 
 malignity. But it is so ingeniously wrapped up in 
 vast volumes of dull, irrelevant evidence, that it is 
 very likely, if comment be silenced, to escape the 
 notice of the reader, who is not prepared to wade 
 through two dull pages of newspaper per day. Besides, 
 it is too dearly bought in time and money. We desire 
 a cheaper, more sudden, definite, and more overwhelm- 
 ing exposure. The policy of vague malignity and 
 shameless evasion must not last for ever. The 
 country, as well as the accused, is entitled to call on 
 the Court to compel the ' Forger ' to come to the 
 point. It is about time." 
 
 I need not remind your Lordships what was the course 
 pursued the other day by the Court with regard to the 
 intended meeting to which Sir Charles Russell called 
 the attention of the Court. I may tell your Lordships 
 that United Ireland is printed and published by William 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Mr. W. O'Brien). 
 
G52 
 
 The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 O'Brien, who is one of the parties charged in this 
 matter. I do not ask your Lordships to take it on 
 Tuesday, having regard to the fact that we are all in- 
 terested in the much-needed;recess. But during that 
 recess each future witness will be at the mercy of the 
 Press in Ireland if some step is not taken, and I there- 
 fore ask your Lordships to deal with the matter. My 
 only reason for mentioning Tuesday morning for re- 
 quiring Mr. O'Brien to attend here is that I did not 
 think it right to deal with the matter without full 
 notice. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— I appear, my Lords, for Mr. William 
 O'Brien. Before I deal with what Mr. O'Brien has 
 said I have to make an application of a similar charac- 
 ter against the Warden of Merton College, Oxford. 
 This matter has been before me for a few days, hut I 
 have shrunk from pressing on the attention of the 
 Court all those vulgarities uttered in the country, 
 the most notorious of which is this by the Warden 
 of Merton College. Now that the Attorney-General, 
 
 without the slightest provocation 
 
 The President (sternly). — I do not think you ought 
 to say " without the slightest provocation, "Mr. Reid. 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— Nor do I, 
 Mr. Reid. — I will say, then, upon the slightest pro- 
 vocation. I have no desire to say anything offensive 
 to the Attorney-General, and I do not think your Lord- 
 ships will assume that I did. Your Lordships will 
 excuse me if I feel somewhat strongly upon this 
 matter. 
 
 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. — What is the date of that 
 speech ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — The date of publication is the 3d of 
 December. 
 The Attorney-General.— And this'.is the 14th. 
 The President. — The Attorney-General has nothing 
 to do with an application against the Warden of 
 Merton. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — That is perfectly true ; but what I desire 
 to put is this. Of course everybody must desire that 
 this trial should proceed without comment from either 
 side. 
 
 The President (warmly). — I had hoped that the 
 feeling I had expressed in various forms would be 
 understood, and that we should hear no more of these 
 matters. IE it were in my power I would this instant 
 throw up this Commission on account of these inter- 
 ferences with the course of justice ; but a duty is 
 imposed on me which I cannot get rid of. I am bound 
 to the stake. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — If I may presnme to do so, I sympathize 
 entirely with what your Lordship says, and so far 
 as I am concerned I deprecate in the strongest terms 
 any comment on the proceedings of this Commission 
 on either side. But I desire to point out to your 
 Lordships that the Press teems with comments, and this 
 one which is in The Times is a specimen. 
 
 The .President. — Let us take things in order. Have 
 you anything to say on the subject of the application 
 against Mr. O'Brien ? After we have disposed of that 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (The Warden of 
 Merton College). 
 
 in some way or other we will hear yon as to anything 
 else. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — No, my Lord, I do not desire to make 
 any observation upon that. Your Lordships will deal 
 with it as you think proper. 
 
 The Attorney- Genera*.— Mr. William O'Brien is 
 in London, and he '.can be summoned here at half-past 
 1. Mr. Reid represents him by counsel and there is 
 no reason why he should not be summoned here to-day 
 and avoid the necessity of the Court sitting on Tues- 
 day. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— So far as I am concerned, I do not 
 know whether he is in London or not. The Attorney- 
 General ma; have seen him in the House of 
 Commons. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— No, no. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — If he can be served with notice, I have 
 no objection to his being asked to come here and 
 give his answer himself. Now, my Lords, I make 
 this application. It was brought before me some time 
 ago, but I desired to leave these things untouched, 
 and refrained from adding to the annoyance and worry ■ 
 which the members of this Commission must feel with 
 reference to these matters ; but now such an applica- 
 tion is made by the Attorney-General on the other 
 side, I feel it my duty to bring it before your Lord- 
 ships. In The Times of the 3d of December, 1888, 
 appears what purports to be a speech delivered at 
 Oxford by the Warden of Merton College. In that 
 peech occurs this passage : — 
 
 " And so they had not only a Home Rule League, 
 which undergraduates of advanced views had been 
 earnestly pressed to join, but also, as he understood, 
 an Oxford branch of the National League, with a Non- 
 conformist minister for its president, which had not 
 yet taken any active part in organizing outrage so far 
 as he knew, but which might yet succeed in attracting 
 the attention of the Parnell Inquiry Commission. 
 (Laughter.) They had already had visits from Mr. 
 George, Mr. Hyndman, Mr. Davitt, and Mr. Dillon, and 
 his impression was that if the Whitechapel murderer 
 could be identified he would be invited to lecture by 
 a club he could name. (Laughter.)" 
 That is a clear comparison of Mr. Davitt and Mr. 
 Dillon with an infamous criminal whose performances 
 are tolerably well known to the country. I should 
 have preferred to leave this matter to the contempt of 
 every honest man, but, inasmuch as the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral has thought proper to bring forward the other 
 matter, I have thought it my duty to bring forward 
 this, and I ask that Mr. Brodrick, the Warden of 
 Merton, be summoned here to answer for this. And, 
 my Lords,! desire to point out that this is published in 
 The Times,e.ndthe.b The Times is a patty to the proceed- 
 ings before your Lordships ; and, further, this is pub- 
 lished after the observations which your Lordship has 
 made from the bench. 
 
 The President.— There is a difference between the 
 two, but I do not now enter into the question whether 
 it is a sufficient difference. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— I should like to say one thing, my Lord, 
 and that is that I have no desire whatever to make 
 
The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 653 
 
 any attack on the Attorney-General. I hate making 
 personal attacks of any kind, and when I said that 
 the Attorney-General made this complaint on the 
 slightest provocation I did not wish to characterize 
 the article which he read, but merely to intimate 
 that my learned friend was somewhat ready to bring 
 articles of this kind before the Court. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I will not say anything 
 as to the personal side of the matter, and I would 
 merely mention that United Ireland is a paper cir- 
 culating very largely in Ireland, and that it is the 
 reference made in it to the witnesses which we have 
 thought it our duty to bring before the Court. 
 
 After consulting together for a few minutes on the 
 bench the Commissioners left the Court. On their re- 
 turn, after an interval of about eight minutes, 
 
 The President said, — We think it absolutely neces- 
 sary that this matter should be disposed of as promptly 
 as possible, and, on the proper affidavit being filed — 
 unless that be waived — as to the proprietorship of the 
 newspaper, the person against whom the application is 
 made must appear before us to-morrow morning. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — An affidavit is not re- 
 quired, as it has been already proved in the case that 
 Mr. William O'Brien is the proprietor of the news- 
 paper in question. 
 
 Mr. Beid.— I shall raise no question as to the re- 
 sponsibility of Mr. O'Brien. 
 
 The President. — With regard to the other matter, 
 I may say that that is of a totally different character. 
 Of course, notice must be served upon the gentleman 
 against whom the complaint has been made. We do 
 not think that that is a complaint of a character that 
 calls upon us to interfere with the arrangements we 
 have already made. 
 
 The Attorney-General (to Mr. Beid). — Will you 
 take notice for to-morrow morning, Mr. Eeid ? You 
 will not require further notice ? 
 
 Mr. Beid. — I can only say that I hope Mr. O'Brien 
 will be able to come here to-morrow morning. I know 
 he will come if he can, but I hope he is within reach. 
 
 SIR C. Bttssell. — You had better try the House of 
 Commons. There is a 2 o'clock sitting to-day. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — Did I understand your Lordship to say 
 that we were to give notice to the Warden of Merton 
 to appear on the first day of the next sitting ? 
 
 The President.— Yes. 
 
 The witness Thomas O'Connor, whose cross-examina- 
 tion was postponed from December 4, on the appli- 
 cation of Sir C. Bussell and the other learned gentle- 
 men appearing for the persons charged, was recalled. 
 
 Sir C. Bussell (resuming his cross-examination) 
 said, — I wish to remind you, O'Connor, of what you 
 said the other day when you were examined. You said 
 you were present at a public meeting held fat Castle- 
 ;island in October, 1880, at which among others Mr. 
 Biggar and Mr. O'Connor spoke ?— Yes. 
 
 That was a public meeting ? — Yes. 
 
 It was held on October 10, 1 think ? — I think so. 
 
 We agree about that date, I think. Now, up to that 
 time, you were understood to say, there was no branch 
 of the Land League in Castleisland ? — No. 
 
 There was some talk about founding a branch of the 
 League on that occasion ? — Yes. 
 
 How soon after that was a branch in fact formed ? 
 — It was after that. 
 
 How soon after ? A week or ten days ? — A week or 
 two, I think. 
 
 It was founded a week or two after that. Very well. 
 (To the Court.) Your Lordships will, perhaps, not see 
 the relevancy of this until we get to another part. (To 
 witness.) How soon after it was founded did you 
 join the League ? — Two or three weeks, as near as I 
 can remember. 
 
 Then the League was founded about a week or two 
 after the meeting in October, and you joined it two or 
 three weeks after that. Very good. How soon after 
 you had joined the League was it that you were 
 invited to join, as you have said, the circle of the 
 " Boys " ? — Oh ; well, I think it was some time in 
 the December following. 
 
 Very good. You adopted, you know, the expression 
 put to you by the Attorney-General ; you called it the 
 " inner circle." You know what I am referring to f 
 —Yes. 
 
 That was in December, close up to Christmas time, 
 1880 ?— Yes. 
 
 Up to the time of your joining the " Boys " did you 
 take any part in any kiud of outrage of any descrip- 
 tion ?— No. 
 
 You are quite sure about that ? — Quite sure. 
 
 How long after you say you joined the " Boys " did 
 you take part in reinstating Mrs. Horan ? Was it soon 
 after or not ? — It is the recollection I have that it 
 was soon after. 
 
 Now, I must put it to you, was not that reinstate- 
 ment of Mrs. Horan into the land from which she 
 had been evicted in October ? — I believe there was a 
 reinstatement in October. There were two reinstate- 
 ments. She got evicted again after the first reinstate- 
 ment. 
 
 I do not think we have heard anything before of 
 two reinstatements ? — No, I had nothing to do with 
 the first. 
 
 Do you still adhere to the story that such a thing 
 took place in December ? — I do. 
 
 As you joined the " Boys " in December, going on 
 for Christmas time, and the reinstatement occurred 
 after that — that is, what you call the second reinstate- 
 ment — what time do you say the second reinstatement 
 took place ? — I think it was in December. 
 
 Very well. You joined the " Boys " in December ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 You also said that it was soon after you joined the 
 "Boys "that this reinstatement took place? — Yes. 
 It was in December or the beginning of January as 
 well as I can remember. 
 
 Now, I will put it tojyou, are ypn correct at all 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
654 
 
 The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 about this ? Did not Brown, the man who had posses- 
 Won, give up possession in December ? — I do not know. 
 
 Now, another matter — you recollect hearing of the 
 suppression of the Land League in October, 1881, by 
 Mr. Forster ? — I have an impression of it, but I do not 
 remember the date. 
 
 No, but we may take it that that really is the date. 
 Will you undertake to say that any meeting was held 
 Df the Land League in Castleisland in the year 1881 at 
 all ? Or in the year 1882 ? — I do undertake to say 
 there was. 
 
 After October, 1881 ?— Yes. 
 
 After October ?— Yes. 
 
 Were you in Court when Inspector Huggins was 
 examined ? — No. 
 
 For your Lordships' convenience I would refer you 
 to page 1,006 of the shorthand transcript, to Huggins's 
 evidence. (To witness.) Just listen to this and say 
 whether you agree with it. 
 
 The Attorney-General, — I must object to this, my 
 Lord. The witness has sworn there was a meeting. 
 He has made a distinct statement and I do not see 
 how my learned friend can be entitled to do this. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am entitled to put to him the 
 statement of another witness. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Not to challenge his 
 statement. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Why not ? I do not see any 
 objection to that, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — I myself have always been in the 
 habit of discouraging that line of examination— that is 
 to say, the asking a witness if " so-and-so has not 
 sworn so-and-so." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Then, my Lord, I will not press 
 the question. It is, perhaps, not very material. (To 
 witness.) Now, I will put it to you whether, after 
 the suppression of the League in October, 1881, any 
 Land League meeting was held after that date, except 
 one of the Ladies' Land League ? — There was, they 
 used to meet privately every time they could. 
 
 Where ? — Generally at the secretary's house and 
 another house. 
 
 First of all, take the secretary. Is that the man 
 who is dead ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the other house ? — Sometimes they met in 
 Thomas Moore's house. 
 
 Who is Thomas Moore ? — I think he was treasurer 
 of the branch. 
 
 Where was his house ? — On the main street of the 
 town. 
 
 You have referred to the meeting held before the 
 man Culloty was shot at. Do you recollect that ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Where do you say that meeting was held ? — I think 
 in the room where the meetings were regularly held, 
 the Land League room. 
 
 Can you describe it in some way ? — I think it was in 1 
 the house of John Culloty, a tailor, but lam not sure . 
 
 You cannot pledge yourself to where that meeting 
 was held ?— No. 
 
 I would press you, O'Connor, to try and recollect 
 where that meeting was held. You remember the name 
 of Father O'Callaghan in connexion with it ? — Which 
 meeting ? 
 
 The meeting held before Culloty was shot at. — It 
 is the recollection I have that it was held in that 
 house. 
 
 Now, reminding you that Father O'Callaghan was 
 present, are you able to say positively, one way or the 
 other, where it was held ? — No, I could not rightly 
 say. 
 
 Now, can you tell us when it was held ? — I think it 
 was some time in the month of April. 
 
 Cannot you fix it any nearer than that ? — I did not 
 write it down. I cannot be supposed to know the 
 date. 
 
 Then I will take it yon do not know the date ? — Not 
 the date. 
 
 Was it on a Sunday ?— Yes, it was on a Sunday. . 
 
 How long before Culloty was shot at ? — A week or 
 two at furthest. Not more than two weeks. 
 
 Very well, a week or two at furthest before he was 
 shot at. You mentioned the name of a tenant bringing 
 a writ. Do you recollect ? — I do. 
 
 What was his name ? — John Brosnan. 
 
 Where did he live ?— Ballintourig. 
 
 Is he any relation of the other Brosnan whose name 
 you mentioned ? — No. 
 
 He is a farmer, I presume ?— A farmer, 
 g How far is Ballintourig from Castleisland ? — I should 
 say about five miles. 
 
 Now, oan you refer to the names of any persons 
 living who, besides Brosnan and Father O'Callaghan, 
 were present on that occasion ? — I can. 
 
 Give them to me ? — Patrick Kenny, Thomas Moore, 
 Patrick Herlihy ; I do not remember any more with 
 certainty. 
 
 Very well. When you say you do not remember any 
 more with certainty you mean that you do not re- 
 member this with certainty ? — Yes. 
 
 And they are living ? — They are living. 
 
 And in the country ? — In the district. 
 
 Very good. Now, I want to draw your attention to 
 another part of your evidence. Do you recollect speak- 
 ing — I want to assist your recollection — of the presence 
 of Mr. Timothy Harrington at Castleisland in relation 
 to the election of a Poor Law guardian for Currow ?— 
 I do. Killientierna is the proper name of the parish. 
 
 How far is that from Castleisland ? — I should say 
 about three miles. 
 
 When was that meeting ? — I think in March, 1881. 
 
 On a Sunday f — On a Sunday. 
 
 Could you help me to fix the date, did you say ?— 
 Oh, no ; I do not remember the date. 
 
 Would it be Sunday, March 13 ?— I do not know. 
 
 I am putting it to you that that was the date on 
 which Mr. Harrington attended the meeting at Currow 
 in favour of the election of a particular person to the 
 office of Poor Law guardian — Sunday, March 13 ? — I 
 do not know. I am not able to say. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
The Special Commission, December 14, 1888, 
 
 655 
 
 Very well. Now, you spoke, as I understood you, if 
 I am right, of yourself and two other men standing 
 together, and that Mr. T. Harrington was speaking to one 
 or other of the three ? — Yes. 
 
 Just give me the names of those two men ? — Michael 
 Brosnan and James Brosnan. 
 
 Where is Michael Brosnan ? — I do not know. 
 
 You know, at all events, that Michael Brosnan is 
 not now living, and has not lived for a long time past, 
 in Castleisland ? — For four or five years. 
 
 Do yon know he is in Australia ? — I think he went 
 to America. 
 
 So far as you know, he has not been in Castleisland 
 for several years ? — No. 
 
 What was the second name ? — Thomas Brosnan. 
 
 Has he been there for several years, so far as you 
 know ?— He may have left about two years. 
 
 At all events, so far as you are aware, he has not 
 been there for some two years or more ? — Yes. 
 
 Can you mention any one who is there and saw Mr. 
 Harrington speak to you and the two Brosnans ? You 
 cannot name anybody ? — I am sure Mr. Kichard Burke, 
 the opposing candidate, saw Mr. Harrington speak to 
 as. 
 
 You know you were in the district where you lived 
 yourself ; you know the people, and you are not able 
 to mention anybody who saw Mr. Harrington speak to 
 you ? — Well, it is a long time ago. I have no recol- 
 lection of it. I know some of the people saw us. 
 
 Will you tell us again what you say Mr. Harrington 
 said to you on that occasion ? I need not remind you, 
 I hope, that you are speaking on your oath ? — He said 
 to the two Brosnans more than he said to me. He 
 said he was afraid Mr. Burke would be elected, and 
 that he would not wish that for £100. The Brosnans 
 said they thought he would be returned, and he said 
 there was only one way to stop it, and that was for 
 us to go round at night and compel the people to do 
 it. He told us not to take anything to drink lest we 
 should do something foolish. He told us to frighten 
 them, bnt not to hurt them. 
 
 You are quite sure he said yon were to go round by 
 night ? — Quite sure. 
 
 Had you ever spoken to Mr. Harrington before ? — 
 No, aiid I believe I did not speak to him on that 
 occasion. 
 
 As far as you know, were the Brosnans strangers to 
 him like yourself ? — I think Michael Brosnan was not. 
 
 You think that Thomas Brosnan was, just as you 
 were ? — Well, I do not know. 
 
 And was this in the open street ? — It was on the 
 road. 
 
 With people about ? — With people about. 
 
 And did the group at which the conversation took 
 place consist entirely of yourself, the two Brosnans, 
 and Mr. Harrington ? — I think that that was all. I 
 am not sure ; others might have overheard. 
 
 Did he speak in a loud voice ? — No. 
 
 In a whisper ? — Not in what I would understand to 
 be a whisper. 
 
 Then he neither shouted out at the top of his voice 
 nor spoke in a whisper ?— That is so. 
 
 You say that Joseph Murphy canvassed in the day- 
 time for the candidate opposed to the landlords' 
 candidate ? — Yes. 
 
 And he succeeded in getting a sufficient number of 
 votes to secure the election? — He did. 
 
 He told you so?— Well, he was not sure, he thought 
 so. 
 
 But there were two that had not promised ? — He 
 mentioned two. 
 
 Did you go round with Murphy ? — I did in the morn- 
 ing. 
 
 Now, Joseph Murphy is living and is in the neigh- 
 bourhood ? — He is. 
 
 Will you tell us the names of any persons whose 
 houses you visited with Murphy ? — Oh, yes ; Humphrey 
 Cairns, David Daly, and John Keefe. 
 
 Are those all ? — I might have visited one or two 
 more, but I do not recollect. 
 
 The voting for the Poor Law guardians is done by 
 means of voting papers, is it not ? — Yes. 
 
 Tell me if I am right, as we have not had the 
 matter explained yet. A particular voter votes in 
 support of a particular candidate by writing his name 
 or initial opposite the name of the particular candi- 
 date, does he not ? — By writing his initials. 
 
 And then the officer of the guardians comes round to 
 collect the papers ? — Yes ; the guardians provide a 
 man to collect and to distribute the papers. 
 
 And when you were with Murphy, as you say you 
 were, did he get them to initial the papers ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, how soon after the Sunday when you allege 
 this conversation took place was it that you went 
 with Murphy to canvass ? — How soon after 1 
 
 Aye. The meeting you refer to, you know, was on 
 a Sunday. How soon after that Sunday did you go 
 with Murpby to canvass ? Was it the next day ? — 
 Well, it might have been the same week. 
 
 Well, but when was it ? — I am not quite sure. It 
 might be in that week. 
 
 Do you think that it was in that week ? — I am not 
 sure. 
 
 Might it have been the week after ? — I am not 
 sure. 
 
 Then it might have been the week following the 
 Sunday or the week after that ? — I think it was two 
 weeks afterwards. It was either late in the next 
 week, or early in the second week. 
 
 Did you get anybody to initial the papers ? — No. 
 
 Neither at night nor in the morning ? — No ; not 
 when I was with Murphy. 
 
 I asked you, did you get anybody to initial any 
 papers either at night or in the morning ? — No. 
 
 You say that you visited the houses of two men ?- 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you go alone ? — No, there was a man with me. 
 
 Who ? — Thomas Brosnan. 
 
 That is the man who is either in America, Australia,, 
 or England ? — He is in America. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
656 
 
 The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 You were aware when you mentioned these two 
 names ol Thomas and Michael Brosnan that the men 
 were not at Castleisland, and had not been there for 
 a long time ? — Yes. I conld have known where they 
 were if I had recollected. 
 
 Just give the names of the two men whose houses 
 you visited at night ? — Thomas Walsh and James 
 Dnnleavy. 
 
 You know you were told, according to your account, 
 that there were two men who had not promised to 
 vote ? — Yes. 
 And you were told where to go ?■ — Yes, 
 Will you tell us Thomas Walsh's address so that he 
 can bo identified ? — Taranfore and Erownide Town- 
 lands. 
 
 Taranfore is the district ? — Yes, the postal district. 
 I am not supposed to know the name of every town- 
 ship in Ireland. 
 
 Probably you know where you were supposed to be 
 going ? Where did James Dnnleavy live ?— In the 
 township of Inchincover. 
 
 Will you tell me what you say you and Thomas 
 Brosnan did when you visited these two men ? — Wo 
 asked them why did not they give their vote to Mr. 
 M'Sweeney to-day. They said that they did not wish 
 to — that Mr. Burke was a great friend of theirs ; but 
 we threatened them. 
 
 What did you say when you threatened them ? — That 
 we would do something to them. They promised to 
 do anything we wanted. 
 
 You were threatening them that you would do 
 something serious to them if they did not comply with 
 your request ? — Yes. 
 And then they agreed to do what you wanted ?— Yes. 
 And then you came away ? — Yes. 
 And you did not get them to initial any voting 
 paper ?— They never produced any voting paper. There 
 was no necessity to do that, they seemed to be very 
 much frightened. 
 
 Were you disguised ?— Yes. 
 
 How ? — We had a screen— a handkerchief over our 
 faces, and we wore old overcoats. 
 
 With regard to the man Walsh, how many were 
 there in his family ? — I do not remember how many 
 were inside at the time. 
 
 Had he sons there ?— He has sons, but I do not 
 remember whether any of them were inside. 
 Has James Dunleavy sons ? — He has. 
 Were they there at the time you visited his house ? 
 — Two of them were inside. 
 
 Then you think that it was the week following the 
 conversation you had with Mr. Harrington that you 
 went canvassing in this way ?— That is the recollection 
 I have. 
 
 Now, I want to ask you this question. You spoke of 
 your visit to Castleisland ?— When ? 
 I beg your pardon, it was,to Tralee, I think ? — Yes. 
 When was that ? A week or two after this con- 
 versation with Mr. Harrington ?— It might be about a 
 month from the day I saw Mr. Harrington. 
 
 Or more or less ? — I do not think that it was much 
 less than a month. 
 
 How soon after these visits you paid, according to 
 your statement, to Thomas Walsh and James Dunleavy ? 
 —That 1 went to Tralee ? 
 
 Yes ? — A week or ten days perhaps, I cannot 
 remember exactly. 
 
 And where did you see Mr. Harrington in Tralee ?-» 
 Near Nelson-street. 
 
 Then you met him in the Btreet ?— I met him in a 
 house at Nelson-street. 
 
 Whose house ? — I do not know. 
 
 What kind of a house ? — It was some kind of an 
 office. 
 
 Was it a newspaper office ? Do you know the office 
 of the newspaper ? — I saw the newspaper office. I 
 never was in it. I know where it is, but I never was 
 inside of it. 
 
 Then the office where you saw Mr. Harrington was 
 not the newspaper office ? — No. 
 
 Can you tell me whose office it was — who owned it ? 
 —No. 
 
 Was there a name over the door ?— I do not know 
 whether there was or not. 
 
 You were accompanied by one of the Brosnans ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Which of them ?— Thomas. 
 
 That is the man who is in America ? — I think so. 
 
 Was anybody else there besides you two and Mr. 
 Harrington ? — There were others in the house and 
 office. 
 
 Were the others near enough to hear the conversa- 
 tion that you say took place ? — I do not think they 
 did hear, but I do not know. 
 
 Did you know any of them ? — No. 
 
 Did you call in at any other place in Tralee that 
 day except at this office ? — I did not call in at any 
 other place to look for him that day. 
 
 No, but did you calj. in at any other place that day 
 at all ? — I went in to some house, I suppose. 
 
 Do you remember where ? — At Mrs. Lyons's. 
 
 Is that a publichouse ?— No, I went to get my 
 dinner. 
 
 Does she know you ? — No. 
 
 Did any of the people of the place know you ?— 
 Mrs. Lyons is not there at all now. 
 
 Is there any one in Tralee who knows you and who 
 saw you on that occasion ? — There is nobody in Tralee 
 who knows me. 
 
 By the way, I think I made a mistake that you have 
 not corrected. Was it on a Sunday that you went to 
 Tralee ?— No. 
 
 Then it was my mistake. What day of the week 
 was it that you went there ? — I do not remember. 
 
 Was it at the beginning of the week ?— No, it must 
 have been on either a Friday or a Saturday. 
 
 Now, I understand you to say that Mr. Harrington 
 said that you ought to be ashamed of yourselves and 
 to go away ?— He told us to be off, that he did not 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 657 
 
 promise us anything, that we ought to be ashamed of 
 ourselves. 
 
 And then he went on to say that he would send 
 somebody ? Did he say that ho would or that he 
 might send somebody ? — He said that he might send 
 eomebody to us in Castleisland. 
 
 Did he say that all in the same breath, in the same 
 sentence ? Did he tell you to be off, that he did not 
 promise you anything, that yon ought to be ashamed 
 of yourselves, and that ho would send somebody to 
 Castleisland all in the same breath ? — No, he did not. 
 
 Just describe it. Tell us what took place according 
 to your account ?— When we first demanded what he 
 promised us for the canvass, he did not understand ns 
 for some time, and then he said, " I promised you 
 nothing and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. ' ' 
 Afterwards he said he might send somebody to see us 
 in Castleisland. 
 
 Tell us what you asked him for ? — I told you just 
 now. 
 
 What did you ask him for ? — We asked him for our 
 hire for going canvassing by night. 
 
 You did not name any particular sum ? — No. 
 
 Had he named any sum ? — No, he said we could 
 name our own hire. 
 
 Did a man eome to yon at Castleisland ? — Yes. 
 
 How soon after ? — The following Sunday. 
 
 Then you saw Mr. Harrington on the Friday or the 
 Saturday, and the next day, Sunday, you saw this man 
 at Castleisland ? — No, not until the following Sunday. 
 
 Then that would be about nine days after you saw 
 Mr. Harrington at Tralee. And the man you did not 
 know ? — No. I did not know him. 
 
 You never saw him before ? — I think not. 
 
 And you have never seen him since ?— I do not 
 believe I have. 
 
 And you do not know his name ? — No. 
 
 And you have no idea where he came from ? — I think 
 he came from Mr. Harrington, but I do not know. 
 
 And where he went to you do not know ? — No. 
 
 And where he is you do not know ? — Surely. 
 
 What do you mean by surely ? — I mean I do not 
 know. 
 
 What. was he like— just describe him ? — That is not 
 an easy matter for me. He was 5ft. 7in. in height, 
 and he was of fair complexion. I cannot describe him 
 any better. 
 
 Was he old or young ? — He was 25 years of age or 
 less. 
 
 And he gave you £7 ?— Yes, between the two of us. 
 
 Between you and Thomas Brosnan together ?— Yes. 
 
 Was the money in notes or gold ? — In £1 notes — 
 National Bank notes, I believe. 
 
 Did the man ask you for any receipt ?— No. 
 
 And did you and Thomas Brosnan divide the money 
 between you ? — Yes. 
 
 £3 10s. each ?— Yes. 
 
 Then Michael Brosnan got nothing ?— No ; he did not 
 ask for it. 
 
 Where did you change these notes ?— Oh ! I don't 
 recollect. 
 
 Can you name any place where you did change any 
 of them ? — I think I changed two at the National 
 Bank. 
 
 Did you do so ? — It is the recollection that I have 
 that I did to. 
 
 And that is the only recollection that you have ? — I 
 do not understand what you mean. 
 
 Is that the only recollection that you have when you 
 say that you think that you changed two of the notes 
 at the National Bank ? — I know that I changed them 
 at some place. 
 
 Now, as regards another matter. You told us that 
 your brother was the secretary of the local branch of 
 the National League. To save time I will direct your 
 attention to these matters, reminding you of what yon 
 have said. You said that in 1886 you recollect two 
 letters coming to your brother in different envelopes, 
 and both signed, or purporting to be signed, by Mr. 
 Harrington ? — Yes. 
 
 You say that you believe that they were both d»" 
 stroyed ? — I believe so ; I cannot swear. 
 
 You say that you have looked for them ? — I said I 
 looked for one of them. 
 
 Not for both ?— No. 
 
 Which was it you looked for ? — The one on plain 
 paper. 
 
 Now, your brother is alive ? — He is. 
 
 Why did you not look for the other ? — Well, I did 
 not care about the other. 
 
 When did you look for the one on plain paper ?— 
 When I was going to Dublin. 
 
 After your communication with Mr. Houston, of the 
 Loyal and Patriotic League ? — Yes. 
 
 just look at that letter and tell me whether it is not 
 the one which you did not look for ? 
 
 The document having been handed to the witness, ha 
 proceeded to read it With great deliberation. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — You need not trouble to read it 
 all. Is that the letter ? 
 
 Witness.— I must read it all to see if it is in the 
 same words. 
 
 After a further pause, 
 
 Sik C. Russell said,— I do not think that you need 
 take so long in reading it. I will caution you by telling 
 you that your brother has handed that to us. Is that 
 the letter ? 
 
 Witness. — It appears to be it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My Lords, this is the letter. 
 
 The learned counsel read the letter, which was in tha 
 following terms : — 
 
 <; The Irish National League, 43, O'Connell- 
 street Upper, Dublin, Feb. 5, 1886. 
 " Mr. John O'Connor, Currow, Scarlinglin. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — At the last meeting of the Organiza- 
 tion Committee of the National League I laid before 
 them your application on behalf of the evicted tenants 
 Mary Russell, Mary Butler, and Michael Riordan. I 
 regret to say that the Organization Committee find 
 themselves compelled to refuse a grant, owing to the 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
658 
 
 The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 very disturbed and lawless state of the county of 
 Kerry at the present time. The committee decided 
 upon sending no grant to those districts where con- 
 tinual disturbance has been kept up. I do not wish 
 you to understand that they believe the branch of the 
 National League is in any way associated with law- 
 less outrages, but they wish to save the general organi- 
 zation from even the suspicion of sending funds to 
 places where outrages of this kind have been 
 occurring, and they regard this step as necessary for the 
 safety and character of the organization at the present 
 time, and they directed me to communicate their 
 views to the secretaries who have made applications. 
 ' ' Yours truly, 
 
 " T. Hakringtoit, Hon. Sec." 
 Cross-examination continued. — You observe that 
 this letter to your brother does not speak of 
 the lawless and disturbed state of a particular 
 district, but of the county of Kerry. Was Kerry in a 
 disturbed state ? — Castleisland and other parts were. 
 
 Was there a good deal of disturbance in Kerry ? — 
 There was. 
 You stated you did not look for that letter ? — I did. 
 Was that because it would not suit your purpose ? — 
 Well, not as well as the other. (Laughter.) 
 
 Recollect yourself. Be careful. Did you look for 
 the other at all ? — I did. 
 
 Did you think that either letter of which you have 
 spoken was in existence ? — Well, I thought one was. 
 I could not find either of them. 
 Did you ask your brother for either of them ? — No. 
 Where did you look for them ? — In my brother's 
 desk and about the room. 
 Where was the desk kept ? — In the room. 
 Sib C. Russell. — Your Lordships will find this 
 matter referred to on pages 1343 and 1344 of the 
 notes. (To witness.) Am I to understand that you 
 did not know that the second letter of which you have 
 spoken was destroyed until you searched for it and 
 ■eould not find it ? — I did not know it beforehand. I 
 do not know now that it is destroyed. I could not 
 find it. 
 You did not know that either was destroyed ?— No. 
 Did you come to the conclusion that both were 
 destroyed because, when looking for one of them, you 
 did not find either ? — Yes. 
 
 Take the letter in your hand. Can you say whether 
 the handwriting of the second letter that you speak 
 about was in the same handwriting ? — Well, I do not 
 know. I thought the writing was larger. I cannot 
 be sure, however, as it is so long since I saw the letters. 
 Do you say it is in the same handwriting ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 Did it purport to be signed by anybody ?— Yes ; the 
 letters in the signature appear to be formed in the 
 same way, but they appear to be larger. 
 
 Can you now form an opinion whether the signature 
 of the other letter was in the same handwriting ?— I 
 should say that the writing was much the same. 
 
 Both these letters, you said, came by post and in 
 separate envelopes ? — Yes. 
 
 By the same post ? — Yes. 
 Addressed to your brother ? — Yes. 
 Did he open them ? — I do not remember, sure. But 
 I think I opened them first. 
 
 Do you swear that you opened them ? — No, I do 
 not. It was so long ago. I am not sure. 
 
 Do you think you opened them ? — I know I read 
 them. I am not sure whether I opened them or not. 
 Do you think you did ? — I could not swear I did. 
 Is it your impression that you opened them ? — No, I 
 could not say I did. I do not remember. 
 
 Did your brother show them to you ? — You mean did 
 he give them to me ? 
 
 Did he show them to you ? — Well, I do not remem- 
 ber whether I got them in my hands first or not. 
 
 Did you or did you not get them from your brother, 
 or did you find them lying about ? — I think I found 
 them in the desk. 
 
 Did you ever mention to your brother that second 
 letter of which you speak ? — I did, in the week whei 
 the letters arrived. 
 What is your brother's name P — John. 
 How old are you ? — About 29 or 30. 
 In 1877 you will have been about 19 ?— I suppose so 
 Did you enlist in the Kerry Militia in 1877 ?— No. 
 Under the name of Thomas Daly ? — No. 
 That suggestion is not correct ? — Not correct. 
 Is your height 5ft. lO^in. ? — I do not know. 
 What is about your height ?— It might be more or less 
 than that ; more, I should think. 
 Are your eyes gray ? — I suppose they are gray. 
 And would your age on October 22, 1877, be 18 years 
 and 3 months ? — I do not know. I have no certificate 
 of my birth. 
 
 Were you ever in the Kerry Militia ? — No ; and as a 
 matter of fact I would not be taken into the Kerry 
 Militia. ' 
 Why ?— Am I bound to answer the question ? 
 Well, if it is anything personal to yourself which 
 you do hot wish to disclose I will not press you.— I 
 will tell you. I have varicose veins in my left leg. 
 I tried to join the Regular Army, but I was not 
 accepted on account of that. Any one who likes to ask 
 the recruiting sergeant can find out the fact. 
 
 Then there is no foundation for saying that you en- 
 listed under the name of Thomas Daly ? — It is a fabri- 
 cation as far as I know. 
 Where were you in March, 1878 ? — I was at home. 
 Living at home ? — Yes. 
 Continuously ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you first see any of the police officers ? 
 You have mentioned Inspector Rice. When did you 
 see him ?— Last December or January. I think 
 December. 
 Where was it ? — On the road to Castleisland. 
 Have you seen Inspector Davis ? — I have seen him. 
 As far back as September, 1886 ?— I think so. 
 When did you first, if ever, give any information to 
 the police ? — I gave no information at all. 
 Never ? — No. I may have spoken to him in a general 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
The Special Coiumission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 659 
 
 way about outrage, and as to the localities where out- 
 rages were likely to be committed. Nothing else. 
 
 Was that the character of your conversation with 
 Rice and Davis ? — Yes, it was. 
 
 Did you ever get any money ? — From whom ? 
 
 From any of these persons ? — Oh, they gave me 
 some. 
 
 Who gave you money first ? — Davis. 
 
 How much ? — I do not remember. 
 
 How many pounds ? — I do not think that he gave me 
 a pound at all. 
 
 Will you swear he did not ? — I will not swear he 
 did not. 
 
 Will you swear he did not give you £3 ? — He might. 
 I do not remember. 
 
 Was that in September, 1886 ? — It was in Septem- 
 ber. I do not remember the year. 
 
 Was it two years ago ? — About that time. 
 
 Did Rice give you anything ? — No, unless a shilling 
 or two to have a drink. 
 
 How often has he done that ? — I do not remember. I 
 think only on one occasion. 
 
 Will you swear that ? — That is all I remember. 
 
 Rice you saw last December, and Inspector Davis in 
 September two years ago. Were those the first police 
 officers you saw ? — They were. 
 
 Who was the first policeman you conversed with 
 about crime and the state of the country ? — They were 
 the first and last. 
 
 Did you know Huggins ? — I did know him. 
 
 Have you conversed with him ? — No. 
 
 Mr. Gilhooly ? — I may have spoken to him, but I do 
 not remember. I never did anything more than salute 
 him. 
 
 When you wrote to the Loyal and Patriotic Union 
 did you expect to get any money ? — No. 
 
 When you came over here to give your evidence did 
 you expect any money ? — I expected to be sent back. 
 
 Did you expect any money ? — Well, no ; I expected 
 that I should be sent back and paid for the time I 
 should spend here. 
 
 Anything more ? — Nothing more. 
 
 You did not expect to make money out of The Times ? 
 —No. 
 
 Merely your bare expenses ? — Yes. 
 
 You volunteered to come over solely in the interests 
 of morality, truth, and justice ? — Yes, and in the hope 
 of banishing the hell on earth that exists round my 
 own place in Ireland. 
 
 You had no thought of gain for yourself at all ? — I 
 do not care about the gain. 
 
 You had no thought of gain for yourself at all f — 
 No. 
 
 Were you asked by any one to make statements in- 
 criminating any of the popular leaders in Ireland ? — 
 No. 
 
 Never ?— Never. 
 
 That you swear ? — That I swear. 
 
 Do you know a man called Walker ? — From Dublin 
 is he ? I got to know him in the Court the last time 
 
 I was here. That was the first time I got to know 
 his name. 
 
 Were you asked by him whether you could or could 
 not say anything to incriminate the popular leaders of 
 Ireland ? — He asked me to tell everything I knew, 
 and to keep nothing back. 
 
 Were you asked by him to incriminate the popular 
 leaders ? — I do not think so. 
 
 Were you asked to tell queer things ? Take care, 
 O'Connor. — What is meant by queer things ? 
 
 Were you asked to tell queer things ? — Well, ho 
 told me to tell everything I knew. 
 
 Were you asked to tell queer things ? I use the 
 phrase with a purpose. Answer, Sir ; you are on your 
 oath. Wore you asked to tell queer things, aye or no ? 
 — Well, I understood that he forced me rather hard. 
 
 Was that to try and fix criminality upon some of the 
 Irish members of Parliament ? — I told him that I 
 wanted to keep out of the thing. 
 
 Was it to get you to fix criminality on some of 
 the Irish members ? — I think not. 
 
 What was it he forced you hard about ? — About how 
 much I knew about the moonlighting and about Mr. 
 Harrington. He said I should know more about Mr. 
 Harrington than that. 
 
 Do you say that Mr. Harrington was the only'niem- 
 ber whose name he mentioned ? — I do not remember 
 that he mentioned any others. 
 
 Were you afraid that because you could not tell him 
 the queer things he wanted you would not get the 
 money which you expected ? — I was not afraid of that 
 because I did not expect any money. 
 
 Take this letter in your hand. Do not read it, but 
 look at the signature. Is that your signature ? — I do 
 not know. It appears to be. 
 
 Have you any doubt as to its being your signature ? — 
 It is very like it ; but another person could write it 
 just as well. 
 
 Have you any doubt as to its being your signature ? — 
 No, I have not. . 
 
 Look at the envelope, addressed to your brother. Is 
 that your writing ? — It is. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I will read this letter, suppress- 
 ing the London address of the writer, as the Attorney- 
 General does not wish it made known : — 
 
 " London, Dec. 3, 1888. 
 
 " Dear Pat, — I am here in London since yesterday 
 morning. I was in Dublin two days. I got myself 
 summoned for The Times. I thought I could make a 
 few pounds in the transaction, but I find I cannot 
 unless I would swear queer things. I am afraid they 
 will send me to gaol, or at least give me nothing to 
 carry me home. I would not bother with it at all, but 
 my health was not very good when I was at home, and 
 I thought I would take a short voyage and see a 
 doctor at their expense. But, instead of it doing me 
 any good, it has made me worse a little. I will be 
 examined to-morrow, Tuesday, the 4th. Get some 
 daily paper, the Freeman, and see how it will be in 
 it. You need not reply to this, as I shall leave this 
 house after I am examined. Whatever way it will 
 end. do not blame me for it. I thought to do some 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
660 
 
 The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 good, but I fear I cannot but harm. Tell Martin to 
 take 30s. out of the bank, for I fear I shall have to 
 seiid for the cost, if he has not it after the fair. I 
 might not need it, but I am afraid I may. I will 
 write again to-morrow night, or at farthest on Wednes- 
 day, if I am alive and at liberty. 
 
 " Your unfortunate brother, 
 
 " Thomas O'Connor." 
 
 You have been rather a scapegrace in the family ? — 
 I do not understand. 
 
 Your brothers are hard-working men ? — Yes. 
 
 And have you had that reputation ? — Yes. 
 
 You have ? — I think so myself. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I may remind your Lordships that 
 during the previous examination of this man I called 
 for a letter which he said he had written to the Loyal 
 and Patriotic Union, so called, applying for leaflets 
 and documents. I will read the note : — 
 
 " Is it true that you wrote that to the Loyal and 
 Patriotic Union when you asked for leaflets ? — It is. 
 
 " Sir C. Russell.— Now, I call for that letter. 
 
 " The Attorney-General. — That, of course, we have 
 not got. 
 
 " Sir C. Russell. — Why do you say of course ? 
 
 "The Attorney-General. — We will get it. Of course 
 we will. There is no objection to our trying to get 
 it." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — What I said was that I 
 ■would try to get it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.- — My learned friend need not 
 distress himself about it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My learned friend will 
 see that I said, ' ' We had nothing in the world to do 
 with a letter written for leaflets in June. This letter, 
 of course, was handed to us because it was a means of 
 getting the witness. I was only indicating I could not 
 get it for you at the moment. I will do my best to 
 get it for you." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I make no complaints. Has the 
 letter been applied for ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have not been able to 
 got it. 
 
 lie-examined by the Attorney-General. — What was 
 your brother's name ? — Which brother f 
 
 The one you addressed as " Dear Pat." — Patrick. 
 
 Patrick O'Connor, is it ? Did you receive any tele- 
 gram after you gave your evidence on the last occa- 
 sion ? — I did. 
 
 Will you produce it, please ? — (No answer.) 
 
 Did you give it to the policeman ? — I did. 
 
 The telegram was sent for and handed by Mr. 
 Soames to the Attorney-General. 
 
 Look at that telegram. Is that the one you re- 
 ceived ? (The telegram was handed to the witness). — 
 That is it. 
 
 Lend it back to me, please ? (The telegram was 
 returned to the Attorney-General.) 
 
 My Lords, this is a telegram from 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Wait one moment, if you please. 
 My Lords, what does this mean ? This gentleman 
 gives his evidence here, and after he has given his 
 evidence he receives a telegram. How is this in any 
 
 way evidence in this case against persons, into definite 
 charges and allegations against whom we are sup- 
 posed to be inquiring 1 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — My Lords, may I also be permitted 
 to ask how does this arise out of the cross-examina- 
 tion ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My learned friend has 
 read a letter to a member of his family, and I propose 
 to ask your Lordships to allow me to show what has 
 passed between himself and members of his family 
 since he gave his evidence. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I ask how that can be evidence 
 or have reference to the letter I read ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — May I say this — and also a telegram 
 which is not proved ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My learned friend says 
 not proved. I propose to put it beyond all doubt. I 
 will prove it was sent by a member of his family. I 
 submit to your Lordships that, a letter having been 
 read to a member of his family before the evidence 
 given, and having been put in by my learned friend, 
 having, of course, no relevance to the issue 
 
 SirC. Russell. — Has it no relevance to the issue ? 
 
 The Attorney-General (continuing).— I submit that 
 I am entitled to show what has passed between the 
 same members of the family since. 
 
 The President (after consulting with his brethren).— 
 Undoubtedly this is not evidence as to the issue ; but 
 I have no doubt in the world that in any other case I 
 should, in my discretion, have allowed this to be given 
 in evidence, in order that any explanation that can be 
 may be given of the letter that has been put in. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — How can it, my Lords ? 
 
 The President. — I decline to argue the matter. I 
 have given my decision, after consulting with my 
 brethren. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — But, my Lords 
 
 The President. — I decline to argue the matter. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Did your brother come to 
 see you in London ?— He did. 
 
 I am afraid I must ask you to tell me which brother ? 
 —Martin. 
 
 The President. — Now, that introduces a third name. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Yes, my Lords. This 
 witness, John; the original secretary, Pat ; and Martin, I 
 rather j think, is mentioned in the letter. " Tell Martin 
 to have 30s. out of the bank." Now, my Lords, I put in 
 the telegram of the 7th of December : — " To Thomas 
 O'Connor. — Letter received ; family and friends will 
 die of shame. Contradict all evidence on cross-exami- 
 nation and all is well. Martin left to-day to see you. 
 Meet him. Reply." 
 
 Now, just answer my questions, yes or no. Did yoo 
 subsequently have a conversation with your brother 
 Martin ?— Yes. 
 
 In London ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you receive a telegram this morning ? — I did. 
 
 Produce it, if you please. 
 
 (Telegram produced by witness.) 
 
 I ought to ask. had you written any other letter 
 
 Thomas O'Connor. 
 
The Special Commission, December 14, is 8 8. 
 
 661 
 
 except the one Sir C. Russell has read, before you got 
 that telegram ?— I wrote three letters. 
 
 Has this telegram been in your possession since you 
 received it this morning ?— Yes. 
 
 The Attorney-General (reading) •— 
 
 " Costs will be sent you immediately after trial. Do 
 as you promised me. Admit being terrified with im- 
 prisonment at their hands unless you swore to your 
 statement. The law cannot touch you then when you 
 tell the truth. Be cheerful. Reply immediately. 
 Telegraph address Martin care of Thomas Kelliher, 
 Ballymullen, Tralee." 
 
 Is that the same brother Martin as the one who 
 came to see you ?— I understand it is. 
 
 I have only one more question to ask you. Are the 
 answers you have given to Sir Charles Russell to-day 
 true ? — A pause. 
 
 Are the answers you have given to Sir Charles 
 Russell to-day respecting what happened in the years 
 1881 and 1882 true ? — As near as I can remember. 
 
 Have you received any letters from your brother or 
 not besides these telegrams ? — No letters. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— My Lords, while the Attorney-General 
 is calling another witness, 1 desire to say, in re- 
 gard to the matter of Mr. O'Brien, that Mr. Lewis sent a 
 clerk at once to the National Press Agency, not being 
 aware of Mr. O'Brien's London address. There is a 
 letter waiting for him. He does not seem to have been 
 in the House last night, and he is believed to have left 
 London and to be in Dublin. I thought it right to say 
 that in view^of the order of the Court for his attend- 
 ance to-morrow morning. I know no more of it. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am much obliged to my 
 friend. It is useless to serve the notice unless your 
 Lordships would think it right it should be telegraphed 
 to Dublin. My information was that Mr. O'Brien was 
 still in London. I cannot tell that. He may have left 
 last night. I never referred to anything in my per- 
 sonal knowledge at all. If your Lordships think it 
 right, I am only anxious that a telegram should be 
 sent to Dublin that he should attend to-morrow morn- 
 ing. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — The best information Mr. Lewis can 
 get is that he does not appear to be in London ; 
 but he is supposed to be in Dublin. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — You had better make 
 some more inquiries, if you can. 
 
 The nest witness called was Sergeant Dohan, who 
 was examined by Mr. Atkinson. Witness said,— 1 
 was stationed at Rathmore, county Kerry, in 1880 and 
 1881. A number of men were arrested in March, 1881,f or 
 firing into the house of Keefe. I know the names of 
 the men. Andrew; Moynihan was one, Daniel Keefe was 
 another ; John Kelliher, Timothy Sheehy, and there 
 were several whose names I do not remember. They 
 were committed to prison at Tralee and remanded. I 
 think they remained in prison 16 days. They were 
 then discharged. They were arrested on the charge 
 of firing into the houses of Keefe, Daniel Cronan, and I 
 
 Michael Cronan, and of wounding Keefe, Daniel 
 Cronan, and Michael Cronan. After they were dis- 
 charged from the Tralee Gaol some of them were 
 taken up as suspects. They were taken direct to 
 Dublin and Dundalk. All the time they were at 
 Tralee they were on the charge of firing at these men 
 who had paid their rents. In March, 1882, some men 
 were arrested for attacking the house of Cornelius 
 Leary. He was caretaker on an evicted farm. I 
 know the names of some of them. They were confined in 
 Tralee Gaol. I think they were remanded twice. There 
 were two batches arrested in connexion with Leary 's 
 case. In the second batch there was a man named Connor 
 and one named Sullivan. They were confined for the same 
 offence, I think ; they were confined for eight days 
 and then discharged. 
 The President.— What is the object of this ? 
 Mr. Atkinson.— To prove, my Lord, the maintenance 
 of these men in prison under this charge. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell,— With regard 
 to these two batches, you said the first batch were re- 
 manded twice ? — I think so, Sir. 
 
 And the other batch ? — I think they were only re- 
 manded once. 
 
 What became of the cases ?— They were dismissed for 
 want of evidence. 
 
 And as regards these men who were in March, 1881, 
 arrested in connexion with an outrage, as you said, 
 on Keefe's house, they got 16 days',?— I think so ; 15 or 
 16 days. 
 
 Was the period of 16 days — was not that a remand 
 of two periods of eight days each ?— Yes, I think so. 
 
 What became of that case ?— They were arrested on 
 a direct charge, but the witnesses would not come for- 
 ward, and they were discharged. 
 
 So that in ;each case these men were imprisoned, 
 awaiting their trial, remanded in two of the cases 
 twice, and in one of the cases once, and in each case 
 there was no evidence to satisfy the magistrate ? — No ; 
 the parties would not come forward. 
 
 Very well, that is your statement — the parties 
 would not come forward. I presume there are means 
 of compelling parties to come forward if they can 
 give evidence ? — Yes. 
 
 Then that means that you conld not get any evi- 
 dence ? — We could not, Sir. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— Had you 
 information upon which these men were arrested ?— 
 Yes ; one of these parties gave me direct information 
 that so-and-so shot him. 
 Sir C. Russell, — No, no, we cannot have that. 
 The Attorney- General. — Had you information 
 from the parties themselves, but when it came to a 
 question of giving evidence the parties would not 
 come forward ? — Yes. 
 
 Sergeant Gilhooly, who was recalled and examined 
 by. Mr. Atkinson, said, — A man named George Twiss 
 was arrested in June, 1882, on suspicion of having 
 shot Cornelius Kelleher. Three or four others were 
 
 ■Sergeant Dohan. 
 
 Sergeant Gilhooly. 
 
662 
 
 The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 arrested * at the same time on the same charge. 
 Cornelius Kelleher was a farmer taking care of an 
 evicted farm. They were confined in prison on that 
 charge about six weeks, I think, in Tralee. They 
 were then discharged. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — One moment before you 
 come to the next one. -Will your Lordships note with 
 reference to George Twiss that I call attention to 
 pages 30 and 37 ? 
 
 Examination continued. — In the month of November, 
 1882, George Twiss was arrested on another charge. 
 I do not remember who were arrested with Twiss on 
 that occasion. I cannot say how long they were con- 
 fined in prison on that charge. 
 
 Were two men of the name of O'Connor arrested in 
 April, 1883, charged with breaking into the house of 
 John Keefe ? — Yes, and taking revolvers from there. 
 Their names were Hugh O'Connor and John O'Con- 
 nor. They were subsequently tried at the Cork 
 Assizes. 
 
 Were they convicted ? — No. 
 
 Are you certain of that ? — I am not certain. 
 
 Were they imprisoned for some time in Tralee Gaol ? 
 — I do not remember, I cannot say. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— I have known 
 George Twiss for the last nine or ten years. He was 
 well-known to Inspector Davis, but I never saw him 
 and Inspector Davis driving about the country 
 together. I have seen them in company together, but 
 I cannot remember when I first saw them. 
 
 Mrs. Donoghue was the next witness. Examined by 
 the Attorney-General. — I live at Tralee, Kerry. I 
 was married in February, 1882, to my present husband. 
 Before that I was a single woman, and kept a lodg- 
 ing-house in Tralee before I was married. I kept the 
 lodging-house about 12 months. 
 
 During the 12 months before you were married do 
 you remember dieting some prisoners ? — Yes. Their 
 names were Horan, Keefe, Moynihan, M'Carthy, and 
 Sullivan. 
 
 Do you remember with regard to Keefe and 
 Sheehan ? — Yes. 
 
 - Who gave you instructions to diet these people ? — 
 Margaret Fitzgerald. She was a stranger to me, and 
 she lived near Eathmore. 
 
 Did she give the instructions to you in writing, or 
 did she come to you ? — In writing. 
 
 Have you got the letter ? — No. 
 
 You used to send the food down to them ? — Yes, 
 three times a day. 
 
 Who paid you for that ? — Mr. T. Harrington paid me. 
 The money was made up in the district where the 
 people belonged. 
 
 Where did he pay you ? — He met me on the 
 street. 
 
 How much did he give you ? — From £20 to £25. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — When was it 
 that Mr. T. Harrington paid you ?— In 1882. I cannot 
 say whether it was in 1883, I do not know the date. 
 
 Was it the beginning of the year, the middle, or the 
 end ? — It was soon after the prisoners left, after thty 
 had been released. 
 
 Can you tell me when the prisoners had been re- 
 leased ? — They were there three weeks. I cannot say 
 when they were arrested, it was in 1882, bat I do not 
 know the date. 
 
 Can you tell us when they were arrested, and then 
 we will get at the date ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It must have been in 
 March, 1832, Sir Charles. 
 
 Sir C. Russell (to the witness).— It is suggested 
 that they were arrested in March, 1882. — Yes. 
 
 That would make three weeks. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The report in the Kerry 
 Sentinel is, " Three more arrests, Rathmore, Tuesday, 
 March 24, 1882." 
 
 Cross-examination by SIR C. Russell continued. — You 
 think it was in April, 1882 ? — It was a few days aftei 
 they left. 
 
 This Margaret Fitzgerald, was she a member of the 
 Ladies' Land League ? — I do not know anything at all 
 about her. 
 
 Then these prisoners were discharged and not sen'- 
 teuced ? — Yes, they were discharged. 
 
 By Mr. Riid. — The money you say wa3 paid by Mr. 
 Timothy Harrington ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know him well ? — Yes, I knew him. 
 
 What was the money ?— £20 or £25. 
 
 How do you say he paid you ? Was it by cheque ?— 
 No, in notes. 
 
 Do you keep any books ? — No. 
 
 You have no entry of this transaction ? — No ; I did 
 not give any receipt. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — How long 
 after the time you had dieted these prisoners was it 
 that Mr. T. Harrington paid you ? — I do not recollect. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — One question, if I may be 
 allowed. (To witness.) Are you sure it was not Mr. 
 Edward Harrington P — I am sure it was Mr. T. Har- 
 rington — well, I could not exactly say. 
 
 I wish to be accurate about it. — Well, to the best 
 of my belief it was Mr. T. Harrington. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — But Mr. T. Harrington was in 
 gaol himself up to June, 1882, and you say these 
 prisoners were there about three weeks, and then were 
 released ; that takes us to the end of April. Then you 
 say you were paid shortly after that ? — Yes, a week 
 or so afterwards 
 
 Can you point out the gentleman who paid you ? 
 Was that the gentleman (pointing to Mr. E. Harring- 
 ton, who was sitting in the well of the court)? — No, I 
 do not think it was. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — With regard to the names 
 given, I will read from the Kerry Sentinel of March 
 24, 1882 :— 
 
 " Cornelius Leehy, the caretaker who was shot at 
 Reanasup, ... is now in hospital. Three mora 
 arrests have been made — T. Sheehan, the son of a 
 respectable farmer, Daniel Keefe, and Jeremiah 
 
 Mrs. Donoghue. 
 
The Special Commission, December 14, 188S. 
 
 663 
 
 Sullivan. . . . The police made several unsuccess- 
 ful attemots to arrest some others who are wanted." 
 
 John Donoghue, examined by the Attorney- 
 General, said, — The last witness is my wife. I have 
 kept a lodging-house in Tralee since I married. My 
 wife carried it on before. I remember dieting some 
 prisoners in Tralee Gaol. I do not remember their 
 names. 
 
 Perhaps it is not necessary for me to suggest them 
 again ; but do you know from what district they came ? 
 — From Rathmore, I think. 
 
 Do you remember any Castleisland men being in 
 gaol ? — I do. They came on a different occasion from 
 Castleisland. I do not know what they were charged 
 with. 
 
 After dieting them did you see either of the Messrs. 
 Harrington ? — Yes. Mr. Edward Harrington. 
 
 Did he pay you for dieting them ? — He came in and 
 gave me £10 on one occasion and £9 odd on another, 
 and £5 on another occasion. 
 
 How long afterwards did he come ? — I think some- 
 thing like two or three months afterwards. 
 
 Do you remember the case of Michael Connor, of 
 Kenmare ? — I cannot say. I was not dieting him in 
 Tralee Gaol. All this money was subscribed money 
 which Mr. Harrington paid me. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — You are aware 
 that there was a general subscription for these prisoners ? 
 — Yes ; I paid something myself. 
 
 Bj Mr. Eeid. — The last witness told us that she 
 received £25, and it was suggested that that was for 
 three men imprisoned for three weeks. What is the 
 rate at which you were paid ? — They made their 
 bargains ; some paid 10s. a week, sometimes it was 
 more. 
 
 There must surely have been others than these three 
 included ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I did not say that there 
 wore only three. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smtth.— The Attorney-General 
 gave other names. 
 
 Mr. Beid. — I thought that the point was that the 
 dieting related to these prisoners. 
 
 Witness. — I dieted hundreds of them, and received 
 sums from Is. to £5. 
 
 Sir C Kussell. — One question, which I omitted to 
 ask. Are you aware that the police themselves who 
 lodged the prisoners in gaol have sometimes come to 
 make arrangements for their friends about dieting ? — 
 Yes. 
 And sometimes brought you money ? — Yes. 
 
 The President. — These sums are different from 
 those mentioned by his wife. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Yes, very likely. 
 
 Michael Keefe was then called and examined by Mr. 
 Atkinson. He said, — I am a farmer, living at Lisna- 
 burg, near Millstreet, in the county of Cork. On 
 November 16, 1880, a fair day, I went to Cork with 
 
 John Donoghue. 
 Michael Keefe. 
 
 a man named Cornelius Duggan and had a conversa- 
 tion with him about paying rent. 
 
 Had you paid your rent at that time ? — No ; I was 
 going to pay the day after. 
 
 Did you say anything to Duggan about paying rent r 
 — I said I would pay it. 
 
 Was he a member of the Land League ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 Next morning did you find a notice posted up on 
 your premises ? — I did. 
 
 What did it contain ? — I cannot exactly say, but it 
 was that nobody was to pay any rent above Griffith's 
 valuation. 
 
 Did you pay your rent after that ? — I did, by post ; 
 it was a gale of rent. 
 
 In the following May did you see another notice 
 posted up ? — Yes, a boycotting notice. It was signed 
 " Captain Moonlight." 
 
 After tnat were you boycotted ? — Yes, 1 was, 
 partly. 
 
 Towards the end of June,1881, did a number of men 
 come to your house ? — Yes ; it was attacked. I de- 
 fended myself and drove them off. They fired shots. 
 
 Did a relative of yours die some time after that ? — 1 
 am not sure. 
 
 Well, did you go to Jerry Hegarty's to buy some- 
 thing ?— I did. That was on June 28, 1881. After 
 that the boycotting got worse. I was struck with a 
 stone coming back. 
 
 Some years afterwards did you take an evicted 
 farm ? — Yes ; in December, 1883, I went into posses- 
 sion of it. The boycotting got worse after that. 
 
 Are you still boycotted ? — Yes. 
 
 When you go to chapel will people sit on the same 
 side as you ? — They do now, but they did not two or 
 two and a half years ago. 
 
 Except having paid your rent, having taken an 
 evicted farm, and dealing with Hegarty, do you know 
 any other cause why you should be boycotted ? — I do 
 not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Who was the 
 evicted tenant of the farm you took ? — There were 
 two on the one farm. 
 
 How many acres is it ? — 120 acres. 
 
 And how many acres had you yourself when you 
 took the evicted farm ? — 28 or 30. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Before I go on with the 
 other witness, may I ask Mr. Reid, who was good 
 enough to say that he would intimate what speeches 
 would be admitted, whether he can do so now ? I 
 think it is desirable we should go on with the evi- 
 dence to-day. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I shall be happy to do the utmost I can. 
 Of course we must at an early date give notice to the 
 Attorney-General, but I am sorry I am not able to do 
 so now. 
 
 Patrick Sheridan, examined by Mr. Murphy, said, 
 — I am steward and land bailiff to Miss Fitzpatrick,. 
 and live at Robeen. I know the farm at Robeen which 
 
 Patrick Sheridan, 
 
664 
 
 The Special Commission, December 14, 1SS8. 
 
 was in the occupation of Mr. Willis. When ho gave 
 it up one farm was taken by a man named M'Hugh. 
 There were two farms at Robeen, and he had a third 
 in his hands called Daveris. I did not see a notice 
 put up on Kobeen farm. After M'Hugh took the farm 
 his hay was burnt. Another of the farms was taken 
 by> man named Fergus, and his hay was also burnt. 
 
 Did a man named Walsh take another farm that Mr. 
 Willis had held ? — No ; that was not the same farm. 
 
 How came Walsh to go into it ? — He bought the lease 
 of it. 
 
 After he went in there, was he, to your knowledge, 
 fired at ? — I cannot exactly say ; the man is here. 
 
 Now,do you remember going to a fair at Hollymount ? 
 — I do. When I came back I found my house had 
 been broken into and a double-barrelled gun taken 
 away. As far as I can remember that was in December, 
 1882. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — Were you ever fined 
 for being found drunk on the road with this double- 
 barrelled gun at full cock ? — No. 
 
 Were you ever summoned by a policeman of the 
 name of Liddell ? — I was. 
 
 And you were fined and your gun taken from you ? — 
 I was fined. My gun was taken before this, because I 
 was under protection. 
 
 Were you in the habit of frequently firing your gun 
 in the air ? — No. 
 
 Do you swear that ? — I do. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Murphy. — Were the meadows 
 boycotted after Mr. Willis left ? — Yes, for three years. 
 
 What were you fined for ? — I had protection with 
 me, and I had a drop taken, and I was fined for it. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Patrick Walsh, examined by Mr. Muephy, said,— 
 In 1880 I bought the meadow on Daveris farm 
 belonging to Miss Lindsay Fitzpatrick. I got the hay 
 saved and cut. Part of it was burnt. After this I 
 was coming from Ballinrobo market with my wife and 
 two others on my car. At the cross roads near Thomas- 
 town I heard a shot fired. I could not say whether 
 it was at me or the horse or the car. It was from 
 behind a wall. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sib C. Russell. — Whether the 
 shot wa3 fired at you or in the air you do not know ? 
 —No. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt.— Do you know whether Sheridan was 
 in i the habit of firing his gun frequently ?— I do not 
 know. Sheridan was not near me. 
 
 Sergeant Elliott, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, 
 who has previously given evidence before the Com- 
 mission, was then called and examined by Mr. 
 Mubphy. He said, — In 1881 1 was stationed at Carrick. 
 On the loth of August, 1881, I saw a notice posted 
 on the gate of the chapel. I took it down. I have 
 made inquiries about the original, but it cannot be 
 found. 
 
 Patrick Walsh. 
 Sergeant Elliott. 
 
 Is this a copy (handing document to witness) ?— Yes. 
 
 The following notice was then read :— 
 
 " Any man who pays more than £2 10s. an acre for 
 
 the Daveris meadow will get a clear receipt for the 
 
 other world. 
 
 *' Roey ov the Hills." 
 
 The meadows were boycotted ?— Yes. 
 
 There was no cross-examination. 
 
 The Attobney-General.— There were three letters 
 spoken of by the witness O'Connor. Besides the one 
 produced he spoke of two other letters which were 
 written i to his brother. We ask for them to be pro- 
 duced. 
 
 Sib C. RtrssELL.— The only letter I have has been 
 produced. 
 
 Mr. HABEINGTON. — The letter came through me, 
 my Lord, and we did all we could to get the other 
 letters, but could] not. If they do come to hand we 
 shall be glad to hand them over. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — O'Connor did not say that ha 
 posted those letters himself. They were probably handed 
 to his brother at the same time. 
 
 The Court then adjourned for lunch. 
 
 On the Court's resuming, Thomas Wynne was calledand 
 examined by the Attobney-Genebal. He said, — I reside 
 at Castlereagh, county Roscommon. I was at one time a 
 member of the Castlereagh branch of the Land League. 
 The president of the branch was Henry Fitzgibbon . I joined 
 the Land League in 3879 or 1880. After Henry Fitz- 
 gibbon's death John Fitzgibbon became president. Pat 
 Conway was the secretary. I used to attend the com- 
 mittee meetings, which were held in Patrick Kearney's 
 house. I remained a member of the League till 
 June in the present year. The Land League and after- 
 wards the National League were continued at the same 
 place. In 1880 and 1881 the business at the commit- 
 tee meetings was to establish the League and make it 
 larger. I remember several resolutions being passed 
 with regard to boycotting. If anything like land- 
 grabbing or anything of that kind occurred a resolu- 
 tion was passed to boyc.ott them. They were also to 
 be boycotted if they paid their rent. People were 
 also boycotted if they supplied curs for use at evic- 
 tions or for the police. When the National League 
 succeeded the Land League I also attended the com- 
 mittee meetings. The resolutions passed were very 
 much the same as before ; I did not see any change. 
 I remember Bernard Sweeney ; a resolution was passed 
 to boycott him for evicting a tenant. I do not know 
 whether Bernard Sweeney was summoned before the 
 League. John Connor was also boycotted for a piece 
 of land he took. I did not see any resolution passed, 
 but I got a circular to that effect. I have not the 
 circular now — it was three years ago. A resolution 
 was also passed to boycott Tim Finigan on account of 
 a piece of land he took. That was the character of 
 the offences people were boycotted for. Edward 
 Kegan was boycotted for supplying cars to the 
 police. I remained a member of the Castlereagh 
 branch of the National League up to June, 1888, wheat 
 
 Thomas Wynne, 
 
The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 665 
 
 I resigned. I was not expelled ; but I resigned 
 because I had taken one acre of grass land from 
 Mr. Sandford. My holding was four acres before I got 
 the additional acre. The land adjoined my house, 
 and the gable of my house was built on it. It 
 came within two yards of my door. The acre of land 
 was in the occupation of James Morrissey, who owed 
 six years' rent for it. He was not evicted, but he 
 settled with Mr. Sandford to get compensation. 
 Morrissey went out, and I took the one acre from Mr. 
 Sandford. I was to pay rent for it. The League sus- 
 pected that I had taken it, and afterwards found out 
 that I had it. They then passed a resolution to boycott 
 me. Except having taken this acre of land, which 
 had been given up by a man who owed six years' rent, 
 I had never committed any offence. I am still boy- 
 cotted, and since then I have been under police pro- 
 tection. Pat Conry was at that time the secretary of 
 the League, and John Fitzgibbon is still the presi- 
 dent. Owen Eeilly is an hotel keeper and car keeper 
 in Castlereagh ; he was boycotted for supplying the 
 police with cars to go to evictions. I know Thomas 
 Egan ; in 1887 he was called up to the League rooms 
 about some land. He was called upon to explain, 
 and he did so. He was not boycotted because the man 
 who lodged the complaint against him did not come 
 forward. I remember a schoolmaster called Callaghan 
 being summoned before the League. 
 
 Do you think the people were afraid of the League ? 
 ■ — I am sure they were afraid, because they knew that 
 if they did not comply with the wishes of the League 
 they would be boycotted. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — I was boycotted, and 
 left the League in June of this year in reference to an 
 acre of land. A resolution to boycott me was passed 
 by the League. 
 
 Was it the judgment or opinion of the committee of 
 the League that you had done what is called " grab " 
 that land ? — Yes. 
 
 They called you a land-grabber ? — They did. 
 
 You do not think you are a land-grabber ? — I do not 
 think so. 
 
 You have spoken of boycotting by the Land League. 
 Were you a member of the committee of the League 
 at the time those resolutions were passed ? — I was a 
 member of the Land League committee, and I was 
 afterwards a member of the National League com- 
 mittee. 
 
 I suppose the proceedings of the Land League and 
 the National League, therefore, had your approval ?— 
 They did up to the time they began boycotting. 
 
 You were a member of the Land League and of the 
 National League up to June ?— I was a member from 
 the time it started up to June. 
 
 And you remained on the committee and knew what 
 they did 'i — There was not much boycotting up to two 
 years ago. 
 
 You did not cease being a member of the committeo 
 till you were boycotted yourself ? — I resigned before I 
 was boycotted, on July 15. 
 
 With regard to boycotting for paying rent, wa» 
 that at the time of the No-rent Manifesto ? — Oh/.no. 
 
 You said persons were boycotted if they paid rent ? 
 —If one man would go behind the backs of the others 
 and pay his rent. 
 
 Was that at the time of the Land League ? — Later 
 than that. 
 
 I am speaking of the Land League. Do you mean 
 that people were boycotted if they paid any rent ?— I 
 do not understand you. 
 
 The boycotting was not for paying what they con- 
 sidered a fair rent ? — I do not think so. 
 
 But if they paid without getting a reduction they 
 would be boycotted ? — Yes. 
 
 But not if they paid after they got a reduction ?— 
 No. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — May I point out that this is a wit- 
 ness from Roscommon, and so far as the names he has 
 mentioned are*, concerned we have not at present any 
 information ? 
 
 The ATTOKNEY-GENEEAii.— I may say that we have 
 endeavoured to call those witnesses whom it would be 
 difficult to get back again. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I have no doubt my friend has a 
 reason for what he has done, but I only point out the 
 difficulty it places us in as regards the individual 
 cases mentioned. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. LOCKWOOD. — How long have 
 you lived in Roscommon ? — I do not live in Bos- 
 common. I live in Castlereagh. 
 
 How long have you lived there ? — I am 50 years 
 living where I am. I have never left it. 
 
 Have you known cases of placards being posted 
 with respect to the payment of rent long before the 
 existence of the Land League ? — I never did. 
 
 You never heard about it ? — No, Sir, I know 
 nothing about it. 
 
 Or of people being warned by these placards not to 
 pay rent ? — I do not recollect anything about it. 
 
 Or being warned not to submit to the claims of 
 their landlords ? — It may have been 10 years ago or 
 20 years ago. 
 
 What may have been 20 years ago — these placards 
 warning people not to pay their landlords ? — I have 
 never seen one of them. 
 
 What is it you say you have been familiar with 
 these 20 years ? — I said I did not see any notices 
 within the last 20 years. 
 
 Do you mean you began to see these things about 20 
 years ago ?— I do not. I do not know about anything 
 of the kind at all, Sir. (Laughter.) 
 
 Then that will relieve me from putting any further 
 questions to you— that is a very frank admission. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — You said people were afraid of the 
 League. Are people afraid of evictions ?— They are. 
 
 Which are they more afraid of, evictions or the 
 League ?— They are most afraid of evictions. 
 By Mr. Biggar.— Have there been any murders in 
 
 Thomas Wynne. 
 
666 
 
 The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 your district siuce the Land League commenced ? — I 
 never heard of them. 
 
 Have you heard of any outrages and murders inside 
 the last 20 years ?— I did, Sir. 
 
 That is in your district ? — Yes. 
 
 What were they ? — Mr. Young's was one. 
 
 Have you ever heard of Parson Lloyd's murder ? — I 
 cannot say. That was & long time ago, before I was 
 born. 
 
 I may also ask you if you have ever heard of the 
 11 Molly Maguires" 1—1 have bet.rd talk of them. 
 
 Were they supposed to commit outrages ?— 1 do not 
 know, Sir. 
 
 Do you not know as a matter of fact that outrages 
 supposed to arise out of agrarian discontent have con- 
 tinued as long as your memory takes you back ? — 
 What is that, Sir ? 
 
 The question was repeated to the witness, who 
 answered, — Well, I do not know. Our place is very 
 quiet. 
 
 It is now quiet ? You mean it has been very quiet 
 since the League commenced ? — We never have any- 
 thing but boycotting. 
 
 Exactly. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— Tell my 
 Lord why you continued to be a member of the 
 League. — Well, Sir, I thought it would be well to be 
 on as well as my neighbours around me. 
 
 There being some doubt as to the witness's answer, 
 the Attorney-General repeated it, adding that he 
 was afraid he would be boycotted. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — He said nothing about being boycotted. 
 Perhaps the shorthand writer will read what he has as 
 the answer. 
 
 The shorthand-writer then read out the answer as 
 given above, without any reference to boycotting. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — There, there is not a word about boy- 
 cotting. 
 
 The Attorney-General repeated the question. 
 
 Witness. — Why did I continue a member of the 
 League ? I gave an answer to that I think. 
 
 What was the answer ? — I thought it best to be on 
 as well as my neighbours about me. 
 
 One more question. Mr. Biggar asked you about 
 Parson Lloyd. — Oh, he was shot before I was walking. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, there are some 
 fHare witnesses I am very anxious not to have to 
 bring over again. That is why I am obliged to take 
 them now. 
 
 Hannah Connell, an aged and feeble woman, was 
 then called and examined by Mr. Murphy. This 
 witness was almost unintelligible, and in order to get 
 her answers to the questions put to her the official 
 shorthand-writer was compelled to stand next her by 
 the witness-box. She was understood to say, — I live 
 near Mjltownmalbay. I remember a man named 
 Connell being evicted from the farm on which I am 
 now living. Mr. Studdert, the landlord, let my son in 
 as caretaker after him. After my son was so let in 
 
 we were boycotted for 12 months and a half. Except 
 what Mrs. Moroney gave me I could get nothing to 
 eat. I was dying in the house. With the 
 exception of going into this land my son had 
 done nothing to cause this. I am a poor, distressed 
 widow, and my husband had the land before ever the 
 other Connell had it. When my husband died they 
 turned me out. I remember my son being called 
 before the League. That was afterwards, when the 
 League was in my parish. 
 
 Did Father White come to your cabin ? — Never, Sir. 
 He was the president of the League. I asked Father 
 White to help me. I besought him for the honour of 
 God not to let me be boycotted, and to help me with 
 my son. He said he had nothing at all to do with it. 
 
 Was your son a fisherman ? — He was. After he was 
 boycotted he could not get the men that used to fish , 
 with him to go out with him. When my son or I used 
 to go away from home we were annoyed by the people 
 in the road. They were in the habit when I was going 
 down the street of taking up Btones and calling me 
 names, and said I would have to ta,ke to my bed. I 
 had to call upon the police to protect me. The 
 people also threw stones at my door. 
 
 How did you get any provisions you were able to 
 ODtain ? — Mrs. Moroney helped. When provisions 
 were brought into the houEe they were brought in 
 secretly. I tried to buy things at the shop, but they 
 would not sell them to me. I remember going to try 
 and change a £1 note one day. When I went to the 
 bank to change the note they pelted me. On one 
 occasion I was going to the police office, and they 
 pelted me with stones when I got into the road. I 
 think the police prosecuted some of the shopkeepers 
 for intimidating me, and I was a witness there. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood. — Was your son a 
 fisherman ? — He was, and his father before him. 
 
 Oh, indeed ! (Laughter.) What was the land he 
 held ? Did he hold the land his father had held ?— He 
 did, Sir. 
 
 At this point the witness sipped frcm a glass of 
 water which stood on the ledge of the witness-box. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I am afraid that is only water. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General. — You really ought not to 
 say that. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I hope I said nothing wrong. 
 
 The President (smiling). — I suppose it was only 
 said in joke. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Your Lordship does not 
 know what has been said about this poor old lady. 
 
 The President. — No, I do not. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — No more do I. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— You ought not to make 
 these personal remarks. 
 
 The President.— Mr. Lockwood only made the 
 remark in joke, as I understood it. Therefore the 
 incident may be allowed to drop. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I am very sorry if I have said any- 
 thing to hurt the feelings of the Attorney-General. 
 
 Hannah Connell. 
 
The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 667 
 
 (Laughter.) (To witnees.) After you were boycotted, 
 did your eon continue to send his fish to Mrs. 
 Moroney ?— He did not fish for Mrs. Moroney after he 
 had no one to go along with him. 
 
 Is your son here ? — Yes. 
 
 Then I will get it from him. During the time you 
 were boycotted did you get your food from Mrs. 
 Moroney ? — I was 12 months and a half boycotted. 
 When I was boycotted Mrs. Moroney came to see me, 
 and it was the only salvation I got. 
 
 My Lords, I have some instructions for cross-exami- 
 nation in this case, and, with your Lordships' permis- 
 sion, I will defer it until the son comes into the box. 
 
 James Connell, a witness who spoke with extreme 
 rapidity, was next examined. In answer to Mr. 
 Murphy, he said, — I am the son of the last witness. I 
 was 19 at the time of the Crimean War. (Laughter.) 
 I was boycotted. 
 
 What were you boycotted for ? — For stopping in the 
 land on which Mr. Studdert placed me. 
 
 Did you get half an acre of land in addition to 
 that?— I did, Sir. 
 
 Was that formerly in the possession of Michael 
 Carroll ? — Yes ; he was evicted, and I got it. 
 
 Then you were boycotted ?— I was. 
 
 After that did you receive a notice from a man 
 named Michael Killein in connexion with the League ? 
 — He was secretary. 
 
 What were the contents of the notice ? — That I was 
 to attend a League meeting. 
 
 Did you go ? — Not that day. 
 
 Did you afterwards go ? — I did 
 
 Who was president ? — Father White. 
 
 Was James Shannon there ? — Yes, and John O'Brien 
 and Synan Cleary, who told me I had a right to be 
 boycotted. 
 
 Do you remember Father White saying anything 
 about " testing " you ?— Yes ; he said he would send 
 the evicted tenant's son to drive his cattle on to the 
 land, and that that would be a test. (The witness went 
 on to describe the incidents of the meeting with such 
 rapidity that nobody could understand him.) 
 
 The President. — The shorthand writer cannot follow 
 the evidence. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — Speak less rapidly. After that you 
 were boycotted ? — I was. 
 
 You had a canoe and some nets, I believe ? — I had, 
 and three men used to assist me in working the canoe 
 when fishing, but after I was boycotted I could get no 
 assistance. 
 
 Did you go to Father White to ask his help ? — I did. 
 I asked him how I was to support my mother. I 
 called him into the house, and told him that we were 
 without food. I said to him, " For the honour of God 
 not to see me and my mother die of starvation." He 
 said he had nothing to do for me and went away. My 
 mother could not get any provisions, and I could not 
 
 get any employment. I was obliged to sell my net, 
 which had cost £4, for £1 5s. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. LoCKWOOD. — Were you living 
 on Mrs. Moroney's property at the end of 1881 ? — No. 
 I never lived on her property. I was living where I 
 was born and where my father before me lived. 
 
 Do you remember in 1881 or 1882 Mrs. Moroney 
 evicting a large number of her tenants — 14 families in 
 all ? — I heard she evicted them. 
 
 Do you know that from that time there was a great 
 deal of angry feeling stirred up against Mrs. Moroney ? 
 — No ; I did not know it. I heard there was an angry 
 feeling, but I did not hear it was on account of the 
 evictions. I did not know the cause of the angry 
 feeling. I never had anything to say in the business. 
 
 Do you remember Mrs. Moroney engaging 
 emergency men from the north of Ireland in 
 
 1882 ?— I don't know anything about it. 
 
 In 1883 did you know a tenant named Carroll ? — I 
 knew one named Carroll. 
 
 Was he imprisoned as a suspect ? — I do not know 
 that. 
 
 Do you know if he was sent to prison ? — I do not 
 know whether he was or not. 
 
 Do you mean to say that you hear to-day for the first 
 time that he was sent to prison ? — I never heard of it. 
 
 He was your landlord, you know, in 1883 ? — I do not 
 know whether he was or not. I suppose he was the 
 landlord. 
 
 Did you hear it suggested he was sent to prison in 
 
 1883 ?— I did not. 
 
 Never heard of it ? — Never. 
 
 Your own landlord ? — I never heard of it. 
 
 You do not know whether your own landlord was in 
 prison or not ? — I do not. He always came for the rent 
 at the time it was due, and I do not know where he 
 was in the meantime. 
 
 Do you remember this man Carroll being evicted by 
 Mrs. Moroney ? — No. 
 
 I have made a mistake. Did you hear of his being 
 evicted by Major Studdert ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you put in by the landlord of Carroll as care- 
 taker ? — I was, Sir. - 
 
 When was that ?— The same day. 
 
 Was that in 1S86 ?— I cannot say. 
 
 After you had been put in as caretaker, did you 
 attend a meeting of the League ? — I was called on to 
 
 go. 
 
 Did you go before the League ? — I did. 
 
 Did you protest that you had never touched this 
 land ?— I did not, because it was the land where my 
 father was born. 
 
 Never mind your father now. I am asking you a 
 question with which your father has nothing to do. 
 Who were present at this meeting of the League when, 
 as I suggested, you protested that you had never 
 touched the land ? — Father White was in the chair, and 
 all the committee were there. 
 
 Did you tell them that you had not taken this land ? 
 — I did not tell them that. 
 
 James Connell. 
 
668 
 
 The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 At this time yon were a member of the League, 
 were you not ? — I was. I was obliged to join it. 
 
 Were you not expelled from the League for the lies 
 it was alleged you told to the committee of the 
 League ? — I was expelled because I wanted to stop in 
 the place and keep my little cabin for my mother. 
 
 When were you expelled from it ? — In the latter 
 end, when I was boycotted. 
 You were living with your mother ? — I am. 
 After you were boycotted, were you supplying Mrs. 
 Moroney with fish ? — No, because I had no means of 
 getting fish. I could get no one to go with me. 
 
 Do you recollect any prosecutions against tradesmen 
 for not supplying your mother ? — I do. 
 How many were prosecuted ? — Four of them. * 
 
 Had your mother been to these shopkeepers professing 
 a wish to be served, accompanied by policemen ? — She 
 was not at first, but afterwards she was afraid to go 
 out without protection. 
 
 Did the policemen not go with her for the purpose of 
 getting evidence against the tradesmen ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 Do you mean you have not heard it before ?— I have 
 not. 
 
 Did not these very tradespeople offer to supply her if 
 she would go without the police ?— They did not. 
 
 You swear nothing of that sort took place ? — I did 
 not hear of it. 
 
 Give me the names of some of the tradespeople ? — 
 Joe Bright, Willy Hide, Teddy Flannaghan, and Pat 
 Collins. 
 
 Who were the magistrates before whom these shop- 
 keepers were prosecuted ? — I do not know ; I was not 
 in the court. 
 
 Were they Mr. Koche and Mr. Hodder ?— I do not 
 know ; I was not there. 
 
 By Mr. Rbid.— You say you were obliged to join the 
 Land League ?— Yes, I was. 
 
 Who obliged you ? — The members. All I wanted was 
 to got my own living. I hoped to do so. 
 You were afraid ?— No ; I am never afraid. 
 What forced you to join the League ?— Expecting 
 that I should be able to get a bit of provision and get 
 my living as I did before. 
 When did you join it ? — I could not tell you that. 
 You seriously say you cannot tell me ? — Yes. I will 
 not tell you lies. 
 
 Had you been a member of the League for more than 
 12 months ?— No. 
 
 Do you suggest any one threatened you in connexion 
 with the League ? — Yes. 
 Who ?— Martin Killein and Tom Killein. 
 How did they threaten you ?— They told me to go to 
 the League, or I should be boycotted if I did not. 
 ! Both of them together ?— No, only one— Tom Killein, 
 the secretary of the League. 
 Did he ever threaten you with anything ?— No. 
 Did any one else ever tell you you would be boy- 
 cotted if you did not join the League ?— Yes. 
 Who ?— James Clancy, of the League. 
 
 Can you tell me when "that was ? — I cannot. 
 
 The man you paid your rent to is a man named 
 Carroll ? — Yes ; three years' rent and taxes. 
 
 Had he also a superior landlord ? — He had, Sir. 
 
 Was his rent £24 ? — I do not know. 
 
 Had you no information on the subject ? — No. 
 
 Do you not know that his rent was reduced by one- 
 half in the Land Court ? — I do not know that, but I 
 know he did not reduce my rent at all. (Laughter.) 
 
 Do you know he was evicted in 1886 ? — I know ha 
 was evicted. 
 
 And did not his eviction produce a great deal of 
 sympathy with him ? — With me, Sir ? (Laughter.) 
 
 No, with.him ? — No ; I never heard of it. 
 
 Did you not hear it was thought to be a cruel evic- 
 tion ? — I did not. (The witness then made a statement 
 which was quite ' unintelligible in the body of the 
 Court.) 
 
 Mr. Eeid (sitting down). — Your Lordship, the wit- 
 ness is too much for me. (Laughter.) 
 
 Re-examined by SIB H. Jambs. — Did you pay your 
 rent to Carroll regularly ? — Yes, regularly for three 
 years. During that time he did not pay a penny 
 himself. He told me it was his business to cheat the 
 landlord, not mine to cheat him. (Laughter.) 
 
 What did you say about cheating the landlord ? — He 
 said to cheat his own landlord was his business, and 
 not me to cheat himself. (Laughter.) 
 
 When you were first boycotted Witness. — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Excuse me for a moment. When you were first boy- 
 cotted.had you joined the Land League then or not ?— I 
 was obliged to join. I was boycotted after I joined 
 the League, and not before. 
 
 After they boycotted you did they expel you ?— Yes, 
 Sir. 
 
 What for ?— Witness was understood to say, " For 
 stopping in the place at all." 
 
 Mr. MUEPHY next examined Head Constable 
 William Brady. Witness said, — I was in charge of 
 Miltownmalbay in June, 1887, and in consequence 
 of complaints that had been made I saw Connell's 
 two partners. They made a statement to me as to 
 why they would not fish with him. They said that if 
 they fished with him no one would buy their fish. 
 Later on in the year Mrs. Connell made a complaint 
 to me about not being able to get flour. In conse- 
 quence of that I made a report. A little later on in 
 the year she again came to me and made a complaint 
 about not being able to get goods. In consequence of 
 that I went to several shops with her. I tried to get 
 goods for her. The shopkeepers, very few of them, 
 would supply her. They refused to supply her with 
 sixpennyworth of bread. She asked for sixpennyworth 
 of bread in every shop where they sold it and was re- 
 fused. The crowd followed where we went shouting 
 and jeering. Some of these men were prosecuted for 
 intimidating her. 
 
 James Connelle 
 
 Head Constable William Brady. 
 
The Special Commissioiij December 14, 1888. 
 
 669 
 
 Did Mr. Bedmond, now a member of Parlia- 
 ment, defend them '?— Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — And a member of the Bar. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — And a member of the Bar. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Keid. — Mrs. Connell was boy- 
 cotted in 1887 at first ?— Yes. 
 
 What was the reason ? Was it not this — that she had 
 taken some land from which a man named Carroll had 
 been ejected ? — Yes. 
 
 Then perhaps you know that Carroll had been very 
 highly rented ? — I know he had obtained judicial rent 
 two and a half years before he was evicted, and that 
 during that period he did not pay any rent. 
 
 Just answer my question ? — I do not remember how 
 much his rent was reduced to. It was very largely re- 
 duced, although he did not pay any. 
 
 Was it not considered in the district to be a harsh 
 eviction ? — No, certainly not, because he did not live 
 on the farm ; he lived on another property two miles 
 distance from this farm. 
 
 There was a lady, Mrs. Moroney, living in the neigh- 
 bourhood, who keeps a store and an hotel and sells all 
 kinds of goods ? — Yes. She was obliged to open a 
 store. She was boycotted herself, and supplied boy- 
 cotted persons. 
 
 In 1888 had she all these things in her shop — all 
 kinds of provisions ? — She had no bread for sale as far 
 as I know. 
 
 Did you accompany Mrs. Connell to the trades- 
 people ? — On one occasion. 
 
 Did you go with her from shop to shop ? — Yes. 
 
 To how many ? — To six in which bread was sold, 
 and to a seventh, where she was supplied with 
 some groceries. 
 
 Did she go at your request ?— She first came to the 
 barracks and said that she required some bread and 
 other things, and in consequence of the conversation I 
 had had with the Rev. Father White I told her to 
 endeavour to procure bread, as I had reason to 
 believe that if she went without the police she would 
 be supplied. She went and came back, and had some 
 bread with her, but made a complaint, in consequence 
 of which I sent a sergeant with her, and on one occa- 
 sion I went myself. On all occasions she was asking 
 for bread and groceries. 
 
 Was Mrs. Moroney able, if she wished, to supply her 
 with groceries ? — Yes ; but Mrs. Connell's was much 
 nearer to the town than Mrs. Moroney's store was. 
 
 Was not the object of taking Mrs. Connell round 
 for the purpose of obtaining evidence for prosecutions ? 
 — Certainly. 
 
 How many were prosecuted ? — Ten. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lockwood.— Do I understand 
 you to say that this old woman could not get bread 
 from Mrs. Moroney ?— Yes. 
 
 Were you present when she gave evidence on Feb- 
 ruary 3, 1888, at Miltownmalbay ?— Yes. 
 
 And you were asked if you were aware that she was 
 cross-examined by a barrister named Mr. Redmond ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you hear her swear, " They said I was boycotted. 
 I have been getting bread at Mrs. Moroney's since 
 August " ? — I was not present at the time, but I be« 
 lieve she did not get bread at Mrs. Moroney's. 
 
 I put it to you that she on her oath said that sha 
 had been getting bread at Mrs. Moroney's since 1887. 
 
 The President. — I understand that he was not 
 there ? 
 
 Witness. — I wish to explain that I was not in court 
 during the whole of her examination. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Before she«camo to you did you 
 learn that she had tried to get bread herself and been 
 refused ? — Yes, she told me so herself. 
 
 By how many people ? — By one person with whom 
 she had been dealing. That was long previous to the 
 action of the police, and in consequence of that I took 
 this course. 
 
 What notice is that (producing a notice) ? — A notice 
 that I found posted within a mile of Miltownmalbay 
 on May 4, 1886. 
 
 Sir H. James then read the notice, which was as 
 follows ;->- 
 
 " Notice. 
 
 " To all persons without distinction of class or 
 creed not to enter the premises of any of those shop- 
 keepers who signed the guarantee to supply boycotted 
 persons and shirk Balfour's mean and unjust prosecu- 
 tions and laughed at their brave fellow-townsmen who 
 preferred to go to gaol rather than yield to a basa 
 coercion law enacted by a Tory Government. 
 " I. 
 
 " Any person who goes into any of those skulking 
 shopkeepers' referred to will violate the law laid down 
 by our superior Courts. 
 
 " II. 
 
 " Any person who disobeys this command, enforced 
 from May the fourth, will not escape due punishment. 
 " By orders of the Vigilance Committee." 
 
 Do you know whether there was an appeal against 
 the judgment ? — Yes. 
 
 The conviction was confirmed on appeal ?— Not only 
 confirmed, but the sentence was increased. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Double the sentence, I believe. 
 
 Sib H. James. — In respect to that notice, did some 
 shopkeepers give an undertaking to serve persons ?— ■ 
 Yes ; some gave a guarantee not to take part in any 
 boycotting of the military in future in Cork. After 
 that came that notice. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — When was it that the houses 
 were closed in Miltownmalbay ? — On February 3 
 and February 4. That was while the hearing of the 
 case was on before the magistrates. 
 
 Did not you know that that was in consequence of 
 the advice of Father White, in order to prevent any 
 disturbance ? — I am aware that he swore that he ad- 
 vised the people to be as quiet as a city of the dead 
 during the hearing of these cases. 
 
 Was it not publicly stated that the closing of the 
 houses, and particularly of the publichouses, was to 
 prevent any disturbance ? — I believe he also said so. 
 
 Was it not publicly announced that the closing of 
 the houses — particularly the publichouses — was in 
 
 Head Constable William Brady. 
 
670 
 
 The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 order to prevent any excitement or tumult during the 
 hearing of the case ; and was it not after that that 
 you took round Mrs. Connell and her son to the 
 various shops ? — The people were brought round that 
 day to these shops, and if they refused to supply them 
 they were prosecuted. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — The publichouses were closed on these 
 days ? — Yes. 
 
 Had there not been on a previous trial disturbances 
 by reason of publichouses being opened t — No. 
 
 After the police "knew that the publichouses 
 were closed on this day, did they not them- 
 selves go round to 21 publichouses and ask for 
 refreshments ? — Yes. 
 
 The houses were closed altogether ? — They were. 
 
 They knocked at the door, and when the publicans 
 would not admit them, did they prosecute every 
 one of those persons ? — Yes. 
 
 Sib H. James. — The police and the military came 
 into this town on the day of the hearing ? — Yes. 
 
 Of course they woulc? require food ? — Certainly. 
 
 Could they get any in consequence of these houses 
 being closed ? — No, they could not. 
 
 That being the condition of things, what did this 
 rev. gentleman, Father "White, say on the subject ? — 
 During the hearing of the case against the publicans 
 for closing their houses he stated that be had advised 
 the people to make Miltownmalbay a city of the 
 dead during the hearing of this case. 
 
 Was there anywhere besides these houses where the 
 police or military could obtain food ? — I believe only 
 one place, the Atlantic Hotel. 
 
 And 1 believe on ordinary occasions the shops are 
 open for the sale of food ? — Yes. 
 
 Was it upon this hearing that you have spoken of 
 that tnese people- gave a guarantee ? — Yes ; there were 
 21 convicted. 
 
 Ten of them gave the undertaking ? — Yes. 
 
 And these persons were not punished ? — No, they 
 were discharged. 
 
 Did the people who went to prison refuse to give an 
 undertaking ? — Yes. 
 
 Then it was after this notice was given ? — Yes. 
 
 Where is this Atlantic Hotel where you say the 
 police could get food ? — That is the boycotted lady who 
 had a store. It is about a mile from the town. 
 
 In respect to the closing in the town, is that of all 
 the shops or only part of them ? — All the shops were 
 closed in the town, and no goods were supplied at any 
 of them — not to my knowledge. 
 
 The next witness was Charles William Perry, who 
 was examined by Mr. Atkinson. Witness said, — I 
 am the agent of Mr. Thomas Brown, of New Grove, 
 county Clare. In 1881 a body of tenants came to me 
 about paying rent. That was about September, 1881. 
 There were no processes served at the time. They did 
 not at that time make any demand of me in reference 
 to their rents. I was obliged to take proceedings at 
 the end of 1881 in consequence of their not paying on 
 
 account of the No-rent Manifesto. Shortly after 
 that they came to me in a body in reference to that 
 demand. They said they could not pay their rent at 
 that time. I cannot remember the reason ; I think 
 it was because of the No-rent Manifesto. I re- 
 member a number of men came, and two men of the 
 name of Moroney separated themselves from the 
 others and came to the office. They were Michael 
 and William Moroney. 
 
 Were there more than two ? — Another man came too 
 — his name was Kenny. 
 
 Was that Michael Moroney subsequently murdered ? 
 — He was, aome months afterwards. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — When Moroney 
 separated himself from the others what did he do P 
 
 The witness. — He paid his rent. 
 
 Examination continued by Mr. ATKINSON. — Several 
 others paid their rent. The second Moroney lived in 
 the same townland. In 1884 the lease of the house 
 formerly held by Conheedy fell in. I refused to make 
 a new letting to Conheedy, and he was turned out. 
 I let that house subsequently to a man of the name of 
 Macnamara. He was a tenant in occupation at the 
 time and a sub-tenant of Conheedy when the lease fell 
 in. I cannot say that Macnamara showed me any re- 
 solutions of the Tulla Land League. I and Macnamara 
 went before the Tulla Land League about the year 
 18S5. Wo did not go into the room, we remained out- 
 side. It was known that we were there. No com- 
 munication was made to us by any of the members as 
 to what was done inside. I did not ascertain what 
 had taken place, nor did any of the members of the 
 Land League say anything as to whether we should be 
 admitted or not. We left after going there because 
 wo understood that they would not hear us. 
 
 At this time had you two men named Halloran and 
 Neyland in your employment ? — Yes. 
 
 Did they leave you immediately afterwards ?— Not 
 immediately, but some time afterwards. They said they 
 were visited by a party of men, and then they left. I 
 was boycotted, and men refused to work for me. 
 
 With regard to this house at Tulla, was Macnamara 
 in possession ?— He was obliged to leave in 1886. 
 
 Did you then let Conheedy take it, and did all 
 troubles then cease ? — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — With reference 
 to this Conheedy case, you know that he had paid a 
 fine for getting the remnant of the lease ? — Yes. 
 
 And that then his complaint was that, having paid a 
 fine, you would not allow him to have the benefit of 
 the fine, but put somebody else in ? — Yes. 
 
 Whether rightly or wrongly, that was the origin of 
 the bad feeling ?— Yes. 
 
 With reference to Moroney, I would like to ask you, 
 was there, as far as you are aware, any kind of dispute 
 between him and the League ? — No. 
 
 Are you aware that the murder was one that was 
 reprobated and condemned in the neighbourhood ?— I 
 eould not say it was. 
 
 Are you a Catholic ? — I am. 
 
 Charles William Perry. 
 
The Special Commission, December 14, 1888. 
 
 671 
 
 Is Father Stewart your parish prieBt ? — He is the 
 curate, not of my parish, but the next one ; Moroney's 
 parish. 
 
 Did you learn that he had strongly denounced that 
 occurrence from the altar ? — No, I am not aware of it. 
 
 Do you know that friends visited the family and 
 showed their sympathy in the ordinary way by attend- 
 ing the funeral ? — Yes. 
 
 The tenants came in a body in 1881 and asked for a 
 reduction ? — No ; my fancy was that it was in conse- 
 quence of the No-rent Manifesto that they refused to 
 pay ; I do not remember that they asked for a reduc- 
 tion. We gave no reduction for three years after. 
 
 You remember the bad seasons of 1878 and 1879 ? — 
 Yes ; I was an agent at the time. We were not asked 
 for an abatement in 1879, and none was given in 1880. 
 In 1881 there were a few cases. 
 
 What was the reduction that was given then ? — 10 to 
 15 per cent. 
 
 On that gale ?— Yes. 
 
 That is on the half -year's rent ? — Yes. 
 
 Was that the only reduction made ? — Yes, until 1885. 
 
 When the Land Courts were in full swing ? — Yes. 
 
 What has been the total reduction made, either by 
 consent or in Court? — About 20 per cent, on our property. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — With respect to Macnamara, who 
 you say was boycotted, was he arrested in 1879 ? — No, 
 there was a Macnamara arrested ; I am not aware 
 whether it was he. 
 
 Are you aware it was not ? — No. 
 
 Was there not some jealousy between him and 
 Halloran ? Did you know of any ill-feeling between 
 them ?— No. 
 
 Do you know whether he gave boys drink to put up 
 threatening notices at Tulla ? — I do not know ; I am 
 not aware. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — You say that 
 Conheedy paid money for the remnant of the lease, and 
 you did not let him in ; what was your reason? — 
 Where a tenant was in occupation of the house he was 
 the proper party to recognize after the expiration 
 of the lease. 
 
 That was Macnamara ? — Yes ; I offered Conheedy 
 the money he was at loss, but he refused it. 
 
 Michael Moroney was then called and examined by 
 Mr. Atkinson. The witness's answers were very 
 voluble, and somewhat indistinct. He said: — I live at 
 Cloonagroo. I knew my namesake Michael Moroney, 
 who was murdered. I remember the tenants going to 
 Mr. Brown some time before Moroney was murdered. 
 I was among them. 
 
 Do you remember two or three turning back ? — Yes. 
 There was a large number of people in it. 
 
 After you had been there did a number of men come 
 to your house at night ? — They did. It was a few days 
 after I went ; I think it was one day. 
 
 Was it on the day after you paid the rent ? — We paid 
 no rent at all that day ; it was the day after we went 
 to the agent. 
 
 What did the men do ? — They came in and asked me 
 for my poor-rate ticket. 
 
 Would that show whether you had paid rent or not ? 
 Did you" produce the whole ticket ? — Begorra, I 
 did. 
 
 What did they do to you ? — Begorra, one of them 
 gave me a stab with a bayonet. I showed them the 
 poor-rate ticket, and that I had not paid. I heard a 
 shot of a gun, but I saw no signs of damage, though I 
 heard the report of the shot. Then they went away. 
 
 Did they say why they fired at you ? — Begorra, they 
 called me a blackguard. (Laughter.) 
 The witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Constable John Dwyer, examined by Mr. Atkinson, 
 said, — I found a notice posted up about two miles from 
 Mr. terry's. (Notice handed to witness.) That is the 
 notice. 
 
 The following notice was then read : — 
 
 "Take notice, any person going to pay rent to J. 
 Perry, or to settle with him in any way, I am still 
 thirsty for his Mood. So if ... . don't be the 
 cause of my coming across from Templemore, or I will 
 pay the rent for you to the last farthing .... and 
 landjobbers. " CAPTAIN MOONLIGHT." 
 
 There was no cross-examination. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — There are three or four 
 witnesses with respect to whom my learned friend has 
 asked the cross-examination to be postponed. Of 
 course, up to to-day we have kept them back, but we 
 cannot undertake to keep them any longer, and if my 
 learned friends desire to have them again they must 
 subpo3na them themselves. I want to save all the trouble 
 I can, and I do not want your Lordships to come here if 
 my learned friends are instructed that Mr. O'Brien 
 cannot be here to-morrow. I do wish to say, however, 
 that the question of the publication of such matters in 
 United Ireland is so serious that we must ask your 
 Lordships to deal with it if possible before Christmas. 
 It is not a matter that can be postponed. 
 
 The President. — There are other things besides. 
 
 Mr. Eeie. — I will tell your Lordships exactly what 
 has been done. Of course 1 have had no communica- 
 tion with Mr. O'Brien, but I am satisfied in my own 
 mind that Mr. O'Brien is desirous to. meet at once 
 anything brought against him. Therefore I have caused 
 inquiry to be made, and it is believed he is not in 
 London. It was supposed he was in Dublin, but I am 
 not aware where he is. Mr. Lewis will give evidence 
 if necessary. A gentleman has told me that from what 
 Mr. O'Brien said to him he was to be at a meeting 
 somewhere in Ireland to-day ; but this gentleman 
 does not know where. 
 
 The President.— In the first place I would call at- 
 tention to the fact that there is no affidavit. There 
 ought to have been an affidavit unless there is some 
 one in a position to make the necessary admissions ; 
 then it would be necessary to serve a notice on this 
 
 Michael Moroney. 
 
 Police-Constable John Dwyer. 
 
072 The Special Commission, December 14, 1888, and January 15, 1889. 
 
 gentleman, and he not being here that must be left to 
 the parties to do. All that is left in perfect uncer- 
 tainty at the present moment. 
 
 The Attorney-General. ^-So far as ownership is 
 concerned that has been proved. We have proved 
 registration. 
 
 The President.— As a matter of fact the publication 
 bears the date of to-day in Dublin. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— It is published two days 
 before, and always bears the date of Saturday. It is 
 delivered and on sale in London on Friday morning. 
 
 The President.— These things ought to be brought 
 before the Court in the regular manner. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I quite agree, my Lord, 
 but I have done all in my power. 
 
 The President. — I am not suggesting that you have 
 done anything wrong ; but here is a person incrimi- 
 nated, who is not here, and — rightly or wrongly — 
 nobody is in a position to say anything on his behalf. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am not asking for any 
 decision in the matter, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — No ; but you are asking me indi- 
 vidually to make a great change in arrangements, which 
 I-do not feel justified in making. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— 1 only desired, if it 
 were possible, that it should be dealt with. I rather 
 indicated to your Lordship that I hoped to save your 
 Lordship the trouble of coming to-morrow unless my 
 friend could say that Mr. O'Brien will be here. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — I cannot say he will. 
 
 Sir C. Kussell. — Serve the notice in the ordinary 
 way, 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Then we must leave the 
 matter where it is. If you think it cannot be dealt 
 With, I cannot help it. 
 
 The President. — It will be necessary for us to fix a 
 Jay, as notice will be given to attend on a particular 
 day. Apparently it cannot be to-morrow. Therefore 
 it would be for some future day. That being so, the 
 question is whether it is imperatively necessary that 
 the matter should be dealt with before we meet again 
 in the ordinary course. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Of course, I can make no 
 application under the circumstances. I had hoped that 
 the matter might be dealt with to-morrow, but it must 
 now stand over. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. — I understand there are no means of 
 getting at the incriminated person. 
 
 Mr. Eeid.— That is so. 
 
 ' The President.— That being so, I think the matter 
 must stand over. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am not going to ask 
 your Lordships to appoint a day. I have done my 
 duty. I quite agree that it ought to be most formally 
 proved and brought before your Lordships. 
 
 The President. — Very well, as it appears that it 
 cannot be brought before us to-morrow with due notice 
 to the person incriminated, then I take upon myself — 
 my colleagues are entirely free from acting in the 
 
 matter— to say that it would be inconvenient for mo 
 to meet for this special purpose, and I therefore 
 trust that it will be acquiesced in. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Certainly, my Lord ; by 
 all means. 
 
 The President.— There remains that we should 
 mention the day that we will sit. What is the day ? 
 
 Mr. Cunynghame. — January 15 is the first Tuesday in 
 term. 
 
 The President. — Very well. We adjourn till 
 January 15 next, when this will be the first thing in 
 the morning. 
 
 The Court adjourned at 4 o'clock. 
 
 {TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1889. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 32d sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Koyal Courts of Justice, when their Lordships sat 
 for the first time since the Christmas recess. 
 On the Commissioners taking their seats, 
 Sir C. Russell said,— My Lords, I have an 
 ex parte application to make to your Lordships for an 
 order to serve notice upon one Charles Henry Bir- 
 beck, the priuter and publisher of the Worcester Daily 
 Times and Journal. I have here the certificate of 
 registration under the Newspaper Libel and Registra- 
 tion Act of 1881, showing that this gentleman is the 
 proprietor, and apparently the sole proprietor and 
 publisher of this journal. The application which I have 
 to make is in relation to the number of this journal 
 published on the 1st of this month, which, we submit, 
 constitutes a contempt of Court. It is an article 
 dealing with Mr. Gladstone's recent article upon 
 O'Connell. I will not trouble your Lordships with 
 that part of it, but it proceeds thus : — 
 
 " Much of what is said in different quarters in 
 praise of O'Connell's character is well-founded, though 
 Mr. Gladstone does not dwell on some important 
 features of it. There is a striking contrast which he 
 fails to draw between O'Connell's attitude and agita- 
 tion and the motives and doings of the leaders of the 
 present so-called National party. The Liberator was 
 warmly loyal, but the Parnellites cannot conceal their 
 disloyalty. He did not proclaim -a war against the 
 rights of owners. He did not advocate an agrarian 
 movement in the direction of robbery, supported by 
 intimidation. But they are the promoters of organized 
 embezzlement. He did not seek the aid, he did not 
 make himself the servant, of a foreign conspiracy 
 relying largely on murderous methods. But they are 
 the receivers of wages from men who in America pro- 
 vide dynamite and raise defence funds for the worst 
 criminals. He would have been satisfied with the 
 creation of an Irish Legislative Assembly not accom- 
 panied by the establishment of a separate executive. 
 But they want full co-ordinate, not subordinate, rule." 
 I do not stop to notice the notorious inaccuracies in 
 the article with regard to the policy and aims of the 
 party, but I cannot doubt that your Lordships Will be 
 of opinion that a publication of this kind is not one 
 that can be tolerated by the Court during these pro- 
 ceedings. I have abstained from bringing matters of 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Charles Henry 
 Birbeck), 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 673 
 
 this kind before the Court with the frequency -with 
 which I might have done ; I only do so in this in- 
 stance because over a great part of the country there 
 has been the publication of such matter again and 
 again. 
 
 After consultation with his colleagues, 
 
 The President said,— I have already said that these 
 applications and their causes impose upon us all a 
 much more serious and distressing burden than the 
 inquiry itself, and when one finds that applications of 
 this kind are being made on one side and the other, 
 one cannot help wishing — I am afraid I cannot say 
 hoping — that there would have been abstention on the 
 one side and the other. All I can say is that I should 
 feel — we should all feel — grateful to the counsel on 
 both sides if they would brieg about some accommo- 
 dation, if they would use their influence, on the one 
 side and the other, with their clients to stay inter- 
 ference by comment with these questions which 
 we are charged with the responsibility of deciding. I 
 can only say with respect to this application that we 
 will deal with it later on, when we have heard any 
 other similar applications that may be made. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am afraid that I must ask 
 your Lordships to deal with the case which I brought 
 forward before the adjournment against Mr. O'Brien. 
 I will not read the article from United Ireland again, 
 as I read it on the former occasion, but I understand 
 Mr. O'Brien is here in Court, and I must ask your 
 Lordships to deal with the case. It is with reference 
 to the article published on the 15th of December. 
 
 The President. — Mr. Reid, on the former occasion 
 you appeared for Mr. O'Brien ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I generally appear for Mr. O'Brien, my 
 Lord, but in this particular matter he represents him- 
 self. 
 
 Mr. O'Brien. — I appear on my own behalf, and with 
 your Lordships' permission I will very shortly state 
 my position. Of course, I raise no legal question as 
 to my responsibility in this matter. As a matter of 
 fact I did not myself write this article, but I accept 
 the responsibility for it in the fullest degree. In the 
 first place I should like to say that as far as this 
 article can be in any way held to imply disrespect or 
 discourtesy to the members of this Court — I do not 
 think it does — but if it does in any way, then I most 
 willingly express my regret. Nothing could be further 
 from my thoughts. I recognize that the work in which 
 your Lordships are engaged is not of your own seeking, 
 and I entirely disclaim any intention of imputing 
 that your Lordships are not conscientiously following 
 out the Act of Parliament appointing this Commission. 
 If I may with respect say so, I have no desire what- 
 ever, and my friends have no desire, to increase with- 
 out the gravest necessity the anxieties of this inquiry, 
 Which is one of a most invidious and unusual character, 
 introducing as it does English Judges into a somewhat 
 unusual atmosphere. That fact, unfortunately, I am 
 obliged to refer to, because I believe that that is a 
 particular in which the proceedings in this inquiry, as far 
 
 as the rights of those who are public journalists like my- 
 self are concerned, differ wholly and entirely from pro- 
 ceedings in ordinary Courts of justice. I intend to submit 
 to your Lordships that this is an inquiry ordered by Par- 
 liament for Parliamentary and political purposes, and 
 that it is not directed towards the administration of 
 justice in a particular case, but towards furnishing the 
 public with the material for judging the character of 
 a political movement. My contention in point of fact 
 is that it differs only" from a Parliamentary Committee 
 in being conducted by Judges and according to the 
 strict rules of evidence, and under these circumstances 
 I venture respectfully to submit to your Lordships 
 that the restrictions upon the rights of public comment, 
 which would be perfectly proper in connexion with 
 cases before an ordinary civil or criminal Court, are 
 inapplicable and would be intolerable if it were 
 attempted to apply them to an inquiry of this kind, 
 which ranges over the whole history of our country 
 lor the last ten years, and has a constant and inevitable 
 bearing upon public life in Ireland. I venture tosubmit 
 to the Court that if we were to be restricted from dis- 
 cussing the procedure of the prosecution in this case, 
 the effect would be practically to suspend public life in 
 Ireland altogether, and for an indefinite period. The 
 effect would be to suspend public life and public 
 activity upon one side, and upon one side only, and 
 that is our side, because I venture to submit to your 
 • Lordships that the position in which the persons stand 
 who make this application is that of persons whose 
 work is done. The pamphlet published under the title 
 " Parnellism and Crime," as to which your Lordships 
 are inquiring whether one. tittle or atom of it is true, 
 is still openly advertised, and sold by tens of thousands 
 daily. Not only that, but I have to call your Lord- 
 ships' attention to a much more serious matter. That 
 pamphlet was originally published before these pro- 
 ceedings, but I hold in my hand a book of nearly 400 
 pages published since these proceedings commenced 
 by the publishers of The Times. Its title is " Parnell- 
 ism and Crime, The Special Commission, Part I. " 
 — as if it was a special message from the Court to the 
 country — " Opening Speech of the Attorney-General." 
 That whole book is packed with ex parte statements 
 of the chief counsel for The Times in this case, dis- 
 seminating atrocious charges against us — 400 pages 
 of them— and disseminating them almost with the im- 
 p-imatur of the Court, and as if these were matters 
 already proved and established. Well, I venture to 
 ask your Lordships to consider the position of these 
 persons who are making this application. They are 
 spreading and distilling this poison into English niimU 
 day after day, and in hundreds of thousands of places 
 throughout England they are forestalling the judgment of 
 the Court by publishing this thing broadcast, when they 
 kno w well that we ha ve not had any opportunity — and may 
 not have the opportunity for months and even years 
 to come of controverting or refuting it. These are 
 the persons who have the audacity to come into Court 
 and apply for punishment upon me— one of the accused 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Mr. O'Brien). 
 
 22 
 
674 
 
 The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 persons, as well as a public journalist, a man against 
 whom the most atrocious charges are levelled in this 
 book — because upon one occasion, in one leading 
 article, which the Court would never have seen but 
 for them, I tried to counteract the effect of this 
 frightful poison which they are disseminating against 
 us. I do not intend to dwell upon that matter. Un- 
 fortunately, I have plenty of references of another 
 character from other and minor journals and persons 
 who are in the habit constantly of taking it for 
 granted that these charges are tiue, and who placard 
 England, so that wherever we go to an election we see 
 ourselves confronted with the most abominable chromo- 
 lithograph pictures representing abominable crimes in 
 Ireland. That is done by persons and newspapers not 
 so influential as The Times, and who either hope to 
 escape the notice of the Court altogether, or if they 
 are brought into Court to sneak out with a sincere 
 apology. As far as I am concerned I do not mention 
 these things in the slightest degree with the idea of 
 pleading anything like a lu quoque. I take up my 
 position upon higher ground than that ; I put these 
 things before your Lordships to show you that any 
 attempt at rigid enforcement of the law of contempt 
 would have, and must necessarily have, a one-sided 
 effect in the matter, because the representatives 
 of the Irish people will have to remain ex- 
 posed to that constant drip, drip of defama- 
 tory matter, while their mouths are to be closed 
 with regard to the means employed against us. 
 I venture to say that these articles constitute a most 
 unfair «nd wicked misuse by The Times of the oppor- 
 tunities afforded them by this Commission. I am 
 sensible that in what I must necessarily say in my 
 defence I shall be obliged to trench upon somewhat 
 delicate ground. This is the very difficulty, and this 
 is the justification which I plead here — that this is a 
 matter of politics, and that this Commission, this 
 inquiry, originated in political squabbles, and whenever 
 it passes away from the atmosphere of this Court it 
 will end in political squabbles again. The only ques- 
 tion is whether in the meantime our enemies, our 
 opponents, are to be at liberty — we a poor people 
 fighting against tremendous odds — whether our 
 opponents are to be at liberty to cavry on the cam- 
 paign of defamation against us, and whether we are 
 to remain tongue-tied until the whole thing has passed 
 away out of memory. Let me give an instance as 
 briefly as I can, and I will go briefly through the 
 allegations in this article. I wish it to be distinctly 
 understood that I have not for a moment assumed any 
 right, nor ha6 the writer of the article assumed any 
 right, to question your Lordships' rulings, either in 
 laying down your own duty under the Act of Parlia- 
 ment or as to what is desirable cr not as evidence ; 
 but we do most respectfully think that we are entitled 
 in the fullest manner to criticize the dilatory tactics 
 of The Times in reference to the substantial allega- 
 tions made against us, by which we and our party are 
 loaded with enormous expense in attending this Com- 
 
 mission. I respectfully submit that we are entitled to 
 comment upon what this article calls the scandalous ab- 
 sence of material evidence and the still more scandalous 
 nature of that which is offered. I submit that we are 
 perfectly warranted, so long as we are treated as we 
 are on the other side, in not keeping silence, and in 
 not remaining tongue-tied as to the means employed 
 against us, not merely in this Court, and not merely 
 by The Times, but, as this article says, by the con- 
 nivance of the agents and officials of the Government, 
 and in some instances with their actual assistance. 
 The position taken up by this article is this. If 
 The Times charges mean anything they mean that while 
 we were carrying on openly a constitutional agitation, 
 we were at the time engaged in a secret and abomin- 
 able conspiracy to murder, which they were prepared 
 by evidence to prove, and we were led to expect 
 something new, something definite in a shape the public 
 had never heard of before. It was because wo 
 challenged an inquiry into that horrible accusation 
 that your Lordships are here, and we are here, and 
 most willing and eager, to meet that accusation in any 
 tangible shape or form. Instead of applying them- 
 selves to the question whether or not we are the 
 guilty, miserable, secret conspirators they allege, in- 
 stead of producing proof of that, we are kept here 
 month after month incurring the most frightful expense, 
 and they have not once touched upon the one allega- 
 tion which, if it were true, would render the rest of 
 this inquiry utterly superfluous, because there is not a 
 man of us who does not firmly acknowledge himself 
 bound by the act of his leader, and because there is 
 not a man of us who would hold his head up again in 
 public life if our leader were found to be in open 
 and direct correspondence and companionship with 
 assassins. I venture to submit that even if, according to 
 your Lordships' ruling, the character of the evidence 
 which The Times is producing is perfectly warranted 
 by the technical words of this Act of Parliament, 
 still it is a matter of the highest public policy, 
 of the highest public right, for us to point out that this 
 is not the character of the evidence -that we were led 
 to expect. The public were led to expect something 
 very different indeed to a risumd of the newspaper 
 files for the past ten years ; and I venture to say that 
 the article, instead of being a contempt of Court, ia 
 a perfectly legitimate and inevitable comment on 
 the tactics of the prosecution. I will not trouble 
 your Lordships by reading the article, but I will 
 respectfully say that the line of conduct taken by it is, 
 in the first place, not a contempt of Court, and is in 
 no respect an offence against this Court. I hold that 
 our comments are perfectly legitimate. It came to 
 our knowledge, more especially, that the delays pro- 
 duced by this method of conduct and other causes 
 were being utilized to procure evidence by means 
 which I will not describe, and I submit that it would 
 be cowardly and criminal on our part not to enter 
 our protest against this treatment, knowing, as 
 we do, of the inducements — the scandalous induce- 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Mr. O'Brien). 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 675 
 
 ments — being offered to convicted prisoners and 
 others to procure their evidence. I need say no 
 more except to submit to you that our criticism is 
 not addressed to this Court or to the conduct of this 
 Court, but to the conduct of the prosecution. It is 
 absurdly unn.cessary for me to say that the article 
 was not intended to sway the judgment of this Court. 
 It was intended to set us right and keep us right with 
 the public, for whose information this investigation 
 was originally instituted, who are the ultimate judges 
 of the matter, who are not bound, as your Lordships 
 are, by the strict letter of the Act of Parliament, and 
 who are daily and hourly plied with these horrible 
 imputations against us, which we have no possible 
 means of refuting except by newspaper articles. 
 There is only one other point I should like to say a 
 word about, for it is not in the least necessary that I 
 should further refer to the absurd notion that by any 
 possibility this article could bias the judgment of 
 the Court in the discharge of its functions. The only 
 other ground is that it might be said it had the effect 
 of intimidating witnesses. On that I should wish, in 
 the strongest language I can command, entirely to 
 repudiate the notion that I or any of my colleagues 
 have the remotest desire or intention of intimidating 
 or in any manner discouraging or disturbing any 
 witnesses in this case. Our interest is all the other 
 way. Our whole desire and interest is to get to the 
 point and to have the truth of this matter thoroughly 
 tested. That is the object of the action wo have 
 commenced in Scotland, and if this article is read 
 its whole aim and meaning is that the truth of The 
 Times charges should be investigated honourably and 
 straightforwardly in this Court. There are the names 
 of two witnesses mentioned in the article. The name 
 of the witness Walsh is mentioned, not for the purpose 
 of discussing his action, but merely to point out, by 
 his evidence being suddenly interposed among 
 witnesses from another county, that it was purely 
 accidental that information reached the hands of our 
 counsel in the nick of time to prove that the witness 
 had been engaged in at least three swindling trans- 
 actions, and was threatened by the police with 
 prosecution if he did not give evidence. That, 
 I say, is a perfectly legitimate matter of comment, 
 as illustrating the peculiar danger of a mis- 
 carriage of justice and truth in regard to the 
 deliberate and settled policy of the prosecution in 
 arranging their evidence, and I submit that if there is 
 any danger or evidence of intimidation in that case, to 
 say the least, it is not on our side. The only other 
 witness referred to in the article is a woman named 
 Anne Carroll, who has not been examined, but who, no 
 doubt, was here in London to be examined. Her name 
 was mentioned in the article not merely because she 
 was a Times witness, but because of some most gross 
 and scandalous public transactions in which she was 
 engaged in Ireland during the last few months. This 
 matter affords an example of how impossible it is to 
 carry on public life in Ireland if our lips are to be 
 
 sealed as to the conduct of everything in this inquiry. 
 One of the most respected priests in county Cavan was 
 prosecuted on the charge of this woman, and it turned 
 out that she was of so abandoned a character that two 
 resident magistrates refused to give any credence to 
 her story. If we are to be debarred from commenting 
 upon transactions of that sort,mere!y because the woman 
 swore that she had received money from The Times, 
 why there is not an official in Ireland who could not 
 be put in that position ; and the effect would be that 
 we should be absolutely tied hand and foot against 
 those who are coercing us in Ireland and those who 
 are maligning us in England. I submit, if we are to 
 be trammelled in this way, that it would not forward 
 the interests of this inquiry, while it would inflict a 
 most cruel and intolerable wrong upon us. I ask your 
 Lordships to remember that our opponents and their 
 friends are in a position of tremendous power in Ire- 
 land, which is now pursuing us with most envenomed 
 and malignant spirit, and that the months — possibly 
 the years — that may be consumed in this inquiry will 
 inflict dreadful suffering on our people, and perhaps on 
 some of ourselves, and that the proceedings involve an 
 intolerable pecuniary strain upon the resources of an 
 extremely poor country. What we contend, then, is that 
 there is absolutely no way of ending that period of 
 suspense so lon;j as our opponents are to be at liberty 
 to circulate jjamphlets by hundreds of thousands 
 against us, and to take for granted in all these publi- 
 cations that they have established their case against 
 us. We have a right to appeal to the public, who are 
 not bound by the four corners of this Act of Parlia- 
 ment, and to call upon The Times to do that which, 
 perhaps, your Lordships do not feel warranted in doing 
 — to call upon its representatives at once to grapple 
 with the accusations they have made. Are their state- 
 ments and tneir charges true, or are they abominable 
 falsehoods and forgeries ? Ought they to be allowed 
 to procrastinate, and by so doing wear out our 
 resources till they have succeeded in procuring evi- 
 dence by means which I will not mention in this 
 Court ? I should be most happy, indeed, to express my 
 regret for any language in any degree offensive to the 
 members of the Court personally ; but I must say that, 
 looking at this article in its entirety — looking at it 
 in substance and in fact: — I am sorry to say I cannot 
 find in it anything whatever for which I can express 
 honest regret, and nothing whioh it may not be my 
 solemn public duty to repeat. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I shall abstain from 
 following Mr. O'Brien in the character of the speech 
 which he has addressed to your Lordships. If the 
 claim now set up by Mr. O'Brien were allowed by 
 your Lordships, and Mr. O'Brien was permitted to dis- 
 cuss pending issues in any terms and with the use of 
 any epithets which he chose to employ, and by anticipa- 
 tion to charge persons engaged in laying the case 
 before the tribunal with misconduct of the gravest 
 description, I submit that the course of justice would 
 be seriously interfered with. He claims, moreover, not 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Mr. O'Brien), 
 
 22—2 
 
676 
 
 The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 merely to use these epithets to those who are engaged in 
 laying the case before the Court, but to the tribunal 
 which has been specially selected to try the casgs 
 against the persons charged. In the course of his speech 
 Mr. O'Brien complained that certain publications have 
 been issued by The Times in the course of these proceed- 
 ings. Your Lordships would not listen to any observa- 
 tions of that kind unsupported, but he has indicated 
 what he refers to, and I may be allowed to say that 
 the books which he refers to are simply transcripts of 
 speeches made and evidence given before the Commis- 
 sion, without comment of any sort or kind. They are 
 simply the report which every newspaper is entitled to 
 publish, and appears in its columns from day to clay. 
 Therefore, his claim that this is any justification for 
 what he has done is not entitled to much serious con- 
 sideration. Then he refers to scandalous charges 
 which, he says, are brought against him day by day by 
 opponents at election times and in their publications. 
 If there be any such charges, all I can say is that it 
 might be the duty of someone to bring them before 
 the notice of this Court. His article does nothing of 
 the kind. He has abstained from calling attention to 
 them, and there is no single word of justification or 
 denial in Mr. O'Brien's article of any of the slanders 
 or alleged slanders said to be heaped upon him and 
 those associated with him in this Court and elsewhere. 
 There is no better answer to Mr. O'Brien's speech than 
 the application made this morning by Sir C. Russell 
 against some newspaper. What does the article in 
 United Ireland say : — 
 
 " True, the waste of time has been in some measure 
 redeemed by an open exposure of the methods of 
 bribery and intimidation by which the ' Forger ' and 
 the Government combined are desperately struggling 
 to escape from the horrible mess in which they have 
 landed themselves. On all this black business we 
 claim our right of free comment and open exposure. 
 We have no intention of waiting till the ' Forger ' 
 gives us leave to speak. With all respect for the 
 Court, we do not care twopence for the opinion of the 
 three Judges specially selected, in the teeth of justly 
 indignant Liberal protest, by the ' Forger's ' friends 
 and accomplices. Assuming — and it is a large assump- 
 tion in the Judges' favour — that the Coercion Govern- 
 ment which specially selected them for their 
 partiality were deceived, their judgment is still beside 
 tHe question. This is not a matter of judicial decision 
 at all, but of intelligent public opinion." 
 
 I would ask whether persons appearing before this Court 
 are to be treated in the ordinary way, or are to have 
 applied to their conduct such language as this ? Can there 
 be any justification of any such language ? If it is to 
 be allowed, any one of the persons charged may slander 
 the tribunal and the persons opposed to him, and may 
 thus practically constitute himself a Judge in his own 
 case. I will next refer to one or two matters Mr. 
 O'Brien has prudently avoided. The article goes on :— 
 
 " While thus evading the main question at issue, 
 the devices to which the ' Forger ' has resorted, in 
 indiscriminate dirt-throwing, covers it with infamy. 
 James Wabh, of co. Mayo, is an average specimen of 
 
 its witnesses. By his evidence it wassqught to convict 
 Father Q'Hara — almost unanimously selected by the 
 parish priests of his diocese as dignissimus for the 
 vacant bishopric — with violence and intimidation in his 
 capacity of president of the Kiltimagh branch of the 
 League. This witness was sprung upon the Court, put 
 of his order and out of his county, without the faintest 
 notice to the accused of what was coming. There was 
 no hint from the pious Attorney-General that he was 
 not a young man in whom implicit confidence was to be 
 placed." 
 
 I was about to contradict certain matters of evidence 
 when Sir C. Russell, with perfect fairness, said that 
 he should not think of commenting upon any matters 
 sworn to by that witness, as it would be taking an 
 ex parts statement on the conduct of certain persons. 
 Yet that is what is put forward by Mr. O'Brien as 
 answering the allegations made against him. Then the 
 article says : — 
 
 " The abandoned woman, Anne Carroll, was sent 
 back from the ' Forger's ' office in, London to perjure 
 herself by swearing that the priest had threatened ' to 
 burn her house over her head, to melt her children and 
 herself, to drag her out by the hair of the head, and 
 kick her through the streets.' But even the Re- 
 movables could not stomach this monstrous story, con- 
 tradicted by independent witnesses and bythe woman's 
 own infamous character. The charge was dismissed, 
 and we do not anticipate that Mistress Anne Carroll 
 is likely, after the exposure, to appear in the witness- 
 bo? before the Commission." 
 
 These matters are in a newspaper published by one of 
 the persons charged here, and the only justification set 
 up is that he is entitled to appeal to the tribunal of 
 public opinion in the public Press, and to allege that 
 The Times has no case and is endeavouring to avoid the 
 responsibility of its charges. I will ask the Court to 
 say that this is not a matter it can pass over. The 
 effect in Ireland of these articles must be, not merely 
 to discredit the tribunal, not merely to discredit those 
 who appear and represent The Timas, but to indicate 
 to those persons who may have a knowledge of 
 these transactions that the persons whose duty 
 it is to lay the imputed transactions before the 
 Court are not worthy of confidence and respect. 
 
 The President, having briefly consulted with the 
 other Commissioners, said, — We will reserve our 
 judgment in this matter. 
 
 Mr. O'Brien. — I should wish to put in this pamphlet. 
 This is not the original pamphlet. It is a reprint of 
 one of the Attorney-General's speech, which is more 
 than 400 pages long, with the heading " Parnellisro 
 and Crime." 
 
 The Attorney-General— i think that besides this 
 volume there are volumes of all the evidence as well. 
 
 Mr. O'Brien. — I have not the slightest objection to 
 their being put in also. But I must remind the 
 Attorney-General that the evidence they contain is 
 that of one side only, without that of the other side. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have no objeotion to 
 your Lordships' seeing the whole of the volumes. 
 
 The President. — Are we to understand that this is 
 merely a reprint of The Tirnes reports 2 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Mr. O'Brien). 
 
The Special Commission, January 1.1, 1889. 
 
 677 
 
 The Attorney-General.— It is, my Lord, and it is a 
 reprint absolutely, without one word of comment, of 
 the reports of the proceedings of the Commission which 
 are published in The Times every morning. 
 
 Mr. O'Brien. — The heading and title of this volume, 
 ■which is circulated throughout England, is " Parnell- 
 ism and Crime." As to the significance of that head- 
 ing I will just quote a passage from one of the 
 speeches of the Attorney-General, in the course of 
 which he said that, in other words, the somewhat 
 stock phrase of ' ' Parnellism and Crime ' ' expressed in 
 three words what the organization is. 
 
 Mr. Eeid.— My Lords, I understand that Mr. Brod- 
 ricfc, the Warden of Merton, the other gentleman who 
 has been ordered to attend here, is represented by my 
 learned friend Mr. Lyttelton. 
 
 Mr. Lyttelton. — My Lords, I appear on behalf of 
 Mr. Brodrick. Mr. Brodrick, immediately the com- 
 plaint was made with regard to him, was anxious at 
 once to appear and give to your Lordships the fullest ex- 
 planation with regard to the language he has used, and 
 which has formed the subjest of that complaint. 
 Indeed, he had actually started to come here, when he 
 learnt of the adjournment of the Commission over the 
 Christmas holidays, and he regrets the unavoidable 
 delay that has taken place between the making of the 
 complaint and the explanation which he now desires to 
 make, because during that time the very serious com- 
 ments which my learned friend Mr. Reid thought it to 
 be his duty to make upon Mr. Brodrick's language have 
 remained unqualified and uncontradicted. I regret that 
 delay myself,. because I cannot but think that when my 
 learned friend has heard the explanation which Mr. 
 Brodrick was always willing to offer, and which he 
 now offers through me, he will recognize that the con- 
 struction which he has sought to fasten upon Mr. Brod. 
 rick's words is one foreign to their meaning, and that 
 he has placed an odious meaning npon words which 
 are perfectly capable of and consistent with an inno- 
 cent and harmless interpretation. If I am right in this 
 matter, I am satisfied that my learned friend will be 
 the last man to hesitate to withdraw the very harsh 
 and contemptuous expressions which he used in refer- 
 ence to Mr. Brodrick on the previous occasion. This 
 matter being a personal one, I have thought it more 
 respectful to the Court that Mr. Brodrick should ex- 
 plain in his own words the paragraph in his address of 
 which complaint has been made, and in order that 
 that explanation should be given in the clearest 
 manner, I have advised Mr. Brodrick to reduce his 
 explanation into the form of an affidavit, which 
 with the permission of jour Lordships I will now 
 read. That affidavit runs as follows : — 
 
 "In answer to the application made to this Honour- 
 able Court by Mr. Eeid, Q.C., on the 14th day of 
 December last, I, George Charles Brodrick, make oath 
 and say as follows : — 
 
 " 1. I desire respectfully to state that I do not 
 Jisavow the substance of the words cited by Mr. Eeid, 
 out that I do repudiate, most strongly and most indig- 
 
 nantly, the construction which it is sought to force 
 upon them. I deny absolutely that in the passage 
 cited I said anything constituting or resembling a 
 ' contempt of Court,' either by showing disrespect to- 
 wards the Special Commission — for which no man 
 entertains a higher respect than I do — or by comment- 
 ing directly or indirectly on its proceedings, or by 
 prejudging any one of the issues now before the Com- 
 mission. 
 
 " 2. I respectfully submit for the consideration of 
 the Court the circumstances under which I spoke and 
 the context of the passage cited. I was addressing a 
 private assembly, mainly composed of Oxford under- 
 graduates, and my one object in the introductory para- 
 graph to which exception is taken was to ridicule, in 
 a spirit of good-humoured banter, the love of innova- 
 tion and of sensational notoriety-hunting prevalent in 
 a certain school of young Oxford politicians. This is 
 self-evident on the face of the paragraph itself, which 
 I here subjoin, and the whole of which, as the Court 
 will see, is conceived in that spirit : — 
 
 " ' And first I would point out that our main object 
 is defensive. That is more than our opponents can 
 say. Their policy and tactics are essentially aggres- 
 sive, and this — strange to say — gives them a great ad- 
 vantage, especially in appealing to young Oxford 
 minds. Some of you may remember the old Parlia« 
 mentary squib in which the Radical reformers are de- 
 scribed as framing a motion " to abolish the sun and 
 the moon," and if such a measure were proposed by 
 Mr. Gladstone, I do believe that it would be 
 easier to get up an association in Oxford to support 
 the abolition of those ancient institutions than it 
 would be to rouse enthusiasm in favour of maintaining 
 them. And so we have not only a Home Rule League, 
 which undergraduates of advanced views have been 
 earnestly pressed to join, but a'so, as I understand, 
 an Oxford branch of the National League, with a Non- 
 conformist minister for its president, which has not 
 yet taken any very active part in organizing outrage, 
 so far as I know, but which may yet succeed in 
 attracting the attention of the Parnell Inquiry Com- 
 mission. We have also already had visits from Mr. H. 
 George, Mr. Hyndman, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Dillon, and 
 Mr. Healy, and my impression is that if the White- 
 chapel murderer could be identified, he would be in- 
 vited to lecture by an Oxford club which I could name 
 if I thought proper.' 
 
 "3. There are three allusions of the same character 
 in this paragraph. I would ask whether the first is to 
 be construed seriously as attributing to Mr. Gladstone 
 an intention to move for the abolition of the heavenly 
 bodies ? If not, is the second to be construed seriously 
 as attributing to an Oxford branch of the National 
 League the design of organizing outrago, and thus 
 coming within the cognizance of the Commission ? If 
 not, is the last to be construed seriously as purporting 
 to associate and compare, in respect of criminality, 
 gentlemen represented before the Commission — and 
 not only these, but Mr. Henry George and Mr. Hynd« 
 man— with the most atrocious of unknown murderers ? 
 The very extravagance of the supposed parallel is 
 enough to rebut so absurd a construction. However, 
 since it has been gravely urged, I hasten to admit 
 that if such had been the real purport of the allusion, 
 I should have been guilty of a grievous impropriety 
 and injustice towards the gentlemen named, including 
 Mr. H. George and Mr. Hyndman, as well as those 
 represented before the Commission. But I can assure 
 the Court, and I can assure these gentlemen— if they 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Mr, Brodrick). 
 
67S 
 
 The Special Commission, January 15, 18S9. 
 
 care to accept my assurance — that no such idea ever 
 crossed my mind. The single idea present to my mind 
 was the idea of notoriety, and not that of criminality. 
 Having named several gentlemen notorious for their 
 advocacy of extreme opinions on various subjects, all 
 of whom had been invited to lecture at Oxford, I sug- 
 gested, by way of climax and reductio ad absurdum, 
 the invitation of the Whitechapel murderer, simply as 
 the most notorious personage that occurred to me. 
 Perhaps it was not the most felicitous illustration 
 which could have been chosen, but I am certain that 
 no man who heard me understood me for one moment to 
 associate Irish Nationalists with the Whitechapel 
 murderer in point of criminality, and I maintain that 
 no rational man reading the passage would put so pre- 
 posterous a construction upon it. 
 
 "4. The rest of the speech referred to in the sum- 
 mons has been greatly abridged in The Times report, 
 which embodies but one-third of the original. It con- 
 tains strong expressions of political convictions, 
 which I believe that I share with the whole Unionist 
 party, and strong reflections on the revolutionary 
 movement in Ireland ; but I submit that it contains no 
 expression of opinion upon the subject matter of the 
 present inquiry, nor any statement imputing criminality 
 to Mr. Keid's clients or calculated to prejudice in the 
 smallest degree the conduct of these proceedings. Not 
 only had I no such intention, but I abstained through- 
 out from touching upon topics which might appear to 
 fall within the jurisdiction of this Commission, 
 acknowledging, as I do, that it is the duty of every 
 fair-minded man to suspend his judgment on all mat- 
 ters which are now sub judice. 
 
 " 5. This is my explanation, and I leave it with 
 entire confidence in the hands of the Court. If I have 
 erred unwittingly, I beg to express my sincerest re- 
 gret. But I submit to the Court — as a matter of 
 reason and common-sense — that my words, fairly inter- 
 preted, were perfectly innocent. Were it necessary 
 or relevant, I should be prepared to contend that I did 
 not overstep the legitimate bounds of political discus- 
 sion. But this is not the question before the Commis- 
 sion. The question before the Commission is exclu- 
 sively one of ' contempt of Court. ' Now, I submit 
 once more to the Court, that I said not a word that 
 can possibly be construed to show disrespect for its 
 authority, or to comment directly or indirectly on its 
 proceedings, or to prejudge any one of the issues now 
 pending before it. I therefore appeal to the Court, 
 most respectfully, but most earnestly, to acquit me 
 honourably of an offence which, I declare on my 
 honour, was as remote from my thoughts as it is 
 repugnant to my character. — Geokge C. Brodbick." 
 My Lords, that is Mr. Brodrick's explanation, and I 
 will trouble your Lordships with very few other obser- 
 vations. I think that your Lordships will have already 
 seen from the extract of Mr. Brodrick's address 
 that was published in The Times that the 
 address was made before an English audience, 
 who did not take the paragraph complained of 
 as instituting a comparison between an atrocious 
 criminal and the gentlemen whose conduct is being 
 investigated here ; neither do I think that such a 
 construction would be placed upon Mr. Brodrick's 
 language by an Irish audience. Scotch audiences are 
 proverbially serious, and for obvious reasons I do not 
 speculate as to what may have been the effect of this 
 paragraph upon the mind of my learned friend Mr. 
 
 Kcid. (Laughter.) But this much I think I am 
 entitled to say with confidence. My learned friend 
 has admitted that this paragraph was before him for 
 several days — indeed I am informed that it had been 
 disseminated throughout the country for 11 days 
 before my learned friend and those who instruct him 
 made one word of complaint with regard to it. It was 
 on the 3d of December that the address was delivered, 
 and it was not until the 14th of December that this 
 application was made. The obvious inference from 
 that fact is that my learned friend did not originally 
 fasten the construction upon the paragraph in question 
 that he now asks your Lordships to attach to it, 
 because I submit that it would not be in human nature, 
 if my learned friend really believed that an accusation 
 of such a kind as that which he now suggests had been 
 made against those whom he represents by a gentleman 
 in the position of Mr. Brodrick, that he would not at 
 ence have brought the matter before the Court. What 
 is the explanation which is offered for that delay on 
 the, part of my learned friend ? It was admitted by my 
 learned friend, when he made his application, that he 
 made it in consequence of the application which wag 
 made by the Attorney-General against Mr. 0\Brien— 
 that it was, in fact, somewhat in the nature of a 
 counter-claim. I hope I am not going too far when I 
 say that it would be a monstrous injustice if words 
 which are absolutely innocent in themselves should 
 have an odious construction placed upon them simply 
 because complaint has been made agaiust another per- 
 son with whom Mr. Brodrick has no connexion what- 
 ever. The fact that Mr. O'Brien has written a parti- 
 cular article or has made a particular speech ought 
 not to prejudice Mr. Brodrick, who swears that he 
 never meant that his words should bear the construction 
 which my learned friend seeks to place upon them. In 
 these circumstances, I shall not trouble your Lordships 
 by saying anything much about the contempt of Court. 
 It is perfectly obvious to any man that these words of 
 Mr. Brodrick's were intended to convey no disrespect to 
 your Lordships, and it is also perfectly obvious that 
 these words could not possibly have any influence upon 
 the minds of a jury, and still less upon those of your 
 Lordships, for it is absurd to suppose that such lan- 
 guage as this could in any way influence experienced 
 Judges. 
 
 Mr. Reio. — I have not much to say about this matter 
 My learned friend presents it to your Lordships as 
 simply a bit of academic banter, and while I feel the 
 shaft he has levelled against me — undoubtedly in the 
 most friendly manner- I do not suppose that he wishos 
 this to be presented to the world as a specimen of 
 English humour. (Laughter.) If it was Mr. Brodrick's 
 intention to make a joke, I think that it would be difficult 
 for him to show that his audience took his remarks in 
 any other light than that of a comparison between my 
 clients and the Whitechapel murderer. 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith.— It would have made a 
 great difference if the reference to abolishing the sun 
 and the moon had been read. 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Mr. Brodrick). 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 679 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I do not think that that appeared in The 
 Times' report of the address. 
 
 The Attorney-General was understood to remark 
 that the reference had appeared in The Times' report. 
 
 Mr. Keid.— As my learned friend has said, I do not 
 feel myself qualified to pronounce definitely upon 
 whether this is or is not humour ; but I do not see 
 wfiat connexion there can be between the abolition of 
 the sun and the moon and the Whitechapel murderer. 
 Those whom I represent certainly do not regard this 
 matter as a joke, but as an insult to them from which 
 they are entitled to be protected, and as prejudging 
 the issue raised before the Commission, which your 
 Lordships have to try, in the trying interval before they 
 will have an opportunity of refuting the terrible 
 charges which have been brought against them. While 
 I do not like to make use of any strong comments, I 
 do regret that, when Mr. Brodrick thought lit to make 
 his affidavit, he did not think Ct to do what I should 
 have expected him to do — namely, to make a frank 
 expression of his regret if the language he used was 
 capable of the construction which we put upon it. 
 
 The President. — 1 think that you have over- 
 looked one paragraph in Mr. Brodrick's affidavit, 
 in which he says :— " If I have erred unwittingly 
 1 beg to express my sincerest regret." 
 
 Mr. Keid. — I am sure I do not wish to be a strict 
 critic of expressions of regret ; but it occurred to me 
 that Mr. Brodrick considered that it was so apparent 
 that he was only making a humorous speech that he 
 ignored the justly sensitive feelings of my clients. I 
 will only say this much further. My learned friend 
 seems to think that I merely made this raotiou for the 
 purpose of retaliation. In one sense that is per- 
 fectly true, because I, in common with my learned 
 friends, felt the greatest possible reluctance to 
 bring this matter before the Court, and I am 
 sure that it must be a most distressing duty to. your 
 Lordships to have to entertain it. But I was pressed 
 to bring it forward for the purpose of protecting my 
 clients from these attacks. 
 
 Mr. Lyttelto>". — May Imention again, for the benefit 
 of my learned friend's clients — because I wish them to 
 understand Mr. Brodrick's position — that if any fair- 
 minded man can say that these words can bear the in- 
 terpretation my learned friend puts upon them, Mr. 
 Brodrick most freely and frankly disavows them and 
 apologizes for them ? We have already endeavoured to 
 state this in the affidavit in clear language, and I now 
 repeat it, so that there may be no pretence of mis- 
 understanding it. 
 
 The President. — I think that we are in a position 
 to deal with this matter at once. I must say that from 
 the report, which I dare say was a meagre one, it did 
 appear to mo that a comparison was instituted between 
 the several persons mentioned and an unknown 
 criminal ; but now that the full details of the passage 
 of Mr. Brodrick's speech have been brought to our notice, 
 there is no difficulty whatever in our accepting Mr, 
 
 Brodrick's assurance that he had no intention 
 to convey any such meaning, and he has, both through 
 his counsel, Mr. Lyttelton, and in the affidavit which 
 he has made, expressed in a becoming manner his 
 regret that such an interpretation should have been put 
 upon his words. Under these circumstances I think 
 that Mr. Keid and his clients must feel satisfied that 
 the matter does not call for any further interference on 
 the part of the Court. 
 
 The Attorkev-Genekal.— The other matter your 
 Lordships defer. I think that it would be convenient 
 to your Lordships and to my learned friends, no 
 doubt, if I made a very brief statement, as far as 
 I can, an to what I propose to do in reference 
 to the conduct of this matter. I need not tell 
 your Lordships that the attention of my learned 
 fr'.end Sir Henry James, and of the other learned 
 gentlemen with whom I have the honour of being 
 associated, has been engaged in considering how to 
 shorten these proceedings as far as possible, having 
 reference to the very natural feeling expressed by your 
 Lordships both of concluding and of keeping one's 
 mind open to receive the impression from time to time 
 of the evidence, if that evidence is not contracted. 
 But I would only say with regard to the head of the 
 evidence which wo were dealing with before the 
 adjournment, having regard to the number of persons 
 charged and to the nature of the charges, it was simply 
 impossible to avoid giving to a very great extent evi- 
 dence of the character which we were giving. Your 
 Lordships suggested that we should use as far as possi- 
 ble what I may call neutral statistics which have been 
 prepared with no reference to this case, and we have 
 endeavoured in the first place to see how far we could 
 do that. We have examined the statistics of crime 
 for 1877 and 1878 and of every year down to 1887. 
 The difficulty is this — that they appear in eight or nino 
 large books and are spread over a number of pages. 
 What we have done is this. We have simply collated 
 them, and have put them on to a sheet which will show 
 the crime for the whole of Ireland and for the counties 
 for all the years, aud we shall be prepared, of course, to 
 show that the collation is correct. What we propose 
 to do in order to dispense with anything like mere 
 numerical evidence with regard to the number and 
 nature of crimes is to give to my learned friends printed 
 copies of those sheets both for Ireland and the counties, 
 and if on looking into those statistical returns my 
 learned friends should find that there is anything wrong 
 in them, and will point it out to us, we will put it 
 right. The head3 are taken from the Government 
 papers, and I do not believe that it will be found that 
 there is anything wrong in them. We shall bo prepared 
 to put a witness into the box to prove the accuracy of 
 the collation. My only reason for not having the 
 sheets at this moment is that we cannot get the Govern- 
 ment returns for 1877 and 1878. We have, however, 
 what we believe to be correct extracts for those years, 
 but we have not been able at present to get the com- 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Mr. Brodrick), 
 
680 
 
 The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 plete returns relating to them. I hope, however, to 
 be able to get rid of this difficulty in the course of the 
 day, and to be able to check our extracts through one 
 of the libraries. Therefore, as far as the statistics 
 of crime are concerned, we propose to rely entirely 
 upon those documents to which your Lordships more 
 than once referred as being satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— What retnrns ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The Government returns ' 
 presented to Parliament. But we have no objection to 
 your Lordships looking into the returns for yourselves ; 
 indeed we hope that you will do so, because they con- 
 tain more information than could possibly be collated, 
 because we could only collate place, number, and 
 date. This information, your Lordships will find, will 
 have a most material bearing upon the evidence 
 already given both with reference to the counties as 
 to which we have already given evidence as to the 
 action of the Land League and the National League, 
 and as to certain other counties, and will, we hope, 
 shorten by many days the proof of the actual occur- 
 rence of crime. Now, my Lords, the next point of diffi- 
 culty which I propose to meet is this; and here we must 
 ask for the assistance of my learned friends if time is 
 to be saved. The matter relates to the " motive ' ' 
 columns. Your Lordship was good enough to ask me 
 whether we could not in some degree shorten the 
 matter by getting at the original documents in which 
 the motive column appeared, and I told your Lordships 
 that in some cases the matter was complicated by state- 
 ments of a confidential nature appearing on some of 
 the documents. I will read to your Lordships what we 
 have done with regard to it, and I shall ask the assist- 
 ance of your Lordships and of Sir Charles Russell and 
 Mr. Reid to help us in the matter if you can. On the 
 2d of January we applied to the police authorities by 
 writing to them the following letter : — 
 
 " 58, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C., Jan. 2. 
 " Special Commission Act, 1888. 
 " Sir, — Counsel is anxious to limit as far as possible 
 the amount of the official evidence, more especially as 
 regards the statistics of crime. It had been originally 
 intended to call district inspectors from each of the 
 districts in the counties of Cork, Clare, Mayo, Galway, 
 and Kerry to produce their outrage books and to prove 
 the state of crime in their several districts. I have 
 lately learnt, however, that a return is made by each 
 district inspector to the Inspector-General of the 
 Koyal Irish Constabulary, who, after making due 
 inquiry, enters the crime for the whole of Ireland in a 
 book which is kept under his personal supervision, and 
 in which book is entered under one column the motive 
 for the crime. If this book could be produced in evi- 
 dence by some gentleman from the office of the In- 
 spector-General who is responsible, I think we could 
 dispense with the evidence of most of the district in- 
 spectors and some of the higher officials. 
 
 " If the Government have in their possession any 
 maps which would be explanatory of the statistical 
 evidence, their production would be of much import- 
 ance and would greatly facilitate the proof. 
 
 " May I ask you to be so kind as to inform me 
 
 whether there will be any objection to the production 
 of the statistics I have referred to ? 
 
 " I have the honour to be your obedient servant, 
 
 " Joseph Soames. 
 " The Under Secretary, The Castle, Dublin." 
 
 Mr. Soames will state to your Lordships, if necessary, 
 that until a short time previous to that date he 
 did not know of the existence of this general 
 book, and that up to that time he had been 
 working upon the original outrage books which 
 were in the possession of each district inspector. This is 
 the reply, dated January 14, from Sir William Kaye : — 
 
 " Sir, — In reply to your letter of the 2d inst., in 
 which you suggest the production before the Special 
 Commission pf the statistics of crime in certain dis- 
 tricts, in order to limit as far as possible the amount 
 of official evidence to be given, I am directed by the 
 Lord Lieutenant to acquaint you that a return can be 
 made out pursuant to the enclosed form from the Regis- 
 ter-book of crime in each county, and this return will 
 embrace what is entered in the Register-book, with 
 the exception of certain confidential matter which 
 cannot be given. The official, whether county inspec- 
 tor or his clerk, who makes out this return will be 
 prepared to prove that it is a correct transcript pro 
 tanto of the Register-book of crime. If such an appli- 
 cation is made to the Commission to receive a return 
 of the nature indicated, and if they rule that they 
 will receive it, it will be prepared forthwith, and copies 
 supplied to you and Mr. Lewis (if asked for) and the 
 Commission. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 William Kaye." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Is he speaking of the Registrar- 
 General's book ? 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — The Inspector-General's book. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — As to the form of the 
 return, as a matter of fact Mr. Soames informs me 
 that he is told that the Inspector-General's book is 
 kept in the county form — that is, county by county. 
 The form of this return is : — 
 
 " Brief details of agrarian outrages recorded in the 
 county register of crime from 1879 to 1888 inclusive, 
 under the following heads : — Homicide, firing at the 
 person, attempted murder, firing into dwellings, serious 
 cases of cutting and maiming the person, and serious 
 cases of killing, cutting, or maiming cattle." 
 
 Then the heads proposed are these, as I understand- 
 all cases from the book, nothing is to be added of any 
 sort or kind — dates of offences of homicide, date of 
 death, designation of offence, district, sub-district, 
 townland. Brief summary of cases, commencing with 
 name, class in life, and age of injured person, cause or 
 motive to be clearly indicated, names of persons con- 
 victed (if any), with date and particulars of sentence. 
 I will submit to your Lordships that, assuming this 
 return to be prepared from existing documents on the 
 responsibility of witnesses who will come before your 
 Lordships — I submit that if that is handed to my learned 
 friends, it will save us from the necessity of proving 
 that which we thought it necessary to prove, in these 
 counties, at all events — namely, to prove the motive. 
 I would also humbly submit to your Lordships that 
 after all this is a commission of inquiry, and that we 
 should be both facilitating the inquiry and the interests, 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 681 
 
 of just ice. and also assisting your Lordships, if the course 
 I suggest were adopted. I would therefore ask your 
 Lordships to say that this is a proper return to supply.es- 
 pecially when it is considered that it is for your Lord- 
 ships to consider the weight and value of it. 
 
 The President, — I am afraid I have not quite 
 grasped the nature of this return. In what does it differ 
 from the official records which it was agreed should be 
 admitted ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It differs in no way from 
 them, except that we have not got them all. We want 
 to obviate the necessity of calling a number of people 
 who have prepared these books. 
 
 The President. — Do you object to it, Sir Charles ? 
 
 Sir C. Rtjssell. — No, my Lord, but we have a ques- 
 tion as to which we desire your Lordships' opinion. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have nothing more to 
 say on this matter. That will, I think — in fact, I am 
 pretty sure — conclude the evidence as to the existence 
 of a cause for crime, with one exception. We have bad 
 before your Lordships two or three land agents, who 
 had themselves actually had to do with the tenants. It 
 is, in our view, most important to have some more evi- 
 dence of that kind, and I must bring to your Lordships' 
 attention the evidence of some more gentlemen on the 
 question of actual de facto intimidation of tenants, 
 with a view to prevent the payment of rent. 
 Therefore, upon this head of the cause of crime, 
 I hope our duty will be discharged by putting 
 in the statistics I have referred to and the evi- 
 dence of land agents and landed proprietors. Then, 
 with reference to other matters, the next thing we 
 hope to a great extent to get rid of is the speeches. 
 With regard to them I hope to be in a position to give 
 my learned friends an absolutely full and complete list. 
 My friend, Sir Henry James, has been kind enough to 
 relieve me of this part of the case, and he will be 
 ready to bring before your Lordships at the end of 
 this week the evidence with regard to the speeches, 
 and then my learned friends will perhaps be good enough 
 to say of what parts of these speeches they require 
 strict proof. Then, my Lords, I have, of course, other 
 heads of the inquiry to enter upon, which, I think, are 
 absolutely and entirely distinct from those I have men- 
 tioned. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— There are the letters. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Yes, of course. That is 
 one of the most important heads so far as Mr. Parnell 
 is concerned, but it concerns him alone. I hope to be 
 able to take that part of the case, certainly in the 
 course of next week, but it would not be a right thing 
 to break into the case now. 
 
 The President. — I am pleased to hear you say that, 
 and I hope you may be able to do so. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I beg your Lordship's 
 pardon ? 
 
 The President. — I was only expressing a hope that 
 you would be able to do as you say. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I only said that I hoped to 
 be able to do so.myLord. As your Lordships are aware, 
 
 1 am not alone responsible. It depends on others as 
 well as on myself. With regard to the evidence of 
 inspectors, may I be allowed to tell your Lordships 
 that, so far as such evidence as that is concerned, it is 
 exceedingly difficult to get them all over at once ? 
 The President. — They may be brought later on. 
 The Attorney-General.— Ther.e are certain leading 
 officials who have to speak with reference to these 
 statistics whom I shall call and always intended to 
 call. The only other part of the case to which I wish 
 to refer is the extracts from the Nationalist new spapers 
 — particularly United Ireland — and the matter of the 
 American connexion. This latter comes under a separata 
 head, and is in itself a large question. My present view 
 is that I shall take the American connexion as soon as 
 we have concluded the case upon the letters. It is a 
 very large head by itself, and although I do not say 
 that my proof, in the first instance, will occupy very 
 long, there are a great many matters which must be 
 brought to your Lordships' attention with regard 
 to it, and the cross-examination will necessarily 
 lead to further questions. I have no more 
 to say on that subject, my Lords. I thought 
 it would be convenient! to the Court to indi- 
 cate how far we have endeavoured, consistently 
 with our duty to the Court, to shorten matters, 
 and also to give the heads on which we thought 
 it necessary to give evidence. There is, how* 
 ever, another very ignportant matter to which 
 I should like to refer, and that is the question 
 of the examination of banking books. Evidence 
 on that subject we shall be able to a very large 
 extent to give primd facie from Nationalist news- 
 papers, such as United Ireland and the Freeman's 
 Journal which contain public acknowledgments of the 
 receipt of money by the officials of the Land League 
 themselves to a very large extent. That will not answer 
 my purpose entirely,and I shall have to give evidence as 
 to the result of the examination of the bank books them- 
 selves. Owing to certain difficulties that have transpired 
 I have not yet received the preliminary report from' the 
 accountants on the examination of the books, but I 
 hope to have it at the end of this week. However, 
 that particular part of the case cannot be gone into 
 until the investigation of the bank books has been 
 completed. With regard to the letters, I hope your 
 Lordships will not understand me as having given a 
 pledge that I will take that part of the case next week. 
 I only said that I hoped we should be sufficiently far ad- 
 vanced to do so. I certainly do not intend to allow a 
 matter which is no doubt most important in connexion 
 with Mr. Parnell, but quite independent of every other 
 part of the case, to break in upon or be mixed up with 
 the rest of the case. 
 
 Sir C. KtrssELL.— I am glad, my Lords, tha 
 even at this late hour my learned friends have 
 given heed to the offer made months ago by myself 
 and my learned friend with me with regard to the siatis- 
 tics of crime. As to its bearing on, the questions in- 
 rolved we shall have much to say, but we have ex- 
 
682 
 
 The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 pressed our perfect willingness to take any statistical 
 account in lieu of the calling as witnesses policemen 
 and victims of alleged outrages and eo forth before 
 the Court. I therefore at once say that I gladly 
 assent to the suggestion that the report of the Inspector- 
 General with the reports compiled from the county 
 books shall be put before your Lordships and received 
 by you. But 1 would ask, in view of the subsequent 
 statement of my learned friend as to his intention to 
 call more inspectors, what we gain by the course he 
 proposes. What is it we do gain ? As far as I can 
 make out, all that we do gain is the absence from the 
 witness-box of the persons against whom the crimes 
 were committed. 
 
 The President. — That would be a great deal, of 
 course. * 
 
 Sir C. RUSSELL. — Very little of that kind of a 6erious 
 description remains to be proved ; therefore I do not 
 know what my learned friend means by saying that he 
 is going to call inspectors on this very subject of 
 crime and outrage. Now, as regards statistics, the 
 only point on which I will touch is this. My 
 learned friend S3eks to include " motive," and 
 then having used the word *' motive," he went on 
 to use the word " cause." I need not say that these 
 two words do not necessarily mean the same thing. 
 
 The President.— I think it should be stated as 
 " alleged motive." I have said repeatedly that, 
 whatever it may be called in the book, the book will 
 be admitted, subject, you know, to the word " motive " 
 being taken to mean " alleged rcotive." 
 
 The Attorney-General was understood to say that 
 he did not use the words " motive " and " cause " 
 in the same sense. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell. — My learned friend says that he 
 did not use the words in the same sense ; but I find 
 that the heading itself does use them in the same 
 sense. It reads " cause or motive to be clearly in- 
 dicated." Wo shall require, my Lords, to have this 
 heading altered so as to read " alleged motive." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Certainly. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The rca-on why we have some 
 doubt about it is this — that in a good many cases the 
 alleged motive put forward was not joining the Land 
 League ; but in a good many cases I think it was 
 demonstrated by the evidence itself that there were 
 other causes also. 
 
 The President.— I quite follow that. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell. — Your Lordships will also bear in 
 mind that there was only one case in which we had an 
 opportunity of going into a comparison of the Inspec- 
 tor-General's report and the reports of the county 
 officers. The details of the reports are collected by 
 policemen and the compilation is made up by 
 the Inspector-General, who takes some means 
 of checking those reports — what means I do 
 not know. Your Lordships will recollect that in 
 one case a largo number of offences were returned 
 as agrarian offences, the motives being suggested, 
 and in a considerable number of cases the Inspector- 
 
 General had rejected the motives and had given orders 
 that they should not be recorded. I cannot think 
 it would impose any additional labour if there were 
 put in the number of cases in which it was suggested 
 the motive was agrarian. In truth, the reports we are 
 to get from the Inspector-General would only differ 
 from the reports of the county inspectors in the par- 
 ticular 1 have indicated — namely, as to the cases 
 in which, the agrarian motive having been suggested, 
 he, on further examination, rejected it, having found 
 that it was not the case. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I think we had better not 
 alter the heading, as that is the actual heading in the 
 book. 
 
 The President. — We can only deal with this as 
 with any other case. You may take it that we shall 
 only understand this heading in the way in which you 
 desire it should be recorded. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Very well, my Lords. Now, with 
 regard to the statistics, I hope your Lordships will put 
 some pressure on my learned friend that, if we consent 
 to this course being taken, we shall not have a class 
 of evidence going over the same ground we have 
 already goae over. 
 
 The President. — I would do so if I could, but I 
 really do not know of any means by which I can 6ay 
 that evidence must not be given, unless it is irrelevant. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Your Lordships can say that in 
 your judgment it is undesirable that it should be 
 given. As regards the speeches, there never has been 
 the slightest difficulty. If my learned friends will 
 indicate the speeches on which they rely and give us 
 a list of them, there need now be no difficulty. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We have given you 
 almost a complete list. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Very well, there will not be the 
 least difficulty about them. With regard to the ques- 
 tion of the bank-books, I cannot see why there should 
 be any difficulty in agreeing upon a report, and if my 
 learned friends will furnish us with a report I am 
 sure we can agree upon it. 
 
 The President. — A report, I suppose, of the ac- 
 counts. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Merely the examination of the 
 figures and a copy of the report my learned friend ex- 
 pects in a few days. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— I have only a few observations to make, 
 my Lords. In the first place, I hope that my learned 
 friends will be good enough also to state in the return 
 the dates on which each district has been changed. I 
 would instance the caso of the Castleisland district, 
 before and after 1880. We had to qualify the statistics 
 in that district by the fact that it was multiplied six 
 or seven times in size. I would also ask for another 
 thing, and that is that where a district is included in 
 the report, in which there are townlands, they should 
 also be included in order that we may be able to see- 
 whether the crime was perpetrated in that district. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Townlands are proposed 
 to be given. 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 683 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Very well ; I am very glad to hear it. 
 There is another matter, and that is this. The outrage- 
 book of which my learned friends are going to give us 
 extracts is what I call outrage-book No 2, which is 
 supposed to contain somewhat different information 
 to that contained in No. 1. I have nothing to say 
 about thatin addition to what lias been said, but I would 
 ask that the district books which have been referred 
 to should themselves be printed. They are not very long 
 and they do not contain much matter, and I am very 
 anxious they should be printed for reasons which will 
 become apparent. The last thing I have to say is with 
 regard to the extracts from newspapers. I do think 
 it would be very convenient if my learned friend 
 would furnish us with a print of them, so that they 
 could be dealt with in the same way as the speeches. 
 I think the adoption of this suggestion would contri- 
 bute to the lessening of labour. 
 
 The Attorney-General. --With regard to the ex- 
 tracts from newspapers, I will as far as I possibly can 
 do as my learned friend suggests. As far as I may be 
 able I will give him copies, and also tell him what 
 extracts we propose to read. I want to say one word 
 about this return. I have not the smallest intention of 
 either wearying your Lordships, or making a parade, or 
 doing anything of the kind with regard to evidence 
 which is covered by the reports. The table does not 
 say anything about the League, and it is with refer- 
 ence to the action of the League that it is necessary 
 for me to supplement the evidenee I have given. I 
 nerely mention that in order that your Lordships may 
 onderstand that 1 am endeavouring only to bring 
 evidence with regard to matters which would not be 
 covered by the report. With regard to the suggestion of 
 adding a column of causes rejected, I do not think it 
 could be done, because this book is made up after the 
 causes have been rejected. 
 
 Mr. Reid.— My learned friend will find the cases in 
 which the cause was rejected mentioned in outrage- 
 book No. 1. 
 
 The President. — Rejected by whom ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— In some cases the rejec- 
 tion would take place by the inspector himself. If 
 the information can be given I am most anxious that 
 it should be given, but in many cases rejection may 
 take place before the book is made up. I will make 
 inquiry, but I think it will turn out that this return 
 as compiled from the books only contains what are 
 believed to be authentic cases. 
 
 The President. — You think that the return is only 
 made out after cases have Jjeen rejected as not 
 agrarian ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Certainly. 
 
 The President. — I suppose you will be able to 
 ascertain whether that is really the case or not ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I will undertake to give 
 my learned friends the information which we may obtain. 
 
 The President. — We think that you ought to do so, 
 and I understand that you will give this information 
 as far as it can be obtained. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— If it can be done it shall 
 bo done ; and If will ascertain at once whether it can 
 be done. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The information which we want 
 can bo supplied from materials which are in the county 
 books. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I will inquire into the 
 matter fully ; but I wish to say that it may not be 
 possible to accomplish what is required as easily as 
 my learned friend supposes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — In the county book the informa- 
 tion would be given in this way. There would be a 
 statement that an outrage was committed on a par- 
 ticular day, and subsequently there would be a state- 
 ment that in consequence of a note from the Inspec- 
 tor-General the outrage was not to be regarded as 
 agrarian. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — As I have said, I will 
 make inquiries. I cannot say more than that to-day. 
 After what has been said, and in order to avoid mis- 
 understandings in future, I will give directions that 
 this return be prepared as speedily as possible. 
 
 The President. — The secretary will write a letter, 
 if you wish it, showing that we desire it to be done. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — There is one other matter 
 which I wish 'to mention with a view to save trouble. 
 Your Lordship is aware that we allege as part of our 
 case that notorious criminals have been Land Leaguers 
 and that notorious criminals have been defended at the 
 expense of the League. We have already given some 
 evidence with respect to this matter, but, as your 
 Lordship knows, I am anxious to save the time of the 
 Commission, and I believe I can do it in the following 
 way. I do not propose to put before you anything 
 which cannot be proved readily. I have tabulated all 
 the convictions for offences, giving the nature of each 
 offence committed after 1881 in the most important 
 counties, Cork, Galway, Kerry, Mayo, and Clare. Let 
 me take the county of Kerry as a specimen. Here 
 (holding up a document) is the return for the district 
 of Killorglin. The first column gives the name of the 
 convicted person and the next gives the branch of the 
 League of which he is a member. I am informed that 
 my learned friends are able to tell us from the records 
 in their possession who were members iu all cases, so 
 that if our information is incomplete they can supple- 
 ment it. The third column gives tue particulars of the 
 conviction, taken from the record or other official 
 document. Then we have the name and address of the 
 person who proves membership of the Land League. 
 Of course, if driven to it, I am prepared to prove all 
 this by summoning before your Lordships between 100 
 and 200 witnesses ; but I do ask your Lordships to say 
 that what I propose to do is not an unfair thing. I 
 propose to hand over to my learned friends all these 
 lists and to ask them whether they require us in any 
 cases to prove ■ either the membership of the League, 
 the conviction, or any .other formal facts. Then, 
 having obtained leave, I propose to put these docu- 
 I ments in, your Lordships, of course, having the power 
 
684 
 
 The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 to summon through your officer any one of the 
 witnesses who have given information. I may remind 
 your Lordships that I am here supplying you -with infor- 
 mation which we think material in connexion with 
 outrages. My learned friends may say that part of the 
 information is irrelevant, but we desire to save the 
 time of the Court as far as possible by putting in these 
 statements at once and giving my learned friends 
 copies. We want to prove in this way who were con- 
 victed, the connexion, if any, of the convicted 
 persons with the Land League, and the defence of 
 notorious criminals out of Land League funds. Of 
 course, the papers contain some matters which have no 
 reference to the particular questions before us, but 
 the reason of this is that thoy have been taken out 
 fairly in order to show the facts as they appeared 
 originally. These documents, again, do not show the 
 acquittals and the charges which broke down, as we 
 say from assignable causes. I ask your Lordships to 
 direct that this information is information which can 
 be given in this form . Your Lordships, I may remind 
 you, are not bound in the strict sense by the technical 
 rules of evidence, and if in connexion with any of 
 these documents your Lordships or my learned friends 
 Bhould say that a particular constable ought to be 
 called, by all means let him be called. I ask your 
 Lordships to say that this is a reasonable proposal. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — This is a criminal prosecution in 
 effect, although attended by very unusual circumstances 
 and not involving the ordinary criminal sanction. This 
 being the case, my learned friend gravely asks us to sup- 
 plementthe information which he has obtained through 
 the mouths of constables in any cases in which he may 
 find some difficulty. We absolutely decline to do this. 
 My learned friend must conduct his case as he thinks 
 fit, and if he cannot prove a particular matter he must 
 leave it alone. He asks us to admit offences com- 
 mitted by members of the Land League and National 
 League. The Land League having been suppressed 
 and having necessarily become disorganized to a great 
 extent as far back as October, 1881, in the month of 
 January, 1889, we are gravely asked to say that 
 A, B, C, and the rest were members of the Land 
 League in 1881 or subsequently — facts as to which we 
 have not information, and, if we had, we should not 
 give it. According to my instructions they are facts as 
 to which we have no means of giving information. 
 That observation does not apply with the same force 
 to the later stages in 1884, and subsequently ; but, for 
 the reasons which I have already given, and for a 
 reason which I shall give presently, I utterly decline 
 to give the information asked for. I may add that I 
 am told that a3 regards the National League also there 
 would be great difficulty in giving such information. 
 I am strengthened in my resistance by the recollec- 
 tion of what has already taken place. It has oc- 
 curred again and again that a constable has, in 
 the first instance, gravely stated in the witness-box 
 that a particular man was a member of the Land 
 League, but that, when pressed in cross-examination, 
 
 he has receded from that position and explained that 
 he had only understood that the man was a member of 
 the League, having seen him attending the Sunday 
 meetings, and this has occurred in connexion with 
 cases where we shall be able, I think, to prove that 
 the evidence was not correct. This paper produced by 
 the Attorney-General ought to include charges which 
 were unfounded and dismissed. Now, with refer- 
 ence to this particular list which refers to the 
 district of Dingle, in the county of Kerry, what 
 are we asked to admit ? Here are ten per- 
 sons described as members of the Castlegregory 
 branch of the Land League or National League. What 
 are their offences ? " Furious driving ;" " groaning 
 at the police ;" " unlawful assembly." There are 
 also other cases of " groaning at the police," a case 
 of " assaulting bailiffs," a case of " booing and hoot- 
 ing Loyalists" — who are they, I should like to know?— ■ 
 a case of " obstructing the sheriff's bailiffs," a case 
 of " publishing United Ireland " — is this the case of 
 the miserable boy who was punished ? And, finally, 
 there is a case under the recent Coercion Act of 1887. 
 We utterly decline to give any such assistance as my 
 learned friend asks for. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I repeat my request that 
 your Lordships will take these lists for your own 
 information, and will require my learned friends, if 
 they dispute their accuracy, to say in what cases they 
 deny that the persons named were members of the 
 League. The course which I suggest would be quite 
 proper in this inquiry and in every inquiry of the 
 same kind. My learned friend says we have acted 
 unfairly in not having included the acquittals. Well, 
 we should have been glad to do so, but if we had my 
 learned friend would probably have objected on 
 another ground. With regard ' to these convictions, 
 the facts can be obtained from the official documents. 
 With reference to the point that my learned friends 
 do not know whether these men were Land Leaguers, 
 it is remarkable that in one breath they should say 
 that they do not know who were Land Leaguers, 
 while in the next they say that they are going to 
 prove that certain people were not Land Leaguers. I 
 ask your Lordships to pause before you reject this 
 proposal, and before you put upon us the obligation of 
 summoning all th,ese witnesses. I believe it is a fact 
 that the actual names of many of the convicted 
 persons are given m the Kerry Sentinel as the names 
 of members of the Land League attending the Land 
 League meetings. I submit that instead of occupying 
 hours and days in proving that which is beyond all 
 question, it is reasonable to supply the information in 
 a tabulated form, so as to save the time of the Court. 
 
 The President. — Was it necessary to prove that the 
 persons concerned in these cases were members of tha 
 Land League P 
 
 The Attorney-General.— In the original proceed- 
 ings ? 
 
 The President.— Yes. 
 
 A 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 685 
 
 The Attorney-General.— No. The particular 
 column with regard to their being members of the 
 Land League does not appear in the record of the 
 original proceedings. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — And is wholly irrelevant. 
 
 The President. — There is a column in this docu- 
 ment giving the name and address of each convicted 
 person and the fact of his being a member of the 
 League. Was it essential in order to prove the charge 
 brought against such person that the fact of member- 
 ship should be proved ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — No, that was not proved 
 originally, and, if not admitted on the other side, we 
 should have to prove it here. 
 
 The President.— Very well. 
 
 The Attorney- General, referring to some laughter 
 in his vicinity. — My learned friends may laugh as 
 much as they like, although it is not in accordance 
 with ordinary courtesy. We have put down here in 
 every case the branch to which we are informed a 
 man belonged. 
 
 The President. — Then you are asking the other 
 side to admit your statement that a constable can 
 prove that so-and-so — Thomas O'Eorke, for example — 
 was a member of the League ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— We ask them to admit 
 that he was a member of the League, "stating that we 
 are in a position to prove it before your Lordships. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — In how many cases are 
 you going to prove that the parties were defended by 
 the Land League ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We are going to prove 
 that in all the serious cases the Land League de- 
 fended. 
 
 The President. — I should think it reasonable that 
 the fact of conviction should be admitted, but you are 
 asking us to admit an extraneous fact. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My allegation is that in 
 the great majority of these cases membership of the 
 League can be proved by the subscription lists in the 
 possession of the other side. My learned friends have 
 produced lists of members for purposes of cross-exami- 
 nation. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — You are entirely mistaken. I 
 have never seen a list of members for any district. I 
 have seen lists of officers, not members. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I think there are lists in 
 existence. In the Ballydehob books I believe the 
 names of 199 members appeared. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— That referred to the Land League. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I was not dealing in dis- 
 tinctions between the Land League and the National 
 League. I shall be satisfied to a certain degree if 
 your Lordships will say that part of this evidence 
 ought to be taken in this way. For example, we know 
 that Mr. Parnell was president of the Land League, 
 that Mr. Biggar was treasurer, and that Mr. Harring- 
 ton was one of the officials. Will you not say to the 
 other side, " Do you dispute that these people were 
 members of the Land League ? " I think I have only 
 
 pursued a reasonable course in putting this informa- 
 tion in a tabulated form in order to enable the Court 
 to judge whether the facts cannot be admitted in this 
 way, so as to economize time. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — As far as these documents are re- 
 cords of agrarian crimes they will appear in the In- 
 spector-General's return, which we have agreed shall 
 be before the Court. But to any facts which are not 
 contained in that return we shall object. I may add 
 that we shall only be too glad if my learned friend 
 will give evidence with respect to all these occur- 
 rences, for we shall then have an opportunity of bring- 
 ing before the Court the true facts as to these offences 
 and convictions. 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — I protest that the fact that a man is a 
 member of the National League and has committed 
 some offence is not evidence against me. Some of 
 these men have been convicted of furious driving, sell- 
 ing certain newspapers, and other offences of that 
 kind, and the fact that they were members of the 
 League ought not to prejudice me. I submit that no 
 part of the evidence tendered by the Attorney-General 
 should be received. Unless some more direct proof 
 than this can be given, I submit that the charges made 
 against myself, for example, fall to the ground. 
 
 The President. — I suppose, Mr. Attorney, that the 
 fact of the conviction of a person would appear in 
 the official record of which you have spoken. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am afraid not always. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — The total convictions appear, but not the 
 names of the persons. The record shows so many 
 offences, so many acquittals, so many convictions. 
 
 The President.— I thought that in some cases, at 
 any rate, there was a complete record of the con- 
 victions ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Only the total numbers. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— They will appear in full in the 
 Inspector-General's return in agrarian cases. 
 
 The President. — With the fact of conviction ? 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — Certainly. 
 
 The President. — You have not convinced us, Mr. 
 Attorney, that we can deal with this matter in the 
 way which you propose, and we cannot call upon the 
 other side to consent to your suggestion. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I only ask your Lord- 
 ships to examine it. 
 
 The President. — At any rate, the matter must stand 
 over for the present. When we have got all the docu- 
 ments and can see what is disclosed in them, we can 
 determine whether it would be reasonable to take 
 further steps. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I shall tender them as 
 being sources of information which will enable your 
 Lordships to obtain the legal evidence. I trust that 
 your Lordships will not put the responsibility in the 
 first instance upon us. 
 
 The President.— I do not think it would be right 
 for us to issue between 100 and 200 subpoenas or more. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— If this question were 
 seriously in controversy I should say something more. 
 
686 
 
 The' Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — It is seriously in controversy. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Then I ask you respect- 
 fully to receive these lists as supplying information 
 from which your Lordships can obtain legal evidence. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Then I shall respectfully object. 
 
 The question arising whether the document produced 
 by the Attorney-General should remain in the custody 
 of the Court, 
 
 The Attorney-General said— I have no objection. 
 
 The President.— That would go for nothing you 
 know, Sir Charles. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — No, my Lords. Mr. Cunynghame 
 may have them if be likes. 
 
 The President. — I mean if the whole bundle were 
 in our hands to enable us to subpoena the witness it 
 would do no harm. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— If your Lordships think 
 proper I will leave them in the hands of the Court. I 
 have no objection. 
 
 The President.— I see no objection. 
 
 Mr. R. T. Reid. — And we should have the right of 
 inspecting them ? 
 
 The President. — Oh, yes, I suppose so. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, in the county 
 of Kerry a very large number of the names appear as 
 being members of the Land League in the Kerry Senti- 
 nel. 
 
 Mr. W. O'Brien was understood to ask when their 
 Lordships would give judgment in his case. 
 
 The President. — I do not know exactly. 
 
 Mr. W. O'Brien. — There are four prosecutions pend- 
 ing against me now and • — — 
 
 The President. — Probably to-morrow morning. 
 
 Major Deane-Tauner was then called and examined 
 by the Attorney-General. Witness said, — I live in 
 Carlow, and in 1880 I had agencies in Ireland. In 
 counfy Tipperary the properties for which I was agent 
 were those of Messrs. Philip Perceval and Robert 
 Ogilby. The amount of the rental of Mr. Perceval's 
 estate was at that time over £1,100. In November, 
 1879, the amount of arrears was £3 10s. The condi- 
 tion of the tenants on that estate was very good. 
 They were fairly well conducted and quiet. In No- 
 vember, 1881, the arrears on that estate were £790. 
 Between the autumn of 1879 and .the autumn of 1881 
 the tenants struck against the payment of rent. I 
 always collected the rents myself. In October, 1880, 
 a few of (he tenants paid. One townland did not pay. 
 The great majority of these tenants in the townland 
 did not pay. I cannot say I saw all the tenants of 
 this townland, because they did not come in. I saw 
 many of these tenants myself. They wanted an abate- 
 ment and I gave them one, and they took 20 per cent. 
 That is the abatement I gave them. At that time the 
 only reason that they gave for not paying was want- 
 ing an abatement. This reason for not paying was 
 given in 1S83. In 1881 I got a writ against a man at 
 Olonmel who did not pay — that was on Mr. Perceval's 
 estate. The amount of this rent was £105. He was a 
 
 man who had given £1,600 for the goodwill of his 
 farm. He paid in full at the sale in Clonmel. His 
 brother purchased for him at the sale. There was a 
 Land League in that district. I first heard of it in 
 1883. I had to serve ejectments on the tenants and 
 they would not pay. To the best of my belief there 
 was a Land League before 1883. About 1881 there 
 was a Land League on or near Mr. Perceval's estate. The 
 branch was the Clonoulty branch. I believe the curate 
 of the parish, the Rev. Father Humphries, was the pre- 
 sident of the branch. In June, 1881, I attended at a 
 tenant's named Cooper, on Mr. Perceval's estate. I 
 had several processes of ejectment against tenants. I 
 saw the tenant's wife there. She showed me money in 
 her hand. She asked me to wait — it was a holiday — 
 until she should get leave to pay. She said, " Wait till 
 they come down and I get leave to pay." I fancy there 
 were present with me 150 soldiers,about 100 poliee.and 
 the sheriff, Mr. Spunner, agent of (he Property De- 
 fence Association, and several defence bailiffs. This 
 wife appeared to me to wish to pay. She made a 
 communication to me after the chapel, in which she 
 told me, " I cannot pay you, I am not allowed to." 
 I was not at the chapel. I saw Father Humphries on 
 that day duriug the whole afternoon. He was with a 
 very large crowd of persons. In June, 1881, there 
 were two days on which evictions took place. On 
 the first day there were ten and on the second 
 about seven. They all settled, but not for some 
 time. The bulk of them were, I think, able to 
 pay at the time — I will not say every one — the 
 bulk of them, certainly. Except for this pressure 
 I certainly know of no reason why they should not 
 have paid. I always considered I was dealing fairly 
 with them. Of course they suffered in consequence 
 of not paying. Farms cannot lie idle for six months 
 without suffering following. They suffered quite as 
 much as the landlords ; they must suffer. I remember 
 a farm in which there was a large field of rye grass ; 
 it was close to the village of Ballagh. The crop was 
 cut and carried away entirely off the estate in one 
 night. I should say there was over an acre of it 
 carried away — I speak of Irish acres. I had some 
 correspondence with Archbishop Croke respecting 
 Father Humphries. The Archbishop was rather kind 
 to me, and in one of his letters 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I did not ask you that. 
 What terms were you on with your own tenants ? — 
 Very friendly. 
 
 Where was your property ? — At Ballyporeen, Tippe- 
 rary. It was adjoining the Mitchelstown estate. With 
 regard to the Ogilby estate, the rental of that was 
 about £1,000 a year. They paid very fairly always. 
 That estate is adjoining mine. On January 19, 1882, 
 I went to a place called Ologheen, four miles and a- 
 half— Irish miles — from my own property. I collected 
 the rents on my own property. I had about 25tenants 
 on my property at Gorteshall, Ballyporeen. For some 
 time no considerable number of them came into the 
 room, but eventually I got about 24 into the room — 
 
 Major Deane-Tanner. 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 687 
 
 all bat one man. My father-in-law left me the 
 property on his- death, but the tenants paid up the 
 arrears. My father-in-law was Mr. Denis O'Brien, 
 When I came into possession there were no arrears. 
 In 1882, speaking of the whole of those tenants, they 
 were certainly- in a position to pay. I offered them 
 20 per cent, reduction, and asked them to pay. They 
 were silent, and on« old man said, " We cannot, 
 master." I said, " Why ? " He said, " We are not 
 allowed." I said, "Here is 20 per cent, redaction 
 for you. We have always been friends. It is foolish 
 to fight with me now I am just beginning with you. I 
 will join every one of you in an application to the 
 Court to have your rents fairly fixed." He said that 
 when they were coming to Clogheen they found an 
 effigy of me hanging from a tree with a big, red heart 
 and a scythe stuck through it, and writing to say that 
 any man who paid should have the same thing done to 
 him. 
 
 Coming to the estate in 1881, had you done anything 
 to excite unpopularity or cause a threat of death in 
 that neighbourhood ? — Never to my knowledge. Never 
 then or now ; and the tenants when they spoke to me 
 never exhibited any hostility, and since they have 
 paid their rents up to last March splendidly. I 
 certainly believed this statement that they dared not 
 pay to be a true one. Thece was no doubt about it. 
 I said to old Patrick O 'Brian that he was a coward. 
 He said, 'J I am an Irishman-" I said, " I am 
 another." He said," No man ever called mea coward." 
 He threw down the notes on the table, and I went to 
 the door and shut it, and said, " No man shall leave 
 this room without paying," and the whole of them 
 paid me their rent there and then, less 20 per cent, 
 reduction. During my time there had been no eviction 
 on that property. This was in 1882 ; the tenants 
 who paid up to the end of 1881 were certainly in a 
 position to pay if they were let alone. I told them 
 that any damage they suffered I would pay for them. 
 Very soon after that an outhouse belonging to one of 
 my tenants was burned. I cannot swear that there 
 •was a branch of the Land League in 1882 in Bally- 
 poreen. I believe there was. I was never a member 
 of it. I am not quite certain whether the branch in 
 Ballyporeen was formed in 1882. It is a small 
 village. In 1882 I became agent for Colonel Bagwell 
 Purefoy. His property was a place called Greenfields. 
 I had never known that property until I became his 
 agent in 1882. He asked me if I would be afraid to 
 become his agent, and I told him " No." That is 
 about five or six miles from the town of Tipperary. 
 Before that he had an agent, and he had been his own 
 agent prior to the coming of bad times owing to this 
 agitation. The estate was considered very moderate 
 as regarded rents, and it was so in point of fact. He 
 had always lived among his tenants. 
 
 Until what you call the bad times, what sort of 
 terms had the tenants been on with their landlord ; 
 was he a popular man ? — They had always been on 
 the best of terms. He was a charming man. There 
 
 were about 140 tenants. He had had to leave his 
 place, and when I took over the agency his house was 
 guarded with soldiers. There was a Land League in 
 the neighbourhood. I met the tenants in Tipperary 
 town. I fancy I must have seen pretty well all of them, 
 because the room was crowded. I think the bulk of 
 them were certainly in a position to pay their rents if 
 let alone. I communicated with several of these men 
 in private as to their being willing to pay. Some of 
 them did pay. They paid secretly. A great many 
 declined to pay. They said they would not pay ; they 
 said they were not allowed to pay. 
 
 Do you think these men were in danger if it were 
 known they paid, or not ? — I am sure they were — - 
 serious danger. I dare not mention their names now, 
 I have received letters and have been asked to prose- 
 cute a man at sessions and to return the poor rate 
 docket to a man to show that he had not paid it. The 
 poor rates are paid in Ireland with a top part and a 
 bottom part to the document. The bottom part is 
 called the ■ duplicate, and you take that part as a 
 voucher of the accounts. Except that motive there 
 would be no reason for having back the paper. I have 
 had tenants refuse to take receipts. Not often, 
 because I will not take money without giving a 
 receipt. They have offered money provided I gave 
 no receipt. 
 
 The President. — Why did you refuse to take the 
 money without giving a receipt ? — Because, my Lords, 
 it is very unsatisfactory. It does not make the slight- 
 est difference to the tenant. He might dispute it 
 afterwards. To take money without giving a receipt 
 from a tenant is an unsatisfactory way of doing busi- 
 ness. I do not take money without giving a receipt 
 for it. There was a great deal of boycotting in that 
 district. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. 
 
 On the Court reassembling the examination of Major 
 Deane-Tanner was resumed. 
 
 Had you a rent-warner at Fanna ? — Yes. He was 
 there some years before I took over the agency. 
 
 I suppose there is no reason why his name should 
 not be stated ? — No ; his name is Pat Dwyer. 
 
 Did you know of his being in any danger ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Of your own knowledge ? 
 
 Witness. — He resigned his rent-warnership. 
 
 Examination continued. — Why ? — Because he was 
 afraid. 
 
 Of what ? — Of his life, I suppose. 
 
 Now did you find any difference between the tenants 
 coming to your office alone and when they were all 
 together at this time ? — Oh, yes. At that time the 
 tenants would never come in singly. They said they 
 were afraid of a Land League court. 
 
 Doing what ? — I suppose trying them. They said 
 they were afraid of being tried by a Land League 
 court. 
 
 Did any of them abuse you openly in the streets ? 
 Was there any difference between their behaviour 
 when other people were by and when they saw you by 
 
 Major Deane-Tanner. 
 
688 
 
 The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 themselves ? — Yes ; they were very civil to me when 
 we were alone, and quite the reverse on other 
 occasions. They often told me they were sorry. 
 
 Was there any Land League convention in your 
 district ? — There was, indeed. In Clonmel, in 1881, 
 when the interest of one of the farms was being sold 
 there was a large convention organized for the same 
 day. There was a huge meeting, and there were bands, 
 banners, and a very large number of people. We had 
 to have 38 or 39 sales in Court that day. My own 
 were first. I always attended personally, and my 
 tenantry paid me. 
 
 Now I want to know — was this convention some- 
 thing specially summoned for that day ? — I presume so. 
 
 Well, could such a gathering be got together without 
 something special ? — Certainly not. There were notices 
 posted up. It was a meeting, to have speeches made 
 by members of Parliament, and several people of the 
 National party addressed the meeting. 
 
 The President. — Then it is a National League 
 meeting ? — Yes ; a Land League meeting ; this was 
 in 1881. 
 
 Examination continued. — One of these conventions 
 took place in Thurles on the occasion of another sale 
 of tenants' interests. It was attended by thousands of 
 people. I could not give the exact date, but as it was 
 of tenants' interests on the Purefoy estate it would 
 have been in 1882 or after. 
 
 Is a convention merely a meeting at which speeches 
 are made, or was there any agitation f — Well, in Clon- 
 mel the troops charged the mob. 
 
 Then it led to riot ?— Yes. 
 
 It was not merely a meeting of the people to hear 
 speeches ? — No ; it was a real organization. 
 
 With what object '( — My impression is 
 
 Sib C. Etjssell objected. 
 
 The President. — What did they do to lead to their 
 being charged ? — First of all they attacked and threw 
 stones, and several of the police were knocked down, 
 and several soldiers were also knocked down in my 
 presence. The cavalry had to charge three or four 
 times. When we were going to the railway station 
 in the evening Colonel Carew ordered the troops to be 
 drawn up. I was the only agent there ; but the mem- 
 bers of the Property Defence organization were being 
 escorted to the 10 10 train, and as we were going out 
 we were told by the resident magistrate that we were 
 certain to be attacked. 
 
 Except the sale of these tenants' interests, was there 
 anything to be interfered with on that day ? — 
 Nothing. 
 
 This riot,then,oecurred on the day of the sale. Now, 
 I a%K you your impression of the object of the meet- 
 ing. — To defeat the ends of justice. 
 
 Except to interfere with the ordinary course of sale, 
 was there any object of which you knew ? — Intimida- 
 tion. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir 0. Kussell.— How many sales 
 of tenants' interests had you ? — I could not mention 
 the exact number ; there wer'e 38 or 39 at Clonmel. 
 
 Had you the same number at Thurles ? — Well, there 
 were a great many. 
 
 I wish to understand what that means. There were 
 cases in which you say that as far as concerned your 
 own cases the tenants were able to pay ? — At Clonmel, 
 certainly, they did pay. 
 
 Then they were cases in which the tenants had 
 visible means to pay ? — Certainly. 
 
 Then the landlord could have distrained and realized 
 the amount due ? — No ; youdo not know what the wilds 
 are in the mountain parts of Tipperary. When I first 
 went 1 said I was going to distrain, and they told me 
 I would have to bring a ladder. I said " No, I would 
 bring a fire-escape." The land is very steep and 
 cheaply rented. 
 
 Well, that is all very interesting ; but those tenants 
 who were served had means to pay, and you issued 
 writs in the superior Courts ? — I did not issue the 
 writs : they were issued by the agent previous to my 
 coming. 
 
 You got judgment against the tenant in the superior 
 Court as for debt, and realized by sheriff's sale of the 
 tenant's interest in his holding ? — Yes. 
 
 In one case as many as 39 or 40 tenants were thus 
 treated ? — Yes. 
 
 When that course is taken the tenant has no period 
 for redemption ? — No. 
 
 Whereas if proceedings were taken in ejectment the 
 tenant would have six months in which to redeem ? — Yes. 
 
 You have undertaken to say that these men were 
 well off. If there was stock on their farms why did 
 you not seize it ? — It was perfectly impossible to 
 distrain. I did distrain on one occasion. 
 
 What was the name of the case ? — A man named 
 Ryan. It was about 1883 or 1884. 
 
 Up to these conventions you did not try ? — No. 
 
 You have spoken of three estates — your own is 
 derived from your father-in-law, is it not ? — Yes. The 
 other estates are the Ogilby, the Purefoy, and the 
 Perceval. 
 
 Until the agitation began was Colonel Purefoy resi- 
 dent on his estate ? — Yes. 
 
 The others were absentee landlords ? — Yes. One 
 lived in London and the other in the Isle of Wight. I 
 was the agent, and lived about half a day's journey 
 from the properties. Except Colonel Purefoy there 
 was no one representing the landlords on these three 
 estates except the rent-warners. 
 
 You are an Irishman ? — Yes. 
 
 And you know something of the history of your 
 country ? — Yes. 
 
 You know that at one time Tipperary was the most 
 disturbed county in Ireland ? — Well, I don't know. I 
 could not answer that. It was, of course, at one time, 
 but Wexford was quite as bad. 
 
 I am glad you have mentioned Wexford. They happen 
 to be the two counties— the one representing the Crom- 
 wellian settlers, and the other representing emigration 
 from Cornwall p — I do not know. I cannot answer that 
 question* 
 
 Major Deane-Tanner. 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 689 
 
 If you do not know I will pass over it. — I would not 
 like to give an opinion. 
 
 I am not asking you for opinions, but for historical 
 facts. — I cannot answer. 
 
 Very well. When do you say Tipperary was relieved 
 from the character of being one of the two most dis- 
 turbed counties in Ireland ? — Relieved ? 
 
 Yes ; relieved, I say. I will give you the dates. — 
 Keally I could not say. 
 
 With the exception of isolated agrarian outrages, has 
 Tipperary had the name of having fairly good land- 
 lords and fairly conducted tenants since the year 1830 ? 
 — I cannot say. 
 
 Well, parts of it ? — Perhaps. 
 
 Before the Land League was heard of ? — I can give 
 you a reason why it might improve. The tenants in later 
 years had a great cry that if they had good land they 
 would pay anything for it, and every one knows that 
 Tipperary land is better than the surrounding counties. 
 
 Not the part where you go up in a fire-escape ? — 
 That is only in the mountains. 
 
 Perhaps you agree with the celebrated old saying of 
 an Irish landlord that the tenant was all the better if 
 his land was well salted with rent ? — I do not agree 
 with that. 
 
 Are you not aware that in 1875, 1876, and 1877 
 there were serious agrarian disturbances in Tipperary ? 
 — Of course there were agrarian outrages. 
 
 How many murders were there in those years ?— I 
 could not say. 
 
 What murders were there in Tipperary from 1879 up 
 to the present time ?— I do not recollect. 
 
 Was there one ? — Really I could not swear. 
 
 Do you know the Galtee property bought by Mr. 
 Buckley, whose agent was Mr. Bridge ? — Yes. 
 
 Did it come to your knowledge that in 1876 Mr. 
 Bridge had been twice fired at — once in his own 
 grounds ? — Yes. 
 
 Was that immediately adjoining the Ogilby pro- 
 perty ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know that on one occasion a man-servant was 
 killed ? — Yes ; he was driving the car, I have heard. 
 
 Some man was hanged ? — I believe so — a man named 
 Crowe. 
 
 Had there not been considerable disquiet on that 
 property which adjoins the Ogilby property ? — A certain 
 amount. 
 
 Is there another property, the Kingston estate, close 
 by your own property ? — Yes. 
 
 Upon that property has there been for several years 
 a great deal of disturbance ?— So I am told. That is 
 in county Cork. 
 
 The tenants wanted 20 percent, abatement, which 
 you yourself thought it right to give ?— At one time. 
 
 Do you know that the refusal of that abatement upon 
 the Kingston property was supposed to be the cause of 
 all the trouble that followed ? — I only know what I 
 have read in the newspapers. 
 
 We have had a great deal read to us out of the news- 
 papers here. Were there elements of disturbance on 
 
 that property ?— I think there were. There was a fight 
 between the proprietor and the tenants. 
 
 What is the present rental of the Perceval property f 
 — About £900 a year. 
 
 And that was reduced by the Land Court to £700 ?— 
 No ; I have four farms in hand which I am farming 
 myself. 
 
 The Ogilby estate, which was £1,000 a year, was 
 reduced to £900 ?— Yes. 
 
 What was the rental of the Purefoy estate in 1882 ? 
 —Between £2,000 and £3,000 a year. It has since 
 been sold under Lord Ashbourne's Act. There was 
 practically little reduction in the rental before the sale. 
 
 As regards the Perceval estate, when did you first 
 give a reduction ? — I offered it in 1881. I gave it 
 when they paid me in 1881 and 1882. 
 
 Then on the 1878 rent you made no reduction ?— I 
 did not collect that. 
 
 Nor was any reduction made in 1879, nor in the first 
 gale of the 1880 rent ?— No. 
 
 Do you not believe that the state of things in 1879 
 entitled the tenants to a large reduction on the 1879 
 rent ? — No ; not generally. 
 
 Particularly ? — In some cases it was required. 
 
 Was it not a disastrous year for tenants ? — I was 
 not working any property in 1879. 
 
 Prom your general knowledge of the state of affairs, 
 was it not such a year as in this country would induce 
 landlords to make a reduction of 50 or 70 per cent., 
 and even to forego the . whole rent ? — I cannot say 
 from my knowledge. 
 
 Do you believe it was a case for a large reduction ? 
 —Some required reductions in that year. 
 
 Does that mean that some were better able to pay 
 than others ? — Some men required assistance. 
 
 Am I wrong in saying that in 1879 circumstances 
 occurred which affected the tenantry generally ? — I 
 was not managing any property, but from my know- 
 ledge of the country I fancy that, though not a really 
 good one, the year was not so disastrous as you say. 
 
 Do you kuow the total value of the crops of that 
 year ? — No. 
 
 Do you know that the potato crop was less in value 
 by £10,000,000— that it dropped from £13,000,000 to 
 £3,000,000 ?— No. 
 
 Ought not a landlord as a matter of justice to make 
 a large reduction ? — It is a difficult thing to decide, as 
 the tenants will not allow you to deal with them in- 
 dividually, but will only treat with a landlord col- 
 lectively. 
 
 Do you know that, rightly or wrongly, tenants com- 
 bine together in order that the weak may be protected 
 by the strong ? — I do not think so. 
 
 Then why do they combine ? — Some of the smaller 
 tenants were better able to pay than the bigger ones. 
 
 What reason do you give for their combination ?— » 
 The Land League would not allow them to pay. 
 There was the No-rent Manifesto. 
 
 Is it your idea that the Land League issued an edict 
 and they obeyed it 1— They issued a manifesto telling 
 
 Maj or Deane- Tanner. 
 
690 
 
 The Special Commission, January 15, 18S9. 
 
 the tenants not to pay so long as the members were in 
 prison. 
 
 When was that ? — In January, 1882. 
 
 And it was within a few months after the Irish 
 members were put in prison ? — Yes. 
 
 Do yon suggest that is the only occasion on which 
 they have combined ?— Oh, no. From 1880 to the 
 present time they have combined, though not so much 
 now, I am thankful to say. 
 
 You said you were willing to give the tenants 20 per 
 cent, abatement on their rents — on what year was 
 that ? — I would have been glad to give it for 1880 and 
 1881 if I could have got payment. They did not pay 
 until after ejectment and until the time for redemp- 
 tion had nearly expired. 
 
 And when did you offer the 20 per cent ? — I offered 
 it at the time of the ejectment and also in January, 
 1882, and previous to that. 
 
 One other question, please, as to the property you 
 yourself succeeded to. Did it come to your knowledge 
 that "Mr. O'Brien had given an abatement in 1879 and 
 1880 ?— No, he did not. 
 
 You are sure of that ? — I am quite sure. 
 
 I am informed that he did, but you say he did not ? 
 >— He did not. 
 
 Very well. Do you say that these so-called con- 
 ventions had for their object to defeat the ends of 
 justice ? — Yes. 
 
 To prevent the successful sale of the tenant's 
 interest ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you think the tenants required much intimidation 
 to prevent their buying land sold over the tenant's 
 head ? — Indeed, they did ; I am sure. 
 
 Or from taking evicted lands ? — Yes. 
 
 You think the greed for land was so great ?— You 
 misunderstand me. It was not greed for other land ; 
 it was greed for the land they lived on. 
 
 You mean to prevent a particular tenant from buying 
 his interest ? — Yes. 
 
 You do know that eviction is of all things in this 
 world the thing they most dread ? — Yes, the last 
 thing a man would like. 
 
 It was like asking a man's life ?— No, I did not say 
 that. I said it was the last thing a man would like. 
 
 Putting aside intimidation, you know they would 
 make any effort to pay their rent ?— Yes. 
 
 How many ejectments did you serve on this Purefoy 
 estate altogether ? — I think about 21. 
 
 How many superior Court writs ? — About half-a-dozen, 
 
 I think. 
 
 Ou the Ogilby estate ?— Two, I think. 
 
 On your own ? — There was one, I think. 
 
 What was the cost of the judgment in the superior 
 Court as compared with the proceeding in the inferior 
 Court ? — It was very much larger. 
 
 Four or five times as much ? — I do not think it would 
 be as much as that. 
 
 Would it be between £15 and £20 on the average ? 
 — Well, it all depends on the rent, I think. 
 
 The President. — I do not see why that should be. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— There is a poundage 
 scale I think, my Lord. 
 
 Sir C, Russell. — Then, in addition to the cost in 
 the superior Court, there is the cost of the sale and 
 transfer by the sheriff to the buyer ? — Yes, that is very 
 expensive. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt.— You told us about your effigy being 
 hung upon a tree. Did you see it ? — I did not. 
 
 Did any policeman see it ? — I believe a sergeant 
 told me he saw it. 
 
 Did you give your tenants the reduction before you 
 heard the effigy story or afterwards ? — I had that inten- 
 tion before. 
 
 What induced you to offer them the reduction ? — 
 The reason was simply to try and keep them from fall- 
 ing into arrear. 
 
 But you said they were able to pay their rents ? — So 
 they were. The abatement was an attempt to try and 
 get the better of the League. 
 
 You must have had some inducement to give away 20 
 per cent, of the landlord's property ?— It was on my 
 own property. 
 
 Oh ! I beg your pardon. Did they become better 
 tenants afterwards ? — I had no complaint to make of 
 them. 
 
 Did you continue to give them that reduction ? 
 
 Sir C. Rtjssell. — I understood you to say that the 
 20 per cent, reduction was on one of the other two 
 estates ? — Yes, and on my own estate, too. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — You said your tenants were anxious to 
 pay rent, but objected to take receipts. Why should 
 they object ? — Because, I suppose, it would be known 
 that they had paid their rent. 
 
 How would it be known ? — I could not tell you that. 
 
 Did it ever cross your mind that they told you 
 this story in order to get a reduction ? — Upon my 
 word, it never did. 
 
 As to these conventions you spoke of, can you draw 
 any distinction between a meeting and a convention ? 
 — On each of these three occasions there were these 
 meetings publicly called. 
 
 Why should you call them conventions ? — That is 
 what they were called at the time. 
 
 Conventions are not generally attended by bands 
 and banners. Was I there ? — No, I did not see you. 
 
 I may have been — I do not recollect. Now you 
 have expressed or implied horror at outrages of all 
 kinds. Pardon my asking this question — Is it true 
 that you refused to enter the house where your mother 
 lay dead because your brother was inside ? — Now you 
 have mentioned my brother, I hope I may be 
 allowed 
 
 Will you answer my question, please ? — I did not 
 refuse. I did enter the house, but I refused to go into 
 the room where my brother was. As the question of 
 my brother has been brought up I hope you will 
 cross-examine me on it. 
 
 The President. — No, that is not necessary. It does 
 not throw any light on this matter. 
 
 Witness. — In giving my evidence in this Court I 
 
 Major Deane-Tanner. 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 691 
 
 entirely refrained from any allusion to Dr. Tanner, 
 who is my brother. I might have given evidence on 
 that point, but I did not think it was my duty as a 
 gentleman to do so. 
 
 The President. — I had not the slightest idea that 
 there was any connexion whatever. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — It was not mentioned in 
 any question of mine. 
 
 Witness. — I have entirely abstained from saying any- 
 thing. I could have given evidence, and very serious 
 evidence. 
 
 The President.— Sir Charles Russell did not touch 
 upon it, and I think we had better leave the matter 
 alone. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — Were the 
 rents in Tipperary high or low ? — I always thought 
 they were low. 
 
 What was the staple product ? Every tenant grew 
 his few potatoes and had his own few cows ? — Yes, the 
 tenant would make his profit from his young stock 
 and his oats. It was not a great potato-growing dis- 
 trict, where they grew potatoes for sale. 
 
 Was it any good trying to distrain on the cattle ? — 
 No. You might possibly have distrained on one 
 beast. 
 
 You have yourself spoken to seeing gaps made in 
 the boundaries in order to drive the cattle off the 
 land ? — Yes, I have. 
 
 Now I want to ask you, was there any house on 
 your own property ? — No, there was no residence 
 upon it. It was entirely let out to tenants. 
 
 You said you sold the Purefoy estate under the 
 Ashbourne Act ? — Yes. 
 
 Has the district since become quiet or not ? — Well, 
 I made inquiries the other day and ascertained there 
 were only five processes. Two of them were settled. 
 That is very good indeed. 
 
 Prior to the Land League coming, was there any 
 agitation against the payment of rent by the tenants 
 combined ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — He said he knew nothing about 
 it until 1880. 
 
 The Attorney-General repeated tne question ? — I 
 never heard of any combination. From the books in 
 my possession it appears that the tenants paid their 
 rent. 
 
 You have spoken about the sale of the tenants' 
 interest. It would have been open to the tenant to 
 be one of the bidders ?— Yes, he could have got back 
 his property by paying his rent and so on. On pro- 
 perties where the interest has been valued it has been 
 knocked down for a £5 note because the tenant would 
 not bid. 
 
 In the case of any of the estates you managed, 
 had the tenants what were called pass-books ? — I do not 
 understand you. 
 
 Did they keep a book in which you made an entry ? 
 —Oh, no. 
 
 With reference to the Perceval estate you mentioned 
 
 four farms. What is the value of those four farms f — 
 Something over £100. The valuation is £91. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The other agents, my 
 Lords, only arrived last night, and I am sorry to say 
 they are not here. I am, therefore, afraid I must 
 take another witness. ' 
 
 Francis Iago was then called, and, in answer to Mr. 
 Atkinson, said, — I live in Killoo. I became a 
 member of the Land League about 1881. 
 
 Who was president of the League when you joined 
 it ? — John Hart. 
 
 Who was secretary ? — John M'Carthy. 
 
 And who treasurer ? — John Lennan. 
 
 About what time was it ? — I do not really know the 
 date. 
 
 Were you a member of the committee ? — Yes. 
 
 Were any books kept by the committee ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you seen them yourself ? — Yes, I have seen 
 them, but I could not read them. (Laughter.) 
 
 Who kept them ? — John Hart. 
 
 Did you continue a member of the League ? — Yes, 
 until the moment I came here. 
 
 Did you pay any subscription ? — Yes, Is. a year. 
 
 Did you get any card ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the name of your branch ? — The Killoo 
 branch. 
 
 During that time did any of the leaders of the 
 movement who were strangers to the district attend 
 at the meetings ? — No. 
 
 Do you know a man named James Bourne ? — Yes, I 
 did. 
 
 Where did he live ?— About half a mile from me. 
 
 Do you remember his having a dispute with his 
 tenantry ? — No, he had none at all. 
 
 Do you remember his tenants paying rent ? — Yes, I 
 do. 
 
 Do you remember any bonfires at that time ? — Yes ; 
 upon his own property. 
 
 Was the question of the bonfires brought up at the 
 meeting of the committee ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you there ? — Yes. Hart was also there. 
 
 What took place ? — They resolved that the bonfires 
 should be put out, and the people chased from around 
 them. 
 
 What was stated as the reason ? — Because they 
 wanted to keep down landlords, and not do them 
 honour. 
 
 Had these tenants paid their rent ?— Yes ; and 
 received a very good abatement. 
 
 You say you helped to put the bonfires out yourself ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Who was with you ? — John Hart. 
 
 Do you know a man named Patrick O'Hara ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he a member of the League ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he at the extinguishing of the fires ? — He was. 
 
 Had he amr arms with him ?— Yes, a pistol. 
 
 Were any shots fired ? — Yes, two shots. 
 
 What was the object of firing the shots ?— To 
 scatter the people. 
 
 Major Deane-Tamier. 
 
 Francis Iago. 
 
692 
 
 The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 After the fires were pat out did M'Nally administer 
 any oath to you ?— He did. 
 
 Was he a member of the League committee ? — Yes. 
 
 What oath did he administer to yon ?— To be loyal 
 and true to my country and to keep down landlords 
 and tyrants. 
 
 Did M'Carthy ever pay you any money ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you done any work for him ?— Yes. 
 
 What work ? — I broke some windows. (Laughter.) 
 
 Were you living in the house of a man named Camp- 
 bell ? — Yes. He was a bailiff. I was employed by 
 him for eight years. 
 
 Did any member of the League threaten you so as to 
 make you leave his employment ?— Yes ; M'Nally, the 
 man who had sworn me in. He told me not to work 
 for Campbell because he was boycotted. He was boy- 
 cotted by the men whom he had employed. 
 
 Was his name mentioned at the meetings of the com- 
 mittee of the League ?— Yes. They said he must be 
 boycotted because he would not take back some work- 
 men whom he had turned away because they asked for 
 higher wages. 
 
 He was also a bailiff f— Yes, for Mr. Lefroy. 
 
 Did you leave his employment ? — I did. 
 
 Do you know a man named Scanlon ? — Yes. 
 
 Were any meetings of the committee of the League 
 held with reference to him ? — Yes. Hart, M'Carthy, 
 M'Nally, myself, and others were present. 
 
 Had Scanlon done anything ? — No ; but a police 
 sergeant's son lived in his house. 
 
 What was said with reference to Scanlon' s house ? — 
 There was nothing said except that we were to go to 
 his house and tell him to send the policeman's son 
 away, and if he should refuse we were to fire at the 
 house. 
 
 Was anybody appointed by the committee of the 
 League to go ? — Yes, M'Nally, James Fury, and my- 
 self. 
 
 Did you go with them ? — Yes, but I would not go 
 into the house. 
 
 Were you disguised ? — No. I believe the man who 
 went into the house was. Two shots were fired into 
 the house by James Fury. No one was hit. This took 
 place at about half-past 10 o'clock. The people in the 
 house were at supper. 
 
 Did Mrs. Scanlon die a few days afterwards ? — No, 
 but she got disturbed in her head and lost her reason. 
 
 About how long ago did this take place ? — Five or 
 six years. 
 
 Do you know a man named Morgan Harrison ?— ■ 
 Yes ; he lives near Killoo. 
 
 Has his name been brought before the committee of 
 the League ? — Yes. He had helped a woman who was 
 boycotted by the League. He had ploughed for her. 
 
 What was said about Harrison ? — It was resolved to 
 boycott him ; that no man should go near him or 
 Work for him. « 
 
 Was anybody appointed to do anything to him ?— < 
 No. 
 
 Was anything done ?— His plough was taken out of 
 
 the field and thrown into the river. That was about 
 five years ago. 
 
 Do you know a man named Owen Hughes ? — Yes. 
 His name was brought before the committee of the 
 League. He had taken an evicted farm, and was boy- 
 cotted by the League. 
 
 Was any resolution passed with reference to him ? — 
 Yes, it was resolved that his windows should be 
 broken. A resolution had been passed before declaring 
 that he must be boycotted. 
 
 Were you present on that occasion ? — No, not on 
 that Sunday. 
 
 Then how do you know that he was boycotted P— 
 Because a few nights afterwards I was myself 
 appointed to go and break his windows. 
 
 Who appointed you ? — Hart and M'Nally. 
 
 Were you at any meeting when a resolution was 
 passed with respect to Owen Hughes ? — Yes ; when a 
 boycotting resolution was passed. 
 
 Did you go to his house to break the windows ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you find that the windows had been broken 
 before you arrived ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know Joseph Hughes ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you arrested in connexion with the burning of 
 the house of the bailiff Campbell ? — Yes ; and Joseph 
 Hughes gave some evidence against me. The charge 
 was dismissed. I put in a week, however, in gaol 
 waiting for trial. 
 
 Were you present at a meeting of the League com- 
 mittee when Joseph Hughes was mentioned ? — Yes. A 
 resolution was passed to go and break his windows. 
 
 Who were present ? — Hart, M'Carthy, and Lennan. 
 
 Who were appointed to break the windows ? — Mullen 
 and I. Hart appointed us at the meeting. 
 
 Did you go f— Yes, with Mullen, and we broke the 
 windows. That was about five years ago. 
 
 Do you know a mac named Houlighan ? — Yes. 
 
 Had he taken an evicted farm ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there any discussion about the matter at the 
 League meetings ? — Yes ; about 12 months after he had 
 taken the farm there was a resolution to give him a 
 stroke, and he was boycotted. 
 
 Were you present at any meeting when a boycotting 
 resolution was passed ? — Yes. 
 
 From whom had he taken the farm ? — From a man 
 named Kane. 
 
 Who was appointed to give Houlighan a ' ' stroke ' ' ? 
 —I was appointed myself with Kane, the evicted 
 tenant. 
 
 Did you lie in wait for Houlighan ? — No. We did not 
 wait for him at all. I was in Kane's house and we saw 
 him go by in his cart. We followed him. I was the first 
 up, and I gave him a stroke with a clamp belonging to 
 Kane, who was a shoemaker. Houlighan was badly 
 wounded. 
 
 Did he die shortly afterwards ? — Yes. 
 
 From the effects of this blow ?— Yes. 
 
 Was this attack upon Houlighan subsequently di6« 
 cussed before the committee of the League ?— Yes. 
 
 Francis Iago. 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 693 
 
 Who were present ?— Hart, M'Carthy, and myself. 
 
 What was said about the outrage upon Houlighan '{ — 
 They said nothing after the deed was done. 
 
 Do you remember whether any porter was ordered ?— 
 Yes, by Kane. It was distributed by him in his own 
 house. 
 
 Who partook of it ? — M'Nally and Mick and James 
 Quinn. 
 
 Was there a man named Hughes there ? — Yes, but 
 he is dead. 
 
 Are all the others living ? — I cannot say, as some of 
 them went away. 
 
 Was that porter paid for by the League ? 
 
 Sir C. Etjssell. — That is a very unfair question. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Do you know who paid for it ? — I 
 did not see who paid for it ; I do not know. 
 
 Were M'Nally, James and Michael Quinn, and Dan 
 Hughes members of the committee of the League ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Did Hart give you money at times ? — Yes. 
 
 Except perpetrating these outrages did you do any- 
 thing to earn the money ? — Oh. yes ; I often gave a 
 stroke backwards and forwards for it. (Laughter.) 
 
 From where did the money come ? — From the League. 
 Hart told me so himself. He said he got it from 
 Dublin, from the League. 
 
 Is John M'Carthy still in Longford ?— Yes. So were 
 Lennan and Scanlon when I left. 
 
 Has Kane, whose farm was taken, gone to America ? 
 — Yes ; he went very soon after Houlighan got the 
 stroke. He got the stroke on Christmas Eve, and Kane 
 left on St. Stephen's Day. 
 
 Do you know from what house the porter came ? — 
 STes, from the house of a man named M'Hugh. Two 
 balf-barrels were ordered. 
 
 Had Hart any means himself ?— Not very much. 
 
 Do you know whether any money was given to 
 Kane ? 
 
 Mr. R. T. Reid — My Lords, I object. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson. — Did you see any money ? — No ; I 
 did not. Not one halfpenny. I won't tell a lie. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Cross-examined by SIR C. RtJSSEix.— My Lords, this 
 incursion into Longford comes upon us by surprise. 
 Not only do the other side not tell us what evidence 
 they are going to call, but not even the names of the 
 witnesses. I will therefore only ask the witness a 
 question or two preliminary. 
 
 Where are you living now ? — I am living now in Lon- 
 don. 
 
 ■Where ? — I do not really know the name of the 
 house ; but I know where I am stopping. 
 
 What street ?— Holborn. 
 
 In an hotel ? — Yes. 
 
 How long have you been in pleasant quarters there ? 
 •—Nine weeks. 
 
 Only nine weeks ? — Yes. 
 
 Are you sure you have not been more than nine 
 weeks ?— Yes • I am certain of that. 
 
 Very well ; when did you come here ? — I could not 
 really tell you the day of the month that I did land ; 
 but I know that I am nine weeks here. 
 
 What month did you land ? — I could not say, Sir, 
 what month. I am not a scholar, and then I could not 
 really tell you the day of the month. 
 
 Were you born in Killoo ? — Yes, I was. 
 
 How long is it since you left Killoo ? — Just the tima 
 that I told you. 
 
 Nine weeks ago ?— Yes. 
 
 How were you earning your bread ? — By labour. 
 
 Honest labour? — Yes. 
 
 And always earned your bread by honest labour I 
 suppose ? — Yes, always. 
 
 And never did anything wrong or disreputable ?— 
 Never. (Laughter. ) 
 
 And would scorn to do a mean or cowardly thing ?— 
 I would not like to do a mean thing. 
 
 You would not like to commit murder ? — No ; that 
 was done, but not upon my intention. 
 
 You mean to say that you merely wished to hurt the 
 man badly ; but not to kill him ? — No, I did not mean 
 badly. 
 
 Did you mean to wound him badly ? — To give him a 
 stroke. 
 
 That and the breaking of windows that you have 
 told us about, are these all the things that you did ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Had you done nothing of that kind before ? — No. 
 
 Or since ? — No. 
 
 That is the only time you did anything of this kind 1 
 —Yes. 
 
 But you did break windows ? — I did. 
 
 Are there any painters and glaziers in the Land 
 League ? — I am not able to say that. 
 
 But that seems to have been your principal amuse« 
 ment ? — Yes ; to give a little trade. 
 
 Was that the reason you did it ? — No, it was not. 
 
 Why did you do it ?— Because I was ordered to do it 
 after I was sworn in. 
 
 What did you understand you were sworn in to do ?— 
 To be loyal and true to my country. 
 
 There is no harm in that. — No ; and to keep down 
 landlords and tyrants. 
 
 What was the society you were sworn into ?— I guess 
 it to be a moonlighter. 
 
 How many of the men you have talked about in this 
 matter were moonlighters ? — They were agreed, all of 
 them. 
 
 Was M'Carthy ?— I never saw M'Carthy go out at 
 night. 
 
 Lennan ? — No ; he was an old man. 
 
 M'Nally ?— He was. He swore me in. Hart wag 
 another. I was sworn in in a green field there con- 
 venient to where the fires were put out. It was the 
 field of a man named Campbell, a rent-warner. 
 
 Was your business assisting him ? — Yes. 
 
 In serving notices ?— No ; I never served any notices. 
 I used to work on his farm. 
 
 Ware you ever married ? — Never. 
 
 Francis Iago. 
 
694 
 
 The Special Commission, January 15, 1889. 
 
 Did you live with Campbell ?— Yes ; I had a place 
 of my own. 
 
 Where ?— In Killoo. 
 
 A house of your own ? — Yes. 
 
 Who lived with you ? — My father and mother. 
 
 Have you any sisters or brothers ? — One brother and 
 one sister. My father and mother are dead. My 
 brother is living in Killoo. He has a little spot of 
 land. I had not very much ground. I am the younger 
 of the two. My brother is married and living at 
 Killoo. 
 
 Who asked you to give evidence in this case first f — 
 I got a subpoena from here to give evidence. 
 
 Answer my question. — Well, so I will. 
 
 Who asked you to give evidence first? — I was sum- 
 moned over here by The Times. 
 
 Who asked you to give evidence here ? — A man of 
 the name of Mr. Allen. 
 
 Why did you not answer me at once P — Well, I 
 thought that was a very sufficient answer, Sir. 
 
 Who was Allen ? — He was a head-constable. 
 
 Stationed where ? — In Longford. 
 
 When did he first speak to you about giving evidence P 
 ■^A long time ago. 
 
 How many years ago ? — I do not remember how 
 many. 
 
 Is it years ago ? — Not many years ago. 
 
 Was it in 1888 ?— I do not rightly know, Sir. 
 
 Was it last year or the year before ? — It was about 
 two years ago. 
 
 When he first spoke to you was he then stationed at 
 Killoo ? — No, in the town of Longford — that is, four 
 miles from Killoo. I used to have to go to the 
 markets at Longford. 
 
 Was it at Longford he saw you ? — No, he saw me on 
 the road to Longford, near Killoo. He was going on 
 the road. I met him on the road. He had no one with 
 him. He asked me to do nothing at that time. 
 
 Had you an appointment to meet him on the road ? — 
 No, I had not. I met him by chance. 
 
 What took place on that occasion ? — I was in dread 
 that some one had turned traitor on myself, and I thought 
 it as good to do it on myself — to turn traitor on 
 myself. 
 
 Did you tell this Mr. Allen all that you have told 
 us here ? — No, I did not. I told him trifling little 
 things. 
 
 Did you tell him that you had killed this poor man ? 
 — No, because if I had I do not suppose I would be 
 here to-day. 
 
 What did you tell him ?— I told him about the break- 
 ing of the windows and putting out the fires, and such 
 things as that. 
 
 Nothing more ? — No. 
 
 What was the next time you saw him ? — I could not 
 eay. When he came looking for Kane to my place I 
 saw him. 
 
 That was to charge Kane with killing Houlighan ?— 
 Yes ; that was something over three years, I suppose. 
 
 That was the second time you saw him ? — Yes. 
 
 The second time was, then, more than three years 
 ago ? — It could not be many more. 
 
 When you saw him at Kane's ? — Yes. 
 
 That was three years ago ? — No. Kane had gone 
 away and he thought he was stopping with me. I 
 told him that I did not know anything about him. I 
 could not rightly say what was the next time I saw 
 Mr. Allen. 
 
 Was it a year ago or two years ago ? — No ; it was 
 not. Alien knew about the Land League as well as 
 any other man. The police used to come to our 
 district and go into the Land League room and the 
 Land League would walk away and then the police 
 could not go in. That was after the Land League was 
 suppressed, and up to this present moment. 
 
 You never told him anything at all about the Land 
 League ? — He knew it all. 
 
 I am asking you what you told him. You never told 
 him anything ?— Yes, I did. 
 
 What ? — I told him that the Land League used to 
 concoct all this boycotting. I say it was the Land 
 League that did boycotting and not anything else. 
 That is what I told Allen. 
 
 You did not tell him anything about the breaking of 
 windows ? — Yes, I did. 
 
 Tell us what you told him then ? — I told him that I 
 had been at the breaking of the windows. 
 
 Is that all you told him ? — Yes, that is all. 
 
 Then did you tell him nothing about the Land 
 League except that it was at the bottom of the boy- 
 cotting ?— No. 
 
 Then all you told him about the Land League was 
 that it was at the bottom of the boycotting ? — Yes. 
 
 Then you did not tell him that it was at the bottom 
 of the breaking of the windows ? — Yes, I did. It was 
 the Land League concocted the business to break these 
 windows. 
 
 Think again before you answer. Is that all you told 
 him ? — Yes. I am not quite sure (laughter). I might 
 have told him some more ; but I cannot recollect. I 
 cannot think of any more. 
 
 You did not tell him that the Land League was at 
 the bottom of the murder of Houlighan ? — No ; I did 
 not. Not one word about it. 
 
 How often altogether do you think you saw Allen ? — 
 I could not say how often. 
 
 Did he take any statement from you ? — No. 
 
 In writing ? — Yes. He took some before I came 
 over here. 
 
 When ? — I could not recollect the time. It was 
 months before I came. 
 
 That would be about 13 weeks ago?— It is.and more 
 
 How long ago is it since he first took any statement 
 from you in writing ? — I will tell your honour how 
 long it was. It is about five or six years since he 
 first began. 
 
 You have not said so before ?— I have. 
 
 Three years was the utmost you gave us before. You 
 say five or six years ago Constable Allen took a state- 
 ment from you in writing ? — Yes. 
 
 Francis Iago. 
 
The Special Commission, January 15, 1SS9. 
 
 695 
 
 Did you make any statement in writing to anybody 
 else at any time ? — No, I did not. 
 
 Never ? — Never. 
 
 Since you came to London did you ? — No. 
 
 Who was it who brought you to London ? — The 
 Times. 
 
 Well, The Times I think hardly accompanied you. Did 
 nobody come with you ? — Not one. 
 
 Who servecLyou with the subpcena ? — Mr. Bolton. 
 
 When did he serve you with the subpcena ? — About 
 the time when I told you. 
 
 What was the name of the agent who served you ? — 
 Mr. Bolton. I guess he came from Dublin. He did 
 not tell me so. He was a young man. 
 
 Then he would not be the man I thought. — He gave 
 me £5. 
 
 Did he promise you any more ? — It is more than I 
 know myself. I could not tell fortunes. 
 
 Did you expect any more ? — I expected to be paid 
 for my time. 
 
 And you are come here in the interests of justice ? — 
 Yes, I will not tell anything but the sound and honest 
 truth. 
 
 That is very proper. Who received you when you 
 came to London ?— I went to the office. 
 
 Mr. Soames's office in Lincoln's-inn-fields ? — Yes. I 
 would not know where to go. I never was in London 
 before. A policeman directed me there. 
 
 Did you renew your acquaintance with Mr. Allen 
 when you came over ? — I have not seen him since I 
 came over. 
 
 Then are you still quite certain that you have not had 
 taken down any statement in writing of your evidence 
 since you made one five or six years ago to Allen ? — 
 No. I do not suppose there was. 
 
 You havo never given any statement in writing to 
 any gentleman in London ? — No, I have not. 
 
 Your evidence has not been taken down at any 
 office ?— No. 
 
 Nor read over to you ? — Yes, it was taken down in 
 the office. 
 
 What office ? — Mr. Soames's. 
 
 Why did you not tell me when I asked you who 
 took it down ?— I cannot say what his name was. 
 
 Did you know the man ? — I did not know him. 
 
 When was that evidence taken ? — Just about a week 
 after I came over. * 
 
 Then you did not go back for your Christmas holi- 
 days ? — No, I never did. I have been here ever since — 
 nine weelrs ; and it was about a week after I came 
 over that my evidence was taken by some gentleman 
 in the office and read over to me. It was read over tq me. 
 
 Do you know why it was read over to you ? — It was 
 read over to me because I was no scholar, and I guess 
 that is a very fair answer to you. 
 
 Was your evidence read over to you when it was 
 taken down ?— Yes, it was. 
 
 You are quite sure ? — Yes. 
 
 By the same gentleman who took it down ? — Yes. 
 
 What is John Hart 1 — I could not say what he is at 
 present, because he is not in the country. 
 
 When did John Hart leave the country ? — He is gone 
 about three or four months ago. 
 
 What was he ? — A farmer. 
 
 What was John M'Carthy ?— A farmer. He is in the 
 country. Ho was there when I left. He has a large 
 farm of ground. 
 
 And John Lennan ? — He has some ground too. I do 
 not know whether he was there when I left, for he 
 lived a long journey away from me. So far as I know, 
 he was not there. 
 
 Was M'Nally, who swore you in, a labourer? — Yes, 
 and had a small spot of ground of his own. 
 
 He was not either president, treasurer, or secretary ? 
 — No, he was not. 
 
 Was he a member of the committee ? — I could not 
 say. I have my card of membership. I have sent for 
 it, but it was taken out of my box. I sent for it to 
 my brother, and he wrote back to say he could not 
 send it. I have not got his letter. I burnt it. I was a 
 member of the Land League myself to the very present 
 moment when I came over here. 
 
 When was the last meeting you attended ? — Was it a 
 National meeting, or which ? 
 
 What is the last meeting you attended of which you 
 say you were a member of the committee ? — A public 
 meeting at a place called Drinlish. I was not at the 
 very last meeting. There was a meeting the next 
 Sunday after I came over here. 
 
 Did you say you attended as a member of the com- 
 mittee the Sunday before you left ? — No, I did not. I 
 was not a committee-man myself, but I could go into 
 the room where they were. 
 
 I thought you swore you were a member of the com- 
 mittee ?— I was going about with them. Any time I 
 would be called upon. 
 
 Did you not swear you were a member of the com- 
 mittee ? — No, I did not. I was a member of them, 
 and could go in. 
 
 Are you, or are you not, a member of the com- 
 mittee? — I was, but I used not to attend. 
 
 Did you swear you were a committee-man ? — Yes. 
 
 You swear that now ? — Yes. 
 
 What did you mean by saying a moment ago that you 
 were not, but you used to go in ? — There was a fresh 
 committee appointed every three months, and the old 
 hands would be put out and then there would be fresh 
 ones. 
 
 Now, I ask you on your oath, were you a member 
 of the committee at all six months ago ? — Yes. 
 
 You swear that you were not merely going in and 
 attending with leave, not being a member of the com- 
 mittee ?— Yes. I could go in without asking any 
 leave. 
 
 But were you a member of the committee ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you a card as being a member of the League ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Had you a card as a member of the committee ? 
 — No. There were no cards for that. 
 
 Francis Iago. 
 
$90 
 
 TEe Special Commission, January 15 and 16, 1889. 
 
 How long had you been a member of the committee ? 
 —For six months. 
 
 And was that the only six months that you had been 
 a member of the committee ? — Yes. 
 
 And you never had a card ? — I always had my card 
 from the League. 
 
 I understand you now to say that for six months you 
 were a member of the committee, but that you have 
 always been a member of the League ? — Yes. 
 
 You went nine weeks ago, just before you left, to 
 attend a meeting of the committee ?— Yes. 
 
 But it was six months ago when you were a member 
 of the committee ?— Yes. 
 
 Your six months' service as a member of the com- 
 mittee was up six months ago ? — Yes. 
 
 Then you would have ceased to be a member of the 
 committee in July last ? — Yes. 
 
 Then when this firing into houses took place five 
 or six years ago you were not a member of the com- 
 mittee ?— Yes, I was. 
 
 And also when resolutions were passed with regard 
 to Harrison's plough and the burning of Campbell's 
 house ? — I was a member of the League. 
 
 On your oath did you mean to convey to the Court 
 that you were present not as a member of the com- 
 mittee when resolutions to do these wicked acts of 
 which you have told us were passed ? — Yes, I was, 
 because they had very great dependence upon me. 
 
 The Commission adjourned at 12 minutes past 
 4 o'clock. 
 
 !■■■ WEDNESDAY, JANUAEY 16. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 33d sitting to- 
 day, at half-past 10 o'clock, in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Eoyal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On the Commissioners' taking their seats, 
 
 The President said, — We proceed to deal with the 
 case which was brought before us yesterday. The 
 Attorney-General has called our attention to an 
 article published some time ago in United Ireland 
 which he invites us to deal with as contempt of Court 
 by the publisher of that newspaper. Mr. O'Brien has 
 conducted his defence, and he has addressed us in a 
 perfectly becoming manner in a speech of great 
 ability, which has certainly favourably impressed us. 
 He says that he did not write the article in ques- 
 tion, but admits his responsibility for it ; but he 
 argues — identifying himself with the writer — that he 
 was within his rights as a journalist in commenting as 
 he has done on the proceedings of this inquiry. But 
 he has stated more than once in the course of his 
 speech that he did not intend any disrespect to us, 
 and I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of that 
 statement. I proceed to deal with the grounds upon 
 which he has sought to justify the article. He says 
 that the tribunal is an exceptional one, and that there- 
 fore its proceedings are not to be protected in the 
 same manner aB other tribunals. He says that the 
 questions before us are not of a judicial character but 
 of a political character, and that therefore he is 
 
 entitled to deal with them, so far as they are politi- 
 cal, in the manner that he has. And further, he sayS 
 that The Times has continued to circulate the charges 
 which constitute the foundation of this inquiry, and 
 that he and those associated with him are not bound to 
 wait until the termination of the inquiry before they 
 reply to the charges of The Times so continuously cir- 
 culated throughout the country. Now, in dealing 
 with these points in the order I have mentioned, it is 
 to be observed that the tribunal, though undoubtedly 
 exceptional, is based on the same foundation as every 
 other Court in the kingdom. It is constituted by Act 
 of Parliament, and therefore is the creature of the law, 
 which we are all equally bound to obey, even though 
 we may object to it or think it harsh or unjust, and it 
 is obvious that we, at least, must deal with the 
 matter with the feeling that this Court, constituted as 
 it is, is entitled to the same respect that is required 
 by any of the ordinary Courts. Then Mr. O'Brien says 
 that the questions before us are not judicial, but that 
 they are political. Let me say most emphatically that 
 we have nothing to do with any political questions what- 
 soever. We entirely discard them from our attention. 
 They cannot in any way influence our judgment. We 
 have set before us a purely judicial question to 
 investigate, certain definite charges which we have to 
 inquire into, and we do not allow ourselves to be 
 influenced in any way by any political questions 
 whatever which may surround the particular ques- 
 tions we have to determine upon. And I myself must 
 point out that this distinction between the judicial 
 inquiry we are engaged in and the political questions 
 connected with it indicates exactly the proper line of 
 division between that which may be permitted and 
 that which cannot be permitted to writers in the 
 public PreES. With regard to the political questions, 
 they are as free to write and comment now as they 
 were before the institution of this tribunal ; but the 
 judicial questions which we have before us they are 
 not entitled to discuss in a manner calculated to pre- 
 judice the due investigation of the facts whioh havei 
 to be brought before us. With regard to the last argu- 
 ment which Mr. O'Brien has put forward — that The 
 Times has been circulating the pamphlets known as 
 " Parnellism and Crime " — it appears to me that there 
 is a great deal of force in what Mr. O'Brien has said. 
 The Times has continued to offer for sale, and no 
 doubt has largely sold, the indictment, as it may be 
 called, of Mr. O'Brien and those associated with him. 
 And I must say that I cannot in any way regard it as a 
 contempt of Court on the part of Mr. O'Brien or 
 others to say what they have to say in answer to those 
 charges, and if that were the character of the article 
 complained of I myself should be wholly disinclined 
 to regard it as a contempt of Court. I do not myself 
 see that continuance in making two assertions — one on 
 the one side, and a denial of it on the other — is to be 
 regarded as a contempt of Court if the controversy is 
 conducted in a proper manner, and so as not to infringe 
 the rules to which I must refer on the subject. But it 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Mr. O'Brien). 
 
The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 697 
 
 is to be observed that this article is not confined to 
 answering the charges made by The Times, but it pur- 
 ports to be a comment upon the proceedings before us, 
 and above all it contains a series of comments upon 
 the evidence given by witnesses who have appeared 
 before us. Now, no doubt this subject of contempt of 
 Court is an exceedingly difficult one to deal with. I 
 have not hesitated to avow my great unwillingness to 
 exercise the power which the Court possesses, and it 
 is only in an extreme case that I should be prepared 
 to do so. But it is obvious to every man, however 
 excited he may be by passion or indignation — though 
 just — that a Court of justice cannot carry on its pro- 
 ceedings if it is to be permitted to parties interested 
 in the dispute to denounce the witnesses who are 
 likely to be brought against them. It might tend to 
 intimidate other persons from coming before the 
 Court, and therefore to hinder our having the means 
 of arriving at a just determination of the matters at 
 issue. Now, I must say that I think the writer of this 
 article has exceeded anything that can be fairly 
 allowed to a person who is discussing the questions 
 before us. The article begins : — " The time has 
 come for very plain speaking on the subject of the 
 Forgeries Commission that has been sitting now for 27 
 days." Now, I say nothing of the designation of the 
 Commission as the Forgeries Commission, except that 
 it is open to an innocent construction — namely, that it 
 is a Commission which, according to the contention of 
 Mr. O'Brien, is particularly appointed for the purpose 
 of investigating the question of whether or not a 
 letter imputed to Mr. Parnell is genuine or not, and 
 therefore the assertion that the letter is a forgery is 
 only the opposite to that which The Times has con- 
 stantly put forward— that it is a genuine letter. But 
 wheu the writer goes on to speak of " bribery and in- 
 timidation by which the ' forger ' and the Govern- 
 ment combined are desperately endeavouring to escape 
 from the horrible mess in which they have landed 
 themselves," then he is pointing to some particular 
 individual whom he connects with bribery and intimid- 
 ation. Now, it must be obvious that neither we nor any 
 one else can be in a position fairly to make any such 
 charge as that. It must depend entirely upon the evi- 
 dence which we have to receive whether or not it will 
 be established whether the letter was a forgery ; and, 
 above all, if it be a forgery, whether it is to be 
 imputed to the particular person who is evidently de- 
 signated or suggested by this writer. I find that 
 several times throughout this article the word 
 " forger " is used in the same manner. But there is 
 also another passage in the article which appears to 
 me to entirely exceed the bounds of fair comment, 
 particularly with reference to that which, in my judg- 
 ment, is the most important point to be considered in 
 these matters— namely, whether or not the writing 
 complained of has a tendency to prevent witnesses from 
 coming forward. One of the witnesses is designated as 
 a " tuft-hunting Catholic clergyman— thank God there 
 is but one in all Ireland found in such company." 
 
 That may have the effect of making people fear they 
 will be held up to opprobrium if they come forward 
 to give evidence. There are other comments upon 
 other witnesses. As to one of them, Walsh, many of 
 the comments are no doubt well founded, but it is 
 impossible to lay down any such rule as that the 
 persons accused are entitled to make selection of wit- 
 nesses and to say whatever is just with regard 
 to one. The whole subject must be left in abey- 
 ance till the matters in question are all before 
 us. For these reasons it appears to us that it is 
 impossible to admit that Mr. O'Brien has established 
 that he was within his rights in making the comments 
 — if he had been the writer — which he has made in the 
 course of this article. But, as I have already said, 
 believing that his expression of a desire not to say 
 anything disrespectful of us is sincere, and as I think 
 there is much force in his argument that the political 
 questions connected with this inquiry are of such a 
 character that they must be — may be — fairly discussed 
 by the public, in the course of which the writer may 
 unintentionally overstep the bounds between that 
 which is permitted and tha$ which is not permitted, 
 the result is that in no case should we have thought it 
 necessary to do more than inflict a lenient punishment 
 on Mr. O'Brien. But we prefer, for reasons which 
 appear to us to have weight, to remit any punishment 
 in this case, having laid down rules which we think 
 ought to govern public writers, and which we trust 
 Mr. O'Brien and others will accept as the guide for 
 their conduct in the future. If either side, or any one 
 else, after this explanation, should give cause for us 
 to deal with such a subject again, it will be, of course, 
 impossible for us to treat the matter as we propose to 
 treat this. We are well aware that our motives in 
 pursuing the course we propose to adopt may be sub- 
 ject to misconstruction by one side or the other, or 
 possibly by both ; but we must act upon our convic- 
 tions, and I am satisfied that the paramount duty we 
 have before us in the interests of all parties con- 
 cerned, the persons accused, The Times, the counsel, 
 ourselves, and the public, is to bring this inquiry to a 
 conclusion as speedily as possible and with as little 
 friction as possible ; and, therefore, with the concur- 
 rence of my brethren, I gladly come to the conclusion 
 which I hope will save us having our time consumed 
 by matters of this kind in future, and by which, as 
 far as possible, angry feeling will be excluded from 
 the proceedings of this Court. 
 
 The cross-examination of the witness Francis Iago 
 was then continued by Sir C. Eusskll. — Was the man 
 Houlighan whom you killed' greatly respected in the 
 neighbourhood ? — I cannot say that. He might be in 
 the place where he lived, but not where I lived ; he 
 lived about eight miles from me. 
 
 Did you hear that he had made a dying declaration ? 
 —No. 
 
 Did you hear that in his dying declaration — 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The witness has said that 
 
 Charges of Contempt of Court (Mr. O'Brien). 
 
 Francis Iago, 
 
693 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 he did uot hear of any dying declaration ; ray learned 
 friend is evidently just about to put to him the con- 
 tents of the declaration. 
 
 The President.— Strictly speaking, Sir Charles, 
 that is not permissible. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I only wished to revive his 
 memory, my Lord. (To witness.) Did Houlighan know 
 you ? — I do not suppose he did. I did not know him 
 till he was shown to me. 
 
 Was Kane there ?— Yes. 
 
 When the blow was struck ? — Yes. 
 
 So that he could see you ? — Yes. 
 
 You say that there was another man in the cart ; 
 was he known to you ? — No, I did not know him and 
 he did not know me. 
 
 You struck the blow ? — Yes. 
 
 And Kane was with you ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you ever charged, or threatened by the 
 police ? — No. never. 
 
 Kane was ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you know that a warrant was out against Kane ? 
 —Yes, in a day or two afterwards. 
 
 Did you know that the police were searching for 
 Kane ? — I did. 
 
 They came to search in your house ? — They did. 
 
 Kane left next day for America ? — Yes. 
 
 And you remained ? — Yes. 
 
 There was no warrant, nothing suggested against 
 you ? — No ; it was never known until yesterday. 
 
 Then until you swore it yesterday you never told any 
 one ? — Yes, I told it in the office the other day. 
 
 But until you told them here in London nobody had 
 ever charged you with having anything to do with it ? 
 — Never. 
 
 Police or any one else ? — Police or any one else. 
 
 You knew that Kane had gone to America ? — Yes, 
 next day, St. Stephen's Day. 
 
 You said you wrote a letter to your brother for your 
 card of membership of the League ? — Yes ; it was 
 written from London. 
 
 Who wrote it ? — A fellow named Walsh. 
 
 Who is he ? — -He comes from county Mayo, from 
 Celtimagh. 
 
 Is he a young fellow, about 17 or 18 or 19 ? — I do 
 not know his age. 
 
 When was it that this letter was written ? — About a 
 week ago. 
 
 Is he still here ? — Yes. 
 
 Where did you meet him ? — I met him at the hotel, 
 and I asked him to write it and he did so. 
 
 Did you post the letter ? — He posted it for me. 
 
 Now do you swear you ever directed such a letter to 
 be written to your brother at all ? Now, be careful, 
 Sir.— Yes. 
 
 You swear it ? — I do. 
 
 Did you ever get an answer to your letter ? — No, but 
 there came back an answer from Sergeant Kenny say- 
 ing that the card was not in the box. 
 
 Who is Sergeant Kenny ? — He lives in the next place 
 to where I come from. 
 
 In Longford ? — About three miles off. 
 
 How did Sergeant Kenny come to answer a letter 
 addressed to your brother at your request ? — Because I 
 directed him to open my box and send me my card. 
 
 Who brought you Kenny's letter ? — I could not say ; 
 it came from the post. 
 
 Who brought it to you ? — A man named Mitchell. 
 
 What is Mitchell ? — I do not know. 
 
 Where did he bring it to you ?— He brought it to my 
 place ? 
 
 Where ? — I do not know the name of the place. 
 
 Did he bring it to you at the hotel you were living 
 at ?— Yes. 
 
 In Holborn? — No. I was not stopping there at the 
 time. 
 
 You have changed your auarters? — STes. You won't 
 find me down in any lie. 
 
 You have said that more than once, Mr. Iago. 
 Listen to what you said yesterday : — 
 
 " Oh, you did send for it?— Yes, I did. 
 
 " To your brother ? — Yes. 
 
 " And your brother wrote back that he could not 
 send it ? — Yes. 
 
 " Have you got his letter ? — I have not got it. 
 
 "Have you got his letter? — No, I have burnt it." 
 
 Why did you not say yesterday that you had 
 written to Sergeant Kenny ? — I directed him to go to 
 my brother, but my brother would not give it me. 
 
 Then you got no answer from your brother ? — No. 
 
 But you swore just the contrary ? — No. I swore that 
 I had had an answer from Sergeant Kenny. 
 
 Will you swear that you ever had a card ? — Yes, to 
 my brother's knowledge. 
 
 Did you get two months for an assault upon an old 
 man in Longford ? — I did. 
 
 When was that ? — A long time ago. I am not able 
 to say the month or the year. It had nothing to do with 
 the League. 
 
 Did you get two months more for an assault upon 
 another man upon another occasion ? — I did. 
 
 Have you for years been in communication with th& 
 police ? — No, I have not. I have told Mr. Allen a few 
 things. I cannot say when. It was about other people. 
 I never told him anything till I was a member, as I 
 knew nothing. 
 
 You told us yesterday that you were a member for 
 six months, and that your membership came to an end 
 six months ago ? — Yes, that is true. But I was a 
 member of the League seven years ago. 
 
 I mean the committee of the League ? — I am on the 
 committee still, but I do not go into the room. I am 
 on the committee for going about when I am called. 
 
 Have you been in the habit of seeing Sergeant Allen 
 from time to time ? — No ; I have not seen him for six 
 months, perhaps for 12 months. 
 
 You made a statement to him five or six years ago ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Have the police been in the habit of visiting at your 
 house ?— They often came. 
 
 Have you any means of support at all, except odd 
 
 Francis Iago. 
 
The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 699 
 
 days of work ? — Yes ; I have a pieoe of land, some- 
 thing about two and a-half acres. The rent is 14s. a 
 year. The landlord is Mr. Gray. 
 
 Is it not your brother who is the tenant ? — My 
 mother was the tenant, and now my elder brother 
 has it. 
 
 Have you ever boasted of having plenty of money ? — 
 I could never say so, for I never had plenty. 
 
 Did you get any money from any one ? — I got £5 
 from Mr. Bolton. 
 
 You got no money from the police ? — No, not at any 
 time. 
 
 Nor drink ? — No ; I am quite certain. 
 
 Have not the police been very kind to you ? — They 
 were not very kind to me so long as they put me in 
 prison. 
 
 Were you caught poaching with another man ? — I do 
 joot understand. 
 
 You know what trespassing on land in search of game, 
 rabbits, and hares is ? — No man ever put me down for 
 doing that. 
 
 Were you not with another man who was caught 
 poaching ? — Never. 
 
 The police have taken you to the barracks more than 
 once ?— Yes. 
 
 When were you fined for the assault on the old man 
 in Longford ? — A long time ago. There was a meeting 
 in Longford, and I remained in the town. 
 
 How long ago ? — I cannot say. 
 
 How long is it since you were in gaol for the assault 
 on Dennis Moylan ? — It was about the same time ; some 
 years ago, but I am not able to say how long. 
 
 Do you think there are any of your neighbours who 
 would believe you on your oath ? — Yes. I think any 
 man ought to be believed on his oath when he is not 
 going to talk of himself. 
 
 Can you mention any man among your neighbours 
 who would believe you ? — Mr. Quin, relieving officer ; 
 Mr. Hughes, publican ; Mr. Cafferty, another pub- 
 lican. 
 
 I suppose you have no objection to remaining a little 
 longer in town ? — Not one bit. 
 
 You are in pleasant quarters 1 — Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — You say that at the 
 Land League committee meeting a resolution was 
 passed to attack Houlighan. Who was there ?— Kane, 
 M'Carthy, Hart, Lennan, and some others whom I dis- 
 remember. 
 
 How many others were there who were known to 
 you ? — Four or five. 
 
 Kane has gone to America, has he not ? — Yes. 
 M'Carthy is still there. 
 
 Where was the meeting held ? — At the chapel. 
 
 In the sacristy ? — No; it was held in the stable, a few 
 perches from the chapel. 
 
 You say you were sworn in to some secret society. 
 Was that before Houlighan was murdered ?— Yes. 
 
 Hart, M'Carthy, and Lennan were members of it ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Was any person present at the meeting who was not 
 a member of it ? — All were members. 
 
 Do you know who were the members of the 
 committee of the Land League at that time ? Can you 
 give me their names ? — All instruction was in their 
 hands. 
 
 My question was, Do you know the names of any 
 other committeemen? — O'Horan and M'Nally were 
 members of the secret society. 
 
 Do you assert that all the members of the committee 
 of the Land League were members of the secret 
 society? — Oh, no. 
 
 Name those who were not. — I could not name them. 
 
 Where were the meetings of the Land League com- 
 mittee ordinarily held?— At the chapel, in the stable. 
 
 You have told us you often did a stroke backwards 
 and forwards. Houlighan was one man to whom you 
 gave a stroke. Who were the others ? — I could not say. 
 I do not recollect. 
 
 You gave a stroke to many? — Yes. 
 
 Did it produce death in any other case? — No. 
 
 Only mutilation or severe injuries? — Yes. It was just 
 with my hand I struck. 
 
 The President. — I did not understand him to say he 
 struck Houlighan with his hand. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — No, my Lord. This is what he said 
 yesterday (reading) — " Except committing these out- 
 rages, did you do anything to earn the money ? — I often 
 did. What did you for Hart ? — I often gave a stroke 
 back and forwards." (To witness. )You often gave people 
 strokes ? — Yes. 
 
 With instruments ? — No. 
 
 What with ?— With my hand. 
 
 Did you mean to convey in that answer that you 
 gave people strokes for the money you received from 
 Hart ?— Yes. 
 
 How much did you get ?— It was trifling. 
 
 Shillings ?— Not very many shillings. 
 
 Did you get any money from the police ? — I told that 
 gentleman that I did not. 
 
 What statement did you make to Sergeant Allen five 
 or six years ago ? — I cannot remember it now. 
 
 Now try ? — I cannot. 
 
 Have you made any statements to him since ?— No. 
 
 None at all ? — I have some time ago to Sergeant 
 Allen. I have made statements twice to Sergeant 
 Allen. 
 
 About what time did you make those statements ? — I 
 could not say. 
 
 The first was five or six years ago, you have said. 
 When was the last ?— I cannot say. 
 
 Do you swear you cannot tell within 12 months or 
 two years ? — It is not 12 months since I made it. 
 
 What was your motive in making that statement to 
 the constable ? — To keep myself safe, because they used 
 to be arresting me every time I came in and out. 
 
 On your oath, have you never received money from 
 Sergeant Allen, Sergeant Kenny, or any of the police ? 
 — I have not. 
 
 Francis lago. 
 
700 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 What was your object in coming here ?— I was 
 brought here. I was not thankful to come. 
 
 What was your motive in making these communica- 
 tions — was it repentance ? — X was afraid it would be 
 found out. I wanted to keep my head out of the 
 halter. 
 
 Were you asked if you could give evidence against 
 the Land League or the National League ?— I never 
 was. 
 
 Have you known any other persons who have come 
 forward to give evidence for their own conve« 
 mence ? — I do not know. 
 
 Have you ever heard of their going back to their 
 own neighbourhoods to live ? — Yes ; I am not afraid of 
 going back. 
 
 Were those two statements made by you to Allen in 
 writing ? — He took them down in writing. They were 
 the same. 
 
 Yesterday you said you only made one statement in 
 writing ? — I still say that ; it was the same. 
 
 Where is the stable you spoke of near the chapel ? 
 •—Very " convaynient." It was the priest's stable. 
 
 Did he allow it to be used ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you think he was aware of what was arranged for 
 the murder of Houlighan ? — No, or he would not have 
 allowed it ? 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. — You say you never 
 got any money or drink from the police ?— No. 
 
 Will you swear you have never drunk with Kenny or 
 Allen ?— Yes. 
 
 Was Sergeant Kenny one of the men who used to 
 come to your house ? — Yes. He came, and the other 
 police in the locality. I could not say who else came 
 as I was not often there when they came. They 
 wanted money from me for fines. 
 
 Did they inflict them ? — No. I was often fined, and 
 they came to look for me to pay the fine. 
 
 What for ? — Being intoxicated and in liquor. 
 
 Was that often ?— Yes, often. 
 
 Twelve times ? — Yes. 
 
 Twenty f— I would not say. 
 
 And fines were inflicted each time ? — Yes. 
 
 And the police collected them ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you ever strike for a reduction ? — No. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Was that the only business the police ever came 
 for ? — The only business. 
 
 Did you ever give them information ?— No. 
 
 Did they ever come for any purpose except to collect 
 fines ? — Only once they came searching for arms. 
 
 Did they get them ?— No ; I had put them away. 
 
 Were you suspected of burning Campbell's house ? — 
 Yes, because I was seen going along the road about 
 9 o'clock. I was in gaol a week before I was tried, 
 but they could not find me guilty. 
 
 Do you swear you never got money or drink from 
 Sergeant Kenny or any other of the police you have 
 mentioned ? — Yes. 
 
 You were not convicted of burning Campbell's 
 house ?-~No. There were three judges, but they could 
 
 not find me guilty. I beg pardon, I should have said 
 three magistrates. 
 
 I suppose your good character stood to you on that 
 occasion ? — Yes. 
 
 You said you were a member of the Killoo branch 
 of the League ; who proposed you ? — Hart. 
 
 He is now in America ? — Yes. 
 
 Can you remember who seconded you ?— Yes. 
 M'Carthy. 
 
 He is still in the country ? — Yes. 
 
 Can you name the dates on which any of the meet- 
 ings of the League committee were held ? — No. 
 
 Is your brother a member of the branch ? — No, my 
 nephew is. I do not know the names of the present 
 secretary and treasurer of the branch, as they formed a 
 new branch on the Sunday- before I left. 
 
 Was Houlighan, the man you killed, a member of the 
 branch ? — No. He lived eight miles away. Kane 
 lived close to me. 
 
 Is the man who was in the cart with Houlighan still 
 in the country ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you know that he has declared that Kane was 
 the man who struck Houlighan ?— I do not know it. 
 
 Ee-examined by the Attorney-General. — You said 
 in answer to Sir C. 'Russell that the police used to 
 come to the Land League room, and the people then 
 walked away ? — Yes, when they saw the police they 
 walked away and would not let the police hear any- 
 thing. 
 
 When you were sworn in as a member of a secret 
 society what name was it you gave to the society ? — 
 Moonlighters. 
 
 You have mentioned that some of these men were 
 moonlighters ; except moonlighters, do you recollect 
 any other name being given to members of the society? 
 — Yes ; I think it was Fenians. 
 
 You are not able to tell us who were all the other 
 members of the secret society of moonlighters or 
 Fenians ; did they meet at any other place besides the 
 Land League stable ?— They used to go there. They 
 used to meet there. 
 
 Where were the general meetings of the Land 
 League held ? — At the stable, every other Sunday. 
 
 Before or after chapel ? — After. 
 
 About these arms you say you had. You say that 
 your hpuse was searched for arms. What arms had 
 you ? — Two pistols, one a revolver. 
 
 Whore did you get them from ? — I got one, the 
 revolver, from Campbell, and I got the other from a 
 young fellow whose name I do not recollect. 
 
 The police searched your house end did not find 
 them ? — They did not find them. « 
 
 Now, as to your statement that you were allowed to 
 go into the committee-room because you were trusted. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — He said yesterday " because they 
 had very good dependence on me," not that he was 
 trusted. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I beg your pardon, that 
 is so. 
 
 Re-examination continued. — Just explain' what you 
 
 Francis lago 
 
The Special Coiaamission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 701 
 
 mean by saying that you were allowed to go in 
 because they had a very good dependence upon you ? — 
 They had good dependence that I would never tell 
 anything I heard. 
 
 Po you know of your own knowledge whether Houli- 
 gban knew Kane or not ? — I am sure he did. 
 
 When you say that you got the revolver from Camp« 
 bell do you mean that you got it from him, or from his 
 plape ? — He did not give it to me. 
 
 Patrick Delaney, who was brought up in custody, 
 was next called. The witness gave his evidence in a 
 very indistinct manner, which rendered it necessary 
 to frequently call upon the shorthand writer to repeat 
 his answers. 
 
 Examined by the Attorney-General. — Is your 
 name Patrick Delaney ? — Yes. 
 
 Where do you come from ? — From Maryborough 
 Prison, Queenstown, Ireland, at present. 
 
 How old are you ? — I am 36 years of age. 
 
 Did you ever join the Fenian organization ? — Yes. - 
 
 When ?— In 1877, or in 1875 rather. 
 
 Were you sworn ; did you take any oath ? — Yes. 
 
 What was it ? — To take up arms at a moment's 
 notice to gain the independence of Ireland and to be 
 obedient to superior officers. 
 
 How long did that Fenian organization that you 
 joined in 1875 continue ? — I think it remained the 
 same until 1887 or 1888. 
 
 How long did you continue to be a memher of that 
 organization ? How many years die] you remain a 
 member of it ? — I continued to be a member until my 
 arrest. 
 
 When was that ? — On the 7th of September — no, of 
 Novemher, 1882. 
 
 In what part of Ireland did you join ? — In Dublin. 
 
 Who were the leaders of the organization during the 
 time you were a member down to the time of your 
 arrest ? — Patrick Egan, Thomas Brennan, Dr.M'AIister, 
 and John Levey. 
 
 I do not want to have to go back for anything. Were 
 the four names you have mentioned the names of the 
 principal leaders of the organization ? — Yes ; but 
 there was another man in county Cork named Doran. 
 
 Do you recollect whether the persons whose names 
 you have mentioned had any particular names in the 
 organization ; were they called anything, or were 
 they merely members of the organization ? — They were 
 called either councillors or executive councillors. 
 
 Do you recollect any persons coming over as dele- 
 gates from any council in America ? — Yes. 
 
 About what time ? — Some time in 1879, I think. 
 I do not know exactly. - 
 
 Yon do not pledge yourself to the exact date ? — No. 
 It was somewhere about that time. 
 
 You say that some persons came over as delegates 
 from some council in America. Do you remember 
 their names ? — Yes. 
 
 Give them ?— One was John O'Connor of Cork, who 
 
 was known as Dr. Kenoaly, another was John De v °y» 
 and another was General Millen. 
 
 You say that John O'Connor came from Cork ?— Yes ; 
 he was a commercial traveller there. 
 
 Where did Devqy come from ? — From America. 
 
 Do you know where General Millen came from ?— 
 From America. 
 
 Do you remember the names of any others who came 
 from America as representatives of the American 
 branch or council besides the three you have given 
 us ?— There was Edward Hanlon. > 
 
 Any others ? — No. 
 
 Had you known John O'Connor of Cork before that ? 
 —I had seen him several times in Dublin. 
 
 Do you know whether he is a member of Parlia« 
 ment ? — I do not, but I have heard that he is. 
 
 Should you know him if you saw him again ? — Yes. 
 
 Is he short or tall ? — Tall, with a sandy complexion. 
 
 What coloured hair ? — Light. 
 
 Any moustache ?— Yes, a large one with a full 
 beard. 
 
 What name did he go by when he came from Ame« 
 rica ? — That of Dr. Kenealy. 
 
 Were you present at any time when these delegates, 
 the men you have named as coming from the Supreme 
 Council in America, met ? — No. I was present when 
 they came from America, but not when O'Connor came. 
 
 Were you present at any meeting when either Devoy 
 or Millen were present ? — Yes. 
 
 Just tell us any that were present when they met— • 
 Devoy, Millen, O'Connor, and Hanlon ? — O'Connor was 
 not present. 
 
 Whom did they meet ? — The centres of the Fenian 
 organization in Dublin. 
 
 Who were they ? — James Mullett, my brother Daniel 
 Delaney, James Carey, Joseph Mullett, James Elmore, 
 and several others. 
 
 Were either of the other persons whose names you 
 have mentioned present ? Was Egan, or Brennan, or 
 Dr. M'Alister, or Devoy present ? — No. 
 
 What did these people from America come about ? 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Wait a moment. We cannot have 
 it in that form. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am putting my ques« 
 tions strictly in proper form. 
 
 Examination continued. — You were present at this 
 meeting ? — Yes. 
 
 What did these people say in your presence that 
 they had come about ? — The work of the organization 
 in Dublin and to inspect the military organization, 
 Devoy came as representing the Fenian organization, 
 and Millen for the purpose of inspecting them as a 
 military organization. 
 
 Do you remember anything else that was said afc 
 that meeting as to the other objects of the organiza- 
 tion ? — Certain arms were to be given. 
 
 What was said ? — Arms were to be given, and all 
 expenses were to be paid by the organization in 
 America. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
702 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 Where was this meeting held ? — At the Foresters'- 
 hall, Bolton-street, Dublin. 
 
 What year was the meeting held in, as far as yon 
 can remember ? — In 1879. 
 
 Do you remember any meeting at which you were 
 present at which James Stephens's name was men- 
 tioned ? — Yes. 
 
 What was said about him ? — There were at the time 
 two Fenian organizations working in Dublin. Some 
 were for having James Stephens as their supreme head, 
 and others were in favour of the organization being 
 reformed on the American principle. 
 
 Were those two organizations opposed to each other ? 
 —They were opposed to each other. 
 
 Was anything said at that meeting about uniting the 
 two organizations under James Stephens as supreme 
 head ? — He was told by Devoy he was offered a seat 
 on the council and he would not accept it. He would 
 not be made supreme head of it. 
 
 Do you remember on other occasions having anything 
 to do when you were not in the room where the meet- 
 ings were held ? — I had to watch about the place. 
 
 Inside or outside ? — Outside. 
 
 What for ? — To guard against a surprise by the police. 
 
 You mean that you kept guard outside lest the police 
 should come and disturb the meeting ? — Yes. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — I should like to know whether the 
 witness is going to suggest that any of the parties 
 charged were present at these meetings. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am going to ask ques- 
 tions to show that some of the persons charged were 
 present at several of the meetings. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Up to this moment no such ques- 
 tion has been put. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Egan, Ererman,M'Alister, 
 and Levey were present, and they are persons charged. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I must ask your Lordships to take 
 my respectful warning that we object to this evidence. 
 
 The President. — I will take a note of your ob- 
 jection that the persons charged were not stated to be 
 present. 
 
 Examination continued.— At that time did you see 
 Egan and Brennan present at any other meeting ? — No, 
 except at the meeting at the Mechanics' Institute. 
 
 When was that ?— In 1877 or 1876. It was at the 
 time of the meetings of the Amnesty Association. 
 
 What was the object of that association ? — Its object 
 was to try to obtain the release of the political 
 prisoners. 
 
 You mean the Fenians who had been convicted ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 A fund had been established for that purpose ? — Yes, 
 
 Who were present at that meeting ? — Egan was the 
 chairman of it. 
 
 Who else ? — The secretary, John Nolan. 
 
 Anybody else ? — Thomas Brennan and Devoy. 
 
 Now, did you see Devoy present at any other meet- 
 ing besides the one you have spoken of at the 
 F oresters'-hall ?— No, I never did. 
 
 What work was done by the Fenian organization in 
 
 1878 and 1879 to your knowledge ? — Buying arms and 
 drilling principally. 
 
 Do you remember any other meeting in Bolton- 
 street ?— Yes, a meeting of centres. 
 
 Who were the centres ?— They were the leading men 
 of the organization ; they had so many men under 
 them. 
 
 Was Devoy present at that meeting ? — He was. 
 
 When was this meeting in Bolton-street ? — There 
 were several. 
 
 But this meeting at which Devoy was present ?— It 
 was held in 1879, I think. 
 
 What was the meeting held for? — For working the 
 organization. 
 
 Were there any people connected with the organiza- 
 tion called " Bs " ?— Yes. 
 
 Who were the " Bs " ? — There were so many to each 
 circle. 
 
 Who were there besides " Bs " ? — There were 
 centres, one to each circle. There might be several 
 " Bs," according to the size of the circle. 
 
 Had your brother any official position in the organi- 
 zation ? — Yes, he was the centre of the circle he 
 belonged to. 
 
 What was your brother's name ? — Daniel. 
 
 You have mentioned that Millen came to inspect the 
 military organization. Did he ever inspect your 
 circle ?— Yes. 
 
 Was he alone, or was anybody with him ? — Edward 
 Hanlon was with him. 
 
 Do you remember a Land League meeting in the 
 Rotundo ? — Yes. 
 
 About when was that ? — I cannot give the exact 
 date. It was about 1879. 
 
 Had the members of the circles any order about at- 
 tending that meeting ? — It was notified to them 
 through their circles. 
 
 Did you receive a notification from your centre to 
 attend it ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know of your own knowledge that similar 
 orders were sent fro other persons to attend ? — It was 
 sent to all members of circles working under the 
 American party. 
 
 Had there been at that time any unity between the 
 Stephens's party and the American party ? — No ; they 
 were opposed to one another. 
 
 Who was on the platform on that occasion ? — Davitt, 
 Egan, Parnell, Thomas Brennan, Biggar, and several 
 others. I cannot think of their names now. 
 
 Was Dillon there ?— He was. 
 
 Do you remember any others ? — Harris. 
 
 Matthew Harris ? — Yes. Edward Hanlon was also on 
 the platform. 
 
 Do you remember Hanlon taking any part in the 
 meeting ? — Yes, he read an amendment. 
 
 Moved one, you mean ? — Yes. That was why the 
 members of the Fenian organization were there. 
 
 Was any objection taken to that amendment ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember by whom ? — By persons on the plat" 
 v form. 
 
 Patrick Dolaney. 
 
The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 703 
 
 Do you remember their names ? — No, I do not. 
 
 Who supported Hanlon ? — Those who represented the 
 Fenian organizations and centres. 
 
 Did anybody on the platform support him ? — Yes, 
 Davitt insisted upon him reading the amendment. 
 There was some dispute at the commencement whether 
 he should be allowed to read his amendment or not. 
 
 Do you recollect anybody else on the platform who 
 supported him ? — Egan and Thomas Erennan. 
 
 Was Mr. Biggar present ?— He was. 
 
 Do you know, did he support Hanlon or not ?— He 
 supported him. 
 
 After this meeting did any orders come to your 
 circles respecting the Land League ? — Yes, after that 
 meeting. 
 
 What were the orders ? — Not to give the League any 
 opposition, but to give it our support. 
 
 Do you remember anything being said of Mr. 
 Davitt at that meeting ? — He was attacked for deviat- 
 ing from his principles by a man of the name of Daniel 
 Curley. 
 
 What did Daniel Curley say ? — He said that Davitt 
 was not sticking to his principles. 
 
 Anything more than that ?— Not that I can remember. 
 
 Will you just repeat the answer you gave just now 1 
 Were orders given to your circles to do anything 
 respecting the League ? — Yes ; to give it all the sup- 
 port we could and not to give it any opposition. 
 
 Did you see Mr. Biggar at any meetings about this 
 time besides the one at the Kotundo ? — I do not think 
 so. 
 
 Did you know a man named Sheridan — P. J. Sheri- 
 dan ? — I did well. 
 
 When did you first know Sheridan ? — About the year 
 1878, I think. 
 
 Was Sheridan a member of the Fenian organiza- 
 tion ? — I knew him after the American organization 
 had been started in Dublin. 
 
 You did not know him as a Fenian until after the 
 American organization ? — No ; not till then. 
 
 About what date do you fix for that ? — 1878 or 1879. 
 
 Did the centres have meetings as well as the 
 circles ? — Yes ; they met in council once a week. 
 
 Where ? — Several times at James Mullett's public- 
 house. 
 
 Did you see Sheridan going to these meetings ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Often ? — Not very often. Perhaps once or twice. 
 
 You were not a centre yourself ? — No ; not then. 
 
 Did you ever become a centre ? — Yes. 
 
 When ? — It might be the commencement of 1882. 
 
 Before you became a centre had you any duty to 
 perform with regard to the meetings at Mullett's public- 
 house ? — I was often told off to watch outside the 
 door. 
 
 And have you on those occasions watched outside to 
 prevent anybody surprising the meetings ? — Yes, several 
 times. 
 
 Have you been present at meetings of the circle ?— 
 Yes ; before I became a centre. 
 
 Have you seen Sheridan at these meetings ?— No ; I 
 have not seen him inside. I was watching outside the 
 door. I could not go in as I was not a centre. 
 
 Do you know from anything Sheridan told you what 
 he was doing ? — I never spoke to the man in my life. 
 
 Do you know what he was doing at these meetings ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Were you there ? 
 
 Witness. — No. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— What did you know Sheri- 
 dan as ? — One of the Supreme Council of the organiza- 
 tion working under the American party. Sheridan was 
 an Irishman from Tubbercurry. 
 
 Do you know whether Sheridan had anything to do 
 with the League ? — He was appointed organizer of the 
 League for the West of Ireland. 
 
 When was he appointed so ? — About the year 1880, I 
 think, or 1879. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Does he know anything about it ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — He has sworn it. (To 
 witness). — You said you received orders about sup- 
 porting the League. Was anything said at those meet- 
 ings at which you were present as to what the objects 
 of the League were ? — It was represented at that time 
 that they were to organize the country, and that the 
 Fenian party would supply the arms and do the remain- 
 der of the work. 
 
 At any meetings at which you were present, who 
 made such representations to you ? — The centre told 
 the " B " what occurred at the centre meetings. 
 
 Was a " B " next to the centre, or in between ?— 
 " B " was next to the centre. 
 
 How many men had a " B " under him ? — Ten ; he 
 might have more. 
 
 How many " Bs " were there in your brother's 
 circle ? — Four. 
 
 Then, roughly, you had ten men under you ? — Yes. 
 
 And there were three other " Bs " ?— Yes. 
 
 That would be about 40 men besides the " Bs "? — Yes. 
 
 You have said that you were told by your centre 
 that the Land League was to organize the country ?— 
 Yes ; by the centre of my own circle. 
 
 Who was that ? — James Mullett. 
 
 Did you know a man named Walsh ? — Yes ; John 
 Walsh. He came from the north of England. 
 
 Where did you see him ? — I saw him attending 
 centres' meetings in Mullett's publichouse. 
 
 Do you remember what wo.s.done at the meetings at 
 which Walsh was present ? — He was accompanied by a 
 man named John Daly, from Limerick. 
 
 Do you remember, or do you know what business was 
 done at the meetings at which they were present ? — I 
 was not present at the meetings. I was oh guard 
 outside. 
 
 Did you ever at any time see Sheridan in any dis- 
 guise ? — I did. I saw him as a Roman Catholic clergy- 
 man. 
 
 When was that ?— It would be about the year 1880. 
 
 Where did you see him ?— On the quay, going from 
 the Aneel Hotel. 
 
 That is an hotel in Dublin ?- Yes. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
704 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16, 1889, 
 
 Do you know, oE your own knowledge, whether 
 Sheridan was staying at the hotel ? — I saw him coming 
 from it. I do not know whether he was staying 
 there. 
 
 Did you know of Sheridan being arrested ? — Yes ; 
 he was arrested under the Coercion Act. 
 
 Do you know the time in 1880 when Sheridan was 
 disguised as a priest ? — I do well. At that time he 
 was one of the Supreme Council. 
 
 I asked you what date in 1880 ? — I cannot give you 
 any date. 
 
 But you remember seeing him ? — Perfectly well. 
 
 He was one of the Supreme Council at the time ? — 
 Yes, he could not attend the meetings except he was. 
 
 When Sheridan was arrested, did you remember a 
 man named Fitzgerald ? — I do ; P. N. Fitzgerald. 
 
 What was he ? — After Sheridan was arrested he took 
 up his place, and travelled for the organization too. 
 
 Which organization ? — The Supreme Council of the 
 Fenian organization. 
 
 Where used you to see Fitzgerald ? — Attending the 
 centres' meetings. 
 
 How often ? — About twice or three times a year. 
 
 Do you know what part of Ireland he visited ? — I do 
 not know. He visited Cork, I think. He came from 
 there. He travelled for the organization. He had to 
 inspect every circle. 
 
 You have already mentioned the name of Matthew 
 Harris. How long have you known him ? — Since about 
 the summer of 1876, I think. 
 
 Had Matthew Harris anything to do with the Fenian 
 organization ? — He was always represented as one of 
 the centres of the county Galway. 
 
 Do you mean a centre of a circle ? — A centre of the 
 Fenian organization. One of the old centres. 
 
 Do you know whether there was more than one 
 centre in Galway or not ? — Not at that time. 
 
 Not more than one then ?— I do not know. 
 
 Do you remember a meeting at Dollymount ? — Yes ; 
 at Byrne's. 
 
 Where was Byrne's ? — At Clontarf, in county Dublin. 
 
 Is that a suburb of Dublin ?— Yes, on the north 
 side. 
 
 Do you know Byrne's Christian name ? — I do not. 
 
 When was the meeting ?— About 1878 or 1879. 
 
 What was it a meeting of ?— It was a meeting of the 
 centres of all the circles throughout Ireland. 
 
 You mean centres of the Fenian organization ? — Yes, 
 throughout Ireland. 
 
 Was Matthew Harris there ?— He was. 
 
 Was he representing county Galway ? — I do not 
 know. 
 
 Do you know where Matthew Harris came from ? — 
 Ballinasloe, in county Galway. 
 
 Do you know what he was by trade ? — I believe he 
 was a builder by trade. 
 
 When you knew him was he a member of Parlia- 
 ment or not ? — No, he was not. 
 
 You have mentioned the name of O'Connor. Do you 
 know whether the man you refer to was arrested or 
 
 not ? — I think he was in Kilmainham Prison as a 
 suspect. 
 
 When was that ? — About the summer of 1881. 
 
 Do you know a man named Boyton ? — Yes ; from 
 county Kildare. 
 
 What was he ?— Organizer of the Land League in 
 county Kildare. 
 
 Was he anything else ? Had he anything to do with 
 the Fenian organization ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 You said something just now about the Invincibles. 
 When did you first hear of them ? — About the latter end 
 of 1881. 
 
 Were you an Invincible ? — Yes. 
 
 Who else were Invincibles ? — James Mullett, James 
 Carey, Daniel Delaney, Joseph Mullett, Joseph 
 Brady, Michael Fagan, Patrick Molloy, two Hanlons, 
 Lawrence and Joseph. 
 
 Anybody else ? — Mr. Kgan and Mr. Brennan were 
 the leaders of it. 
 
 You mean Patrick Egan, I suppose ? — Yes. 
 
 And Thomas Brennap ?— Yes. 
 
 Anybody else ?— P. J. Sheridan. 
 
 Is that the same Sheridan you have spoken of 
 before ? — Yes. 
 
 Anybody else ? — Francis Byrne. 
 
 Do you give all these names as Invincibles or not ? 
 — As Invincibles. 
 
 Anybody else ? — Yes, a person who went under the 
 name of " Number One." 
 
 Do you know his name ?— I heard his name was 
 Tynan, but I am not sure. 
 
 Do you remember any other names of Invincibles ? - 
 James Boland, and John Walsh, from the north of Eng- 
 land, the same person I mentioned before. 
 
 Anybody else ? — Boyton, the man who was a Land 
 League organizer. He was represented to be one. 
 Boyton gave orders to Brady as an Invincible to my 
 own knowledge. 
 
 Now, I want to ask you about Molloy. What sort of 
 a man was he ? — He was a young man, with a fair 
 complexion, about 5ft. Sin. in height. 
 
 Do you know what his business was ? — I think he 
 was a law clerk of some description. 
 
 Did you know him ? — Perfectly well. 
 
 Should you know him again ? — Perfectly. 
 
 What was his Christian name ? — Patrick. 
 
 About what age was he when you knew him '{ — About 
 22 years of age when I saw him in 1882. 
 
 At what time in 1882 did you last see him ? — The 
 day I was arrested. 
 
 Did you see him to speak to P — I saw him to speak 
 to. He was one of the party. 
 
 What party ? — The party watching Judge Lawson. 
 He pointed him out. He came down to the Four Courts 
 on the Friday previous to my arrest. 
 
 What day were you arrested ?— On Saturday, 
 November 7, 1882. 
 
 Now, this Boland you mentioned, what was his 
 Christian name ? — James. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 705 
 
 What was he ? — Ho was foreman to a contractor in 
 Dublin of the name of Worthington. 
 
 Do you know if he knew Molloy ?— Perfectly well. 
 They were watching Mr. Anderson, Crown solicitor, 
 for over a week. 
 
 What were Boland and Molloy ? — Boland belonged to 
 the circle of tho Fenian organization. 
 
 What was Molloy ?— A sub-centre. He was sub-centre 
 to Michael Fagan. 
 
 Fagan was a centre of the Fenian organization ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 And James Boland was a member of the same 
 circle ?— Yes. 
 
 Was that Michael Fagan the man who was hanged 
 for the Phoenix Park murders ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, Frank Byrne, how long had yon known him ?— 
 Several years. 
 
 What was he ? — He was a member of the Fenian 
 organization. 
 
 How long had you known him as such f — Since 1875. 
 
 Do you remember what circle he belonged to ? — I 
 do not remember. He was working with a man of the 
 name of John Lucas. 
 
 Had Frank Byrne anything to do with the Land 
 League ? — He had. He was secretary to the Land 
 League in London. 
 
 Had he anything to do with the League in Dublin ? 
 "-Not that I know of. 
 
 Now, as to Tynan, describe him. — He was about 
 5ft. 6in. He wore large coloured spectacles, and never 
 took them off. He was altogether disguised every 
 way. He always wore different clothes, and I never 
 saw him in the same twice. 
 
 How many times did you see him ?— Three or four 
 times. 
 
 In what year ?— 1882. 
 
 You said that Boyton gave Brady orders in your hear- 
 ing as an Invincible. Do you know what those orders 
 were i — Boyton pointed out Mr. Bourke, the Chairman 
 of the Prisons Board, to Brady. 
 
 Did you hear him say anything ? — I know he pointed 
 out the gentleman who was to be assassinated. 
 
 Now, how many of the men whose names you have 
 given were Fenian3 ? — All the Invincibles whom I 
 knew were, excepting one. 
 
 They were members of the American party, not 
 Stephenites ?— Exactly. 
 
 Was there any difference in the organization after 
 the parties combined ?— The parties never combined up 
 to the time of my arrest. 
 
 What was the point of difference between the Ameri- 
 can Council party and the Stephenite party ?— One was 
 governed by the council and the other by Stephens him- 
 self. 
 
 How often did you see Mr. Matthew Harris ?— I often 
 saw him. 
 
 Where ?— When working in Ballinasloe in 1876. 
 
 Did you see him afterwards in 1879 or 1880 ?— Yes. 
 
 Where ?— In Dublin. 
 
 What were you working at ? — I was a carpenter by 
 trade. 
 
 Where in Dublin did you see Mr. Harris ? — I saw him 
 coming out of the Land League rooms in Sackville- 
 street several times. I saw him speaking to James 
 Carey and Daniel Curley. 
 
 Have you seen Harris with Carey and Curley more 
 than once ? — Yes. It was Harris who first swore Curley 
 into the Fenian organization. 
 Were you present at the time ? — No. 
 
 How, then, did you know this ? — He told ns himself. 
 Who is "he "?— Curley. 
 
 Sir C. Russell objected that the questions being 
 asked were unfair. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— They are perfectly fair. 
 You say that you saw Mr. Harris and Curley together 
 several times ? — Yes. We came from Ballinasloe. 
 
 Have you seen Mr. Harris with any one else in Dublin ? 
 — I saw him at the Kickham funeral. Charley Kick- 
 ham was one of the supreme council of the American 
 organization. 
 
 Was Kickham infirm of hearing ?— Yes, he was deaf. 
 
 When were the Invincibles formed ? — In 1881. 
 
 When did you join ?— At the latter end of 1881 or 
 beginning of 1882. 
 
 You have stated that all the Invincibles whom you 
 knew were members of the American branch of the 
 Fenian party ? — Yes, excepting Boyton. 
 
 Do you remember a meeting being held at tho 
 Angel Hotel ?— Yes ; but I was not present. 
 
 Do you know of a meeting being held there ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see anybody who was going there f — No. 
 
 Were you told who were there ?— Yes. 
 
 By whom '—James Mnllett, James Carey, and my 
 brother. This was at the time when I was brought 
 into the Invincible party. 
 
 Tell us what they told you ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell objected. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The statement is a state" 
 ment of James Mullett's,whohas been shown already to 
 have been an Invincible, and Sheridan, Boyton, Bgan, 
 and Brennan were all Invincibles. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Would it be evidence if the 
 witness were to say that he had been told that I or 
 anybody else was at this meeting ? 
 
 The President ruled that the evidence was in- 
 admissible. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — A statement was made to 
 you as to the persons present at that meeting ? — Yes. 
 That was when I joined. 
 
 Who formed the committee of the Invincibles ?— 
 P. J. Sheridan, John Walsh, M'Cafferty, and Tynan 
 (No. 1). 
 
 Did anybody else join the committee afterwards ?— 
 Yes ; another committee was formed. 
 
 Of whom did it consist ?— James Carey, Joseph 
 Mullett, Dan Curley, and Edward M'Cafferty. 
 
 Had the Invincibles any money ?— No. 
 
 Any subscriptions ?— No. 
 . What were they sworn to do t— To found a Fenian 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
 23 
 
706 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 organization. The principal part of the oath referred 
 to the assassination of the Executive Council in 
 Ireland. 
 
 What do you mean by the Executive Council ?— The 
 Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, all obnoxious 
 Government officials. 
 
 Do you know where the Invincibles got their money 
 from ?— Yes. 
 
 From where ? — The Land League. 
 
 From whom ?— Patrick Egan and Francis Byrne. 
 
 Anybody else ?— Yes. No. 1, Tynan. 
 
 ■Who kept the money ?— The council that formed the 
 Invincibles at the time. Part of the time James 
 Mullett had some and James Carey. 
 
 Do you remember any particular amounts that came 
 from the Land League ? — Yes. The first instalment 
 James Mullett got was £50. 
 
 Whom from ? — Patrick Egan. 
 
 Do you remember any other amounts ? — There were 
 several sums. Some of them were enormous sums too. 
 
 What do you mean by enormous sums ? — £300 or 
 £400. 
 
 Do you remember anybody receiving the money 
 besides James Mullett ? — Yes ; my brother, Daniel 
 Delaney, received some of it ; also Joseph Mullett, 
 Joseph Brady, aDd James Carey. 
 
 Do you remember the Invincibles having any arms ? 
 •—Yes ; they were different arms altogether from 
 those for the Fenian organization. 
 
 What kind of arms ?— Rifles, revolvers, daggers, and 
 knives. 
 
 How did they differ from those for the Fenian 
 organization ? — In nature and construction. They 
 were more expensive — higher class arms. 
 
 Do you remember the names of any of the makers ? 
 —Yes ; Eeilly, of London, and Tranter, of Peter- 
 borough. 
 , How many Invisibles had revolvers ? — All of them. 
 
 How did they get them ? — Frank Byrne's wife 
 brought some of them to Dublin. 
 
 Where did 8he bring them from ? — London. She 
 resided in London. 
 
 What sort of rifles had they ? — Martini-Henry 
 principally, pistol-stock repeating rifles. 
 
 Did you see any other weapons that had been brought 
 over ? — I saw knives. 
 
 How many ? — Four. 
 
 Could you identify them if you saw them ? — Yes, 
 all. 
 
 Were you watching anybody at this time ? — Yes. 
 
 Whom ? — Mr. Justice Lawson. I was sent into the 
 Four Courts to watch him. 
 
 When ? — A few days before my arrest. I was arrested 
 on a Saturday and I was Eent to watch him on a 
 Friday. 
 
 Did you yourself watch anybody before that ? — Only 
 in connexion with the Phoenix Park business. 
 
 And before that had you to watch anybody ?— Yes ; 
 Mr. Foreter, Chief Secretary. 
 
 You have stated that the rifles and revolvers were 
 
 brought over by Frank Byrne's wife. Do you know 
 who brought the knives over ? — She brought them. 
 
 When were they brought over F — At the latter end of 
 1881. 
 
 Were they all kept at one place in Dublin, or in 
 different places ? — They were distributed. James 
 Mullett, Joseph Brady, and James Carey each kept 
 some. 
 
 How early did you begin to watch Mr. Forster ? — In 
 the beginning of 1882. 
 
 Did you get any orders from anybody about him ?— 
 Yes, from my brother and James Mullett. 
 
 Tell us any place where you had to watch him ? — 
 On Ellis's Quay, Queen-street-bridge. 
 
 What were your instructions ?— To shoot anybody 
 who should pass over the bridge while Mr. Forster was 
 being assassinated. I was to intercept persons on 
 the bridge. < 
 
 Who were told off to shoot Mr. Forster ? — Joseph 
 Brady and Timothy Kelly. 
 
 Who told them off ?— They got their instructions 
 from the council of the Invincible party at the time. 
 
 How do you know that ? — I was told. 
 
 Whom did you get your orders from ? — My brother, 
 James Mullett, James Carey, and Joseph Brady. 
 
 Who else was to be present on this occasion ? — 
 Edward M'Cafferty, Joseph Hanlon, William Maloney, 
 Michael Fagan, Pat Molloy, and Joseph Mullett. 
 
 Anybody else 1 — Those are all I remember. 
 
 Did you see Mr. Forster on that occasion ? — No. 
 
 Do you remember getting any orders in connexion 
 with Brunswick-street ? — Yes ; on the same evening. 
 
 Who gave you those orders ? — Joseph Brady. 
 
 What were they ? — To be in Brunswick-street at 
 6 o'clock for the purpose of assassinating Mr. 
 Forster. 
 
 Who were to be with you ? — The same Invincible 
 party. 
 
 The same people whom you have mentioned ? — Yes, 
 with No. 1. He was there. That was the first time I 
 saw him. 
 
 You have mentioned Patrick Molloy. Was he one ol 
 the party on that occasion ? — He was. He was accom- 
 panied by Michael Fagan. 
 
 Did you see Molloy there ? — Yes, and spoke to him. 
 
 Was Boland there ? — No ; I did not know him at 
 that time. 
 
 On that occasion did Mr. Forster pass or not ? — He 
 did not come that way. 
 
 Do you remember any orders being received about 
 anybody else ? — Yes ; about Mr. Anderson, Crown 
 solicitor. 
 
 What were the orders ? — To assassinate him. Two 
 men were to watch him. 
 
 Whom did you receive those orders from ? — I was 
 not told to watch him. 
 
 Do you know who were selected in Mr. Anderson's 
 case ?— Yes ; James Boland and Pat Molloy. 
 
 Who selected them 'I 
 
 Patrick Delaney, 
 
The Special Commission, January 16, 18S9. 
 
 70? 
 
 Sib 0. ET73SELL. — How does he know ? Was he 
 present at the time ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Were you at the meeting 
 of the Invincibles when the orders were given ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Was anything said with reference to Molloy ? — I 
 understood that Molloy, being a law clerk, knew Mr. 
 Anderson by sight. 
 
 Do you remembsr any orders being given about Mr. 
 Burke, the Under-Secretary ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you get any orders about him ? — Not by name. 
 
 What orders did you get ? — In Dane-street on May 6 
 James Carey, Daniel Curley, and Joseph Brady in- 
 structed me to be at King's-bridge at 9 o'clock to 
 assassinate some gentleman. I was not told who he 
 was. 
 
 Who were to be there ? — All the Invincibles whom I 
 knew. 
 
 Did you go ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see the person who was to h? assassinated ? 
 — No ; he did not come. 
 
 Had you yourself any part in the Phconix Park 
 murders ? — No ; in f.ict, I (lid not know of them until 
 after the occurrence. I was taken by force from my 
 work on the morning of May 6. 
 
 To what place ? — To the Phoenix Park. 
 
 What for ? — I was not told what for. 
 
 Where were you when the mardcr was actually com- 
 mitted ? — Close hj^ watching on the ground. 
 
 What orders had you receivod ? — The first order 
 directed me to be at King's-bridge at 9 o'clock in the 
 morning. I went there, but I refused to leave my work 
 in the day. I went to work. 
 
 What happened next ? — I was taken to a meeting at 
 Wren's publichouse in Dane-street. 
 
 Did any one fetch you ? — Yes, Timothy Kelly and 
 Kavanagh, the carman. 
 
 Where did you go after leaving the publichouse ? — To 
 the Phceaix Park. 
 
 Had you any particular orders, or were you simply 
 to watch ? — I was there simply watching. 
 
 Do you remember after the Phceaix Park murders 
 anything being done with some knives ? — Yes. 
 James Carey had the knives hidden in a dispensary 
 which was being rebuilt in Peter-street, and he was 
 afraid that he was going to be taken. He told mo to 
 take them away and give them to Brady. 
 
 Did you take them away ? — Yes. 
 
 Were they the samo knives which you had seen 
 before, and which Mrs. Prank Byrne had brought 
 over ? — Yes, the very same. 
 
 Where did you take them ? — To my own place. 
 
 How many were there ? — Two. 
 
 How long did you keep them ? — Six weeks, about. 
 
 Did you get any orders about them ?— To give them 
 to Brady. 
 
 Did you. ? — Yes, after Carey's arrest. 
 
 Do you remember any meeting of the organization 
 jhortly after that ? — Yes. It took place at my 
 brother's house. 
 
 Where were the orders given you about the knives ?— ■ 
 At a railway station. 
 
 You took them to Brady ? — Yes. 
 
 What did he do with them ? — He destroyed them. I 
 was looking on at the time. He broke them and burnt 
 the handles, according to the orders which ha had re- 
 ceived. 
 
 Did you see either Frank Byrne or Sheridan about 
 that time ?— I saw Byrne in the summer of 1882 in 
 my brother's house, 49, Clanbrassil-street. It was at 
 a meeting of the council of the Invincibles. 
 
 Who else were present ? — Daniel Delaney, Peter 
 Carey, Joseph Brady, Joseph Mullett, and No. 1. 
 
 Number 1 ? — Yes. 
 
 Anybody else besides yourself ? — Boland was there 
 on one occasion. 
 
 I am speaking of when Frank Byrne was there ; on 
 that occasion was Boland there ? — No, not on that 
 occasion. 
 
 You say you were not in the room ? — No. 
 
 Was there any new committee after that ? — Yes ; 
 the new committee of the Invincibles was Joseph 
 Mullett, Daniel Delaney, Peter Carey, and Joseph 
 Brady. 
 
 Do you know who nominated that committee ? — ■ 
 Number 1 — Tynan. 
 
 How do you know ? — He was there. That was what 
 that meeting took place for. 
 
 How do you know that ? — I was there. I knew that 
 they were the committee after this meeting at which 
 Tynan was present. 
 
 Did you see Byrne ? — After that. 
 
 Was he there on the occasion when the committee 
 was appointed or not ? — No. Number 1 formed the 
 committee. 
 
 How long after that did Byrne — Frank Byrne — come 
 over ? He came to the National Exhibition in Dublin. 
 It might be in August, 1882. 
 
 Did you see him ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there a meeting of the new committee ? — Yes. 
 
 Where ? — 49, Clanbrassil-street. 
 
 Did you see Byrne ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you know what he came for ? — Yes. 
 
 What ? — The funds of the Invincibles were run out 
 at the time, and he came to look after the way the 
 money was expended. 
 
 Who told you ? — The new committee. 
 
 Did you see Byrne give any money after that ? — Not 
 to my knowledge. 
 
 Do you remember seeing any money on the table ?— I 
 did. 
 
 Do you know where it came from ? — No. I saw it 
 on the table. He brought it, I hare no doubt. I can- 
 not say ho iv much there was. There were gold and 
 notes. 
 
 Had your brother and Brady and Mullett any money 
 before ? — No. I am sure it was from him that it 
 came. 
 
 Do you remember any orders being given you in the 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
 23—2 
 
708 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 summer of 1882 about Judge Lawson ? — The latter end 
 of the summer of 1882. 
 
 Who gave you the orders about Judge Lawson ? — 
 Those four of the committee. 
 
 By Sie C. Russell.— Give the names again. — Daniel 
 Delaney, Joseph Mullett, Peter Carey, and Joseph 
 Brady. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Did you see Byrne at all 
 about that time you had the orders about Judge Law- 
 son ? — I saw him at two meetings. 
 
 About when ?— About the middle of 1882. 
 
 Where were these meetings ? — 49, Clanbrassil- 
 street. 
 
 Was anyone discussed as to assassination besides 
 Judge Lawson ? — Brady said he would sooner go in for 
 Spencer. 
 
 Do you remember Byrne saying anything when you 
 wers present at the second meeting or other of the 
 meetings ? — I was not present ; I was in the next room 
 — a glass door divided it. 
 
 Did you hear what he said ? — I did distinctly. 
 
 Where did these meetings take place ? — 49, Clan- 
 brassil-street. Brady mentioned some people and 
 wanted to have them assassinated. Byrne said it 
 could not be done without orders ; that Bgan would 
 have to be acquainted with it, but that he would go in 
 for Spencer. Byrne made some complaint about the 
 enormous lot of money that was spent on them. 
 
 Anything else ? — He said they were not to stop for 
 want of money. 
 
 Was anybody present at that meeting besides the 
 four committeemen, Byrne, and yourself outside the 
 glass door ? — No one. 
 
 Was Boland there on that occasion ?— No. 
 
 After that meeting did any more arms corns ? — Yes ; 
 some revolvers and daggers. They were of a different 
 quality altogether to the others. Some money came. 
 It was distributed among the committee. 
 
 Do you know how much money came ? — I do not. 
 
 A considerable sum ? — I do not know. 
 
 Did you get any ?— No. 
 
 How many times did you watch Judge LawsDn ? — 
 The 6th and 7th of November. 
 
 Who were at that party ?— James Mullett, Joseph 
 Brady, Michael Fagan, Pat Molloy, Lawrence Hanlon, 
 and myself. 
 
 Do you ■ remember the man Molloy dqing anything 
 about Judge Lawson ? — He pointed him out to me 
 both in and coming out of the Law Courts, and he also 
 pointed put Mr. Anderson. Joseph Brady, James 
 Mullett, Blichael Fagan, Lawrence Hanlon, and 
 Patrick Molloy were with me on that ocpasion. I did 
 not know Judge Lawson until he was pointed out to 
 me. Mr. Anderson went from the Law Courts to the 
 Temple. I saw Molloy that evening in Bolton-street. 
 That evening I watched Judge Lawson coming out of 
 the Temple. 
 
 You call it Temple. What is the name of the place ? 
 —Law Temple ; King's Inn or Temple. 
 
 Did you do anything that evening yourself about 
 Judge Lawson ? — No. 
 
 You were arrested next day ? — The next evening. 
 
 How did you come to be arrested ? — I gave one of 
 the men who was guarding Judge Lawson a hint by 
 plucking his arm. He let me cross the street and took 
 me from behind. I had a pistol with me. I did not, 
 in fact, attempt to shoot Lawson. I had it in my 
 pocket, and the man came with me and knocked me 
 down. 
 
 Did you make any communication to anybody about 
 this ? — Not at that time. • 
 
 The first communication you made was this plucking 
 of the sleeve ? — Yes ; he was walking on the opposite 
 side. 
 
 Prior to that you had made no communication of 
 any kind to anybody ? — No. 
 
 What made you do it ? — To save him. 
 
 You did not wish to shoot Judge Lawson ? — If he 
 had gone ten yards further he would have been 
 assassinated. 
 
 Who were present on this occasion ? — James Mullett, 
 Joseph Brady gave me the arms for me to follow, 
 Michael Fagan, Pat Molloy, and Joseph Hanlon. 
 James Mullett and Joseph Brady had given me my 
 orders. James Mullett and Joseph Brady were on a 
 car at the time of giving the orders. 
 
 What time of the day was this ?— About 5 o'clock in 
 the evening. 
 
 There are some other things I must ask you about. 
 Did you know a man named John M'Carthy ? — Yes, of 
 Loughrea. 
 
 What was he '! — I do not know. To the best of my 
 belief, a publiehouse-keeper. 
 
 What did you know him as ? — As a member of tha 
 Fenian organization. 
 
 Do you know whether John M'Carthy had anything 
 to do with the Land League ? — Yes. 
 
 What was he ? — A prominent member in that part of 
 Ireland. 
 
 When did you first know John M'Carthy ? — At the" 
 latter end of 1881 and beginning of 1882. 
 
 Did you see John M'Carthy, of Loughrea, in Dublin 
 at any time ? — I was introduced to him and another 
 person. 
 
 By whom ?— My brothor. 
 
 Where was that ? — At James Mullett's publicbouse. 
 
 Who was the man you were introduced to ? — A stout, 
 dark man. I do not remember the name he passed by. 
 I never saw him since or before. 
 
 Do you know whether he came from Loughrea ?— 
 Yes ; by their conversation. Some arms 
 
 Did you take him anywhere ? — Not at that time. 
 
 Did you see M'Carthy on more than one occasion f — 
 Oh, yes. 
 
 Had M'Carthy been in Dundalk Prison? — As a 
 suspect. I was introduced to him before he was 
 imprisoned as a suspect. 
 
 That was the occasion when there was another man, 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 709 
 
 a dark, stout man, whom your brother iutroduoed you 
 to ? — Yes. 
 
 What did M'Carthy want on that occasion ? — I do 
 not know. It was in Mullett's publichouse. There 
 was some talk about arms. 
 
 On the first occasion there was some talk about 
 some arms going to Loughrea ? — Yes. 
 
 Did M'Carthy say anything about a policeman help- 
 ing to put the arms in the car ? — It passed as a joke 
 that a policeman down in Loughrea had actually 
 helped him to put the arms on the car. 
 
 About what date was that ? — About the latter end of 
 1881. 
 
 How soon afterwards did you see him again when 
 he came out of Dundalk Prison ? — I think it was the 
 day he came out of that prison. The nearest date I 
 can give is September, 1882. 
 
 Where did you see him then ?— He was looking for 
 my brother, and he could not find him. He was brought 
 by a person of the name of Cloherty. He wanted arms 
 to be sent to Loughrea. He wanted to see my brother 
 about some arms, and Cloherty brought him to me to 
 know if I could find my brother. 
 
 Did you take him anywhere ? — I took him to a 
 centres' meeting of the Fenian organization. 
 
 Did McCarthy tell you what sort of arms ? — No. He 
 said he wanted arms. There was some work to be 
 done, and the men had no arms. 
 
 Can you tell me any persons who were at the centres' 
 meetings ? — I was at that time a centre. I had been 
 a centre from the commencement of 1882, and I 
 attended centres' meetings after that time until my 
 arrest. A man named Fitzgerald was to be at the 
 centres' meeting. 
 
 Is that the same man, P. N. Fitzgerald ? — Yes ; he 
 was one of the council. I took M'Carthy to the centres' 
 meeting in order to help him to get the arms. I could 
 not bring him into the centres' meeting. 
 
 Did you put him in communication with anybody ? — 
 First I told my brother of it. Fitzgerald was in the 
 chair at the centres' meeting. My brother conveyed to 
 Fitzgerald that M'Carthy wanted the arms. M'Carthy 
 told me previous to that that he was a centre himself 
 in county Galway. I did not get him into the meet- 
 ing. 
 
 Did you know of any centres in places other than 
 Dublin ?— No ; but there were. They would not be 
 known. 
 
 When M'Carthy told you he was a centre in Galway 
 did he say anything about the circle in Galway ? — 
 No ; he only told me he was a centre, and said he 
 ought to be admitted on that ground. The men from 
 one county would not know the men in another. 
 
 The explanation that he was a centre would mean a 
 claim to go into this meeting ? — He thought so him- 
 self. I left John M'Carthy at a publichouse while I 
 went to the centres' meeting, and I brought Fitzgerald 
 and Joseph Mullett and my brother to him at this 
 publichouse after the meeting was over. 
 
 What passed between M'Carthy and Fitzgerald ?— It 
 
 was about the arms that he wanted. Fitzgerald said 
 he would be there in a few days, and he should have 
 them. Nothing was said as to the number required. 
 We then went to the Odd Fellows'-hall to make 
 arrangements for the Kiekham funeral. 
 
 Do you remember anything about a house in Cork- 
 hill ?— Yes. The first start of the Invincibles in Dublin 
 was by taking a house. 
 
 The house in Cork-hill looked on to the road? — Straight 
 opposite the Castle gate. The rifles were got for the 
 purposes of the Invincibles. We were not able to get 
 the house. Carey could not jrent the house. 
 
 About when was the proposal to take the house in 
 Cork-hill ?— It might be in the latter end of 1881. 
 
 The Court here adjourned for luncheon. 
 
 On the Court resuming, the examination of tha 
 witness Delaney was continued. 
 
 In connexion with the demand for arms for Lough- 
 rea, did you do anything with regard to the arms your- 
 self ? — Yes ; I had 400 rounds of ball ammunition and 
 lent them to Dan Curley. 
 
 What for ? — To send to Loughrea. That was a long 
 time before M'Carthy came. 
 
 You had that ammunition sent to Loughrea ; when 
 was that ? — Some time in 1881 or the beginning of 
 1882. Robert Farrel brought them to the Broadstone. 
 
 Who was Farrel ? — He was sub-centre to Dan Curley. 
 
 What arms did he bring ? — Some short rifles, sword 
 bayonets, and ammunition. 
 
 Where did he get them from ? — Dan Curley was arms 
 agent at that time. 
 
 Were they sent to Loughrea ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you anything to do with getting the arms that 
 were asked for in September, 1882 ?— Nothing what- 
 ever. 
 
 Now, I want to know something about Ballinasloe ; 
 how long were you there ? — I went to work there in 
 1876, and I left it at the time of the October fair. 
 
 How long were you there ? — About 11 or 12 weeks. 
 
 Did you know Mat Harris when you were there ?-• 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you know whether he had anything to do with 
 the Fenian Society at that time ? — I got an introduc- 
 tion to him when I went to Ballinasloe. 
 
 Through whom ? — Through John Ryan. 
 
 Did you introduce yourself to Mat Harris ? — Yes. 
 
 Did yon tell him what ypu were ? — Yes ; and he 
 asked me how the organization was working in Dublin. 
 
 Who was John Ryan ? — He was arms agent for the 
 organization, and travelled with arms. He was study- 
 ing to be a doctor in Dublin ; he lived with a man 
 called Thomas Brachen, of Mary-street. 
 
 Then you had not known Mat Harris before that ? — No. 
 
 Do you know a man named Robert Dunne ? — Yes. 
 
 What was he ? — I do not know what his employment 
 was at the time, but he was a Fenian district centre 
 in Dublin. 
 
 What is a district centre ; is it higher than a centre ? 
 — Yes ; he is chairman of the centre's meetings. 
 
 Where was Dunne employed ?— He was connected 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
710 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16, 1SS9. 
 
 with the association at that time ; after I knew him 
 he was a clerk in the office of the Freeman's Journal. 
 
 Did Robert Dunne come to Ballinasloe when yon 
 were there ? — Yes ; I met him there accidentally, in 
 Pat Madden's publichouse. Mat Harris was there. 
 
 Was Dunne district centre at that time ? — Yes ; I 
 knew that he was connected with the Home Rule 
 Association at that time. 
 
 Do you remember, after leaving Ballinasloe, seeing 
 Mat Harris in Dublin ? — Yes ; several times. 
 
 Do you remember meeting him in the Mechanics'- 
 hall ? — Several times. 
 
 Do you remember O'Mahoney's funeral ? — I do not 
 remember the date, but I remember the occurrence. 
 It might have been in 1877. 
 
 Did you see anybody with Mat Harris in the 
 Mechanics' Institute ? — Yes ; John Levey, P. Egan, 
 John Doran, and Robert Dunne. They were busy about 
 the arrangements for O'Mahoney's funeral. 
 
 What was O'Mahoney ? — John O'Mahoney had been 
 one of the principal Fenian leaders in America. 
 
 There is one other man whom I want to identify ; 
 you stated that a man named Cloherty brought 
 M'Carthy to your place ?— Yes, Joseph Cloherty. 
 
 What was he ?— His father was a merchant of some 
 description in Galway. He himself was bound to Mr. 
 Eolton, a builder in Dublin. 
 
 Was Cloherty himself in the organization ? — Yes ; 
 he worked in Dan Curley's circle in Dublin. 
 
 Do you remember in the autumn of 1881 James 
 Carey standing for anything ? — Yes, for some ward in 
 Dublin. 
 
 Do you remember him telling you anything that Pat 
 Egan did in connexion with that ? — Yes ; that Pat 
 Egan urged him on, and had sent letters from Paris 
 that he would pay all expenses. 
 
 Just tell us what Carey said ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— This is going very far. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I will undertake to make 
 it evidence. 
 
 The President.— Egan is one of the persons charged. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The Attorney-General asked what 
 Carey had said to him with regard to Egan. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I think, if your Lordships 
 trust me for a moment, you will see that it is in the 
 interests of justice that this man should make his state- 
 ment. I will undertake to connect it with Egan. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not think that is a reason. 
 
 The President. —Well, if the Attorney-General 
 does not fulfll his pledge, I shall strike out what is 
 said. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We have had so many of these 
 pledges which have been broken. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I beg your pardon ; no 
 pledges that I have given have been broken. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Well, left unfuIOlled. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Or left unfulfilled. 
 
 The President.— Counsel can only say what they 
 anticipate will be the case ; if this is not mado 
 evidence I will strike it out. 
 
 Examination continued.— Just tell me what did 1 
 Oarey tell you about Egan in 1881 ? — That Egan had 
 urged him to get on as a member of the Corporation of 
 Dublin. 
 
 Anything more ? — That there were many matters 
 connected with the Invincibles, and he spoke of one of 
 the principal members of the Invincibles being Lord 
 Mayor of Dublin. 
 
 The President. — Was that what Carey said ? — Yes. 
 
 Examination continued. — Are you acquainted with 
 Egan's handwriting ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, look at the signature of that letter. (Letter 
 handed to witness.) That is not Egan's handwriting ; 
 it is his signature. 
 
 But not the body of the letter ? — No. 
 
 The Attorney-General then read the following 
 letter : — 
 
 (Private.) " Normandy Hotel, Rue do l'Echelle, 
 Paris, November 9, 1881. 
 
 " My dear James, — I am in receipt of your esteemed 
 note, and I have only to say that there is no one of my 
 acquaintances whom I would sooner see in any position 
 in which it were desirable that sterling worth and 
 true Nationalism should be represented than yourself. 
 I am writing our friend Mr. P. Moran by this post, 
 and if any words will have influence with him I am 
 sure you will have his support. Should 'you be 
 selected I will send £30 towards the expense of the 
 contest. I trust you will do all in your power to 
 have that miserable donkey, John burns, turned out 
 this time. I will stand £30 or £40 towards the 
 expenses of anyone who opposes him. The miserable 
 creature has never been a Nationalist only in name. 
 Don't say much in reply, as my letters are liable to be 
 opened, and don't give your address or name in your 
 letter, only your initial " J." 
 
 " Sincerely yours, " P. Egan." 
 
 Who was P. Moran ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you know who John Burns was ? — Yes ; one o! 
 the heads of the Stephenite party. He kept a leather 
 store in Dublin. 
 
 The Attorney-General then read the following 
 letters : — 
 
 " Normandy Hotel, Rue de l'Echelle, Paris, 
 * November 27, 1881. 
 
 " My dear James, — Thanks for telegram. I need 
 not say with what pleasure I received the announce- 
 ment in reference to Merchant's Quay. With regard 
 to the address in your telegram you ought to know 
 that there is no need to pass compliments with me. I 
 daresay that the advice of Mr. McGuugh not to men- 
 tion my name in connexion with the subject was a 
 judicious one. The amount named will be available 
 at any time it is required, and 1 need scarcely say how 
 sincerely I wish your success. 
 
 " I remain, my dear James, yours very faithfully, 
 
 " P. Egan." 
 "99, Avenue de Villiers, Paris, Decem- 
 ber 20. 1881. 
 
 " My dear Mr. Carey, — Your two notes to hand. 
 In reply to the first, unless you have a perfectly good 
 case against Callon, it would be well to go on : and, 
 in reply to the second, I need scarcely say that there 
 is no man I would sooner 6ee returned for the Arran 
 Quay Ward than yourself. 
 
 " I am writing a line to Mr. D. Moran on the sub- 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 711 
 
 ject by this post. I, of course, know that it would be 
 a very dirty task to touch Dick Piggot, but the duty 
 was forced upon me by some friends. 
 
 " With kind regard and best wishes, 
 
 "Yours sincerely, 
 
 " James Carey, Esq." " T. EoAK. 
 
 Now look at this letter, please ; in whose handwrit- 
 ing is it ? — 1 could not say, but it is Patrick Egan's 
 signature. 
 
 Had Egan a place of business in Store-street, 
 Dublin ? — Yes ; he was in partnership with one 
 O'Rourke in Store-street. 
 
 The following letter was then read by the Attorney- 
 Gexeral : — 
 
 " (Private.) 
 " Offices— City Bakery. Store-street, Dublin, 
 Oct. 5, 1880. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I hereby undertake on the condition 
 stated iu your note of this date to pay F. the sum of 
 £200 stg. on his undet taking henceforward to with- 
 draw opposition to the Land League and the Land agi- 
 tation. " I remain, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 
 
 " Patk. Ejan." 
 
 Now look at these three letters, please. In whose 
 handwriting are they ? — Egan's. 
 
 The following letter was then read by the Attor- 
 ney-General : — 
 
 " 24th February, 1881. 
 
 " My dear Friend. — Write under cover to Madame 
 J. Rouyer, 99, Avenue de Villiers. Mr. Parnell is 
 here, and will remain for about a week. I have 
 spoken to him about further advance for the 'A' fund ; 
 he has no objection, and you may count upon it. All 
 goes well. We have met Mr. O'L. and other friends, 
 who are here, and all are agreed that prompt and 
 decisive action is called for. — 
 
 " Yours very faithfully, " P. Egan." 
 
 Now, I do not know whether of your own knowledge 
 you knew anything of the " A " fund. Did you ever 
 hear of it ? — No. 
 
 Did you know Mr. O'Leary ? — I heard about him 
 but never saw him. 
 
 Now, another letter.— In whose handwriting is that ? 
 —Egan's. 
 
 (Letter read.) 
 
 " Tuesday. 
 " My dear Sir, — I had a conversation with Mr. Par- 
 nell on Saturday last with reference to the subject of 
 a furthrter advance of £50, and while anxious to con- 
 sent he regrets that it is not in his power to manage 
 the matter just now. As I explained to you, the funds 
 are low. Is there no other source from which the 
 amount could be obtained ? 
 
 " Yours sincerely, 
 
 " T. EGAS." 
 
 « Here is another ; in whose handwriting is that ? — 
 Egan's. 
 
 (Letter read.) 
 
 " Paris, June 10, 1881. 
 " Dear Sir,— I am in receipt of your note of the 8th 
 instant, and am writing Mr. P. fully on the matter. 
 He will doubtless communicate with you himself. 
 " Yours very truly, 
 
 " P. EGAS." 
 
 Now look at this ; in whose handwriting is it ? — 
 Egan's. 
 
 (Letter read.) 
 
 " June 18, 1881. 
 " Dear Sir, — Your two letters of 12th and 15th inst. 
 are duly to hand, and I am also in receipt of communi- 
 cations from Mr. Parnell informing me that he has 
 acted upon my suggestion and accepted the offer made 
 by B. You had better at once proceed to Dundalk, so 
 that there may be no time lost. 
 
 " Yours very faithfully, 
 
 " P. Eoan." 
 In whose handwriting is this ? — Egan's. 
 (Letter read.) 
 
 " March 8, 1882. 
 " Dear Sir,— Your presence in the West is urgently 
 asked for. The thing must be done promptly. Send 
 reply to address already given you. 
 
 " Yours truly, " P. Egan." 
 
 In whose handwriting is this ? — Egan's. 
 (Letter read.) 
 
 " March 18, 1882. 
 " Dear Sir, — As I understand your letter, which 
 reached me to-day, yon cannot act as directed unless I 
 forward you money by Monday next. Well, here is 
 £50 ; more if required. Under existing circumstances • 
 what you suggest would not be entertained. 
 
 " I remain, dear Sir, yours truly, 
 
 " P. EGAX." 
 Look at this : whose handwriting is that? — Egan's. 
 (Letter read.) 
 
 " October 25, 1881. 
 " Dear Sir,— I have by post sent ' M ' £200. He 
 will give you what you want. When will you under- 
 take to get to work and give us value for our money ? 
 " Faithfully yours, " P. Egan. 
 
 " James Carey, Esq." 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — As far as I understand, there is 
 no question about the genuineness of three of the 
 letters — uamely, those dated November 9, November 27, 
 and December 20. 
 
 The President. — Do I understand that there is a. 
 question about the others ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Certainly. According to my 
 instructions the others are forgeries. 
 
 The witness was then cross-examined by Sin C. 
 Russell. — When did you come to this country ? — On 
 Monday night. 
 Whom with ? — Two officers of the prison. 
 What was your sentence ? — Ten years first, then 
 execution, and then life. The sentence was commuted 
 by Earl Spencer to life — from execution to life. 
 
 The ten years was for the attack on Mr. Justice 
 Lawsoii ?— Yes. 
 
 You were one of those tried for the Phcenix Park 
 murders ? — Yes. 
 And found guilty ?— I pleaded guilty. 
 You were sentenced to death, and Lord Spencer 
 commuted your sentence to penal servitude for life, 
 and that you are now serving ? — Yes. 
 
 Are those the only sentences you have received ? — ■ 
 There was one in my young days. 
 
 What do you mean by your young days ? — When I 
 was 17 years of ago. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
712 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16, 188y. 
 
 What were you charged with ? — Highway robbery. 
 
 Only highway robbery ? — That is all. 
 
 Accompanied by garottiiig or attempted murder ? — 
 No. 
 
 What was your sentence ? — Five years' penal servi- 
 tude. 
 
 When was that ?— In June, 1870. 
 
 Did you serve it all ? — All but nine or ten months. 
 
 Where were you living at the time of your convic- 
 tion ? — In Dublin, with my father and mother. 
 
 What time did you come from Ballinasloe ? — In 
 1876. 
 
 What is your native place ? — Kilkenny. 
 
 You came out of prison in July, 1875 ? — Yes. 
 
 And when you came oat you were enrolled as a 
 Fenian ? — On the very night I came out of prison. 
 
 Did you give any information to the police about the 
 Phomix Park murders ? — Not until I was accused of it. 
 
 Do you mean until you were accused of giving in- 
 formation ? — Yes. 
 
 When was it you were accused of turning informer ; 
 when you gave information ? — When I was undergoing 
 the sentence of 10 years in Mountjoy Prison for the 
 attack on Mr. Justice Lawson. 
 
 Except that, you gave no information ? — I wish to 
 correct my statement. When I was arrested I told 
 Superintendent Mallon he was to be assassinated. 
 
 Can you give me the date of the attack on Mr. 
 Justice Law'son ? — November 7, 1882 ; it happened on 
 a Saturday evening. 
 
 And the attaek in the Pbcenix Park ?— May 6, 1882. 
 
 Except the warning to Superintendent Mallon, the 
 head of the detective force in Dublin, you had given 
 no information till you were accused of doing so ? — 
 No. 
 
 How did you know you were accused of giving 
 information ? — I had an interview -with my wife in 
 prison, and she asked me if it was true. 
 
 When did you first know you were charged in relation 
 to the Phffinix Park murders ?— When I was identified 
 in court by James Carey. 
 
 When was that ?— When I had been in gaol about six 
 weeks. 
 
 After being sentenced ? — I think I was sentenced to 
 10 years on January 3, 1883. 
 
 Learning from your wife that the imputation was 
 put upon you that you were an informer, you made 
 up your mind and told all you knew ?— I made a 
 written statement. 
 
 To whom ? — To the prison authorities. 
 
 To what person? — To Dr. Carte, Justice of the Peace, 
 at Kilmainham Prison. 
 
 Then I suppose afterwards you saw Inspector Mallon 
 or some superintendent ? — No ; Mr. Mallon had nothing 
 to do with me. 
 
 Whom did you see ?— I did not see anyone until 
 ffitzgerald was arrested. 
 
 That would bring you to about February, 1884 ?— 
 About that. 
 
 Was the statement that you made a statement on oath? 
 —No, a written statement of the whole transactions. 
 
 Did you write it yourself ? — Yes. I told the whole 
 story from 1875 of my connexion with Fenianism and 
 joining the Invincibles. 
 
 As you have told it here to-day ? — Yes. 
 
 Who was the prison or police official whom you 
 saw ? — Some one came from Mountjoy Prison with Mr. 
 Mallon to see if I could identify Fitzgerald, and I said 
 "Yes." 
 
 Was that in writing ? — That was the first time I made 
 the statement on oath. It was the same statement 
 that I had written myself. 
 
 You were afterwards sworn to it ? — Yes. A magistrate 
 came accompanied by a solicitor, I think. I do not 
 know the magistrate. I think it was Captain Butler. 
 I believe Mr. Murphy was the solicitor. 
 
 After that were you a witness against Fitzgerald ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Where was he tried ? — In Dublin, at Green-street. 
 Mr. Justice Harrison was the Judge. 
 
 You swore against him ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you believed 1 — I cannot say. 
 
 Was he found guilty ? — I have heard since he was not. 
 
 When was that ? — It might be in 1885. 
 
 When were you next seen by a magistrate or a 
 Crown official ? — I was kept two years in Eichmond 
 Prison in solitary confinement, and a board of doctors 
 sat on me. Then I was taken to Maryborough, and 
 have been there about two years. 
 
 My question is, when did you first see anyone about 
 any statement you made ? — About a week ago. 
 
 For the first time ? — Yes. 
 
 You are quite sure of that ?— I think so ; it might 
 be a week or 10 days or a fortnight. 
 
 Who saw you ? — I never saw the gentleman before. 1 
 think his name is Shannon. 
 
 You were then a convict prisoner ? — Yes. 
 
 And he got access to you. How often did he see 
 you ? — Only once. 
 
 Did he produce any paper to you ? — He did. He 
 was sent to take my information ; it was a voluntary 
 information. No promise was made to me, and I did 
 not know what it was for, nor did I know that this 
 Commission was going on. 
 
 My question was, what paper did he bring with 
 him ? — An introduction to me saying I could safely 
 give him information, as I had never seen him before. 
 
 Who was the introduction from ? — I do not know 
 it stated that he was Crown Solicitor. 
 
 That was the only paper he brought ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he refer to the statement you had made to Dr. 
 Carte and afterwards sworn to before a magistrate ?— 
 Not to my knowledge. I do not think so. 
 
 For some considerable time you have been in 
 comfortable quarters in the infirmary ?— *It is an 
 infirmary the same as any prison in England. 
 Are they all invalids in the prison ? — All invalids. 
 
 I understand you to say that you had only one inter- 
 view with Mr. Shannon ?— Only one. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
The Special Commission, January 16, 1S89. 
 
 713 
 
 Who was present ?— The Governor was present part of 
 the time, but he did not hear the conversation. No 
 one else was present. 
 
 When you found yourself face to face with Mr. 
 Shannon, who was it first referred to the statement you 
 had made to Dr. Carte and the magistrate ? — He did. 
 
 What did ho say ?— He said he had heard that I had 
 made such a statement, and asked if I could prove it, 
 and I said I could. 
 
 That was all with reference to it ? — Yes, to my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Tnen you recollect the statement ?— I recollect that 
 part of it. 
 
 And you recollect what statement you had made ? — 
 Very well. 
 
 How long was Mr. Shannon with you on that occa- 
 sion ?— I suppose three or four hours. 
 
 And was he asking you questions ? — He was taking 
 information from me. 
 
 Which he put down in writing and read over to 
 you ? — Yes ; he read it over, and I took an oath. He 
 asked no questions, only what I told him. He asked 
 me to make a statement of the whole thing. 
 
 And asked you no questions ? — No. He asked me to 
 state what I knew about the whole business since 1875. 
 
 Well, tell us what the statement you made was ?— It 
 was about the Fenian organization right up to the time 
 of my arrest. 
 
 Very well. You told him the story as you have told 
 it to-day ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you sworn to the statement ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you mean a book was tendered to you ? — Yes. 
 
 In the prison ? — In the prison. 
 
 By whom ? — By that gentleman. There was no one 
 else present. 
 
 Is the gentleman in Court ? — I do not know. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Let Mr. Shannon come 
 into Court, please. 
 
 (Mr. Shannon at once came into Court.) 
 
 Sie O. Russell (pointing to Mr. Shannon).— Is that 
 the gentleman who swore you ? — Yes. 
 
 He put a book in your hand and swore you ? — Yes. 
 
 You and he being there together ? — Yes. 
 
 After he read the statement he tendered a book ? — 
 He read the statement after I made it, and then 
 tendered the book. He read some form and I signed it. 
 
 No person being present except him and yourself ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 You are sure he handed you a book and you kissed 
 it ?— Yes. 
 
 A Bible ? — I do not know. A book of some descrip- 
 tion. (Laughter.) 
 
 I understand you to say that you told him on that 
 occasion the same story jou told to Dr. Carte and 
 afterwards to Mr. Mallon and the magistrate ? — The 
 very same. 
 
 Very good. Now, I want you to follow me through 
 part of this story. You came out of prison, as you 
 told us, in 1875 ?— 1874. The latter end of 1874, I 
 think. 
 
 Well, it is not very material to a day or two. You 
 told us you were sworn in on the very same day yon 
 came out of prison, and you told us you became a 
 Fenian in 1875 ?— Yes ; the very day after I came 
 out. 
 
 Who swore you ? — A man of the name of James 
 Elmore. 
 
 Had you known him before ? — He came to visit me 
 in prison. 
 
 Did he ask you in prison to become a Fenian ? — No. 
 
 When you came out, you at once became a Fenian ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 The oath was to take arms whenever called upon for 
 the independence of Ireland ? — Yes ; that was the 
 nature of the oath at that time. 
 
 The Fenians were a body that went in for open fight" 
 ing for their country, as they believed ? — Yes ; open. 
 
 They were not an assassination society ? — No, never 
 except when anybody gave information against them. 
 
 Something very different from the Invincibles ?— • 
 Different altogether. 
 
 How many Invincibles did you say there were alto- 
 gether ? — I do not know the exact number. 
 
 Twenty or thirty ? — I do not remember. 
 
 So far as you know, were there any except those you 
 were acquainted with ? — Yes. 
 
 What was the number in Dublin ? Twenty or thirty ? 
 
 -I do not know the number. 
 
 So far as you know, did they exceed that number ?— < 
 I cannot say. 
 
 So far as you know, did they exceed or amount to 
 that number ? — Those that I knew amounted to 20 or 30. 
 
 You would not know them unless you saw them at 
 meetings ? — No. 
 
 Now you say you continued a Fenian through the 
 late Mr. Isaac Butt's Home Rule agitation ? — Yes. 
 
 And continued a Fenian until your arrest in Novem- 
 ber, 1882 ?— Yes. 
 
 Very good. Your body as a body was opposed to the 
 Home Rule agitation in Mr. Butt's time ? — Yes, pre- 
 vious to that meeting of the supreme council. 
 
 In fact, the members of your Fenian body had no 
 faith in what members of Parliament could do ?— Yes, 
 to a great extent, but not all members of Parliament. 
 
 As a rule, at all events. In other words, you had no 
 faith in any good coming to the country by constitu- 
 tional methods ? You wanted to fight in the open ?— ■ 
 Yes, in the open. 
 
 And do not you know that in Mr. Butt's time your 
 body was opposed to his movement ? — The principal 
 leaders of the Fenian organization in Dublin at that 
 time were the principal leaders of that. 
 
 Were not the greater number of the body opposed to 
 the Home Rule movement ?— They were, the greater 
 number of them. 
 
 You spoke of a meeting which took place in 1880.— • 
 I do not know the date. 
 
 Well, we can give you that date accurately. It is! 
 reported in a paper of May 8, and would probably have 
 been held a day or two before that. 
 
 Patrick Dolaney. 
 
714 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16, 1S89. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I think it was held on 
 April 30. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I am told the exact date was 
 Monday, April 30. (To witness.) Was it before or 
 after that date that you say the contingent came from 
 America ? — It was before that. 
 
 How loDg before ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Was it a year or six months ? — It migTit be six 
 months. 
 
 Very good. Now you have mentioned four persons 
 in that connexion — John O'Connor, of Cork, whom you 
 describe as a tall man, of sandy complexion, with light 
 hair and a full beard. Just repeat that description. — 
 He was a man of about 5ft. llin. to 6ft. in height, 
 with full 6andy beard, large moustache, sandy com- 
 plexion, and light hair. 
 
 John Devoy was another ? — Tcs. 
 
 What was he like ? — Dark complexion, about 
 6ft. 6in. high, with a beard cut very close. 
 
 What age ? — At that time he was about 40 years of 
 age. 
 
 You had never seen him before ? — Never. 
 
 Or since ? — Never. 
 
 You knew him as the leader of a section of the 
 Fenian body ? — He introduced himself as one of the 
 supreme council in America. 
 
 Millen, you also mentioned him. What height was 
 he ?— About 5ft. 8in. 
 
 What coloured hair ? — Brown. 
 
 What age ?— About 40. 
 
 The fourth name you mentioned was (hat of Edward 
 Hanlon ?— Yes. 
 
 Where did he come from ? — He was a Dublin man 
 who had emigrated to America. He was brother-in- 
 law to Daniel Curley. 
 
 I think you said the Dublin centres were Joseph 
 Mullett, Daniel Delaney, James Carey, James Mullett, 
 and James Elmore ?— Yes, but there were more than 
 them. 
 
 Who ? — There was a man named Towers. 
 
 Anybody else ?— Yes, Thomas Fitzpatriek. 
 
 I do not think you mentioned either of those two 
 names before ? — No. 
 
 Was there anybody else ? — No. 
 
 Then am I right in saying that these are the names, 
 that these were what you called the centres ? — Yes. 
 
 Let me ask you something about the organization. 
 You siy that unless they met in Fenian gatherings the 
 right-hand man would not know the left-hand man 1 — 
 Oh, no ; all the Fenians in one circle knew one another. 
 
 You were in the circle of your brother ? — Yes. 
 
 And therefore ynu would know all in his circlf) ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 But you would not know any in any other circle un- 
 less you saw them at a meeting ? You would know 
 _them by tome secret sign ? — No, you might be work- 
 ing with them in some establishment and know from 
 their conversation what centre they belonged to. 
 
 Then there is no secret sign by which you knew one 
 another ? — No. 
 
 Was that ordinarily how you would know the men in 
 your own circle ? — Yes. 
 
 Where there was a meeting of several circles, was it 
 the centres who were accountable for the men who 
 attended ? — Yes, they appointed men to keep watch. 
 
 You say this section came over with a view to 
 seeing what was the state of the organization in Ire- 
 land ? — Yes. 
 
 You added that neither Egan nor Brennan was pre- 
 sent ? — Yes. 
 
 And, so far as you know, did they see anything of 
 this American section ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 I have suggested to you that the Fenian body was in 
 great part at least opposed to constitutional agita- 
 tion ; but there was a division among the Fenians 
 themselves ?— Yes. 
 
 One party led by Stephens living in Paris ? — Yes. 
 
 And the American section governed by a council ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Who were supposed to be the heads of the American 
 section ? — I could not know all. I do not know any 
 except those four persons who came over as dele- 
 gates. 
 
 You referred, out of order, to the first time that you 
 saw — and I 'think the only time you spoke of seeing — 
 Egan and Brennan as at the Mechanics' Institute in 
 1876 or 1877 at a meeting you called the amnesty 
 meeting. About that time was there an association for 
 procuring the release of political prisoners ? — Yes. 
 
 And was thu late Mr. Butt the president of that 
 meeting ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Who was ? — I do not know ; I knew the secretary. 
 
 Who was the secretary ? — John Nolan. 
 
 Very likely, but were not a number of prominent 
 men in public life in Ireland associated with that 
 movement ? — I think so. 
 
 Among others it is suggested to me that Mr. A. M. 
 Sullivan was ? — Yes. 
 
 Lord Francis Conyngham — was he another ? — Not to 
 my knowledge. I never saw him. 
 
 Were bishops and priests members of the movement? 
 —I think there were some of them. 
 
 Then you came to the Rotundo meeting, which you 
 6aid was in 1879, but which was, in fact, held on 
 April 30, 1880. Up to that time — be careful, please, 
 in answering these questions — from any information 
 you bad, or in any sense to your own knowledge, 
 can you say that either Egan, Byrne, Sheridan, or 
 Boyton was connected with any Fenian organization ? 
 —Yes, to my knowledge. All of them with the excep- 
 tion of Boyton. 
 
 Then you allege that by the month of April, 1880, 
 you of your own knowledge knew that Brennan, 
 Byrne, Egan,and Sheridan were members of the Fenian 
 organization ? — Yes. 
 
 First of all, did they belong to your circle ? — No. 
 
 To what circle did they belong ?— I could not say. 
 
 Where did you meet them ? — At Fenian meetings. 
 
 Where ? — At the Mechanics' Institute. 
 
 Is that in Abbey-street ? — Yes. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 715 
 
 In a large upper room in the building ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you first meet them ? What time ? — I knew 
 them to be members of the organization in 1875. 
 
 No, no, that is not my question. Where do you say 
 you first met any one of them ? — At a Fenian meet- 
 ing. 
 
 Where ? — At the Mechanics' Institute. 
 
 When ?— In the year 1S75. 
 
 Whom ? — Brennan and Egan and Byrno 
 
 Those three, all in 1875 ?— Yes. 
 
 How soon after you came out of prison ?— I could 
 not say. 
 
 Do you refer to the same occasion as the amnesty 
 meeting you spoke of ?— Yes. 
 
 Was that the meeting for procuring the release of 
 political prisoners ? — Yes ; but it was not open to the 
 public. 
 
 Did you up to 1880 meet the four men I have men- 
 tioned at any meeting called for any other purpose ? — 
 No. I met Thomas Brennan. 
 
 Where ?— At the Theatre Royal in Dublin. 
 
 What was going on there ? — He got up a demonstra- 
 tion there against the Duke of Marlborough. Brennan 
 paid the expenses. 
 
 At the Theatre Royal, when there was some demon- 
 stration against the Lord Lieutenant '/ — Yes ; he paid 
 the expenses of the attendance of the Ftnian organiza- 
 tion. 
 
 You say that Brennan paid all the expenses of that 
 demonstration ? — Yes. 
 
 Did he pay you ? — He paid the centre of my circle. 
 I saw him pay the money for tickets of admission to 
 the theatre. 
 
 Can you tell me the date of the demonstration ? — It 
 was shortly before the Duke of Marlborough ceased to 
 be Lord Lieutenant. 
 
 That would be in the spring of 1880. Now, you 
 have mentioned the meeting in the Rotundo. Was Mr. 
 Parnell in the chair ? — He was on the platform. I 
 cannot say whether he was in the chair. 
 
 I must ask you to tax your memory. Did Mr. 
 Davitt move, and Mr. A. M. Sullivan second, a reso- 
 lution making Mr. Parnell chairman ?— 1 cannot say. 
 
 Did Mr. Parnell make the first speech '/ — I cannot 
 remember. 
 
 Now listen. Were the following gentlemen present, 
 among others — Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P., Mr. 
 M'Coan, M.P., Mr. Gill, M.P., Mr. Sexton, M.P., 
 Mr. Lalor, M.P., Dr. Commins, M.P., Mr. O'Kelly, 
 M.P., and the Rev. Isaac Nelson ? — I could not 
 swear. 
 
 Will you swear that Patrick Egan was at that meet- 
 ing ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smiih. — What was the date of 
 this meeting ? 
 Sib C, Russell. — April 30, 1880, my Lord. 
 
 Did E. Hanlon speak at that meeeting ? — Yes. 
 Did your friends the Fenians make a deliberate 
 attempt to storm the platform and break up the 
 meeting ? — Yes. 
 
 In opposition to Mr. Parnell and his friends ? — They 
 made the attempt, but not until orders had come from 
 Mr. Davitt, Egan, and Brennan. 
 
 From Mr. Davitt ? Do you not know that at that 
 time Mr. Davitt was an object of enmity to the Fenian 
 Brotherhood ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Now, is this the amendment that was moved by Han- 
 lon :— " Resolved,— That while we, the Nationalists of 
 Dublin, are ready to make any sacrifice to give the 
 land to those who cultivate it, we protest against the 
 deceptive policy of heaven-sent champions and ex- 
 political prisoners who are trying to seduce the people 
 from the straight road to independence into the 
 crooked and corrupt ways by which renegades and 
 persons of questionable character obtain seats in the 
 English Parliament " 1 — The witness was understood to 
 say that he did not recollect. 
 
 Did he also write to the newspapers ? — Not to my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Did you see this letter in the Irish Times ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— He has just said that he 
 did not know of any letter. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I shall claim my right to put it 
 in. I am referring to authentic publications printed 
 at the time. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— But publications about 
 which we know nothing. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— The letter appeared in the Free- 
 man's Journal and the Irish Times. 
 
 The President. — You may only call the witness's 
 attention to the letter, so as to see whether he departs 
 from his original statement that he has nut seen it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Do you read the newspapers ?— 
 Not since I have been convicted. 
 
 At the time when you were at large were you iu 
 the habit of reading the papers ? — Well, no. 
 
 But you would look, would you not, to see the 
 report of this meeting which you attended '/ — I never 
 saw a report, as far as I remember. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I claim the right to put in the 
 letter. 
 
 The President. — I do not see how it is admissible. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— This witness has been asked to 
 give his recollection of a public meeting held as far 
 back as 1880. There are contemporary reports of that 
 meeting, and I claim the right to refer to them. 
 
 The President. — But I understand that this is a 
 letter which cannot be evidence. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— It refers to the meeting. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— You must remember, 
 Sir Charles, that you have been keeping out all papers 
 — very properly, no doubt — except those edited by Mr. 
 O'Brien and the gentleman from Kerry, Mr. Harring- 
 ton. It seems to me that what is law for one side 
 should be the law for the other also. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — That sounds to me very much like 
 a truism, my Lord. It seems to me that if a person of 
 this kind gives an account of what occurs at a meet- 
 ing, the account might be tested by authentic contem- 
 porary records. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
^16 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 The President. — I do not see how you can put this 
 letter in. We must proceed according to the legal 
 rule. 
 
 Sir O. Russell.— Very well. (To the witness.)— 
 Was your brotherhood, although shortly called 
 " Fenian," known by the name of the Irish Republi- 
 can Brotherhood ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see published in the newspapers a commu- 
 nication signed by the executive of the Irish Republi- 
 can Brotherhood ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Do you really mean to say that you are ignorant of 
 bhe fact that this man, Hanlon, who as you say was 
 Due of the delegates from America, took an active 
 part in discussing in the Press this meeting of April 
 30 ? — I know nothing about it. 
 
 Did you see posted about Dublin a proclamation or 
 placard purporting to be signed by the executive of the 
 Irish Republican Brotherhood ? — I did. I saw a 
 printed form. 
 
 Was that placard directed against the constitutional 
 movement with Mr. Parnell at its head ?— Not to my 
 knowledge. 
 
 I am entitled, I think, to ask you whether the 
 following are not the contents of the placard that you 
 saw ? — I never saw the contents of it ; but I knew 
 there was such a thing posted up. 
 
 Sir C. Russell then read :— 
 
 " At a time like the present, when political adven- 
 turers and West Britishers are scrambling for Parlia- 
 mentary honours, who in their eagerness to obtain the 
 coveted prize of a seat in the British Legislature are 
 playing on the credulity of many of our countrymen 
 by passing themselves a6 Nationalists, we consider it 
 our duty to say a few words to you on the subject. It 
 is inconsistent with the principles of true nationality 
 for any patriotic Irishman to accept a seat in an alien 
 Parliament, because by so doing he surrenders his 
 right and the rights of his country into the hands 
 of men who are opposed to its best interests, and 
 becomes a paiticipator in the alien system which 
 keeps Ireland enslaved. The Irishman who becomes a 
 member of it is either the victim of some mental 
 delusion, a slave, or an enemy. We do not address 
 you merely for the purpose of reminding you of all this 
 constitutional garotting and plundering of our country, 
 of which even the bond of 80 years' duration affords 
 such ample evidence, but to prevent the smallest sec- 
 tion of our brethren from being betrayed into active 
 participation in the coming elections by the plausible 
 utterances or avowals of Nationalist principles of any 
 of the candidates, no matter who he or they may be." 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — You knew that those 
 with whom you were associating were opposing the 
 men who were promoting constitutional agitation ? — 
 To a great extent ; but not after the meeting in the 
 Rotimdo. We then got orders to offer the constitu- 
 tional movement no opposition. 
 
 From whom do you say these orders came ? — Patrick 
 Egan, Thomas Brennan, and Mr. Davitt. 
 
 Did Thomas Brennan give you such an order ? — No ; 
 he gave the order to the centre of the circle. 
 
 Were you present ? — No. I beg your pardon. I do 
 not know what orders you mean. 
 
 You have stated that, whereas you and your confede- 
 rates were in opposition to the promoters of the meet- 
 ing on April 30, 1880, after the meeting your opposi- 
 tion ceased, and that orders came from three persons, 
 heads of your association, directing that support 
 should be given to a certain movement, and that if 
 should no longer be opposed. Then you introduced the 
 names of Davitt, Brennan, and Bgan. — Yes ; after 
 that meeting orders were sent to give the movement 
 no opposition. 
 
 You got no orders from Mr. Davitt ?— No. 
 
 Nor from Thomas Brennan ? — No. 
 
 Nor from Patrick Egan ? — No. 
 
 You suggest that the heads of centres received a 
 letter after that meeting stating that the Land League 
 was not to be opposed ? — There was a meeting of the 
 centres, and the whole thing was settled between them. 
 
 After the meeting at the Rotundo ? — Yes. There 
 was a private meeting, and I think it was settled 
 there. 
 
 What were the orders given ? — That the Land League 
 was not to be opposed, but assisted instead. 
 
 Was this communication made to you by your own 
 head-centre ? — Yes. 
 
 By your brother ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see anything of Egan daring the remainder 
 of 1880 or in 1881 ?— No. 
 
 Have you seen him since that meeting at which you 
 say he was present ? — Ye«. 
 
 You did not see him during the rest of 1880 ? — I saw 
 him, but had no communication with him. 
 
 Oh, I see. Had you any communication with him 
 during 1881 ?— No 
 
 In 1882 ?— No. 
 
 Then it comes to this, that excepting this occasion 
 when you believe you saw him on April 30, 1880, you 
 have not seen him down to the present time ? — No. 
 
 Not in 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, 
 1888 ?— No. He would not come to prison to visit me, 
 would he. Sir ? (Laughter.) 
 
 Well, I do not know. I am bearing in mind some- 
 thing that you have said which you may have for a 
 moment fogotten. Now, Brennan, was he at the 
 meeting ? — I think he was. 
 
 The 30th of April, 1880 ?— I do not know the date 
 of the meeting. 
 
 Did you see him in 1880 ?— No. 
 
 Did you see him in 1881? — Yes. I saw him previous 
 to his arrest — whatever time he was arrested. I saw 
 him, I think, the day Mr. Michael Davitt was arrested, 
 and hs hauded a revolver to Egan. 
 
 I am told that Mr. Davitt was rearrested in 
 February, 1881. — Some time about that. I do not 
 know the date. 
 
 Except that, did you see him during 1881 ? — No. 
 
 Or during- 1882 ?— No. 
 
 Then I take it, during the whole time that this In- 
 vincible conspiracy was hatched you had no communi- 
 cations either with Egan or with Brennan ? — No. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
The Special Commission, January 16, 1889. 
 
 717 
 
 Now as to Sheridan — Did you see him in 1880 after 
 the meeting ? — Yes ; at James Mullett's publichouse in 
 Dorset-street. I saw him several times. 
 
 In 1881 ? — Yes, I did see him in 1881 in James 
 Mullett's publichouse. It might be the eommeneement 
 of the year before his arrest under the Coercion Act. 
 
 Did you speak to Sheridan at all ? — No ; I have 
 never spoken to Sheridan. 
 
 Then as regards these three men — Egan, Brcnnan, 
 and Sheridan, they had nothing to do with hatching the 
 Invincible conspiracy ? — They were the recognized 
 leaders of it. 
 
 So far as you kuow ? — I was brought into the In- 
 vincible party and they were represented as being the 
 head of it. 
 
 So far as your knowledge goes had any one of these 
 three aDything to do with it ? — I never met them at an 
 Invincible meeting. 
 
 Then am I right in saying that you have come to the 
 conclusion that they had to do with it because of 
 something some one else has said to you ? — It is not 
 my conclusion ; it is the conclusion which those con- 
 nected with the Invincibles suggested. It was repre- 
 sented to all the members of the Invincibles. It was 
 represented that it was through them that the money 
 came to the Invincibles. 
 
 So far as your knowledge goes, have you any know- 
 ledge of your own to show that any of these three had 
 anything to do with it ? — I never met them at an In- 
 vincible meeting. 
 
 Can you mention anything that any one of these 
 three has to your own knowledge done to show that they 
 were connected with the Invincible movement ? — I 
 never met them at an Invincible meeting. 
 
 Can you give any ground for suggesting that these 
 three had anything to do with it ? — Yes ; a letter sug- 
 gested it, sent to James Carey when he was getting 
 into the Town Council of Dublin at the latter end of 
 1882. It was another letter which was never pro- 
 duced. 
 
 When did yoa see these letters first ? — Yesterday. 
 
 When were you told of them first ? — The first time I 
 saw the letters in his handwriting was — three of them 
 there came to James Carey ; and he showed them to 
 me at a publichouse in Dublin. 
 
 First of all, you were shown all the letters read 
 here to-day yesterday evening ? — Yes, to identify 
 them. 
 
 Next, I think you say that three of them Carey 
 showed you at the time ?— Yes ; he showed me them 
 at a publichouse. 
 
 Give me those letters, Mr. Cunynghame, please. 
 (To witness.) Just look and tell me if these are the 
 three Carey showed you ? (Letters handed to witness.) 
 —Those are the three. 
 
 The rest you saw for the first time yesterday even- 
 ing ? — I only identified the handwriting. I never saw 
 them before. 
 
 You are not an expert in handwriting, I suppose ?— I 
 dm not. 
 
 Did you ever see Egan write ?— I did. 
 
 Where ?— -At the Mechanics' Institution. 
 
 What ? — I saw his handwriting several times. 
 
 I am asking you did you ever see him write ? — Yes. 
 
 What did you see him write ? — Different orders con- 
 nected with the association. 
 
 The Amnesty Association ? — Yes. 
 
 (Letters, handed to witness.) These were never 
 shown to you by Carey ; does it strike you there is 
 any difference in the handwriting or not ? — No. 
 
 Are you equally confident about these as you are 
 about the others ? — I am sure that it is he who wrote 
 them. It is his handwriting. I am quite as confident 
 about them as I am about the others. 
 
 Did you examine them very carefully yesterday 
 evening ?— Well, not very. 
 
 What was James Carey ? — He was one of the 
 directors of the Fenian organization when I knew 
 him. 
 
 What was he in the way of business ? — A stonemason 
 by trade. 
 
 A builder and contractor ? — A stonemason by trade. 
 
 Had he not developed into a builder and contractor ? 
 — I believe when he got the money from the Land 
 League he started that business. 
 
 Have you made that suggestion before now ? — I 
 think so. 
 
 When ? — In all my statements. 
 
 That he had started as a builder and contractor from 
 the money he had got from the Land League ? — I am 
 sure of it. It could not come by his honest day's 
 work. 
 
 Was he a man apparently in a respectable position 
 in Dublin ? — He was. 
 
 What was your brother P— A carpenter. 
 
 Was he apparently a decent tradesman ? — Very much 
 so. 
 
 • And had he some little property ? — He had some 
 little money of his own. 
 
 Some house property ? — No ; he had no house 
 property. 
 
 What was Mullett ? — A publican ; a shop boy in a 
 publichouse until he was one of the prominent mem- 
 bers of the Fenian organization, and then he got a 
 publichouse in one of the principal streets in Dublin. 
 
 Did you see Carey get any money ?— No. 
 
 Did you see Brennan give him any money, oi 
 Sheridan ? — No. 
 
 Or Byrne '/ — I saw Frank Byrne give him money. 1 
 saw it on the table. I do not know the sum. 
 
 Is that the only occasion on which you had any 
 reason to suppose from anything you saw that money 
 passed ? — That is the only time I saw the monev 
 myself. 
 
 For the rest, it rests on statements made to you by 
 other people, by your centres, or whatever you call 
 them ? — Yes, by Invincibles. 
 
 I should just like to get from you when did you say 
 you had met Mr. Matthew Harris first ?— Somewhere in 
 1876. ' 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
718 
 
 The Special Commission, January 16 and 17, 1889. 
 
 Where ? — Ballinasloe. I was sent there to do some 
 work in a convent. 
 
 You called upon him for sociability ? — Yes. 
 
 When did you next see him ? — I called upon him 
 several times in Ballinasloe, and saw him several 
 times in Dublin. 
 
 Did you ever see him at Mullett's ? — Never. 
 
 Or at your brother's ?— Never. 
 
 Or at any meetings of these Invincibles ? — Never.but 
 at Byrne's, at Dollymount, between 1878 and 1880. 
 
 Who else were there ? — I was there on the road, 
 placed to warn, and there was Mr. Harris— I recognized 
 him there, all the Fenian centres in Dublin, my 
 brother was there, James Carey was there, James 
 Mallett, and two other men. There was no one else 
 to my knowledge. I was not at the meeting myself, 
 but outside on the road. 
 
 You think that was from 1876 to 1880 ?— About that 
 time. 
 
 But you cannot really say 1 — No. 
 
 Did you have any communication with him after 
 that ?— No. 
 
 The Commission adjourned at three minutes to 
 4 o'clock. 
 
 T HIT BSD AY, JANUARY 17. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 34th sitting to- 
 iay at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Eoyal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On the Commissioners' taking their seats, 
 
 The witness Patrick Delaney was again put into 
 the box, and cross-examined by Mr. PlEID. 
 
 You said yesterday that you saw or heard Boyton 
 giving Brady an order to do something ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember that 1 — Yes. 
 
 When was that ? — Iu July, 1882, at Guinness-gate 
 on the quay. It was about that time. 
 
 You are in a position to fix the date '/ — It was some- 
 time about the middle of the summer of 1882. 
 
 Did you hear what he said ? — Yes, distinctly. He 
 pointed out Mr. Bourke, the chairman of the Prison 
 Board. Boyton was to travel in the same train from 
 Kingsbridge station. 
 
 Did he say anything ? — He said, " That is the 
 man." 
 
 Did you hear him at any other time pointing out 
 anybody or saying anything in connexion with the 
 Invincibles ? — No. 
 
 Did you ever see Boyton at any meeting of the 
 Invincibles ? — I never knew the man before, and I 
 have never to my knowledge seen him since. 
 
 How did you know who he was ? — I was told by 
 Brady , the appointment in the morning was to meet 
 him. 
 
 Did Brady say anything more ?— No ; he told me 
 who he was. He said I was to meet Boyton that 
 morning and go along to Kingsbridge railway station 
 and he would point out Mr. Bourke. 
 
 That was the only occasion on which you ever saw 
 Boyton in your life ? — That is right. 
 
 I think Brady was the man who was executed ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Now, you say that Mr. Shannon came to you in 
 prison, and he brought a letter of introduction ? — Yes. 
 
 I understood that that letter of introduction said 
 that you might speak with confidence to Mr. Shannon 
 — that he was a Crown solicitor ? — That was the nature 
 of it : I did not see the letter. 
 
 Now, explain. I believe you required some kind of 
 voucher as to who Mr. Shannon was ? — I objected to 
 any one coming to visit me in prison. 
 
 Yes, and therefore you required some sort of gua- 
 rantee, I suppose ?— Yes, that he was a Government 
 official. 
 
 From whom did you understand the letter to come 
 from ? — I do not know ; I did not see the letter. 
 
 Am I to understand that you reposed confidence in 
 Mr. Shannon on the faith of a letter written you do 
 not know by whom ? — Well, he would not have been 
 allowed inside the prison to have an interview except 
 he had been a Government official. 
 
 Then why did you require a letter ? — He read it in 
 my presence to show he was a Crown official. 
 
 You did not see by whom it was written ? — No. 
 
 You have no idea by whom the letter was written ? — 
 Not the slightest. 
 
 He simply read the letter to you ? — Certainly. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — How are you located here in 
 London ; are you at an hotel ? — I am in a prison cell. 
 
 Are you well treated ? — No. 
 
 Are you badly treated ? — No, I do not think so. 
 
 What class of prisoner are you ? — First class. 
 
 Then you are a well-conducted prisoner ? — Yes. 
 
 How long have you been in the first class ? — From 
 about three years after my conviction. 
 
 What work are you doing in Maryborough ? — I am 
 working as a carpenter by myself, with only a warder 
 along with me. 
 
 What is the name of the warder who is along with 
 you ?— Montgomery is the name of the warder at 
 present. 
 
 There are no other prisoners working with you ? — 
 No, I am alone with the warder. 
 
 Have you had conversations with Montgomery ? — No. 
 
 None ? — None whatever. It is strictly prohibited 
 except on matters connected with the prison rules. 
 
 Will you swear deliberately that you had no con- 
 versation with Warder Montgomery ? — I swear I had 
 no conversation with him except in connexion with 
 the prison rules. 
 
 That was all ?— Yes, simply anything with regard to 
 the prison rules. 
 
 Have you a copy of the prison rules in your cell ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Then why was there any necessity for speaking with 
 Warder Montgomery about them ? — I mean anything 
 that might have happened in the prison during the 
 day. 
 
 Patrick Dalaney. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 719 
 
 He might speak to you, or he might not ? — Yes. 
 
 On mere matters of interest that had happened 
 within the walla of the prison ? — Yes. 
 
 I suppose he has spoken to you several times in the 
 last two years in a friendly way ? — He is not always 
 the warder who is over me ; he is the principal one 
 who has been over me. 
 
 Has Warder Montgomery been in charge of you 
 during the last six months ? — Yes. 
 
 You have spoken about things that occurred inside 
 the prison during the last six months ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, tell me straightforwardly, has he ever spoken 
 to you about this Commission ? — Never. I knew 
 nothing more about it than the child unborn. 
 
 Did not news percolate through the prison walls ? — 
 I did not even know about my wife and children. 
 
 Did you receive a visit from your relatives ? — No, 
 not for two years. My wife has not the means to 
 come to Maryborough to see me. 
 
 Did you apply for a visit ? — Several times. My wife 
 writes to me regularly once in two months. 
 
 Have you had a letter from her in the last six 
 months ? — Yes. 
 
 Is there anything in that letter about the Commis- 
 sion ? — No. 
 
 You have not that letter with you ? — Yes, I have. 
 I will show it you, if you wish. 
 
 Now, you said to Mr. Reid that you had a strong 
 objection to see any one who was a Government 
 official ? — No ; I sail] I wanted a guarantee that it 
 was a Crown official. 
 
 Oh, I misunderstood you. Was Mr. Shannon repre- 
 sented as being a Crown official ? — He represented 
 himself as Crown solicitor. 
 
 Did he put an oath to you ? — Hetookmy information 
 and read it to me, and he swore me afterwards upon it. 
 
 As Crown Solicitor ? — Yes. 
 
 You are certain he used those words ? — I am. 
 
 Come now to the meetings in the Mechanics' Insti- 
 tute in 187G and 1877, when you say you met Egan 
 and Brennan. Was the Amnesty Association not worked 
 by the Home Rule League ?— The principal leaders in 
 it belonged to the Fenian organization. 
 
 Did Isaac Butt belong to the Fenian organization ?— 
 Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Was not he a principal leader of the Home Rule 
 League ? — I do not koow. 
 
 Do not you know that Isaac Butt was the president ? 
 — I do not know. I might know it then ; I really think 
 he was president. 
 
 And do not you know that the Amnesty Association 
 worked by public meetings in order to excite sym- 
 pathy in the public mind for the release of political 
 prisoners ? — Yes ; but the public was not allowed to 
 all meetings. 
 
 Will you swear that the public were not always ad- 
 mitted to these meetings ?— No, they were'not, except 
 you were a member of the Fenian organization. 
 
 Will you swear that the public were not admitted ? — 
 
 They were not at some of the meetings that I 
 attended. 
 
 About what time was this '{ — I cannot give the exact 
 date. 
 
 Can you give an approximate date ? — About 1876 or 
 1877. 
 
 Now we come to the Rotundo meeting ; you say you 
 saw me at that meeting ? — Yes ; and on the occasion of 
 your first visit to the Mechanics' Institute after your 
 release. No one was allowed then into the room 
 except members of the Fenian organization. 
 
 When was that ?— In 1878. 
 
 What date in 1878 ?— I do not know. 
 
 Cannot you say at what time it was ; you are accu- 
 rate about some other matters ? — I cannot fix the date. 
 
 Was it the spring or summer ? — To the best of my 
 belief it was about the commencement of winter. I 
 will not swear to any date. 
 
 But this may be a serious matter ; was it early in 
 the winter of 1878 ? — I do not know. 
 
 Then why are you so positive about this meeting ? 
 • — Because yourself was there. 
 
 Was it near Christmas ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Who else was there ?— O'Brien and Chambers were 
 there ? 
 
 Then you will not help me as to the time when this 
 occurred ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 If I happened to be in America early in 1878 I could 
 not have been at that meeting. I could not be in two 
 places at once. — It might be early after your release ; 
 I cannot swear to the year. 
 
 Now come, Sir, you swore I was at that meeting 
 shortly after my release ; you said in the winter Df 
 1878. — That was only my opinion ; I do not know 
 whether it was in 1878 or 1877 ; I cannot give the date. 
 
 Now, will you gainsay it was early in 1S79 or the 
 winter of 1S78 ? — I will swear to no date. 
 
 You have a bad memory for dates ? — I never made a 
 practice of keeping those dates. I never thought I 
 would be in the position I am iu. 
 
 No, I should be very sorry to think you ever antici- 
 pated any such thing. Now, I ask you again, Was it 
 in the winter of 1878 ?— I cannot say. 
 
 Whero were you at that time ? — I was in Dublin, 
 working with Martin, of North Wall, as a carpenter. I 
 am sure I was there in 1878, and in 1877, 1879, and 1880. 
 
 Are you sure it was shortly after my release? — Yes ; 
 it might be a week or two after M'Carthy's funeral. 
 
 You said a while ago that I was at the meeting at 
 the Mechanics' Institute a fortnight after my release ; 
 now you say after M'Carthy's funeral ; you are not 
 certain which ? — No. 
 
 What was the object of that meeting ? — I cannot say. 
 
 You cannot say ? Were you not there ?— We were 
 all ordered to go. 
 
 You do not know the object of the meeting ?— I do 
 not. 
 
 Did I make a speech at that meeting ?— I think so ; 
 I am not sure. 
 
 Did anybody else ? — Egan. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
720 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 Oh, Egan was there, was he f You do not know the 
 object of the meeting ? — I do not know. 
 
 Now, come back to the Kotundo meeting. "Hop. swore 
 that I supported Hanlon on the platform ? — Yes. 
 
 You have no doubt about that ? — No, You supported 
 him to read the paper. 
 
 Do you mean I was simply supporting him in his' 
 efforts to read the resolution, or that I was in sym- 
 pathy with the objects of the resolution ? — You 
 assisted him to read that paper. 
 
 Was that the extent of the support I gave him ? — I 
 think so. 
 
 Then you do not mean to say that I supported him 
 in the way of sympathy with him ? — You supported 
 him in the reading of the resolution. 
 
 What was the object of the meeting ? — It was a 
 Land League meeting. 
 
 Did Hanlon and his friends go to break it up ? — 
 Not to my knowledge. 
 
 What did he go there for, then? — I don't know. 
 We were told by our centres to go there to attend the 
 meeting, but we were not told what it was for. 
 
 Were you given to understand that Hanlon went 
 there as a Land Leaguer ?— No. 
 
 Well, then, as an anti-Land Leaguer ? — No. 
 Did you gather from the resolution he submitted that 
 he was opposed to the Land League ? — No, not to my 
 knowledge. I did not hear him speak against the Land 
 League. 
 
 Was the resolution in favour of the Land League or 
 against it ? — Partly against a Land League movement 
 at that time. 
 
 Then in reality it was in opposition to the Land 
 League ? — Yes, partly ; in opposition to Land League 
 principles. 
 
 Did it strike you that, when I asked the meeting to 
 allow Hanlon to read the resolution, I was try- 
 ing to get fair play for an avowed opponent ? — Not to 
 my knowledge. I saw you insisting that he should be 
 allowed to read his resolution. 
 
 Did you read the proceedings of that meeting in the 
 Flag of Ireland ?— I did not. I swear that. I do not 
 think that I have read the Flag of Ireland more than 
 half-a-dozen times in my life. 
 
 Did you know that the Flag of Ireland was the 
 reputed organ of the Fenian organization ?— One of 
 them. 
 
 Did you know that O' Donovan Eossa, the head of 
 the Fenian organization in America, was its correspond- 
 ent ?— One of them. 
 
 Did you know that your brother, Dan Curley, and 
 others wrote letters to the paper ?— My brother never 
 wrote letters to it. 
 Do you swear that ?— Distinctly. 
 But the Flag of Ireland being the reputed organ of 
 the Fenian organization, did you not think that its 
 report of the meeting would be favourable to the 
 Hanlon party ?— I cannot say. 
 
 Seeing that Hanlon was a Fenian and that this 
 was the reputed organ of the Fenians, did you not 
 
 think so ? — Hanlon was one of the delegates sent 
 from America at that time. 
 
 Do you swear that you did not read a report of what 
 Hanlon said at that meeting in the Flag of Ireland ? 
 — Yes, distinctly. 
 
 Then if in that and other papers it was reported that 
 Hanlon was opposed to the Land League, and 
 denounced it in his resolution and in letters 
 sent to the Press, would Hanlon be right, 
 or would you be right, when you say that he 
 was not opposed to the Land League ?— He might 
 have been opposed to it at that meeting, but not after 
 that meeting. 
 
 Let us stick to the meeting. Do you swear that the 
 resolution read by him at that meeting was not adverse 
 to the Land League and the cause of the political 
 prisoners ? — I have no idea of what was read. 
 
 Let me refresh your memory. Is this the resolution 
 that Hanlon proposed : — " That whilst we, the 
 Nationalists of Dublin, are ready to make any sacri- 
 fices to give the land to those who cultivate it, we 
 protest against the policy of heaven-sent champions 
 and ex-political prisoners, who are trying to seduce 
 the people from the straight road of independence 
 into the corrupt and crooked ways by which renegades 
 and persons of questionable character are seeking to 
 obtain seats in the English Parliament." Is that 
 resolution friendly to me — yes or no ? — It might be 
 against you then ; but the combination of the two 
 parties came after that meeting. 
 
 You say that Dan Curley attacked me for having 
 deserted my principles ? — Yes. 
 
 Was Dan Curley on the platform at that meeting ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you see any revolvers produced on the platform 
 at that meeting ? — No ; I distinctly swear that. 
 
 Do you know Amiens-street in Dublin 'i — Yes ; I 
 lived near the neiahbourhood, and had often to pass it. 
 You know that I lived there ? — I don't know it. 
 You attended Fenian circles after this meeting in 
 Dublin ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you ever hear in Fenian circles that four men 
 armed with revolvers came to my house in Amiens- 
 street after the meetina ?— Never ; I distinctly swear 
 that. 
 
 You never heard Dan Curley speak of the matter ?— 
 No ; I understood he was one of your principal sup- 
 porters afterwards. 
 
 What do you mean by one of my supporters ? — One of 
 your supporters in the Land League movement. 
 
 Did you ever see me in company with Curley ?— 
 Yes ; in Amiens-street, about 1881. I cannot give 
 month or date, but it was some time in the beginning 
 of the year. 
 
 Why do you fix upon 1881 ? — Because it was about 
 the time of the amalgamation of the two parties. 
 
 Have you ever mentioned to any one before that you 
 saw me ana! Curley in Amiens-street ? — No ; I never 
 mentioned it before because you have only now 
 brought it to my mind. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 721 
 
 Was it neat my lodging in Amiens-street ? — No ; it 
 was in a coachbuilder's yard, on the left-hand side as 
 you go down. 
 
 Who was the owner ? — No ; I am mistaken, it was 
 not in Amiens-street, but in Talbot-street, which I 
 took to be Amiens-street. 
 
 Now, when did you first hear of the organization of 
 the Invincibles ? — At the latter end of 1881. 
 
 That was the time at which they were organized ? — 
 That is what I have been told. 
 
 Who told you about the formation of the Invincibles ? 
 —The four that formed the first council. 
 
 When did they tell you ?— Immediately after the 
 meeting at the Angel Hotel. 
 
 Did you hear of the Invincibles before the summer 
 of 1881 ?— Never. 
 
 Before the autumn ? — Never. 
 
 Then it was in the winter of 1881 that you first 
 heard of them ? — I can fix no date. 
 
 I suppose you knew Thomas Brennan by sight ?— 
 Perfectly well. 
 
 You saw him repeatedly in 1881 ? — The last time I 
 saw him was the evening of your arrest, when you were 
 arrested by two detectives. I remember that you 
 handed a revolver out from your breast. I was pretty 
 near. 
 
 Suppose Inspector Mallon should swear that I 
 handed him a revolver in the Castle-yard after I was 
 arrested, would he or would you be right about the 
 revolver ? — I can only swear to what I saw. I swear 
 I saw the revolver in your hand. 
 
 You are positive about that, if of nothing else ?— 
 Whether you kept it in your hand, or whether you gave 
 it up, or whether you put it back in your pocket I 
 do not know. 
 
 I suppose you will admit that James Carey knew 
 more about the Invincible organization than you did ? 
 — Yes ; more than those he duped. 
 
 You are one of them ?— Yes, one of his dupes— to my 
 grief. 
 
 Were you at liberty when he gave information in 
 Dublin ? — No ; I never heard of it. He was the first 
 man who blamed me for giving information when I 
 had given none. He was the man who identified me. 
 I was in prison when the Invincible trial took place 
 in Dublin. 
 
 You spoke yesterday of Carey's election to the Town 
 Council!; did you take any part in the election ? Did you 
 know the Tories in the ward assisted him in his 
 canvass ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Do you know that the Express, the Tory organ, wrote 
 an article in favour of his election ? — Not to my know- 
 ledge. 
 
 You said yesterday there was a private meeting of 
 Ourley, figan, and the Fenian centres after the Rotundo 
 meeting, when the order was given to support the 
 League. Were you there ? — No. 
 
 Who told you of it ? — The centre of my own circle. 
 
 Your brother ?— Yes. 
 
 How long after the Rotundo meeting were you told ? 
 
 — On the following Sunday those were the orders of 
 the Fenian organization. I was told about a week after 
 the meeting ; it might be a week or it might be a fort- 
 night, but not more. 
 
 If I left for America a few days after the meeting, 
 the conference would have come very close to it ? — I 
 cannot say. 
 
 Did you not see in the Flag of Ireland that I left for 
 America a few days after the meeting ? — No ; I did 
 not follow your footsteps. 
 
 But it seems you are very particular on certain 
 matters, which may, if you are believed, compromise 
 me before this Court. You told Sir Charles Russell 
 you saw Bgan writing at the Mechanics' Institute ?—• 
 Yes. 
 
 Did he write anything for you ? — Yes. At the time 
 of McCarthy's funeral I last saw him write. He was 
 sending an invitation to all the trades of Dublin to 
 attend the funeral. There was a circular sent round to 
 all the centres. 
 
 Was it in his own handwriting ? — Yes ; he wrote 
 some of them. 
 
 You say after this meeting the Fenians supported 
 the Land League ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you never hear of Fenians breaking up the 
 League meetings in the West of Ireland ? — Not after 
 that. 
 
 You will swear it ? — Yes. 
 
 Will you swear that I was not constantly attacked 
 in 1881 and 1882 in the Flag of Ireland — the Fenian 
 paper ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Did you read the papers ? — Not often. 
 
 Did you attend Land League meetings ? — Very few. 
 
 Then how do you know that I continued to get sup- 
 port ? — Oh, every one knew it. 
 
 What do you mean by every one ? — The public at large 
 knew you were one of the principal leaders of the 
 Fenian organization. 
 
 How do you know I was supported by the Fenians ?— ■ 
 To my knowledge you were always upheld by them in 
 1881 and 1882. 
 
 And you say that, notwithstanding what appeared in 
 the Fenian papers ?— Every one that I knew upheld 
 you. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Biggar. — At the Rotundo 
 meeting to which you have referred was the resolution 
 of Hanlon formally seconded by any one ? — No. 
 
 Were speeches made in favour of it on the platform 
 —No. 
 
 Was it ever put to the meeting ? — It was put and 
 carried. 
 
 Although it was not seconded ?— I cannot say whether 
 it was seconded or not. You were one of the parties 
 on the platform who insisted on its being read. 
 
 To what extent did I insist ? — Your actions on tha 
 platform showed you were in favour of it. 
 
 In favour of its being read or of it in itself ? — You 
 were one who showed you wanted it read. 
 
 Did I say anything ? — Yes 
 
 What ?— Oh, I cannot say. 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
,"22 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 Did I give any support to it after it was read ? — Not 
 to my knowledge. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — You 
 spoke of the oath of the Fenians — was any alteration 
 ever made in it ? — Yes, a slight alteration in 1877. 
 
 What was it ?— I cannot say. 
 
 There has been no alteration since ? — Not in my 
 time. 
 
 You have been asked about seeing Mr. Egan. When 
 did you last see Mr. Egan in Dublin before you went to 
 prison in 1882 ? — I never saw him after ho went to 
 Paris. 
 
 How did you know that he had gone to Paris ? — It 
 was circulated among the members of the Fenian 
 organization that he had gone to Paris — the cleverality 
 of his escape was the general talk. 
 
 You s.iy that you saw Sheridan at James Muliett's 
 publichouse, do you know what he was there for ? — To 
 attend the meetings of the Fenian centres and get 
 their reports. 
 
 How often do you recollect seeing him at the public- 
 house ?— Three or four times. 
 
 Up to 1879 had the Fenians much money ?— Very 
 little, only th-j subscriptions of members. 
 
 What was the amount of the members' subscrip- 
 tions ? 
 
 Sir. IiETD. — Before my friend asks this he ought to 
 lay as a foundation that the witness has some know- 
 ledge of the financial position of the organization. 
 
 The President.— In an indirect way he might tell 
 us what he knows of the members' subscriptions. 
 
 Mr. ASQUlTil.— I do not think there has been any 
 cross-examination upon which questions upon the 
 financial position of the organization can be founded. 
 
 The President. — I suppose the suggestion is that 
 tb'w got funds from some other quarters afterwards. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Yes ; that is so. 
 
 Mr. Reid — I appreciate the object of my friend's 
 questions, but here is a person who does not purport 
 to have had any control of these funds. 
 
 The President.— I differ from you in that. 
 
 Re-examination resumed. 
 
 The Attokmey-General. — You were a member 
 of a circle, but were not a centre till the 
 spring of 1882. What amount did the members 
 subscribe ?— According to their circumstances in 
 life. Some a penny, some twopence, and some 
 threepence per week. I paid threepence. 
 
 I am only speaking of what you yourself saw in 1879. 
 Did you then ever see much money going about among 
 the Fenian organization ?— No ; they were sending to 
 James Stephens for money, and they were obliged to 
 pawn their watches in order to obtain the money re- 
 quired to send the delegates to America. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — He was not acquainted with the financial 
 position of the organization. 
 
 The President. — Ho merely says that they were to 
 his knowledge a poor body. 
 
 Re-examination continued. — How do you know that 
 
 they pawned their watches ? — My own brother did so, 
 and he was a centre. 
 
 Now you said yesterday that another reason that you 
 had for knowing that Sheridan was connected with 
 this matter was that you had seen another letter which 
 was not produced ? — Yes, it was a letter sent to James 
 Carey previous to my arrest. 
 
 You were asked yesterday by Sir Charles Rassell 
 what reason you had for knowing that Sheridan was 
 connected with the Invincibles, and you replied that 
 there was a letter which had not been produced. 
 Mr. RKID.— I do not think he said that. 
 The Attorney-General.— I will read what he did 
 say. It is at the top of page 1,888 of the shorthand 
 notes, and it is as follows : — 
 
 " Now, so far as your own knowledge goes (I am 
 putting it to you again), have you any knowledge of 
 your own to show that any one of those three had 
 anything to do with it ? — I never met them at an 
 Invincible meeting. 
 
 " Or can you mention anything that any one of those 
 three has to your own knowledge done to show that they 
 had anything to do with the Invincible conspiracy ? — 
 I had never met them at any Invincible meeting. 
 
 " Can you suggest any ground except the statement 
 or suggestion, whichever it was, made by the people 
 with whom you were associated lor suggesting that 
 these men had anything to do with it ? — Yes, there 
 was a letter which was sent to James Carey when he 
 was getting in the Town Council of Dublin in the 
 latter end of 1882. 
 
 ' ' Then it stands thus — statements made to you by 
 third persons ; nothing known of your own knowledge 
 but the letter which has been put in ? — Not this, 
 another one which was never produced. 
 
 " Another letter ?— Yes, which was never pro- 
 duced. " 
 
 Now, my Lords, I propose to ask the witness about 
 this fourth letter. 
 
 Re-examination continued. — Who was the letter 
 from ? — It was from Patrick Egan, who was in Paris. 
 To whom was it sent ?— To James Carey in Dublin. 
 Can you state its contents ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I submit, my Lords, that any statement 
 of the witness in reply to that question of my learned 
 friend would in no sense be evidence. 
 
 The President. — The witness is asked in cross- 
 examination how he learnt that Sheridan was one of the 
 Invincibles, and he says it was through another 
 letter which has not been produced. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — We know nothing about that other letter. 
 That being so, how can the witness give secondary 
 evidence of it ? It is quite true that, if a witness is 
 cross-examined as to a document, that will enable the 
 re-examining counsel to put the document in, but not 
 to give secondary evidence of it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — When the witness is 
 asked as to the grounds of his belief he refers to this 
 letter, and I submit most respectfully that in these 
 circumstances I am entitled to re-examine as to the 
 contents of that letter. 
 The President. — We think that the question should 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 723 
 
 not be put. You have the benefit of the statement of 
 the witness that there was such a letter. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Very well, my Lord. 
 
 Re-examination continued. — You told us yesterday 
 that Carey, out of the funds of the Land League, 
 started in business. How do you know that ? — From 
 conversations I had with him. 
 
 What was Carey before he staited in business for 
 himself ? — He was foreman to a builder in Dublin. 
 
 What sort of a business did he start on his own 
 account ? — That of a builder and contractor. I do not 
 know whether he had a yard or not. 
 
 Now, referring to a part of your cross-examination 
 yesterday, I wish to ask you again who was present on 
 the day Mr. Davitt was arrested ? — Thomas Brennan. 
 
 Was any other invincible present ? — No. 
 
 Was Egan there ? — No. 
 
 Then there were only Davitt, Brennan, and yourself 
 who were present ? — That is all. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The witness stated yester- 
 day that Egau was also present, but that was clearly 
 a misunderstanding. 
 
 Ee-examination continued. — Now, with reference to 
 the meeting at the railway station for the purpose of 
 seeing Mr. Eourke. An appointment was made for you 
 to meet Crady in the morning ? — Yes. 
 
 He told you that you were going to meet Boyton ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Where were you to. meet Boyton — did he tell you 
 where ? — At the King's-bridge Sailway Station. Boyton 
 was to travel in the same train with Bourlce. 
 
 Mr. Bourke was thechairman of the Prisons Board, 
 was he not ? — Yes. 
 
 Was he a stranger to you ? — I never law the gentle- 
 man in my life until then. 
 
 Now, when you got to the station, who was there ? — 
 Nobody but Brady and myself. 
 
 While you were waiting did people come in ? — A 
 train came in, and Boyton pointed out Bourke to me as 
 he passed him, and said, " That is the man." 
 
 You have been asked by Mr. Davitt as to persons 
 other than Fenians being at meetings at the Mechanics' 
 Hall, and you said that none would be allowed to 
 pass the door who were not Fenians. How was that 
 done ? — A centre would be placed at the door, and he 
 would only allow his own men to pass. 
 
 I do not ask you for the exact number, nor for the 
 exact date, but how many meetings were held at which 
 only Fenians were admitted at which Egan was pre- 
 sent ? — Two or three of them. 
 
 You have spoken of O'Brien and Chambers. Do you 
 know their Christian names ? — No. 
 
 Were they Fenians or not ? — Yes. 
 
 Where was the meeting held after Mr. Davitt's 
 release ? — At the Mechanics' Hall. 
 
 Had you seen Mr. Davitt before ? — Not until that 
 evening. That was the first time I ever saw him. 
 
 You say that Chambers and O'Brien were there ? — 
 
 Yes. 
 Why were they there ? — Because they were released 
 
 as well. They were prisoners who were released with 
 Mr. Davitt. 
 
 What was O'Brien ?— A soldier in the British Army. 
 
 Who was Chambers ? — He was a corporal in the 
 British Army. 
 
 Was anything done at the meeting ? — A reception 
 was given to the people who had been released by the 
 members of the Fenian organization. 
 
 Was anybody there except Fenians ? — No. 
 
 Who was M'Carthy, the man whose funeral you have 
 spoken of ? — He had been a colour-sergeant in the 
 British Army. He died suddenly in Dublin three or 
 four days after his release. 
 
 Having been released at the same time as Mr. 
 Davitt ?— Yes. 
 
 Then the congratulation reception took place about 
 a fortnight after the release ? — Yes. 
 
 Was anything said at this meeting as to what the 
 services of these gentlemen had been that they should 
 have a reception ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 By Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— What was the date 
 of the meeting ?— The 10th of December, 1877. 
 
 Re-examination continued. — With reference to the 
 meeting at which you saw Dan Curley. Does 
 Amiens-street join Talbot-street in Dublin ? — Yes. 
 
 There is a railway station in Amiens-street, is there 
 not ?— Yes. 
 
 Where did James Carey identify you ? — In Kilmain- 
 ham Prison. I was taken from Mountjoy Prison.where I 
 was undergoing ten years' imprisonment, to Kilmain- 
 ham Prison for him to identify me. 
 
 Were you aware before that that James Carey had 
 made any statement ? — No. 
 
 Just look at this photograph. (A photograph, a 
 portion of which was covered up with paper, was 
 handed to the witness.) Tell me if you know that. — 
 That is the photograph of the gentleman called No. 1. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I want your Lordships to 
 remove the paper from the photograph and to look at 
 the name beneath it. You will see why the paper 
 was put over it. It is important that your Lordships 
 should note that the photograph was handed to the 
 witness with the name covered up. 
 
 Re-examination continued. — Have you ever seen 
 that photograph before ? — Never. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have only put it in for 
 the purposes of identification. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I should wish, with your Lordships' 
 permission, to put a few questions on a matter arising 
 out of the re-examination. 
 
 The President. — Certainly. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — I want to put a question to yon 
 with reference to the meetings at the Mechanics' In- 
 stitution. Did you see Chambors, O'Brien, and my- 
 self together at the Mechanics' Institution more than 
 once ? — Only once. 
 
 Have you any recollection of any such meeting ex- 
 cept this one ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Can you remember whether that meeting was held in 
 
 Patrick Delaney. 
 
724 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 connexion with M'Carthy's funeral ? — No ; I have no 
 recollection. It is too far back. 
 
 Was it not a public meeting ?— It was not a public 
 meeting. 
 
 And reported in the papers ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Mr. Keid. — I should like to ask your Lordships that 
 this witness may remain here for a few days for 
 several reasons. We want to make some inquiries, and 
 as Mr. John O'Connor has been referred to we desire 
 that he should be confronted with the witness. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My learned friend must 
 not say that Mr. O'Connor is referred to. I made no 
 suggestion. I merely asked questions. 
 
 The President. — I will give directions that he shall 
 remain for a few days. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I was very anxious to 
 put in some documents in relation to Matthew Harris ; 
 but my learned friend has asked me not to do so until 
 Mr. Lockwood can be here. I will, therefore, in the 
 meantime call another witness. 
 
 Mr. Reginald Digby was next called, and in reply to 
 Mr. Murphy, Q.C., said, — I am Lord Digby's agent 
 on his estate in King's and Queen's Counties in Ire- 
 land. I have been his agent since 1871. Up to 1879 
 the arrears of rent upon the estate were very small. 
 The tenants as a rule were well-to-do, but of course 
 there were exceptions ; 1879 was a bad year compared 
 with the previous years, and in consequence Lord 
 Digby gave reductions in the rents, amounting to 
 between 10 and 20 per cent. .After that the rents were 
 fairly paid. In the following year the Land League 
 agitation commenced , when public meetings were held and 
 speeches were made. The result was that many of the 
 tenants on Lord Digby's estates offered to pay accord- 
 ing to Griffith's valuation, and declined to pay more. 
 
 Now, did some of the tenants pay their full rents ? — 
 Yes, a great many paid. 
 
 Did they pay you publicly or secretly ? — Secretly. 
 
 Did those who paid secretly allege any cause for 
 paying secretly 'i — They said that they were afraid to 
 pay openly. 
 
 As far as you know of the state of the country was 
 that fear an honest expression of their opinion ? — I 
 believe it was. 
 
 Did you receive letters from many of them upon the 
 subject ? — I did. 
 
 I believe that you have a number of letters from 
 persons who have since died or who have ceased to 
 be tenants, as well as from those who are still tenants ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Does this bundle contain letters in respect of which 
 there is no necessity for concealing the names of the 
 writers ? — It does. 
 
 Who was Mrs. Anne Sadleir ? — She was a tenant on 
 Lord Digby's estate, holding 200 acres, at a rent of 
 £150 per annum. 
 
 Had she been in the habit of paying her rent regularly 
 before 1880 ?— Yes. 
 
 And was she able to pay it ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you receive this letter from her in November, 
 1880?— I did. 
 
 Mr. Murphy read the letter, which was as follows : — 
 " Mulla, Tullamore, November 29, 1880. 
 
 " My dear Mr. Digby, — I hope you will not imagine 
 that I am a Land Leaguer or in any way wishful to 
 act dishonestly but I really dare not- pay any rent 
 until the present agitation has calmed down. I feel 
 very sorry that there should be any unpleasantness in 
 the barony as I always imagined the people were 
 quiet and peaceably inclined and I am told that 
 neither my life nor property would be safe if I per- 
 sisted as inclination would prompt. 
 
 " Believe me yours sincerely, 
 
 (Signed) " Anne Sadleir. 
 
 " I dare not even send this by my own post." 
 
 Examination continued.— How long had that lady 
 been upon the estate ? — A great many years. She and 
 her family had been on the estate for a very long 
 time. 
 
 On the 30th of November did you receive this letter 
 from her ?— Yes. 
 
 Mr. Murphy read the letter as follows : — 
 " Mulla, Tullamore, King's Co. .November 30th,18S0. 
 
 " My dear Mr. Digby, — In spite of my letter yes- 
 terday I am going to run the chance of paying my 
 rent but trust to you not to tell mortal for the times 
 are so fearful that I do it with trepidation and shall 
 enclose it under cover to Mr. Eidley 'to direct' 
 and you can return receipt in the same way. I also 
 enclose my steward's mother's rent as they are afraid 
 to take it themselves. I hope affairs may soon take a 
 turn for the better and that an amicable settlement of 
 land affairs may be the result. 
 
 " Believe me yours sincerely, 
 
 (Signed) " Anne Sadleir." 
 
 Examination continued.— Had this lady ever paid in 
 this roundabout way before 1880 ?— Never ; she had 
 always sent her rent before in the form of a cheque by 
 post. 
 
 Was there a tenant on the estate named George 
 Coltan ?— Yes. He held a small farm of about 20 or 30 
 acres. 
 
 Was he an old tenant ? — He was. 
 
 In December, 1880, did you get this letter from him ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Mr. Murphy read the letter, which was as fol« 
 
 lows :— 
 
 " Gurteen, December 3, 1880. 
 
 " Honoured Sir,— I take the liberty of addressing 
 you to let you know how seriously I deplore the un- 
 happy state of affairs that prevented from appearing 
 according to appointment to pay my rent. 
 
 " I never was more willing than at present but for 
 the threats held out to any man that would pay until 
 he gets Griffith's valuation that he would be ' boy- 
 cotted.' And whatever chance another would have to 
 escape with impunity I would have none as I am quite 
 apprehensive my movements is closely watched as I 
 incurred no small displeasure already for not attending 
 their meetings especially the deputation that went to 
 Geashill. 
 
 " I would feel happy to comply With any arrange- 
 ment you would make for settling my account privately 
 or if it would not be too presumptuous to suggest if 
 Mr. Nisbett had any business in Gurteen I would sea 
 
 Mr. Reginald Digby. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 725 
 
 him at my brother's and pay him the rent in full as I 
 feel very uneasy about it. 
 
 " I take this opportunity of expressing how thank- 
 ful I feel for the satisfactory abatement you gave me 
 only a year ago and your very considerate distribution 
 of champion potatoes at a nominal price and not to 
 think of the same boon again besides. I am not un- 
 mindful of later favours at your hand and I hope tho 
 same happy relations that existed at your appointment 
 over the estate may soon be restored. 
 
 " In conclusion I wish to convey that I still remain 
 Lord Digby's obedient and loyal tenant 
 
 " And your Honour's devoted and humble servant 
 
 " E. Digby, Esq. . " Geo. Coltan." 
 
 Examination continued. — The writer of the letter 
 refers to a deputation of tenants to Geashill. Do you 
 know anything about that ? — Yes ; a deputation of the 
 tenants came to Geashill to demand for the general 
 body of the tenants a reduction of the rents to Griffith's 
 valuation. 
 
 What answer was given to them ? — The demand was 
 not complied with. 
 
 Had they ever come in a body before ? — No. 
 
 Coltan was not one of the deputation, I suppose ? — 
 No. 
 
 You have, I believe, a number of letters to the same 
 effect, the names of the writers of which you have 
 reasons for not disclosing ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there also a tenant on the estates of the name 
 of Adams ? — Yes ; he was a publican and shopkeeper at 
 Tullamore and he was connected with the Land 
 League agitation. 
 
 How long was he on the estate ? — He was on the 
 estate for three or four years. He refused to pay except 
 on Griffith's valuation. In the result I had to take 
 proceedings against him, and in January, 1881, he 
 came in and paid his rent. He sent me the full rent. 
 
 In the beginning of 1881 and 1882 did you have to 
 take proceedings in the superior Courts against some 
 of the larger tenants ? — We had. That was in 1881. 
 
 Was there a sale of tenants' interest at Tullamore ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 In two of the cases did the tenants buy in their 
 interest at their full value ? — They paid the full rent 
 and costs. 
 
 Did anything happen to the hay of one of these 
 tenants ? — Yes, he had his hay burnt a few days after- 
 wards. 
 
 In how many cases were evictions actually carried 
 
 ou t ? In seven. The tenants were not reinstated as 
 
 caretakers. They remained out for about six weeks or 
 two months. They then came in and paid the whole 
 rent and costs, and were reinstated. 
 
 Was there a bundle of letters received in 1881 ?— 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Was there one in December, 1881, from the same 
 Mrs. Sadleir ?— Yes. 
 
 The letter runs thus :— 
 
 ' ' I have . had a hint not to pay my rent as the 
 tenants on the estate refuse to pay unless they get a 
 reduction and although most anxious to pay and to do 
 what is right and honest yet I confess I feel nervous 
 
 these times reading how people are treated who pay 
 against the wil4 of the people so hope it may be done 
 quite privately. I wish to settle about Geoghan's place 
 and when all is made up will send a cheque. I am 
 informed that all landlords have a right to pay this 
 half of the County Cess since 1870. Is such the case ? 
 I am advised also to go in for a reduction under the 
 Courts, but before I should think of taking such a step 
 should like to inform you. Believe me, yours very 
 sincerely, Anne Sadleib. I am sending this under 
 cover to Dublin to forward. Please send your answer 
 care of Canon Sadleir, D.D., 34, Merrion-square, N., 
 Dublin." 
 
 Was there a tenant named Michael Conroy on the 
 estate ? — Yes. He had two farms, altogether some- 
 thing over 300 acres. He had been a long time on 
 the estate and had paid his rent regularly until this 
 agitation commenced. 
 
 On December 17, 1881, you got this letter from him, 
 I think :— 
 
 " I received your letter requiring me to pay to you 
 or lodge to your credit my half-year's rent due to 
 Lord Digby last March. I will feel greatly obliged to 
 you could you not ask me to pay till the other tenants 
 are paying their rents. I feel that I am looked on in 
 the county with a good deal of doubt for I never 
 joined in any of the agitations that have latterly 
 existed and I never attended any meetings but those 
 of the tenantry who assembled last year to respectfully 
 ask Lord Digby to increase the reduction in our rents 
 that he had offered to us. Asking you to kindly con- 
 sider my position, I am, dear Sir, most respectfully 
 yours, Michael Conroy." 
 
 Did he afterwards pay his rent ? — He did. I had to 
 take proceedings against him, and then he immediately 
 paid his whole rent. 
 
 Was there a Mr. Odlam, a tenant on the estate 1— 
 Ye3, his farm was about 500 statute acres and his rent 
 about £400. 
 
 On December 19, 1881, there was a letter from himf 
 — Oh ! I beg pardon, you mean Mr. Benjamin Odlam. 
 There was also a Mr. Davis, a tenant on the estate. 
 His rent was about £50 a year. On December 17, 1881, 
 there was a letter from him. These are the letters : — 
 
 " I write to acknowledge your letter of the 14th 
 inst. requesting me to pay my half-year's rent nowdue 
 to Lord Digby for my holdings in Bracknockan and 
 Ballina, &c. In reply I wish to say I am quite willing 
 to do so but under the present circumstances I would 
 be afraid. At the same time I will lodge it to my 
 own credit in the Bank of Ireland until such time I 
 find I can hand it to you with safety. Hoping this 
 will be a sufficient explanation for my delay, I remain 
 your obedient servant, ' B. E. Odlam." 
 
 ; ' I beg leave to be excused for not having my rent 
 paid but in the present state of times I fear I would 
 be in danger by so doing. I hope you will be so good 
 as not to doubt my word as I will surely pay you as 
 soon as it's known by the public anyone paid their 
 rent. I feel sure you will be kind enough to excuse 
 me as I never expect land for nothing. I am, Sir, your 
 obedient servant, John Davis. " 
 
 Did Davis come and pay his rent afterwards ?— Shortly 
 afterwards, but not openly. This state of things con- 
 tinued in the county up to about the beginning of 
 
 Mr. Reginald Digby. 
 
726 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1389. 
 
 June, 1883. After that things settled down very- 
 much. Rents were paid openly after that. 
 
 Has the Land League been active or not in your part 
 of the county ?— It was very active in 1881 and 1882. 
 There were branches in our neighbourhood. The prin- 
 cipal branch was at Tullamore and the estate runs up 
 to within a mile of Tullamore. Between 1882 and the 
 present time I should say the branches have not been 
 very active. 
 
 Prior to the land agitation had you any difficulty in 
 letting land in Queen's County ?— None whatever. 
 
 After that time was there any difficulty in letting 
 land from which tenants had been evicted ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember a case on Lord Digby's estate 
 when a man took a farm which was voluntarily 
 surrendered ? — I do. 
 
 Was a herd put in ? — No, the old herd remained on 
 the land. 
 
 Mr. Reid was understood to take some objection to 
 the question. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — We are proving cause, Mr. Reid. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I suppose this is an outrage that will 
 appear in the return. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— We are advised that that 
 part of the case does not appear on the return — that is 
 to say, the influence of the League. 
 
 Mr. Murphy (to witness). — Was there a large expen- 
 diture by Lord Digby on the estate ?— The expenditure 
 was not so large in these two particular years. Since 
 Lord Digby came into the property in 1870 up to the 
 present time the expenditure has been very large. 
 Nearly £100,000 has been expended on permanent 
 improvements. 
 
 How was the payment in secret generally done ? — It 
 was done in various ways. Money was sometimes 
 sent by post and sometimes lodged to my credit in the 
 Bank of Ireland. I never sent receipts for the. money. 
 
 When did you first hear the term land-grabber ? — In 
 1880, I think. 
 
 Did you ever hear people denounced for taking land 
 before 1880 ?— Never. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — You say you have not 
 heard the term land-grabber ? — Not until 1880 or 188J. 
 
 Before that did you not know that in case of evic- 
 tions it was extremely unpopular to take the evicted 
 land ? — It was unpopular, of course, with the person 
 who had been evicted, but it was not unpopular with 
 the people generally. 
 
 Have you never heard before 1880 of a tenant being 
 shot at, moonlighted, or injured for taking evicted 
 land ? — Oh, often, but it was done by the person 
 evicted or some one connected with him. 
 
 So you conjecture. I am speaking now of punishing 
 persons for taking evicted land. You say you have 
 heard of that before 1879 ?— I have heard of it. 
 
 Have you not often heard of outrages upon tenants 
 or the moonlighting of tenants who paid a rent above 
 the valuation before 1879 ? — No. 
 
 You have never heard of it yourself ? — Never. 
 
 By Mr. A. O'Connor.— The year 1879 was a very 
 
 wet year, was it not, especially in the winter ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 I suppose the effect of a bad season, such as that of 
 1879, is greater in boggy and marshy land than in 
 other land ? — Yes. 
 
 Is not a large portion of the land in King's County 
 bog land ? — Yes, a large portion, but not of the pro- 
 perty I had to do with. 
 
 And is there not a great deal of bog land also in 
 Queen's County ?-— In part of Queen's County there is. 
 
 Do you remember what was the population of 
 Que,en's County in 1841 ? — No. I do not know any- 
 thing about Queen's County. 
 
 Do you know what the population of that county 
 now is ? — No, I have not an idea. 
 
 Not even approximately ? — No. 
 
 Would you be surprised to learn that the population 
 in 1841 was 153,000, and that it is now 70,000 ?— I 
 really know nothing whatever about it. 
 
 Your knowledge as an agent does not enable you to 
 say that half the population has disappeared in the 
 last 40 years ? — I know nothing about it. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Did any of the writers of these 
 letters go into the Land Courts ? — Some of them did, 
 but they were not altogether satisfied with the result. 
 In fact, they were sorry they went in. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Murphy. — What was the result 
 of their going into the Land Court ? — The result was 
 a reduction of 2J per cent, on the rental of the 
 estate. Out of between 500 and 600 tenants on the 
 estate 80 judicial rents were fixed. 
 
 The President. — What was the average reduction in 
 the cases in which the tenants did go into the Court ? 
 —Nine per cent. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — When did you first hear the term 
 moonlighting ? Was it before or after the land 
 agitation P— -We have never had any moonlighting. 
 
 When did you first hear of it ?— About 1880 or 1881. 
 But I have had no experience of outrages myself, 
 because we have been extremely free from them. 
 
 With regard to the fall in population, has there been 
 less land under tillage since the bad years ? Since the 
 failure of the potato crop ? — Since I have known the 
 estate there has been very little difference. 
 
 You have said some of the tenants were sorry they 
 went into the Land Court ? — Yes, some of them went 
 in and got no reduction for their money. 
 
 Mr. George Hewson, examined by Mr. Atkinson. 
 said, — I am a land agent in several counties in Ire- 
 laud — Limerick, Clare, Cork, Leitrim, Sligo, Donegal, 
 and Kildare. I first became an agent in 1877. From 
 1877 to the end of 1881 I was engaged in the office of 
 Messrs. Townshend, of Molesworth-street, Dublin. 
 They are agents for many counties in Ireland. I was 
 employed chiefly in going round the estates collecting 
 rents and looking after the properties. 
 
 Up to 1879 had you any difficulty in getting tenants 
 and caretakers P Who were generally employed to 
 
 Mr. Reginald Digby, 
 
 Mr. George Hewson. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 727 
 
 take care of evicted farms ? — As a rule we used to 
 get the adjoining tenants to do so. 
 
 Had you any difficulty in getting rent paid up to 
 1879 ?— Not the slightest. 
 
 Did you know of any outrage being committed on 
 any man for paying his rent ? — No. 
 
 Or for taking an evicted farm ? — No. 
 
 Did you ever hear the expression land-grabber used 
 until the year 1879 ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Until that period, in your experience, did you ever 
 know of any man being moonlighted, as it is called ? 
 —No. 
 
 What was the first estate on which you were ap- 
 pointed agent ? — The first estate of any importance 
 was that of Major Molony, in county Clare. I was 
 appointed to that in 1881. As to the condition of the 
 estate at that time, there were not any large arrears, 
 and I believe the rents were fair. There were a few 
 tenants whose rents were raised in 1876, but when I 
 was appointed agent I took the rents at the lower 
 rate. 
 
 Did you afterwards experience any difficulty in the 
 collection of the rents on Major Molony's estate ? — 
 Yes, more difficulty. 
 
 When did you first experience it ? — At the end of 
 1881. 
 
 Did you receive a number of letters from different 
 tenants upon that estate in reference to the pay- 
 ment of rent ? — Yes, there were four letters from the 
 clergyman of the parish, and the rest, except one from 
 the steward, were all from tenants. The clergyman of 
 the parish was the Eev. Robert Humphries. He was 
 not a Eoman Catholic curate. He was a Protestant. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then proceeded to read ths letters 
 from the tenants deposed to by the witness. The first 
 was dated November 10, 1881, and was in substance 
 as follows : — 
 
 " Dear Sir, — Enclosed I send you a Post Office 
 order for the sum of £4 13s., for which you will be 
 pleased to send me a receipt. Please send it to myself 
 personally. . . Also. I wish you not to mention to 
 other parties whether the rent has been paid or not." 
 The next, in effect, ran : — 
 
 " December 5, 1881. 
 
 " Dear Sir. — I am very sorry I could not come to 
 meet you the day of the rent. I will send it up to you 
 in a few days. No one can know anything about it but 
 myself and yourself, for if they did I should be killed." 
 
 The following was the next letter read by the 
 learned counsel : — 
 
 " Jan. 9, 1882. 
 
 " Wo, the undersigned tenants, on receiving eject- 
 ment processes from Major Molony for non-payment of 
 rent, beg to say that we have no idea of trying to 
 evade paying our rent as soon as we can safely do so . 
 We went on the day appointed for paying the rent, 
 but were prevented from seeing you by the party 
 collected. As it is the first time we have put either 
 Major Molony or his agents to any trouble, we hope 
 you will stay further law proceedings against us. If 
 you will give us a little time for costs we will pay 
 your rent as usual." 
 
 Had you appointed a day for receiving the rents 'I — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did any tenants come to pay ? — A large crowd 
 assembled, some of the people being on horseback. 
 Many were armed with sticks. They simply passed 
 by the place. 
 
 When did that occur ?— In September, 1881. 
 
 Did any of the tenants pay their rent on that 
 occasion ? — No. 
 
 Was any demand made for a reduction on that 
 occasion ? — No ; the people only paraded in front of 
 the house. 
 
 Was any other person collecting rent on that day ? — 
 No. The same tenants told me subsequently that they 
 intended to pay. 
 
 The learned counsel then read the following letter :— 
 
 " Jan. 13, 1882. 
 
 " I wish to inform you that a dastardly outrage was 
 committed on the 12th inst. on my house by an un- 
 known ruffian at 11 30 p.m. A rifle shot was fired 
 through my kitchen door and knocked the mortar from 
 the wall opposite. The kitchen was full at the time, 
 but by good luck we escaped the bullet. . . . 
 People around me are getting outrageous in these 
 times, and I am very much afraid I shall have to 
 surrender my occupation. I hope your honour will 
 give me all the aid you can. I fear if some protection 
 force is not sent to the lodge some fatal result will be 
 experienced. Will your honour send me a revolver 
 and ammunition, as I have no means of getting one 
 suitable." 
 
 Another letter contained the following passage : — 
 
 " Jan. 16, 1882. 
 
 " I am sorry to inform you that I have given up my 
 post as laud bailiff on account of the terrible state of 
 
 the country I hope to God the times will 
 
 soon quiet again." 
 
 Did that man give up his property ? — He gave up his 
 post as bailiff. He did not surrender his farm. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson next read a letter dated Jan. 20, 
 1882, in which the writer, who sent rent, asked for 
 a receipt dated October, so that it might appear that 
 the money was paid before the publication of the 
 No-rent Manifesto. The writer also asked for a 
 gun licence. 
 
 In a letter dated Jan. 21, the writer, who enclosed 
 a cheque for half a year's rent, petitioned not to be 
 evicted. The letter ended as follows : — " I mean to 
 give no trouble if I can help it, and I hope in March 
 to be able to send you the other half-year's rent. You 
 may have confidence in me. If it was known in my 
 neighbourhood that I even wrote to you I might meet 
 with a sudden death, so you may see how I stand." 
 
 In another letter, dated Feb. 4, 1882, the writer 
 said that he was always prepared to pay his rent when 
 due, but that were he to pay his rent at that time 
 his life would not be worth 24 hours' purchase. He 
 added that, unless a general arrangement were oomo 
 to with the other tenants, he hoped the landlord 
 would not press him, as he would be a marked man. 
 He only wished that he could pay, but he dared not 
 for the sako of his life. 
 
 Mr. Georee Hewson. 
 
'28 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 In a letter dated March 23, 1882, the writer said 
 that he was prepared to pay a year's rent. Whenever 
 any man upon the property should pay he would be the 
 second man to do so. 
 
 Examination continued. — Did you receive a notice of 
 surrender from a tenant named Conroy ?— Yes. Before 
 I received the notice he told me that he had to 
 give up the farm, as the League would not let him 
 hold it. No ; I do not think he said " the League." 
 He said " the country," 1 think. 
 
 Were some of the tenants on the estate evicted ? — 
 Yes, early in 1882. I evicted 26 of them. 
 
 Were some of those from whom you had received 
 letters evicted ? — Yes. 
 
 They did not pay ? — No. 
 
 Where did they go to reside after eviction ? — 
 They went to reside in Land League huts near their 
 farms. , 
 
 Do you know how they were supported ? — They got 
 money from the board of guardians. 
 
 Do you know who was the chairman of the board of 
 guardians ? — The chairman of the Tulla Board was a 
 man named P. J. Frost. 
 
 Did you afterwards resign the agency ? — Yes, in 
 1884. 
 
 Did a man named Joseph Kelly take one of the farms 
 that were surrendered ? — No, a man named Tait took 
 a farm that had been surrendered by Jeremiah Kelly. 
 
 Who fixed the rent ? — It was fixed according to his 
 own offer. 
 
 Did he afterwards surrender the farm ? — He did, but 
 not in my time. I had several conversations with 
 him, and he informed me that he was badly boycotted. 
 
 In 1882 were you appointed agent over the property 
 of Captain Harkness in the county of Limerick ?— I 
 was. I have now been appointed receiver under the 
 Land Court over the property. 
 
 Were there large arrears due ?— On one portion of 
 the estate there were considerable arrears. The 
 tenants there were all large ones. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — May I interpose to make this sugges- 
 tion ? As to the details and particulars of these estates, 
 I submit, in the first place, that they have little bear- 
 ing on the question before your Lordships, and in the 
 second place I wish to point out that it is impossible 
 for us to check the statements made. That being so, I 
 submit that this evidence can have very little value. 
 
 The President. — This is only an accumulation of 
 evidence that tenants refused to pay or made applica- 
 tions to their landlords, alleging certain reasons for 
 their conduct. 
 
 Sir H. James.— I assure my learned friend that the 
 evidence we have given on these points is but a selec- 
 tion from a vast amount of evidence which we could 
 adduce. 
 
 Mr. Eeid.— My learned friend (Mr. Atkinson) is not 
 now asking questions of a general character as to the 
 knowledge and experience of land agents, but is asking 
 questions about particular estates and particular 
 tenants, which we have no means of following. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I may point out that my learned 
 friend would have still less power to follow the evi- 
 dence if it were general evidence. 
 
 The President. — Yes. They are giving particulars 
 which will enable you, Mr. Eeid, to cross-examine to 
 some extent at once ; but, of course, if you wish, we 
 shall allow you to reserve your cross-examination. 
 
 Mr. ATKINSON. — Did you have any difficulty in col- 
 lecting rents on this property ? — Yes, on a portion 
 of it. 
 
 In 1883 did a man named Fenton take a farm which 
 had been occupied by a tenant named Cotter ? — He 
 made arrangements to take it. 
 
 Did any of the tenants communicate with you with 
 reference to the service of writs upon them ?— Yes ; I 
 was asked by two tenants on a portion of the property 
 to serve writs upon them. They were well off and 
 able to pay. 
 
 Which is the Land League branch nearest to that 
 portion of the estate ?— The Bruree branch, of which 
 Father Sheehy is, I believe, the head. 
 
 Did you receive this letter from the tenant Feuton : 
 — " January 10, 1882. Dear Sir,— I enclose half 
 notes for £11 4s. More presently. You certainly 
 would have a right to allow something by abatement 
 on the last May rent. Please keep all things secret 
 and send back my receipt " ?— Yes. 
 
 Were you appointed in 1882 agent over a property in 
 Leitrim ? — Yes, on the property of Miss Catherine 
 Jones. The rental was about £5,000. The tenants on 
 the Mohill portion of the estate waited upon me with 
 reference to their rents. In 1885, the tenants on the 
 Drumkeeran portion of the estate came to me, accom- 
 panied by their parish priest. They demanded a reduc- 
 tion— I do not recollect distinctly how much— and I 
 offered them 15 per cent. 
 
 Did any of the tenants pay on that reduction ?— 
 Not at once. Some of the tenants paid me, among 
 them being Mrs. Connell and a man named Campbell. 
 Did you read a report in United Ireland of January 
 23, 1886, with reference to their expulsion from the 
 League ? — I did. 
 
 Did you read anything with reference to their ex- 
 pulsion from the League in the Sligo Champion ? — I 
 did. 
 
 Which was the branch of the League from which 
 they were expelled ? — The Drumkeeran branch. 
 
 On the Ballinamore portion of the property did a 
 man named Carrigan take a farm ? — Yes, in'18S5. A 
 very short time afterwards he was very badly beaten. 
 
 Do you know Peter Harkin ? — Yes. He was a tenant 
 on the Anthom estate, over which I was appointed 
 agent in 1883. He took an evicted farm, and two or 
 three months afterwards five head of cattle were 
 stolen from him. 
 
 On these estates in Leitrim did any of the tenants 
 pay their rents at night ? — The tenants who were 
 expelled from the League paid secretly. They paid 
 after dark. 
 
 Mr. George Hewson. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 729 
 
 In 1SS5 were you appointed agent over the estate 
 of Mr. Owen Wynn ?— I was. His annual rental was 
 about £2,000. 
 
 AVere the rents low ? — They were always considered 
 to be. The estate is in two divisions known as the 
 Ballyhomerhan estate and the Lurganboy estate. 
 
 Was Mr. Wynn a resident landlord ?— He resided at 
 Sligo, within 12 miles of the property. 
 
 At the time of your appointment was there a Land 
 League branch near the Lurganboy estate ? — The 
 witness was understood to reply in the negative. 
 
 Did you have any difficulty in collecting rent? — No. 
 
 On the other portion of the estate was there a 
 strike against rent in 1886 ? — Yes. There were two 
 branches of the Land League near. 
 
 Did you at any time see in United Ireland any refer- 
 ence to the Ballyhomerhan tenantry ? — Yes ; on 
 November 11, 1886, I think. 
 
 Did any of the tenants pay secretly ? — During the 
 strike they did. I can recollect four who did, and I 
 believe there were more. 
 
 Did they pay at night ? — As a rule they did after the 
 strike. 
 
 Did they give any reason for coming at that hour ? — 
 I do not recollect any words used by them. 
 
 In 1882 were you appointed agent over Mr. 
 Olphert's estate in Donegal ? — Yes. 
 
 Are there several Land League branches upon that 
 estate ?— So I am informed. 
 
 Do ycu know who were the presidents ? — The Rev. 
 James M'Fadden was president of the Gweedore 
 branch, and the Rev. Daniel Stephens of another 
 branch. Father Stephens came to the district in 1886. 
 
 Bsfore he came had you any difficulty in collecting 
 rents ? — In Gweedore I had always met with difficul- 
 ties. I had no difficulty in getting reuts from the 
 tenants on the rest of the property before 
 Father Stephens came. When he arrived he headed 
 a deputation of the tenants, who asked for a re- 
 duction. It was not allowed that year. In 1887 
 the tenants came again and asked for a reduction. 
 We made him an offer of 25 per cent, on non-judicial 
 rents and 10 per cent, on the judicial rents. He 
 thereupon demanded 50 per cent, on non-judicial rents, 
 8s. 6d. in the pound on arrears, and 6s. 8d. on judicial 
 rents. They refused to pay. After that two or three 
 of the tenants came and paid secretly. I have quite 
 recently— last week — proceeded to evict some of those 
 tenants who did not pay. The two or three who came 
 to pay gave as a reason that they were Protestants 
 and had not joined the Land League. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — These evictions 
 are within the last fortnight, and are the subject of 
 considerable comment ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you got with you any list of evictions upon 
 the several estates that you have been agent for ?— 
 No ; I have not. 
 
 Have you got the numbers of the evictions on the 
 different estates in the different counties ?— I have 
 not. 
 
 In counties Limerick, Clare, Leitrim, Cork, Donegal, 
 and Kildare, and one other of which you have spoken, 
 did you never hear of outrage — I am not asking for 
 any specific instance— before 1879 ?— Before 1879 I 
 think the landlords and agents were the usual people 
 upon whom outrages were perpetrated. I do not recol; 
 lect any other cases. 
 
 I am asking you with reference to numerous Blue- 
 books — your view is that the thing was a substantially 
 novel thing ? — Not altogether, I should say. 
 
 Was it not a most usual thing, and was it not the 
 subject of repeated evidence and the cause of repeated 
 Acts of Parliament being passed ? — Not to my know- 
 ledge. 
 
 About being " moonlighted." Did I understand you 
 to say that you had never heard of anybody being moon* 
 lighted ? — The phrase was quite a new one. 
 
 I am speaking to you of the thing — people paying mid- 
 night visits, mostly in disguise. You do not suggest 
 that was a new thing in 1S79 in Ireland ?— I had read 
 of it ; but it happened between the disturbed times, 
 chiefly between 1840 and 1859. 
 
 It happened repeatedly, we are all sorry to say. — I. 
 have read maay accounts of such occurrences. 
 
 And many, many occurrences took place. Do you 
 recollect the Westmeath Act ? — No. 
 
 But, whatever you like to call it, surely you are 
 aware that this moonlighting is a common feature of 
 criminal agitation in Ireland. Whenever criminal 
 risings take place with reference to lands, it is nearly 
 always in that form, is it not ? — Yes ; and to that I 
 attribute nearly all the outrages that have occurred 
 since 1880. 
 
 Is not that the same feature that has always existed 
 whenever agrarian crime has been prominent in any 
 part of Ireland ?— I began my work in rather good 
 times. There was nothing of the sort at that time. I 
 do not think it was a common form. 
 
 My Lords, I will ask to reserve the further cross- 
 examination of this witness. 
 
 By Mr. A. O'Connor. — At what time do you 
 say you first began your work as an agent?— In 1S77. 
 
 When did you take up the agency in county Clare ? — 
 In the beginning of 1881. 
 
 I suppose you have a pretty good general knowledge 
 of the condition of Ireland for some years before 1881 
 or 1877 ? — No, except by hearsay. 
 
 Have you ever discussed with those who were likely 
 to know anything about the relations between land- 
 lords and agents on the one hand, and tenants on the 
 other, in the different counties in which you are 
 agent — I mean prior to 1880 ? — Yes. 
 
 You have told us that you never heard of moonlight- 
 ing or land-grabbing "before 1879 or 1880 ? — No. 
 
 I will not take you beyond the limits of county Clare. 
 Did you ever hear of a man named Tobin, a bailiff, 
 being murdered before 1880 ?— I do not recollect the 
 name. 
 
 Was it or was it not before your agency began ?— As 
 far as I recollect it was about that time. 
 
 Mr. George Hewson. 
 
.'30 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 Was it several years before that time ? — I am not 
 certain. 
 
 You will not say it was not ten years ?— If it is the 
 case I am thinking of it happened about 18S0. 
 
 You cannot say it happened seven or eight years 
 before 1880 ?— If it is tho case I am thinking of, I am 
 sure it did not. 
 
 The name was Tobin and the man was a bailiff ? — 
 Yes. I am not prepared to speak positively. 
 
 Did you ever hear of a landlord named Sheehy whose 
 house was burnt over him after he had obtained eject- 
 ment decrees against his tenants ? — No. 
 
 Now, speaking of the time before your agency began 
 in 1879 and 1880, there was a good deal of distress in 
 that part of Ireland ? — In those years the crops were 
 very bad. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— Bad in 1880 ?— In 1879. 
 
 Who was the chairman of the Tulla Board of 
 Guardians ? Do you know ? — A man named Frost. 
 
 Was there a Colonel O'Callaghan a member of the 
 board of guardians ? — Yes ; he was an ex officio 
 member. 
 
 Did you ever hear of a resolution passed by the 
 board of guardians in that district with reference to 
 the distress prevailing in that district, and the 
 advisability of communicating with the Castle ? — I 
 cannot recollect. 
 
 You do not know that Colonel O'Callaghan pro- 
 moted that resolution, he being a landlord in the dis- 
 trict ? — I do not recollect. 
 
 Did you hear that Colonel O'Callaghan was requested 
 to apply to the relief committees for grants to relieve 
 the distress that prevailed among the labouring classes 
 in those localities ?— I do not recollect that. 
 
 You know there was very great distress in that 
 neighbourhood ? — There is always distress in a poor 
 district. There must be some distress. 
 
 Do you know there was distress at that time ? — 
 Yes ; I recollect some poor cases. 
 
 Generally about Tulla Upper and Tulia Lower, I am 
 speaking of the district at large 1 — I do not believe 
 there was any great distress. 
 
 Will you tell me of anything that Major Molony did 
 to relieve any great distress either on his own property 
 or in the neighbourhood ? — I know of nothing. Major 
 Molony was boycottnd at the time I was his agent, 
 and he could not do anything. 
 
 Did not Major Molony in the year 18S1 evict 25 
 families off one property ? — Yes, distinctly so. 
 
 Did those evicted people express their willingness to 
 pay the old rent if Major Molony would wipe off the 
 rise which he had put on a few years before ? — No. 
 
 Do you know that a rise had been put on ? — Yes. 
 
 That the tenants asked to have it wiped off ? — They 
 did. 
 
 Did they ask to have the rent put at the old figure ? 
 — They did. I was prepared to take it at the old figure. 
 They refused to pay, and were evicted. 
 
 You deny that they were willing to pay at the old 
 figure I — Yea. 
 
 Is it true that when they were evicted those 25 
 families had no means of shelter except huts which 
 were erected for the purpose, unless they went to the 
 workhouse ? — Some of them went to their neigh- 
 bours'. 
 
 How many ? — I recollect two cases. 
 
 Out of 25 ?-Yes. 
 
 And for the 23 what accommodation was there ? — I 
 forget how many Land League huts were built. 
 
 But there were Land League huts built ? — Yes, 
 
 What became of these people ? — They all paid their 
 rent and costs, and went back again about four months 
 after. They were evicted, they paid the old rent, 
 allowing for the difference in the abatement, and the 
 costs of the eviction. They paid in some cases a year's 
 rent, and in other cases two years' rent and costs. A 
 few tenants had their rents raised in 1876, and were 
 allowed the difference between the old and new rents, 
 and it was marked on their receipts. 
 
 Were all the tenants who were evicted living at the 
 time you speak of? — I do not recollect any of them 
 dying. 
 
 You do not recollect the death of one old man 
 almost immediately after his eviction ? — No, I do 
 not. 
 
 Now, had these tenants who were evicted been in 
 receipt of relief ? — Yes. 
 
 With regard to the moonlighting, which you say did 
 not exist before 1880, did you ever hear of the visita- 
 tion at night of the houBes of Matthew Macnamara 
 and Michael Mactsamara ? — I cannot call it to mind. 
 
 Did you ever hear of the attack at night on the 
 house of Daniel O'Connell, of Kilgorry ? — I do not 
 recollect it. 
 
 Did you ever hear of a man named M'Carthy who 
 was shot, his father having taken an evicted farm ? — I 
 do not recollect it. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — In Donegal, I believe, the holdings 
 you have to do with are very small ? — Yes. 
 
 Especially in Gweedore ? — Yes. 
 
 It is a thickly-populated district ? — Yes. 
 
 There is no industry apart from the land ?— Yes ; 
 burning kelp ;. and if peoplu do not hold land as 
 farmers the bulk of them go to England and Scotland 
 to work, and out of the money so earned they pay a 
 small portion of their rent. 
 
 And when this labour fails they find it difficult to pay 
 their rent ? — They are a great deal better off than the 
 people in back slums. They have each a cow and 
 some land ; they can grow potatoes, and they pay rent 
 on an average a halfpenny to a penny a day. The 
 majority of them keep cows. 
 
 Do the landlords put any tax on the kelp-burning ? — 
 No ; I have never heard that they did in Donegal, or 
 Mayo, or Sligo, or Clare. 
 
 Have you entered any of the tenants' houses in 
 Gweedore ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you say that those houses are comfortable 
 houses ? — In many instances, yes ; in many more, no. 
 
 Mr. George Hewson. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 18S9. 
 
 731 
 
 Would you say in the majority, no ? — Well, they are 
 very dirty. 
 
 You would not like to live in one of them yourself ? 
 —No ; nor do I think you would, either. 
 
 I have lived in one of them. I was born in one of 
 them, as bad as any in Gweedore. You find in many 
 cases whole families living in one apartment ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you ever found that in your experience in 
 England ? — Oh, yes ; in the slums of London generally. 
 I have not found it myself, others have. 
 
 I mean among the agricultural labourers ? — No. 
 
 Do you know anything about the food of the people? 
 •—Yes, potatoes and meal. 
 
 Any roast meat ? — No, I should think not. 
 
 Bacon and eggs for breakfast ? — I think eggs. 
 
 For breakfast ? — I do not know about breakfast. 
 
 Who built the houses on the estates ?— The tenants, 
 as a rule. 
 
 Then, when a tenant's rent to the landlord cannot 
 be paid, it very often happens that he is evicted from 
 his own house ? — Yes. 
 
 But not built by the landlord ? — No. 
 
 Then the tenant is turned out of his own property ? — 
 ne is allowed compensation for it. 
 
 By Mr. Biggar. — Did you ever hear of Whiteboyism 
 before 1879 ?— Yes, I have heard of it. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Atkinson. — Did you ever hear 
 of persons before 1879 being molested by moonlighters 
 for paying their rent or taking a farm ? — No ; White- 
 boyism, as I understood it, was the visit of one hostile 
 clan to another. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then read an extract from United Ire- 
 land, January 23, 1886, which was as follows : — 
 
 " Drumkeerin. The Rev. P. Keany, C.C., pre- 
 siding The committee devoted a large portion of 
 their time relative to the action of George Hewson, 
 of Dromahare, and Arthur Harrison, sub-sheriff of this 
 county, in evicting three tenants on C. P. Jones's 
 estate, while her remains were lying in wait for the 
 undertaker. The secretary was instructed to put the 
 case in the bauds of the solicitor to the branch, Mr. 
 M'Carthy, Sligo. After taking in subscriptions to the 
 Tenants' Defence Fund, the following resolution was 
 passed : — ' That for the wilful and corrupt violation 
 of the rules of this branch, the following persons be 
 expelled :— A. M'Neeny, M. Fallon, John Flynn, H. 
 Flynn, J. Cambell, J. M'Niff, P. M'Oonnel, H. Ford, 
 F. Gilhooly, Widow Gilrean.' " 
 
 Those are tenants who paid rent, my Lords, on the 
 Jones estate. 
 
 The President.— The other entry you referred to ? — 
 I have it here, my Lords, but I find it is a negative 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — My Lords, I think Mr. Eeid men- 
 tioned a matter on my behalf relating to the evidence 
 of the witness who was under cross-examination yes- 
 terday, and especially relating to an answer which he 
 gave in relation to question 34,281 : — " N^>w, John 
 O'Connor, you said, of Cork. Had you known him 
 
 before ? — I saw him several times in Dublin. Do yon 
 know whether he has ever been a member of Parlia- 
 ment ? — He might be, but not till the year 1882. He 
 might be since ; I do not know. Should you know him 
 if yon saw him again ? — Yes. Is he a short man 
 or a tall man ? — A tall man, of sandy complexion. 
 What coloured hair ? — Light." And then he describes 
 his beard. One of the members of Parliament for 
 whom I appear is Mr. John O'Connor, and he is at 
 present the subject of certain charges which have 
 been made against him in Ireland. I have received in- 
 formation from Mr. Burke, a solicitor, that Mr. John 
 O'Connor, who is under arrest, denies that he is the 
 person, and is willing to be confronted with Delaney, 
 if it is thought necessary. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I have no instructions 
 one way or the other about the matter ; but I was 
 asking questions with regard to an individual, and I 
 desired to get him identified as well as I could. 
 Therefore I asked for this description, and the name 
 he passed by was Dr. Kenealy. I desired to get from 
 Delaney a description of the individual. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — My Lords, I think I may say that 
 it is enough for me if my learned friend does not 
 make this suggestion against Mr. John O'Connor, who 
 is anxious to be confronted with Delaney and put the 
 matter beyond the shadow of a doubt. 
 
 The President. — I suppose the Attorney-Oeneral 
 would reserve to himself the right of cross-examining 
 this gentleman if he appeared. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Certainly, my Lords. 
 
 The President. — Of course, I should not keep the 
 man here for any very great time. He ought to go 
 back to confinement. Is Mr. O'Connor actually in 
 prison ? 
 
 Mr. Lookwood. — He is actually under arrest. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If no fresh evidence is 
 given, I should not suggest that this is Mr. O'Connor. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I do not ask my learned friend to 
 make any admission ; I only ask him what is his 
 assertion. 
 
 The Attorney-Genekal. — I make no assertion. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — I am satisfied. Otherwise I might 
 have had to make an application for the release of 
 Mr. O'Connor, and it was only for the sake of saving 
 time that I made this application. 
 
 The President. — I suppose if the evidence resta 
 here that will be satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood. — Yes, my Lord. It is of course 
 understood that Mr. O'Connor's arrest in Ireland is 
 under the Coercion — I beg pardon, the Crimes Act ? 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Oh, yes. If Mr. Lookwood 
 can be here after the adjournment I propose to take 
 the Matthew Harris papers. 
 
 The Commissioners then adjourned for lunch. 
 
 On the Court's resuming, 
 
 The Attorney-General said.— My Lords, there is 
 a series of documents called the Matthew Harris 
 
 Mr. George Hewson. 
 
732 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 papers, with regard to which an arrangement has been 
 come to with my learned friend Mr. Lockwood, that 
 we shall produce the copies. We do not propose to 
 produce all of them, but those which we do propose to 
 produce I will give as nearly as possible in order of 
 date. It is difficult, however, to do so in every case, 
 as they are not all dated, and we have to make a surmise 
 with regard to the exact date. The first is dated the 
 4th of December, 1887 ; it is from Matthew Harris to 
 Charles Kickham, whose name was mentioned yester- 
 day. 
 
 Mr. A. O'Connor. — As appearing for Mr. Harris, in 
 the absence of my friend Mr. Lockwood, I would ask 
 whether the Attorney-General will give us a list of 
 the documents, because I have not seen them. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Certainly. But I may 
 say that it has been arranged between Sir H. James 
 and Mr. Lockwood that I should read copies. 
 The President. — What are these documents ? 
 The Attorney-General. — They are principally 
 letters to and from Mr. Harris. 
 
 The President. — Where are the originals of the 
 documents ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Mr. Harris is unable to 
 produce them. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Without the slightest reflection 
 upon any one, my Lord, the original letters are not 
 forthcoming, as Mr. Harris is unable to produce 
 them. 
 
 Mr. A. O'Connor. — Your Lordships will see the 
 difficulty we are placed in. As I understand, the 
 originals of these letters were seized in Mr. Harris's 
 house and taken possession of by the Government, and 
 were then copied. On their being returned, Mr. Harris 
 not having any necessity for them, destroyed them. 
 Mr. Harris and his friends are not disposed to make 
 any dispute with regard to the accuracy of the 
 copies. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I may say that some of the docu- 
 ments are diaries relating to Mr. Harris's private life. 
 There is no reason why they should not be read, but 
 we agreed that they should not be. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood having returned, the Attorney- 
 General then read the following letters : — 
 
 "Dec. 4th 1877 (sic). 
 " Charles Kickham Esq. 
 
 • i gj r> _l sent a letter to the Irishman this day it is 
 addressed to you. In it I recommend that you would 
 call a convention and also a great public meeting I 
 would have sent yoa a copy of the letter but if I 
 delayed in order to transcribe it it would be late 
 for this week's issue and there is no time to be lost. 
 I hope my proposal will have your approbation I 
 think the time has arrived for speaking out and there 
 is plenty of material for a convention 
 
 " Your obedient servant 
 
 " Matthew Harris." 
 " June 30 1879. 
 " My dear Mr. Harris,— I owe you many 
 apologies for not answering your note before, 
 but I was waiting 
 
 to make the enquiry you 
 
 desired which however has turned out fruitless. 
 I enclose you a note for your friend among other 
 reasons because I can't very well make out his name. 
 I am allowed to return to Ireland for three months on 
 the same conditions as the last time. I suppose I need 
 scarcely say I did not ask for this favor which was 
 granted to the representation of some friends of mine 
 unprompted by me that my private affairs required my 
 presence. " Sincerely yours, 
 
 " John O'Leary. 
 
 " P.S. — If I don't make any kind of good grasp (sic) 
 at your friend's name you might if you wish give him 
 the note without the envelope. However please your- 
 self in this matter." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The next letter is one from 
 Mr. Davitt to Harris. There is no date on it, but 
 we shall be able to fix the date afterwards. 
 
 " 83 Amien St Dublin Monday 
 
 " My dear Harris,--.PanieK Louden & myself agreed 
 upon the following list & objects last night— we 
 were in a doubt about the use of Power's name — it 
 would meet with opposition in America ; bat how to 
 ignore him in such a representative list would be 
 impossible. The Home Rulers are ashamed at the 
 success of our land movement and being forced into an 
 acceptance of our platform they will of course 
 endeavour .to use it for their own project But 
 with Parnell acting honestly & ourselves as a 
 Vigilence Committee to watch them I think it 
 would be difficult to turn tho land movement from its 
 legitimate purpose. 
 
 " Give me your opinion Parnell or Finnegan is 
 to communicate with each of the names on the en- 
 closed list and obtaining their sanction an appeal 
 to oar wealthy Irish Americans — & others to be then 
 made by the National Land League for support. 
 
 " Hoping Mrs Harris & the family are well 
 
 " I am yours sincerely " M. Davitt. 
 
 " p.S. — W. O'Brien will do immense service by 
 his letters from the West. That in to-days Freeman 
 is excellent. 
 
 " The strollers are triumphing all along the line 
 your old ofonent Robinson has written to advise our 
 Mayo Platform ' Constitutional Brigandage ' is now 
 his term for Landlordism. " M. D." 
 
 "Private. 
 " Irish National Land League 
 
 "Offices 62 Middle Abbey St 
 "Dublin Jan. 28, 1880. 
 
 " My dear Mr. Harris, — I fear very much I have got 
 into a very narrow minded set of men here They are 
 honest and earnest enough but they want broad views 
 In fact though they are flashy they have very little 
 capacity. 
 
 " There is a little circle Egan Davitt Brennan with 
 a few others in the town that work with themselves. 
 No person knows what they are about what objects 
 they have in view. They are all to themselves. I am 
 not in the confidence of the ring. They are furious 
 with me for writing that little letter in the Freeman 
 It would interfere with their own plans whatever 
 they were but faith I told Brennan very quietly if he 
 thought there was anything wrong in the letter to 
 bring it before the Meeting of the Committee & I 
 would answer for my own act There was not a word 
 about it before the Committee who all thought the 
 letter a very proper one as far as I could discover 
 from conversation with some of them of course I did 
 
 Tho Matthew Harris Papers. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 733 
 
 not tell anyone that Brennan Davitt and Egan were 
 vexed about it. 
 
 " While I am •willing to go any length to support the 
 principle of Irish Independence in its cxtrcmest form 
 I am not going to bo led by the nose by a little 
 clique bereft of judgment or capacity I do not know 
 what private object these men wish to serve. If 
 it is to return Bgan and a few others and get them- 
 selves returned to have the opportunity of declining 
 becoming M.P.'s why damn them no man would 
 support them more earnestly than I would or than you 
 would They look upon both of us as being the very 
 same. They cannot move us one inch further than we 
 see it judicious to go They are all in the present 
 without an eye to the past or the future and so sure 
 as you live I fear much this agitation will re suit in 
 nothing for it has too much splashing work puffing in 
 Newspapers mob oratory parade work which Schoolboys 
 would do just as well if not better and no practical 
 organization, do you see in America how Parnell has 
 gone on the lines of your letter to Kickham in the 
 Irishman long ago. They throw the whole credit of 
 whatever is done on Devoij Davitt & Parnell. 
 
 " But looking at this agitation in Ireland as a 
 Spectator in another country what do you see ? Why 
 one or two counties out of 312 Jacking up a row & 
 making a noise We are too apt to lose sight of this 
 & looking at our every day associations in our own 
 more immediate neighbourhood we think it large but 
 when we look from afar it is as yet only contemptible. 
 
 " The thing is to extend it and what means are 
 necessary . 1st Item Adhesion to our principles show- 
 ing the Arguments in favour of it & against it 2d 
 Visiting the North & South The Southern had their 
 conference in Mallow the representative of the 
 League should be there to calmly argue their case but 
 they were not. 
 
 " The deliberations of the Conference went abroad 
 they were important very important though they laugh 
 at & ridicule them here The Northern had their con- 
 ference in Ballymoney It was important I read 
 the Northern Whig and the men that spoke there 
 were able men though we never knew them through 
 the Freeman. 
 
 " Again the Members of the League should be 
 there and take their audience with them if they were 
 able They should take every platform in the Country 
 & not be sticking to the Meetings they organize 
 themselves & for themselves. But after if you strip 
 the League of its shell you find only Davitt Brennan 
 and Bgan when we see these things ourselves what 
 must our enemies look on us. 
 
 " What I want to be done is send men everywhere 
 there is a meeting to be held we have plenty of ability 
 among us send Brennan to one place Davitt to 
 another you to a third Ferguson to a fourth T. D. 
 Sullivan to a fifth Sexton to a sixth Bgan to a seventh 
 McHugh B L to a meeting in the North where he 
 might be understood though he is no great things " 
 (laughter) "Louden in the West and James Daly to be 
 kept at home if possible. 
 
 " Then we have some men among the priests that 
 would do some good I will think it hard enough to get 
 on here However I will stick to this agitation busi- 
 ness no matter how much my own sense may revolt 
 against the childish folly of some of their acts. 
 
 " I will probably run down to Ballinasloe before 
 long when we can have a couple of hours 
 chat If you had the meeting on Sunday week I 
 would manage to be at it You can send me an 
 
 official invitation and I can make those men here pay 
 my costs as money is not very flush with me as you 
 may guess formerly introduced thera 
 
 Killen departed and Grant Editor Gazette. Came in 
 At an agricultural dinner two years ago in Ballinasloe 
 they had a row about the toast of the Press and didn't 
 they begin it again here. 
 
 •' Well, I amused myself for fully ten minutes at 
 them They called each other names and only 
 that Grant went out they'd come to blows Callaran 
 then said he was killed, no one wrote a line for him, 
 he slated the Star, he did wonders but he was pjayed 
 out from writing Then he was getting no money, he 
 should law proceedings against some of his Customers 
 he was giving the independent cause all his sup- 
 port. I asked him what about your Loughrea 
 speech and he said it was all bosh and its sequence & 
 the usual criticisms I said so it appeared from the 
 report in the Western News. He gave a most polite 
 bow it would do honour to Gray's bow at the levee 
 this morning after getting a stroke in the face yester- 
 day and departed. 
 
 " Kilmartin must go out and either Kilhoe or 
 McGivern can be made president of I think McGivern 
 would be a very good man to make vice Pres and make 
 Pres. 
 
 " I would certainly be very much for making 
 McGivern something though of course his age comes 
 against him However no matter what man you get 
 there will be some fault to him. McGivern is known 
 to be a steady fellow and I do not think his age would 
 come much again him. He could also be made a 
 T C or P.L.G. He is a fine honorable patriotic 
 young fellow and has a splent in him like Palt. What 
 is Duffy doing. He is good at heart but he is miser- 
 ably weak and Molony destroyed him. 
 
 ' ' I had Callaran in here with me but I received 
 him" very coldly. I did not even offer him a glass of 
 grog He began the old story of Duggan but faith I 
 only nodded and then he told me he came in to see Mr. 
 Davitt and I told him Davitt was not in town. He 
 then was going out but Killen just came in and was 
 talking for a long time and Callaran stayed and put 
 in a word here & there. 
 
 " Hoping Mrs. Harris and all the family are well 
 " very faithfully 
 
 " M. Harris Esq." " Mich O'Sullivau. 
 
 ' ' The Irish National Land League 
 Offices 62 Middle Abbey St. 
 Dublin 2S-2-80. 
 
 " My dear Mr. Harris 
 
 "I enclose you cheque for £10 which you sent to Mr. 
 Davitt There was a note of £20 granted to Eyre Court 
 yesterday through you. 
 
 " The tenantry at Moore will be voted £15 at next 
 Meeting for the purpose of defence 
 
 " The money sent to Father Funeran was voted to 
 him and to you. Father Kirwan had nothing to do 
 with it good or bad Tell this to Father Funeran. 
 " I am 
 
 " M. Harris Esqre " My dear Mr Harris 
 
 " Ballinersloo. very faithfully 
 
 " Mich O. Sullivan 
 sec." 
 " 2 North Great Georges St. Monday 4th April. 
 
 " My dear Mr Harris, — I have received your lettej 
 of April 2d I agree with you that the state of Mayo 
 requires serious consideration I find however that it 
 will take an organiser of great skill and judgment to 
 do any good there & as yet I have no such man at my 
 
 The Matthew Harris Papers. 
 
734 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1S39. 
 
 command that I can spare for work in Mayo, unless 
 you think you could undertake it yourself. 
 
 " Do not fix auy meetings in Conemara without 
 consulting me The end of May is the time I can think 
 of for any western town. I shall be in Ulster for some 
 time after Easter. 
 
 " I shall send you a Statement of the long case by 
 next post It would be well for you to visit 
 Cong and settle this matter if you can. 
 " Yours truly 
 
 " Jorrsr Dillon." 
 •' Irish National Land League Offices 62 Middle 
 Abbey St. Dublin May 22nd 1880. 
 " Dear Mr. Karris, — When Mr. Davitt was leaving 
 for America he requested me to open whatever letters 
 would come for him and through that means I read 
 your last letter to him. 
 
 '' I am sorry to see that your pecuniary affairs are in 
 such a bad state and it strikes me we might bo 
 able to do something for you here. I represented the 
 matter to Mr, Parnell and he is anxious that we should 
 make you a grant out of the funds of the League that 
 would in some way compensate for all you have lost 
 by the land agitation. Of course no one outside the 
 place here would know am.lhir.g abottt it. I will have 
 the matter carried through some day next week. You 
 will require Organizers Order properly to carry on the 
 business of the League John Walsh is doing Connaught 
 What would you think of assisting him — think the 
 matter over and let me know your opinion on it. 
 " Yours truly 
 
 " T. Brennan. 
 " There will be a meeting in Creggs on 27. Could 
 you attend. " T. B." 
 
 " Sunday May 23 1880. 
 " My dear Brennan, — I am sorry to find that my 
 private affairs have besn through the extra kindness 
 of friends subject of discussion in Dublin. I sent Mr. 
 Egan a list of the meetings I attended and informed 
 him of the nature of my position here — a position in- 
 curring a large correspondence and its attendant 
 expenses for postage &c. Now what 1 want you to do 
 as a friend and a man who should from your large 
 intercourse with the world have some knowledge of 
 what a decent man's feelings should be what I want 
 you to do is to inform the parties who control affairs or 
 who have to deal with these matters that all I require 
 is my actual outlay and that I do not make any claim 
 whatever on the grounds of pecuniary embarressment 
 losses in trade or business losses of time &c. 
 
 " I kept no memoranda of my outlay but all of you 
 know what travelling is and I would sooner by far that 
 you would be under than over the amount of my 
 expenses. 
 
 " Yours very eincy 
 
 " M. HARRIS." 
 " Bear Harris, — I enclose you two cheques one for 
 Eyrecourt relief Committee for £25 (which please for- 
 ward or hand in)l and one for £10 for the defence of 
 those prisoners you wrote about I also enclose you 
 first half £5 note for your expenses to go to that 
 place on Sunday next and to do aDy other such work 
 as that (please acknowledge & oblige 
 " Yours &c. 
 
 " Michl Davitt." 
 " Irish Land and Industrial League, 
 " University Building, Washington-square, 
 " New York City, July 10, 1880. 
 " (Room 40.) 
 " My dear Harris, — Allow me to congratulate you 
 
 on the splendid letter you recently addressed to that 
 Rag of an ' Irishman.' . The letter will render im- 
 portant service, and it is looked upon out here as 
 one of the ablest ever written upon that subject. 
 Perhaps you are not aware that John O'Leary is out 
 here. 
 
 " He come from Paris to upset my Land League 
 endeavors, but he will go back a wiser though a 
 sadder man saving the few Bosthoons who are follow- 
 ing that Blatent Ass Rossa the Nationalists on this 
 side are common sense men who hold your views and 
 mine upon this public question. 
 
 " O'Leary failed completely to get up a crusade 
 against the Land League in America. Rossa is now 
 trying his hand but he will achieve more success on 
 your side than upon this. He is a cowardly low ruffian 
 who has not the courage to resent the insult I offered 
 him in yesterday's Herald by stating my belief that he 
 had not sufficient courage to set fire to a British Hay- 
 stack. I expect to reach Ireland by November. 
 
 " Do your utmost to keep the people within bounds 
 one false or hasty step will crush the movement. 
 " Yours sincerely, 
 
 " Miciil Davitt." 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have a copy of the 
 letter to the Irishmen referred to by Mr. Davitt, and 
 I will put the whole in if my learned friends desire 
 it, otherwise I am only concerned to prove one pas- 
 sage. 
 
 Mr. Lookwood (after inspecting the document). — I 
 should like the whole of this upon the notes. 
 
 The Attorney-General — Very good. 
 
 The following was then put ia : — 
 
 " To the Editor of the Irishman, 
 " On my travelling from Loughrea to Killanoff on 
 Monday iast making inquiries along the Con I was 
 informed of nothing but starvation and crys of hunger, 
 and shown the Country all flooded by water, by a 
 respectable Tenant Faimer,and told me what the Land* 
 lords got to drain and dry this land they stocked their 
 Farms with the money and now spending the rest of it 
 out in France or in some other gambling Hells which 
 he said to lave the poor laborers to root bog or die for 
 the winter quarter and it is now those starving 
 creatures now she may mourn for their loss while the 
 Landlord can sport their figures with an easy earned 
 purse on arriving at Forge Hill I was struck with sur- 
 prise seen three cars of the R. I. Constabulary under 
 the command of D. J. Bell and under the guidance of 
 handsome Paddy Hughes. Among them I was shewn M rs. 
 Connors she poynting out to them the direction the 
 Assassins who shot her husband I viewed her movements 
 and her sinens to them very closely her features and 
 her appearance to be a very weighty slob of a 
 woman. I consider that lots of sugar in her Tea would 
 bring her any road. I enquired who was the respect- 
 able old Gentleman who was accompanying them and 
 was told he was a Councelar Survarer who was taking 
 map of the place I remained ample close under a bush 
 untill the left I come to the spot in company with a 
 Tenant Farmer. I asked him did he live convenient 
 he told me he lived in one of the housases over in the 
 fallow I asked him what was his opprenion his reply 
 was I am afraid Sir you are a detective I told him 
 he need not be in dread of any detectivo to express 
 the truth it was then he told me that their was no truth 
 in the womans statement, I asked him how did he come 
 by thinking that O! God bless you Sir said he there waa 
 
 The Matthew Harris Papers. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 735 
 
 lever no truth in a womans statement op if their was 
 ihe could know theise men the first day as well as now 
 but I am told Sir when it failed her to get the blood 
 money I said to him this was bosh he said booh or 
 bosh that she did not now them first or last I said to 
 him that was all nonsense it is then he said he would 
 lay down his life that was not that he would show him 
 or experiment to co-oropate the words he had expressed 
 he told me he would get 12 men in the locality that 
 Mrs. Connor throlly acquainted with and bring them 
 before her & select three out of the 12 & put Mrs. 
 Connor on the car in the same position as she was 
 * when her husband in he company by placying the three 
 men and then to fire some shots & to make their escape 
 and then take them back and mix them with the other 
 men and then if she selected theise three out of the 12 
 the Government could rely upon her evidence this was 
 the strindest remark I ever heard from plain Country 
 man and if this is not done I am afraid innocent men 
 will die It is then I told him my mission thanking him 
 and wishing him good bye in entering into the Village 
 of Killaref I was informed of a new Carrick of 
 Emergency men who occupies the house of Mrs. C. 
 which she labour hard for her in feeding pigs and 
 milking cows but there was a pair of goats which she 
 forgot to milk and she ran dry the poor annimalis are in 
 a bad state. 
 
 " The Admirers of Mr. Gladstone during this change 
 when contrary from other quarters they attribute all 
 the Land League and plead that public opinion as well 
 as the Ministers of the State justify his actions. Both 
 those points deserve attention but in judging of the 
 difficulties Land League had to contend with there are 
 many important circumstances to be taken into 
 account. In the first place the people refuse to accept 
 English law as their Standaul of Morality. This fail- 
 ing is accounted for in the belief that it is & has 
 always b?en opposed to their ideas of justice & right. 
 English law strove to take from them their manufac- 
 tures & over & over again confiscated their lands It 
 is a characteristic of our people that they do not 
 acknowledge defeat. From Elizabeth to Victoria they 
 fought on for their religion In the 82 period this 
 struggle was for freedom the land war continued 
 althrough & continues still & in all those heads the 
 struggle was against law & against injustice & hence 
 it is that in the minds of our Society law & morality 
 are regarded as being antagonistic. It is to this 
 state of feeling we owe agrarian crime— then why 
 attribute agrarian crime to the Land League, supposing 
 the Land League never existed, there are something 
 about fifty coercion Acts to prove that disrespect for 
 the law is owing to the injustice of the law and that 
 agrarian crime is owing to the injustice of our land 
 system .... the principles that land of a 
 country belongs to the people of that Country & they 
 fought for that principle and are still fighting for it 
 & -will still continue to fight for it until it becomes 
 the law of the land. 
 
 " I know it can be advanced with great show that 
 in the interest of social order the Land League could 
 have suppressed this feeling, should have sharply re- 
 buked any expression that -would tend to alienate 
 people from the law. Men who talk like this know 
 very little of mature public movement especially 
 Irish movements— those who do know the nature of 
 them are aware of the difficulties to be encountered 
 before you can move the masses of the people & if you 
 oppose their feelings or prejudice them difficulty 
 becomes an impossibility — this is especially true as 
 
 regards the small Farmers of Ireland this class had 
 suffered so much had eadured so many forms of 
 oppression were so entirely unprotected by the law that 
 they had settled down in a state of despair with dogged 
 fits of determination. Their position was one of help- 
 less dependence their experience the traditions of 
 their class. 
 
 " To make them up to bind them together to inspiro 
 them with hope to make them feci this was the task 
 of the Land League put life in them was a heavier 
 task undertaken by any body of men It is all very 
 good to condemn strong language but if strong lan- 
 guage had not been used if the feelings & the passions 
 of small farmers had been appealed to they never 
 could they never could be roused up from the lethargy 
 that hung around — there would be no land movement 
 aud our people would have perithed. The state of 
 feeling that exists in a country. cannot be ignored by 
 men who desire to work up a public movement in that 
 country preach up law and order to those who hate 
 the law to go on palavering about the Constitution 
 to men who regard the Constitution who regard the 
 Constitution as a show &; a trick a thing that is 
 given to them one day and taken back the next 
 to think to bring these people with you is simply 
 silliness in the extreme Mr. Davitt succeeded because 
 he was believed to be the enemy of English law in 
 Ireland. Mr. 1'aruell became popular on account of 
 his opposition to Fnglish law makers in the House of 
 Commons. Mr. Dillon is lauded as the son of a '48 
 rebel. Often and often these men spoke in the 
 interests of peace but the people regarded the 
 courage and daring of those men as evinced more by 
 their public conduct and their declaim. If other men 
 went as far on the side of moral force they would r.ot 
 be listened to & even those men strong and 
 popular as they are would have killed the, agitation if 
 they went further into the old moral force where 
 O'Connell lost himself and lost the great cause he 
 was with. 
 
 " As for subordinate men in the organization even 
 of the humblest of whom I am myself." 
 
 The Attorney-Gen ituAL. — The next letter from Mr. 
 Davitt to Mr. Harris is only dated " Monday night." 
 As near as I can make it the Gate was February, 1810. 
 
 " My dear Harris " Monday night 
 
 "Your letter with cheque for £10 enclosed (subscrip- 
 tion from St Francis de Sales Mutual Belief Society 
 Boston for. Land League Relief Fund, received all 
 right I will hand same in at L L. Meeting to morrow 
 & have it returned to you for whatever use you think 
 would meet the wishes of the donors 
 
 " I will also have ten or fifteen pounds sent you 
 privately for the defence of those poor fellows to 
 whom you allude 
 
 " I am not a little pained to find that you still 
 think me culpable in some way or other in 
 reg th Newbridge Meeting & some other matters not 
 mentioned. I never felt so depressed in my life as I 
 feel lately My bodily health is wretched my mind 
 anything but in a state of repose. Day and night I 
 am occupied with this Land & Distress movement & yet 
 I am held responsible for anything that may go wrong 
 even when I know nothing whatever of the matter 
 which I am upbraided with indifference or neglect 
 Almost the entire burden of this Land' League business 
 rests «po» Brennan & myself & I am compelled to say 
 that it is too much for me 
 
 " If you will let me know beforehand how I can 
 
 The Matthew Harris Papers. 
 
736 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 assist you in anything you undertake I will do my 
 best to aid you Say in reply what it is you expect me 
 to do " Yrs " M. Davitt." 
 
 The next is from Mr. Matthew Harris to Mr. P. 
 Egan :— 
 
 " Aug. 20, 1880. 
 
 "Dear Sir, — I intended to enquire from you and 
 Mr. Brennan in Dublin whether the disposition of the 
 funds collected for League purposes reach such service 
 as I have rendered. 
 
 " I have attended public meetings at my own 
 expence in all the places named in attached slip and 
 that before American money came over and while the 
 movement wanted a helping hand Being recognized as 
 the representative of the League in the Locality my 
 correspondence is something enormous between answer- 
 ing letters about relief branches meetings &c. Along 
 with sacrificing my time I had to provide stamps and 
 stationery yet in no single instance have I left a com- 
 munication unanswered so anxious was I not to give 
 any excuse to the Members of the League. I do not de- 
 mand any remuneration for my time nor would I except 
 any. What I do need attention to is my travelling Ex- 
 pences postages &c. The only money I got from the 
 League was £2 from Mr. Brennan in Rosscommon 
 £5 to go down & open a branch of the League 
 in the lower part of Rosscommon also £2 to attend the 
 conference in Dublin I had not time or opportunity to 
 enquire after the monetary arrangements of the League 
 but I take it for granted that no body of men in 
 Society would require me not only to work for nothing 
 but to pay expences incidental to such work. 
 " I am very sincerely 
 
 " M. HARKIS. 
 
 " P.S. — The only place where my expences are 
 paid were Balla and Westport I have not included in 
 enclosed List Irishtown Tuam Athenry Galway 
 Tallow Cobalow Ballyhouran Castlerea Boscoinmon 3 
 times Loughrea Newbridge Co Galway & Knoek- 
 rogharry." 
 
 Now, my lords, I come to a series of entries in the 
 pages of Mr. Harris's diary. They include entries of 
 receipts of money from Mr. Egan to which I referred 
 in my opening statement. The dates are November, 
 
 1880, December, 1880, January, 1881, and February, 
 
 1881. I will put in the diary during those periods. 
 Mr. Eeid. — As part of this diary relates to private 
 
 personal transactions, my friend will not desire to put 
 it all in. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — If Mr. Beid will strike 
 out those portions which he objects to being made evi- 
 dence and show them to Sir H. James they shall be 
 excluded. I may state, with reference to the letter 
 addressed to the Irishman, that a copy was taken from 
 the original found among Mr. Harris's papers. The 
 original was in Mr. Harris's handwriting, though 
 whether it was signed does not appear. 
 
 Mr. T. HAREINGTON. — The copy from which the 
 print is taken is not written by Mr. Matthew Harris, 
 but is a copy made by some illiterate person. He is 
 not responsible for the orthographical errors in it. 
 
 The Attobney-Genebal. — I make no allegations 
 against Mr. Harris's spelling. The next letter is from 
 Mr. T. Brennan to Mr. Matthew Harris : — 
 
 " Kilmainham Gaol Angst 11, 1881 
 
 " My dear Mat, — I was very sorry indeed to hear 
 
 from Dr. Kenny yesterday that you were unwell and I 
 hope it is nothing of any consequence & that you will 
 soon be yourself again. 
 
 " I got a very severe turn since I last wrote you 
 and rheumatism was very near sending me to where 
 the wicked cease from troubling and landlords are at 
 rest (the quotation is slightly altered) — but I am now 
 convalescent and swathed in flannels so as to be im- 
 pregnable to any further attack of the enemy. Times 
 have changed very much since I saw you and I can't 
 say they changed for the better however I hope both 
 of us will live to talk this matter over yet. 
 
 " As politics are forbidden I can only write you 
 about the little sporting matters in which you and I 
 were instructed. You must have seen by the sporting 
 reports in the papers how badly the dog which our. 
 friends relied upon so much but which you and I mis- 
 trusted has turned out and the private reports which I 
 have received are much worse than the public ones. 
 In fact from the way the whole kennel has turned out 
 I think we had better dissolve partnership, with 
 our friends over the water. The dog they sent over to 
 win in France has turned out no better than the rest of 
 them— he is as meek as possible and not able to run. 
 We must take our little capital away from the fellows 
 when we get out of our present abodes 
 
 " Kindly remember me to Harrington and tell him to 
 have nothing to do with an O'Donohue father or son. 
 " Yours sincerely " T. Brennan." 
 
 Then there is a letter from Mr. Henry George to Mr. 
 Harris : — 
 
 " Office of the Irish World, Park Place 
 New York Oct. 4. 1882 
 
 " My dear Mr. Harris. 
 
 " Mr. Ford has authorised me to ask you if you 
 could not write an occasional letter to the Irish World 
 from your part of the Country for which he will pay 
 £2 each letter. Letters from you especially as relat- 
 ing to affairs in the West would attract attention and 
 be read with interest here and there is enough in 
 accord between you and the Irish World to afford 
 ample field without entering upon controversial 
 ground. 
 
 " What I think I told you on our first meeting 
 would be the effect on this side of the water of the 
 Parliamentary Policy has occurred hero. 
 
 ' ' It has about killed the movement for the present 
 but radical ideas are rapidly spreading. My reception 
 has been very kind and flattering and I find that the 
 men who believe as I do are multiplying everywhere 
 I was sorry not to have the pleasure of seeing you 
 again before leaving Ireland. 
 
 " With sincere respect 
 
 " Yours very truly " HENRY GEORGE." 
 
 I must just put in now, my Lords, the pages we have 
 from the diary of the year 1882. They are 31, April, 
 1832 ; 22, May, 1882 ; 23, June, 1882. The next letter 
 is dated March 12, 1883. It is from W. P. Kelly to 
 Matthew Harris. It is headed " Queen v. Cormican," 
 and runs as follows : — " Dear Sir,— I have been ex- 
 pecting to hear from you in reference to my costs in 
 this case.— Yours, W. P. Kelly." Then, March 12, 
 James O'Connor to Mr. Harris : — 
 
 " Connaught St. Athlone 12th March 
 " M. Harris Esqre, Ballinasloe 
 " My dear Sir, 
 
 " Thos. Killian & a man named Kelly (father to 
 one of the prisoners remained here the whole of to-day 
 
 The Matthew Harris Papers. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1 S S 9.- 
 
 737 
 
 expecting that you would either arrive by evening 
 train or wire — Some decision ought to be arrived at 
 without delay and if defence through Solicitor Kelly is 
 to be abandoned the prisoners friends should be made 
 aware of the fact in order that they make an effort to 
 engage the services of some other practitioner. 
 Tbomas Killian whose address is ' Turrock ' Bally- 
 foran will expect a letter from you on the subject by 
 Wednesday at furthest 
 
 '* I wish you could find it convenient to come here 
 on receipt of this but failing the probability of a 
 personal interview will be glad to have a line from 
 you." 
 
 The next letter is again from W. P. Kelly — father to 
 one of the prisoners, I think — dated Athlone, March 
 16, 1883, and again headed " Queen v. Cormican" : — 
 
 " Dear Sir,- — I have been expecting to hear from you 
 according to promise. — Yrs., W. P. Kelly. I shall 
 expect cheque by return of post." Then, April 2,1883 : 
 — W. P. Kelly to Matthew Harris : — " Queen and 
 Prisoners. — Dear Sir, — I have issued writ of summons 
 herein, not having heard from you according to promise. 
 Perhaps you will name a solicitor to accept service. — 
 Yrs., W. P. Kelly." Then, June 22, 1882, a letter to 
 Matthew Harris, signed by " Transatlantic " 
 
 The President. — I do not remember who " Trans- 
 atlantic " is. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We do not know him ex- 
 cept by that name, my Lord. I believe I was told in 
 the course of my opening that his name was Thomas 
 Mooney. The letter is as follows : — 
 
 " 15 Park Place 
 
 " Park Road Clapham 
 " London 
 
 " 22nd June 1882. 
 " To Mr Matthew Harris 
 " Ballinasloe 
 " My dear Sir 
 
 " I have read with deep interest your very well 
 constructed letter June the 17th in Freeman 21st 
 
 " I quite agree with all you have said regarding the 
 fallacies scattered about by M George which our poor 
 friend Davitt has adopted 
 
 " Davitt has lost his head since the Bishop and 
 Priests of Meath have made him an MP I wrote to 
 Bishop Nulty and influenced the Ladies Land Commit- 
 tee to visit him to urge him and them to elect Matthew 
 Harris the then newly discharged suspect their represen- 
 tative in the foreign parliament. When next you see Mrs 
 Moloney she will confirm this I say so much to have 
 you believe that I admire even I love you 
 
 " Now I write you a private not a public letter 
 George is a mere Californian failure a speculation on 
 the Irish Cause 
 
 " I have written in my usual weekly. letter to the 
 Irish World on the 19th inst my total objection to the 
 handing over our country to any Government quite in 
 agreement with your able argument my whole theory 
 from the beginning of my writings to the Irish World 
 as you well know is found on the Mosaic law (Nos 50 
 to 51) ' The land on the future must not be bought 
 sold rented nor mortgaged ' neither must it pay a 
 land tax to support the general Government even of 
 local Ireland independent." 
 
 There are a few more lines in it, but I will not 
 read them. I -have now, my-' Lords, to ' read letters^ 
 
 found in another place. The first is dated Janu- 
 ary 4 
 
 Mr. LocKWOOD. — Those letters do not stand on quite 
 the same footing, my Lords. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— That is so, Mr. Lock- 
 wood. I think, perhaps, I had better postpone the 
 other batch of letters. They are independent alto- 
 gether, and I can put them in separately. You shall 
 see them, Mr. Lockwood, before I ask you to make 
 any admission. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — As the Attorney-General has done, I wish 
 to say, with a view to clearing up a little misunder- 
 standing between us, that I understand we have not 
 concluded the cross-examination of Mr. Hewson. 
 
 The President. — No, no ; I said it is reasonable 
 that you should have an opportunity of inquiry. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — It is surely not to be put upon me to 
 bring thi6 gentleman back. He has been presented 
 for examination, and it is reasonable he should be 
 presented for cross-examination. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — A land agent cannot be 
 kept here waiting indefinitely. 
 
 The President. — When do you think you could go 
 on to your cross-examination ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I shouldthink on Tuesday. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — As I have indicated, we 
 have more than once kept witnesses here in order to 
 afford my learned friends an opportunity of cro6s-ex> 
 amining them ; but my learned friend must see that, 
 with reference to a land agent, we cannot undertake 
 to keep him here indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. Reid — I do not ask that. Whatever inconveni- 
 ence arises is due to the fact that my learned friends 
 have not given us, in many instances, the smallest 
 notice of what witnesses they were going to bring for 
 ward. How can I possibly cross-examine with regard 
 to eight or ten estates without notice? 
 
 The President. — The only question is whether there 
 are any particular points on which you feel you must 
 cross-examine. If Mr. Hewson is going to remain here 
 until Tuesday next, I should be willing to allow the 
 cross-examination to be postponed until then. 
 
 The Attorney-General. —I will endeavour to 
 ascertain, my Lords. 
 
 The President. — In answer to what was said by Mr. 
 Asquith a long time ago, I said I should take occasion 
 to refer to some other letters which were handed in to 
 the Court, when the proper time arose. I think the 
 time has arisen now. There are several letters of Mr. 
 Parnell's which we imagine are to be used merely for 
 the purposes of comparison ; and I wish to say that 
 I think it is obvious that Mr. Asquith's clients ought 
 to see them. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Of course, my Lord, we 
 have not the smallest objection to that ; but I hope it 
 will be the same on both sides, if the documents are 
 to be put'in as to handwriting. If that is so I have not 
 the least objection. With regard to the particular 
 matter ,of my-learned friends seeing the documents, I 
 
 The Matthew Harris Papers. 
 
 24 
 
738 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 should be glad that they should do so, because it may 
 prevent the necessity of my bringing over witnesses 
 to prove their authenticity— persons, for instance, who 
 saw Mr. Parnell sign them. But we must see their 
 letters also. 
 
 The President. — I thought it might avoid discus- 
 sion hereafter, and I mentioned it because you have 
 given us ground to hope that we are — what is the 
 phrase ?— within measurable distance of coming to the 
 letters. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I should be afraid to give 
 any undertaking as to that, but in the meantime the 
 documents might be looked at. Mr. Asquith shall see 
 at once the documents we propose to produce ; but, of 
 course, we must see theirs. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — I may say at once, my Lord, that if, 
 upon examination, they appear to be genuine letters 
 of Mr. Parnell, we will admit them at once. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I will ask you to do 
 that ; but, with reference to the other specimens of 
 Mr. Parnell's handwriting which you propose to pro- 
 duce for the purpose of comparison, I ask to be 
 allowed to see them, as we propose to let you see 
 ours. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — We have already disclosed every 
 document we consider to be material. 
 
 The President.— That is not the point. They have 
 disclosed these letters first found in their possession, 
 and they are only evidence in this sense — to afford 
 comparison of handwriting. What is asked is, Will 
 you also produce those specimens of Mr. Parnell's 
 handwriting you rely on ? 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — All I can say is that I do not feel at 
 this present moment that I can give any undertaking 
 on this subject. I will attend to any proposition you 
 may think reasonable. 
 
 The President. — Perhaps, in the absence of Sir 
 Charles, you may naturally hesitate to settle this 
 matter. Therefore, I do not ask you to give any 
 undertaking on the subject ; but it appears to me only 
 reasonable that you should give the other side the 
 same opportunity you suggest that you should have 
 yourselves — namely, of seeing the letters that are to 
 be put in for the purposes of comparison. Otherwise I 
 should be obliged to do what I was seeking to avoid 
 — namely, to allow an adjournment for the purpose of 
 examining the letters. If, after consultation, you come 
 to the conclusion that you cannot disclose your letters 
 to the other side, then I must withhold any direction 
 to them. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — I can assure your Lordships that we 
 shall give every consideration to the subject. We are 
 desirous of affording every facility we can. 
 
 Sergeant William Kells, examined by the Attorney 
 General, said,— I am a sergeant in the Royal Irish 
 Constabulary. I searched the house of Matthew Harris, 
 at Ballinasloe, on April 4, 1883. 
 
 Did you find, among others, this document (handing 
 document to witness) ? — I did, Sir. 
 
 This, my Lords, is a letter signed by John M'Carthy. 
 That will be the same M'Carthy who was mentioned 
 by Delaney yesterday. It is dated " Loughrea 
 16. 1. 83. To Matthew Harris, Esq. My dear Sir," 
 
 Mr. Lockwood.— I suppose the evidence tendered 
 would be sufficient to entitle my learned friend to read 
 the letter, bat through the courtesy of Sir Henry 
 James I had an opportunity of showing Mr. 
 Harris the documents dealt with up to now, and in 
 that way a great deal of time has been saved. With 
 regard to this letter, I am not in that position. It is 
 an original document, and I have not had an oppor- 
 tunity of showing it to Mr. Harris. He is not in Lon- 
 don at the present time, and it is a question whether 
 it is convenient that this letter should be read 
 now. 
 
 The President. — We will take the evidence now. 
 It is admissible, and you will have an opportunity of 
 calling attention to any statement Mr. Harris wishes 
 to make. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — The reason why we en- 
 deavoured to make an arrangement with my learned 
 friend was that the other documents had been in the 
 possession of Mr. Harris himself. As to these we were 
 in a position to prove them directly. The learned 
 counsel then read the letter : — 
 
 "As I told you before trial, I now beg to enclose 
 you statement of the cost of the defence of Messrs. 
 Cunningham, Barrett, McDermott, &c, amounting for 
 law costs alone to £25 3s. 
 
 " I need scarcely say that if these men had not 
 been defended, particularly Messrs. Cunningham and 
 Barrett, we might well bid farewell to getting up 
 organizing of National League here or Croughwell 
 locality, for they were, without doubt, the principal 
 workers and movers of every measure calculated to 
 advance the cause. A few of us have paid the costs up 
 to the present, but certainly, as I told you before the 
 trial, under the impression that it would be made good 
 to us. so I now request that you will be good enough 
 to call Mr. Parnell's attention to the matter and let 
 me have a cheque for the amount. I make this request 
 on several grounds, and particularly as I know, con- 
 sidering the number that suffered from this district, 
 and bearing in mind the excellent tone of the locality 
 and the good done, we have trespassed less on the 
 funds of the old or new organization than any other 
 portion of Ireland, and now that some of our best and 
 worthiest (not even confined to the few named) have 
 suffered, we their friends (for I write for many) wish 
 to see if their and our sacrifices are to be ignored, not 
 for a moment that there is any reward expected (or 
 should) for what he did or will do for Ireland, but, 
 believing that the intention of the subscribers of the 
 funds in hand was for the advancement of our cause 
 and the protection of those engaged in the fight, we 
 consider that we are justly entitled to participate in 
 them. With best regards, 
 
 "lam faithfully, 
 
 " John M'Carthy. 
 
 " Costs of defence of Messrs. Cunningham, Barrett, 
 
 Sergeant William Kella. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 739 
 
 and 28 others tried at Loughrea on 21st, 26th, and 28th 
 
 December 
 
 " To Counsel's fees (Mr. M'Inerney) £15 
 " To Attorney's fees (Mr. Nolan) 7 
 
 " To Costs of appeal (Mr. Conoannon) 3 3 
 
 " £25 3 
 " I have paid above together with cost of support 
 while on remand in Galway for 8 days there. 
 " 16. 1. 83." " John M'Cartiiy. 
 
 Do you know what the prisoners were tried for ? — 
 Kiot, I believe. 
 Did you search M'Carthy's house ?— No. 
 
 The Attokney-General. — I am now, my Lords, 
 very glad to be able to put in the statistics of crime, 
 to which frequent references have been made. They 
 have been carefully prepared and checked, and I 
 believe the headings are exactly the same as in the 
 Parliamentary returns from which the statistics have 
 been compiled. 
 
 Formal evidence was then given as to the manner in 
 which the documents had been drawn up and compared 
 with the Government returns of agrarian outrages. 
 
 Mr. Reid asked whether no offences except those 
 described as agrarian outrages in the Parliamentary 
 returns had been included, and obtained an assurance 
 that no other cases would be found in the tables. 
 
 Sip. H. James. — I wish to read a letter found in 
 M'Carthy's house in 1882. It is from Mr. Matthew 
 
 Harris :— 
 
 " Ballinasloe, January 19. 
 " J. P. M'Carthy. My dear friend,— Write me a long 
 letter plain, as I cannot read cramped writing. Direct 
 to the City Mansion Hotel, Lower Bridge-street, 
 Dublin. I shall be there on Wednesday next, as there 
 will be a meeting of the organisation of the National 
 League on that day. Send me all particulars as to the 
 expenses of the trials of Mr. Cunningham's friends, 
 that I may put it before the committee." 
 
 Mr. George Young, examined by Mr. Murphy, 
 deposed, — My father is the owner of estates in Done- 
 gal. In 1880 I was at the University. In 1881 my 
 father's under agent and bailiff left him. A branch of 
 the Land League had been established in the 
 district, and these men resigned their positions, saying 
 that they were afraid to continue in them. I had to 
 .leave the University and to return home to try and 
 collect the rents. There was a combination among 
 ■the tenants against the payment of rents. I could not 
 induce any one to serve ejectment processes or to 
 assist me in serving them. A few tenants were willing 
 to pay. As a rule they paid secretly, and generally at 
 night. 
 
 Did the tenants on more than one occasion come to 
 you in a body to ask for an abatement ?— Yes, on 
 several occasions. We told them that wo would only 
 deal with them individually. In 1879 and 1880 wo 
 granted abatements, but in 1881 we declined to deal 
 
 with the tenants except individually, as the Land Act 
 had been passed. 
 
 Had you to evict any tenants ? — Yes, about six. 
 
 Do you remember evicting the president of the local 
 branch of the Land League ? — Yes ; we evicted him, 
 and kept the farm ourselves for about a year. He then 
 came and paid his rent. 
 
 Did you find that some of the men who denounced 
 others for paying rent paid themselves ?— Yes ; there 
 were several cases of the kind. I remember two in 
 particular. Two of the speakers of a deputation when 
 a reduction of rent was demanded came to me after- 
 wards and paid themselves secretly. Edward M'Laugh- 
 lin was one of the men who did this. 
 
 Did any men ask to be served with legal processes ? 
 — I remember one man asking to be served with a 
 writ so that he might escape suspicion from the 
 League, and shortly afterwards he paid his rent and 
 the costs. 
 
 Were there any outrages in the district ? — Not many. 
 I remember a cow being destroyed and a goat. One 
 man's house was set on fire. These offences were 
 committed shortly after the men had paid their rent. 
 
 When the tenants came at night to pay, what did 
 they do ? — They usually tapped at the window or door. 
 
 Do you remember a woman coming to you with a 
 basket of eggs for sale 1 — Yes, but it was rent that 
 was in the basket. 
 
 Was there some bog land on your estate ? — Yes, and 
 my father laid out a large sum of money in reclaiming 
 it, having borrowed £1,000 from the Board of Works, 
 his object being to give employment to the tenants. 
 Over 100 men were employed in this way. 
 
 After a time was a threatening notice posted with 
 reference to the men who worked on the bog ?— Yes, 
 and they left the work, saying that they were afraid. 
 The work was discontinued for about a year, until the 
 National League died out in the district. Then we 
 were able to continue. 
 
 Do you remember a man named Noone who paid his 
 rent in 1881 ?— I do. He was one of the first to pay 
 rent in that year, and he was completely boycotted for 
 over two years. That was the man whose house was 
 set on fire. 
 
 Does your father own the fair tolls upon the estate ! 
 
 He does ; but the fair was boycotted in November, 
 
 1881, and the dealers coming to it stopped and turned 
 back on the road. 
 
 In August, 1883, did you become agent for the 
 Skinners' Company in Derry ?— Yes ; the rent was 
 about £12,000. At the end of 1882 and in 1S83 judicial 
 rents were fixed. The rents were fully paid in 1883, 
 1884, and 1885. 
 
 In December, 1886, was a movement promoted in 
 the neighbourhood by Messrs. Dillon, M.P., and 
 Pinkerton ?— Yes. 
 
 Mr. MuRPUY.— The particular passage referring 
 to this estate is found on page 4 'of United Ireland, 
 Dec. 18, 1886. Sooner or later, my Lords, we shall 
 have to read the rest of the page with reference to 
 
 Mr. George Young. 
 
 24—2 
 
740 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 other counties, and as it is all part of the same subject 
 we do not propose to read it now. (Beading) " The 
 Plan has now become as firmly established as 
 an Act of Parliament." 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — My Lords, will my friend excuse me? 
 When I heard the word " Plan," I presume he meant 
 the Plan of Campaign. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— I do. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — My Lords, that raises a point which I do 
 not think has yet been determined by your; Lordships. 
 
 The President. — No, it has always been postponed. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Yes, postponed. For the Attorney-Gene- 
 ral to show that it was one of the charges and allega- 
 tions. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, this will be a 
 convenient point for me to argue the matter. It is 
 perfectly true that on one or two occasions on which 
 this was referred to I undertook to justify the state- 
 ment that I thought the Plan of Campaign was a 
 matter legitimately to come before your Lordships in 
 considering the character of the two organizations, the 
 Land League and the National League. My point is 
 this, that the Plan of Campaign is merely another 
 means of carrying out a conspiracy to crush land- 
 lordism and make no rent to be paid. I may mention 
 one instance. It is a part of the Plan of Campaign that 
 the landlord is to receive no rent at all in terms. It 
 will be found by evidence to be given that the money 
 which is to be paid by the tenants is not to be given 
 to the landlord at all. 
 
 The President. — One has a general notion, of 
 course, but I have nothing definite in my mind, first as 
 to the time when the Plan of Campaign commenced, nor 
 whether it was put in motion by the National League. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My Lords, the Plan of 
 Campaign was started in October, 1885, by the 
 National League. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington.— 1886. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I shall show, my Lords, 
 that the Plan of Campaign was preached in the 
 autumn of 1885 by some of the persons who were 
 charged, and assumed a more definite form in the end 
 of 1886, and I say again, as I understand it, it was 
 this arrangement that tenants should combine to- 
 gether, and those who were willing and able to pay 
 should, instead of paying their money and making 
 their arrangements with the landlord, pay their money 
 to a bank, and when once that money was paid to a 
 bank or to a trustee on behalf of tenants, not one 
 penny of it was to go in payment of rent. I will 
 undertake to justify that in terms. I shall further 
 show, if necessary, that many of the gentlemen who 
 are persons charged said in the clearest terms that if 
 any persons went behind the backs of those who com- 
 bined and paid rent they would know how to treat 
 them. They would treat them as land-grabbers. 
 
 The President. — That is your statement. So much 
 substantially wo all know ; but it is objected that 
 you are not entitled to give that evidence. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — That is the point I was 
 
 coming to. I only desired to intimate to your Lord- 
 ships what I understood by the Plan of Campaign. The 
 passages to which I refer are several. I say that this 
 kind of intimidation, this kind of operation against the 
 landlord, is a part of the same system as that which 
 was pursued in the earlier days by the combination 
 against the payment of rent, or by outraging tenants 
 who did pay rent. I would ask your Lordships to look 
 at the Blue-book Of " O'Donnell v. Walter," page 
 73. I should like only to say with reference to the 
 order of date, my Lords, that the name "Plan of Cam- 
 paign " was given in the autumn of 1886, but that the 
 identically same doctrine was put forward in speeches, 
 as your Lordships will find, as early as 1885. The 
 first passage I will read from " O'Donnell v. Walter " 
 is on page 73 : — 
 
 " Now, gentlemen, I am about to tell you what was 
 passing at the various periods to which I refer. The 
 charge made was this — that the Land League, and its 
 successor the National League (and I will show you 
 presently when I come to read the libels at length 
 that they beyond all question refer to the Irish Land 
 League) depends upon a system of intimidation carried 
 out by the most brutal means, and resting ultimately 
 upon the sanction of murder. There are one or two other 
 passages to which J will refer when I come to deal 
 with the libels later on, in which, in different language, 
 the same idea is put forward, that a reign of terror, 
 intimidation, and tyranny, supported by outrage, was 
 the policy of the Land League during the years to 
 which I refer." 
 
 Then, on page 75, the passage to which I refer is tha 
 first speech of Mr. Matthew Harris, on the 19th of 
 September, 1S80, at Riversville. : — 
 
 " On the 19th of September, 1880, at Riversville, 
 Mr. M. O'Sullivan, who was Secretary of the Land 
 League, spoke, and Mr. Matthew Harris was one of the 
 speakers, and this is what he said : — 
 
 " ' In the Presidency of Bengal when what they 
 call a " man-eater," one of the fiercest of the tiger 
 species, put his appearance in, the whole of the 
 villagers around are in a state of alarm. The 
 " tiger," they do not know when he may devour 
 some of them, and they all come together and make 
 great exertions to drive him out of the locality in 
 which he is. So it should be with a bad landlord, his 
 agent, or bailiff. When he comes into a district to 
 oppress and grind them, to put people out of their 
 peaceable homes, you should all congregate together 
 as people do in Bengal and drive that worst of tigers 
 from your midst.' " 
 
 Lower down on the same page — I call attention to the 
 whole of that passage from the bottom of page 75 to 
 the top of page 76 — it refers to the action against 
 takitig evicted farms in the first instance ; but your 
 Lordships will find that it speaks of the way in 
 which the laud-grabber is to be treated : — 
 
 " You know your rights, and you know you have 
 nothing to do but in cases like these to assemble 
 together to denounce the land-grabber if he does not 
 give up the land. (Cries of ' Maim him,' ' Shoot 
 him.') No, do not speak to him at all. If he goes 
 into chapel keep away from him, and make a ring 
 round — that everybody may see him. Do do not buy or 
 sell from him, and after a little time he will be very 
 
 Mr. Go-rge Young. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 741 
 
 glad to give up the farm and go back into honest life 
 again." 
 
 Somewhere in that speech — I cannot put my hand upon 
 it at the present moment — there is a passage of Mr. 
 Harris's about putting down landlordism. Page 80. 
 The passage I shall refer to begins at the bottom of 
 page 79 :— 
 
 " Now, gentlemen, I wish to call your attention to 
 one other very remarkable case, and that is the case 
 of Woodford. I refer to it because The Times has said, 
 and I shall if necessary maintain, that there has been 
 the same continuity of action between the Land League 
 and the National League. Let one pause for one 
 moment to explain to you a little by anticipation why 
 I refer to that. You will find, I think, that the Land 
 League was suppressed on the 13th of October, 1881, 
 and very shortly afterwards there was started the 
 National League. vVithout worrying you by proof upon 
 a matter as to which there will be no Serious denial, 
 it has been stated over and over again in the House of 
 Commons, as I shall prove if necessary, that with the 
 knowledge and agreement of the leading members of 
 the Parnellito party, to whom my friend Mr. Euegg 
 has referred—with their assent and concurrence — that 
 the National League and the Land League are the 
 same organization, working with the same means, 
 having the same members, the same oflicers, and, prac- 
 tically speaking, no change, except the change of 
 name. I assert that, and I do not believe any witness 
 for the plaintiff — any to be afterwards called — will 
 pretend to deny that state of things which I shall put 
 before you. It is important that you should bear in 
 mind, because you are aware that that part of the 
 libel which has been so often read to you was that 
 which stated that the organization of the Land League 
 and the success of the National League depended upon 
 the particular course of conduct to which I have been 
 referring." 
 Lower down on the same page : — 
 
 " Gentlemen, there is np possible solution of this con- 
 duct except by coming to the conclusion that in con- 
 sequence of these agitations which were going on for 
 years by the Land League agitators throughout the 
 length and breadth of the country, the whole system had 
 been undermined, and the ordinary relations which con- 
 trolled the conduct of man and man had been made im- 
 possible. It is wearisome and painful work for me to 
 go through this blood-stained and miserable page of 
 Irish history. It is sad to think that men who are here 
 called the constitutional leaders of their country should 
 have been party to such conduct as I have been obliged 
 to detail before you ; but I do want you to understand 
 that this is not the judgment of The Times only, this 
 is the judgment or the criticism upon these acts of men 
 who desire to publish of an organization that which 
 was their opinion. 
 
 Then I read a passage with reference to the object of 
 the Land League. Having read it, I 6aid : — 
 
 " This was spoken in 1881. The doctrine is that there 
 is a rental of £17,000,000 in Ireland, and that of that 
 rental only between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 ought 
 to be paid. How is this rapine to be carried into 
 effect ? By intimidation, sheer intimidation in three 
 forms — danger to life, destruction of property, and, 
 thirdly, ruin through the withdrawal of employment. 
 Within the last twelve months there has grown up in 
 Ireland a system which is called ' boycotting. ' ' ' 
 Then I referred to a passage which described boycott- 
 
 ing. Page 88. Your Lordships will find I refer to 
 the speeches of Mr. Brennan, Mr. Parnell, and Mr. 
 Moran at Westport, October 17, 1880. And then on 
 page 89 ■— 
 
 " There, gentlemen, I have quoted a very prominent 
 member of the Land League. On the very next page 
 the same person, the secretary of the Land League, re- 
 peating these words about refusing to take a farm, 
 said, " This now is the programme of the Land 
 League. You will find, gentlemen, that is not a single 
 speech by any means in which this is stated to be the 
 programme of the Land League— hundreds and thou- 
 sands of meetings being held in the year 1880 in the 
 districts to which I have been referring. I read two 
 or three speeches yesterday made by a very prominent 
 organizer of the Land League, Mr. Matt Harris. There 
 is one speech which I think should be read, which has 
 been often referred to, and a speech which I think 
 should be read because you will see a very remarkable 
 passage in it. and a correction at the meeting by the 
 gentleman who was said to have gone too far." 
 
 Then I read Mr. Matthew Harris's speech with regard 
 to the shooting of landlords, which has been, or will 
 be, proved in this case. Pages. 112 and 113. Now I 
 ask your Lordships to look at this paragraph in refer- 
 ence to what I propose to prove in connexion with the 
 Plan of Campaign : — 
 
 ' " 'What is the basis and sanction of the suitable organi- 
 zation except the murder, not of landlords, but of 
 "tenants, which Mr. Gladstone found to lie at the back 
 of boycotting ? When Mr. Biggar confines himself to 
 not recommending the murder of landlords, is it in any 
 degree wonderful to find outrage and murder varying in 
 the direct ratio of the frequency of League meetings 1 
 But all these gentlemen might have been more discreet 
 in their reported utterances without affecting the casa 
 in any way. It is not necessary to show that the 
 leaders of the Home Rule movement have directly in« 
 cited to crime. It is enough if it can be shown.' " 
 
 The President. — Why is this quoted in inverted 
 commas ? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Because it is quoted 
 from " Farnellism and Crime." It is not absolutely 
 accurate, but very nearly so. It is admirably done. 
 
 " Please note this : — ' That the organization which 
 gives them their power, which elects their nominees, 
 and which pays their salaries derives its power in turn 
 from the systematic perpetration of crime. That, at 
 any rate, is proved up to the hilt. There are volumes 
 of evidence, and it is being added to every day.' Now 
 we come to the alleged libel — ' to show that the whole 
 organization of the Land League, and its successor the 
 National League, depends upon a system of intimida- 
 tion, carried out by the most brutal means, and rest- 
 ing ultimately upon the sanction of murder. The Irish 
 Home Rule party glory in being the inventors of this 
 organization, and openly base their appeals, whether 
 of the wheedling or of the menacing kind, upon the 
 knowledge that its power is at their disposal.' " 
 
 That, my Lords, is directly applicable to the case 
 which I shall submit. A little lower down, at the 
 bottom of that page 112 : — 
 
 " But the real reason for any reduction that may 
 take plaoe in the number of outrages is that the work 
 of intimidation is largely done. There is no need to 
 jshoot people who obey the League, and over a largo 
 
 Mr. George Young. 
 
742 
 
 The Special Commission, January 17, 1889. 
 
 part of Ireland (hey do obey the League to their own 
 loss and ruin, with a fidelity which nothing but the 
 extremity of terror and despair can explain. The losses 
 inflicted on landlords by the League are far smaller 
 than the losses it inflicts upon tenants,just as the actual 
 blood-tax it has" levied upon the landlords is trifling 
 compared with the number of tenants assassinated or 
 maimed for life. Wherever the League has power the 
 land is going out of cultivation, and the whole 
 machinery of industry is at a standstill. When land is 
 out of cultivation for a year the loss is not merely the 
 year's produce. It wiil take three years to get the 
 soil back into its former condition. In order that the 
 landlord's rent may not be paid, the tenantry are being 
 remorselessly plunged irto ruin by the tyranny of the 
 League. Merely that a certain number of gentlemen 
 may masquerade as patriots, and live upon the contri- 
 butions of their credulous countrymen, the League is 
 bringing about an economic crisis in Ireland which 
 neither her own resources nor the power of this 
 country will be fit to cope with unless effective 
 measures are taken to stop the mischief at once. 
 Merely to have his revenge upon his countrymen for re- 
 jecting his advice, and to prove his declaration that all 
 other business shall be made impossible to be no idle 
 threat, Mr. Gladstone and his party are deliberately 
 allying themselves with the paid agents of an organ- 
 ization whose ultimate aim is plunder, and whose ulti- 
 mate sanction is murder, to paralyze the House of Com- 
 mons and to hand Ireland over to social and financial 
 ruin." 
 Page 116, at the bottom of the page : — 
 
 " We shall give a few well-known extracts from 
 these high official speeches, and then summarize 
 the natural consequences of their oratory. The 
 quotations, with a single exception, are taken from 
 the Government reports. All of them have been re- 
 peatedly published ; they have been repeated in Par- 
 liament ; they have never been discredited or dis- 
 proved. On May 23, 1880, Mr. Erennan said at 
 Cardenstown, county Meath : — ' France, when she was 
 getting shut of her landlords, did not give them 20 
 years' compensation. No ; she gave them 20 feet of a 
 rope. (Cheers.) We are the followers of Stein ; we 
 want to accomplish a peaceful revolution.' The 
 next passage -is from a speech made by the same 
 speaker at Kosscahill, county Galway, in November : 
 — ' When I advocate the programme of the Land 
 League,' be confessed, ' and ask you to adopt it, I do 
 injustice to my own feelings, for I believe the com- 
 pensation most Irish landlords would be entitled to 
 would be a prison or a rope (cheers) for having robbed 
 or murdered the Irish people.' " 
 
 Page 136. Your Lordships will find that this is of very 
 considerable importance, because it is of much later 
 date. It refers to a speech in 1885 : — 
 
 " Davitt explained the secret of the conspirators' suc- 
 cess in a speech of great frankness and ability. Former 
 insurrections in Ireland had exclusively relied on 
 Irish national sentiment. ' But Irish national senti- 
 ment bad not succeeded in winning Irish liberty. 
 Recently they had added the power found in the 
 desire of a people to improve them (sic) socially. They 
 had to combine the whole Irish race at home and 
 abroad in one vast movement. . . . They had to 
 strike at and cripple the power of Irish landlordism, 
 England's territorial garrison in Ireland, before they 
 could call into the field of action the full force of 
 Irish manhood and Irish national sentiment.' The 
 
 march, to reiterate Mr. Gladstone's felicitous phrase, 
 lies ' through rapine to dismemberment,' and the 
 distinctive characteristics of the League movement, 
 which had made it vigorous and progressive where all 
 preceding agitations had been fitful and weak, are its 
 Jacobin appeal to agrarian greed at home and its 
 direct invocation of Irish-American race-hatred abroad 
 — that hatred which, as Mr. Finerty admits, no English 
 concessions can abate." 
 
 Now, my Lords, I have read that series of passages. 
 There is only one other that I want to read, that is a 
 quotation from the Irish World August 28, 188C, 
 p. 156 of the Blue-book. I had been reading a letter 
 from Mr. O'Donnell, and Mr. O'Donnell had referred 
 to the " sordid and untenable form of agrarian 
 socialism." 
 
 " 'As I resented with increasing indignation and con- 
 tempt what I regarded as the degradation of the 
 national movement to a sordid and untenable form of 
 agrarian socialism.' What does that mean ? Why, 
 that the ' sordid and untenable form of agrarian 
 socialism ' is the action of the Land League against 
 the landlords ; it is their determination that the land 
 from which tenants have been evicted should never be 
 taken by any tenant; it is their statement that the land 
 should lie waste rather than that the landlords should 
 ■get their rents ; it is those statements which have been 
 endorsed by the Laud League, and that is the conduct 
 which Mr. O'Donnell, I believe, very honestly 6ays at 
 that time he regarded with repugnance, and that he 
 resented with increasing indignation aEd contempt 
 what he regarded as the degradation of the national 
 movement to a sordid 1 and untenable form of agrarian 
 socialism." 
 
 Now, my Lords, I submit to your Lordships that that 
 which has been declared by Judges over and over 
 again in Ireland to be the illegal combination of the 
 Plan of Campaign to prevent tenants from paying their 
 rents, to prevent the landlord from getting one sixpence, 
 and to punish persons who went behind the backs of 
 others and dealt with their own landlords is only 
 another act of the same conspiracy which we have 
 been examining during the period of this Commission, 
 is only another name for that combination against the 
 payment of rent. I think I did say that the Plan of 
 Campaign was actually mentioned in the report of 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter." I was right and I was 
 wrong. 
 
 The President. — It is mentioned in page 228. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Yes ; I thought I ought 
 not to rely upon that. It is mentioned rather as a 
 matter of comment : — 
 
 " Finally, as the Irish World shows, the pro- 
 ceedings which led up to the Chicago Convention, 
 and at which the Plan of Campaign was hatched, 
 brought together, both in a secret conclave and 
 on a public platform, Ford and Egan, Mr. Red- 
 mond and Mr. Deasy, Brennan, Davitt, and Mr. 
 O'Brien, Sullivan, Kerwin, Feely, and Devoy of the 
 Clan-na-Gael murder club, and Finerty, described bj 
 Mr. Parnell himself as a' dynamiter.' " 
 .But I thought it right, my Lords, to base my argu> 
 ment upon the broad view that this was another 
 illegal act under a different name to prevent the 
 payment of rent by tenants, supported by outrage, by 
 
 Mr. George Young. 
 
The Special Commission, January 17 and 18, 1889. 
 
 743 
 
 intimidation, and by crime, and so to crush landlordism 
 and drive it out of the country. 
 
 The President. — It is put in this way on your side 
 — I do not mean to say it is so — that the Land League 
 and the National League endeavoured to induce 
 tenants not to pay their rents ; that is to say, to 
 combine together, and Lhc rich were not to pay un- 
 less the terms asked by the poor were complied with. 
 The Plan of Campaign means that they are not to pay 
 their rent, but they are to pay it into a bank. 
 
 The Commission adjourned at seven minutes past 
 4 o'clock. 
 
 FRIDAY, JANUARY 13. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 35th sittiug to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 On the Commissioners taking their seats, 
 The Attorney-Gemeral said, — With regard to the 
 matter which was immediately under discussion last 
 night — that is to say, the proposal by my learned 
 friends and myself to examine witnesses with regard 
 to what I may call the details of the Plan of Cam- 
 paign independently — I have considered it very care- 
 fully with Sir I-I. James and my learned friends who 
 are with me, and we are most anxious indeed to keep 
 out of this inquiry anything that can have any 
 political nature or trench at all upon the political 
 branch of the question. Tho reason why I referred to 
 it and why I intended to press it at that time was 
 that I was only referring to it as an incident in the 
 non-payment of rent, and one of the causes which led 
 to the rent not being paid, and as part of the action 
 of the same combination as to whose acts we have 
 been giving evidence for a long time. iSut it has been 
 brought to my attention that the defendants — the 
 persons charged — may possibly take a different view of 
 the matter as far as the Plan of Campaign is con- 
 cerned. It has been brought to my attention that, 
 speaking of the Plan of Campaign as an independent 
 step in the case, it may possibly be thought from their 
 point of view to be more mixed up with what I may 
 call the political aspect of the case than any other 
 part of the evidence to which we have been referring. 
 Therefore, though I cannot promise that no reference 
 will be made to the Plan of Campaign — it is im- 
 possible to give such a promise, because some refer- 
 ence may have to be made to the action whereby the 
 non-payment of rent has been brought about-^-I should 
 propose, as far as I represent The Times, and as far as 
 my learned friends with me are concerned, not to give 
 evidence of the Plan of Campaign as an independent 
 branch of the question — your Lordships will see what 
 I mean ? (The President. — Certainly)— not to bring 
 before you evidence of the actual working of the Plan 
 of Campaign as a means whereby the objects of this par- 
 ticular conspiracy — as we allege — were proposed to be 
 carried into effect. I wish my statement to be dis- 
 tinctly understood. I do not wish that any one who 
 
 regards mo in any other position than that of counsel 
 for The Times should credit or discredit my statement. 
 My position is this — simply as counsel for The Times ; 
 I believe, for the reasons which I brought before your 
 Lordships yesterday, that I could justify the statement 
 that, as a means of bringing about the non-payment of 
 rent, it was within the allegations made in The 
 Times and in my opening speech in " O'Donnell v. 
 Walter." But, if it is suggested that the persons- 
 charged — I will not call them the defendants—might 
 fairly have reason to believe that the Plan of Cam- 
 paign had so much of a political aspect that it would 
 be introducing matter not of the same character as 
 that previously given, I should prefer, even a3 repre- 
 senting The Times, to confine what I may call direct 
 evidence to matters which could not be considered to 
 be so mixed *up with the political aspect of the 
 question that it would be in any way unfair to intro- 
 duce them. Therefore, although I cannot undertake 
 to ask no questions or make no reference to it, I will 
 take the responsibility of not asking witnesses what I 
 may call detailed evidence with respect to the Plan 
 of Campaign, but confine it to the non-payment of rent 
 and the causes of non-payment of rent. I have taken 
 this course, not because I wish in any way to with- 
 draw from the arguments which I brought forward 
 yesterday, but because I feel impressed by passages 
 which have from time to time fallen from your Lord- 
 ship as to the extreme desirability of keeping the 
 atmosphere of this Court as far as we can free from 
 anything of a political nature, and confining it to the 
 charges of illegality and breaches of the law. Your 
 Lordships will pardon my having occupied a little of 
 the time of the Court yesterday in connexion with this 
 question, but the matter is a very important one and 
 required consideration. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I have nothing to say with regard to 
 what tho Attorney-General has said except this — that I 
 shall not make any complaint of the course he haB 
 adopted this morning ; it is one which I thought yester- 
 day that ho would adopt. I would only further say 
 that we do not iu any way accept the description of 
 the Plan of Campaign as given by the Attorney- 
 General. 
 
 The President.— No. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — Further, I would say that those members 
 of Parliament who adopted and recommended the Plan 
 of Campaign do not object to the question being intro- 
 duced on the ground that they desire to shrink from 
 any inquiry when properly made, but on the ground that 
 it is really a political question. I think, therefore, 
 that it is right and becoming that the Attorney- 
 General should take the course which he has taken. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — Before a witness is called, may I 
 just refer to another question which was raised yester- 
 day — namely, as to the inspection of certain docu- 
 ments, which I understand to be specimens of Mr. 
 Parnell's handwriting, being disclosed by The Times, 
 which are not otherwise material to the question ex- 
 cept for the purpose of comparison ? I have had an 
 
744 
 
 The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 opportunity of consulting with, my learned friend Sir 
 C. Russell, and I may say that we do not desire to 
 inspect those documents. 
 The President.— Very well. 
 
 Mr. G. Young, who was under examination when the 
 Court rose yesterday, was then called, and his 
 examination was continued by Mr. Murphy. He said, 
 —Towards the end of 1886 I went several times 
 to Draperstown to collect rents. A meeting was 
 held there at that time, and speeches were made by Mr. 
 Dillon and Mr. Pinkerton ; I read extracts from their 
 speeches. After this the tenants came in a body to 
 demand a reduction of rent. A few of them came back 
 to my hotel afterwards to pay their rent ; they said 
 they were afraid to be seen coming. 
 
 At that time was the rent sometimes sent to you 
 Secretly ? — Yes, it was often sent through the bailiff. 
 
 Did the tenants occasionally write to you on the 
 subject of the difficulty in the way of paying rent ? — 
 Yes ; 1 had a great many letters on the subject. 
 
 Do you know James O'Neill ? — Yes, he has'a farm 
 of about £10 a year rent. 
 
 Did you receive a letter from him ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Murphy then read the following letter :— 
 
 " Strawmore February 28 1887. 
 
 " Dear Sir — Having tried to sell a cow to make up 
 the rent but could not do so I have not the money that I 
 hoped for. It is also become dangerous to life and 
 property to pay rent. The ' Campaigners ' of the 
 adjoining estates and parishes are threatening and are 
 promising unlimited support to all evicted parties. 
 Shopkeepers and tradesmen are refusing to supply or 
 work for any rent-paying parties. Nocturnal outrages 
 have commenced and can be carried on by loose 
 parties from estates and parishes undetected. Heaven 
 help the poor "tenant if he cannot pay rent he is to be put 
 to death by the landlord and if is suspected of a desire 
 to pay rent he'll be prosecuted and punished by the 
 shopkeepers and tradesmen. There are a few who 
 would make an attempt to settle the difficulty but 
 they are over-ruled. From what I hear if any harsh 
 or cruel act be committed at the evictions if carried 
 out it will be as a barrier against the payment of rent. 
 
 " All the tenants have declared that if the evictions 
 be carried out that the 'ell never pay a penny of rent 
 to an evicting landlord. With regard to the assembly 
 on Tuesday the 15th there were not 3,000 attended 
 but the would be increased six or seven thousand in a 
 couple of hours more from the surrounding estates and 
 parishes. The majority were from the Draper's and 
 Mr. O'Neill's estate. Hope if the worst comes to the 
 worst that you honour will make distinctions between 
 the indigent poor the neutrals and moderates and the 
 boisterous and desperate extremists. 
 
 " Yours truly " James O'Neill. 
 
 " To G. L. Young Esq. J.P." 
 
 ' Did you after this obtain ejectments against 140 of 
 the tenants ? — Yes. I picked out those whom I con- 
 sidered best off and those whom I considered the 
 leaders. I received a telegram asking me to receive 
 a deputation. That was some time in March. I 
 declined to see them except individually. A meeting 
 *ras then held and the subject was discussed. Shortly 
 Biter that meeting some who had been leaders aud who 
 
 had made speeches at the meeting' came over to me 
 privately and paid their rent. I was not at the meet' 
 ing. Up to April about 60 of the writs of ejectment 
 remained unsettled, and on the 18th the sheriff and a 
 large number of police came to Draperstown. A 
 number of tenants had settled before that. On the 
 way to the evictions all the bridges were broken down, 
 and the car drivers employed by the police were 
 attacked with stones. But when we actually began 
 eviction a great number came in and paid their rent ; in 
 fact I was unable to receive all that was brought in. 
 Only three evictions had to take place, and those three 
 tenants paid up the full amount of rent and costs 
 before the expiration of the six months. There has 
 never been the slightest resistance since, and the 
 rents are very well paid. 
 
 Have you had any cases of tenants coming a long 
 way to you by night in order to pay their rents ? — 
 Yes ; in January, 1887, a tenant named Kelly came 
 to my house from where he lived, 14 miles from 
 Draperstown. He arrived at my house early in the 
 morning, having remained the night on the mountains, 
 so as not to be seen coming by any one. He asked to 
 be hidden iu my yard all the day, and went home at 
 night. 
 
 Have you had tenants who agreed to purchase their 
 holdings ? — Yes, a few. 
 
 Did any of them come to you on a fair day ? — Yes ; 
 two of the tenants came to me on a fair day for the 
 purpose of signing their agreements. 
 
 Did they say why they came on a fair day ?— 
 Because they were afraid they would be noticed by 
 their neighbours if they were seen starting from their 
 homes on any other day. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Eeid. — I was connected as 
 agent with two properties— my father's and another. 
 As regards my father's estate, I was agent from 1881 
 to 1883, and during that time out of 450 tenants there 
 were only six evictions. Since 1883 I have been act- 
 ing for the Skinners' Company and not for my father. 
 As respects my father's property, the tenants were not 
 turned out altogether, all but two being reinstated as 
 caretakers. In the latter case their interest in their 
 holding would be suspended for six months. In the 
 case of the Skinners' Company's estate, for which I 
 have been agent since 1883, there have been six or 
 eight evictions out of 1,600 tenants. 
 
 In those cases which have taken place recently, or 
 have been threatened recently, did the Skinners' Com- 
 pany give a reduction from the arrears proportionate 
 to the reduction made under the Act of 1887 ? — No 
 evictions have taken place since the Act of 1887 was 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — I do not desire to ask any further ques- 
 tions of this witness, but I wish to state, with regard 
 to this gentleman and others of whose proofs no 
 notice has been given, that I feel it would be difficult 
 for me to cross-examine as to all matters. I will put 
 all questions as to which I have proof.. 
 
 The Attorsey-General.— I would ask my friend, if 
 
 Mr. George Young. 
 
The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 745 
 
 he is going on general evidence apart from particular 
 instances, to kindly indicate by his cross-examination 
 the line he proposes to take. 
 
 The President. — I am sure Mr. Eoid will, as far as 
 he is in a position to do so, examine the witnesses on 
 the general question. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — The Attorney-General will see the diffi- 
 culty I am in if I have not the specific matters to put 
 to the witnesses. With regard to the general ques- 
 tion, I think we have substantially indicated already 
 the line we propose to take. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— In the event of Mr. Eeid 
 or other counsel bringing forward detailed evidence in 
 the particular instances applicable to these witnesses, 
 I shall ask leave to recall them. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — I shall not at all object. 
 
 The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Davitt. 
 
 Have you seen the original charter of the Skinners' 
 Company ?— No. 
 
 But the people on the estate have ? — I do not think 
 any of them have seen it. 
 
 Have you ever read speeches made on the estate by 
 prominent members of the National League with refer- 
 ence to the original charter of the Skinners' Com- 
 pany ?— I have no distinct recollection of it. I have 
 read some speeches about the London companies gene- 
 rally. 
 
 Have you read that the estates were, according to 
 charter, to be administered for the sole benefit of the 
 people planted there ?— I believe that is in the Irish 
 Society's charter. 
 
 Was there not a special charter for the Skinners' 
 Company ? — I do not know. 
 
 Do you know that the whole properties owned by 
 London companies in Londonderry were originally 
 purchased for £3,000 ?— I never read that. 
 
 What is the average income Of the Skinners' Com- 
 pany from their Londonderry estate '—Formerly it 
 was about £12,000 ; now it is about £3,000. 
 
 How long ago is it since the greater portion was 
 sold ?— It was sold in December, 1886. 
 
 There are other companies in Londonderry ? — Yes ; 
 but I know nothing about their revenues. 
 
 They are considerable though ? — I think so. 
 
 Do you know how these revenues are expended ?— I 
 know as to the portion expended on our estate. I 
 know nothing as to the portion expended in England. 
 
 A great portion of the revenue of the estate in Lon- 
 donderry goes in entertainments in London, does it 
 not ? — Some part, and a great deal in charities, I 
 believe. 
 
 In entertainments not mentioned in the original 
 charter ?— They have a great deal of other property 
 besides the Londonderry estate. 
 
 Now, as to this man who travelled all night over the 
 mountains in order to pay you his rent. When did that 
 incident occur ?— In January, 1887. 
 
 That was before the evicting force went to Drapers- 
 town p Before, the evicting force went there, but 
 
 after the meeting at which the tenants, resolved that 
 
 they would upt pay their rent unless they got a re- 
 duction. 
 
 Are the remaining tenants of the Skinners' Company 
 negotiating for the purchase of their farms ?— Not as 
 a rule. Most decline to purchase at present. 
 
 Has the Skinners' Company offered to sell to the re- 
 maining tenants ? — Yes, nominally 'at 19 years' pur- 
 chase, but really with two years' rent off, making 
 practically 17 years' purchase. 
 
 Mr. Garrett Tyrell, examined by the Attorney- 
 General, said, — I reside at Edenderry, in King's 
 County, and have been a land agent in Ireland since 
 1881. I am acquainted with Meath, King's County, 
 and Kildare. The Land League was first established at 
 Edenderry about the end of 1880. Prior to that Eden- 
 derry was very peaceable. Rents, 60 far as 1 know, 
 were well paid up to that time, even in 1879. The 
 rents were moderate. In 1881 I became agent for Dr. 
 Joly, whose estates were in Meath, King's County, 
 and Kildare. When I took the management of the 
 estates there were no substantial arrears upon them, 
 and the tenants were well to do. The bad times in 
 1879 did not particularly affect that district. In 1881 
 the tenants refused to pay their rents unless they got 
 an abatement. The landlord sent out a circular re- 
 fusing to give a general abatement, but offering to 
 consider individual cases as they were made known to 
 him. I do not think there was any ground for a 
 general abatement apart from individual cases. Tha 
 gale day was in November, but no tenants came in to 
 pay rent. Later in the day, however, they arrived in 
 a body and demanded an abatement of rent. No appli- 
 cations were made for the consideration of individual 
 cases. On behalf of the landlord I was instructed to 
 consider all individual cases. In consequence of this 
 strike againsj rent I caused writs to be issued, some 
 in the County Court and some in the Superior Court. 
 On the writs being served some of the tenasis paid au 
 once ; others of the tenants asked me to serve them 
 with writs. They said they were afraid to pay with- 
 out being served with writs. I remember a man named 
 M'Cloughill. I asked him why he did not pay Mh 
 rent. He said he was afraid. I said " If you do not 
 pay I shall have to serve you with a writ, and you 
 will have to pay costs." He said he would rather pay 
 costs, even if they amounted to £10, than incur the 
 enmity of the League and have his haggard burnt and 
 his labourers leave him. He said that if served with 
 a writ, he had his rent in his house and would pay it. 
 At that time the League was in active operation in 
 the district. The man was proceeded against, and paid 
 the sheriff as soon as he went into the yard. Several 
 tenants told me from time to time that they had been 
 promised if they held out that their law costs would 
 be paid by the League. I could give the names of 
 some of them. Some of the tenants who desired to 
 pay but were afraid used to leave their rents with the 
 shopkeepers in the village for me. Others used to 
 lodge money to my credit in the bank and leave the re- 
 
 Mr. George Young. 
 
 Mr. Garrett Tyrell. 
 
746 
 
 The Special Commission, January IS, 1889. 
 
 ceipt with the bank manager. That was in 1881 and 
 1882. It was a new practice, and had never been done 
 before. I have not the least doubt that the intimida- 
 tion was genuine. I remember several cases in which 
 tenants allowed their cattle to be seized. Two men 
 told me they were willing and able to pay but did not 
 dare to do so. I remember one of the tenants on Dr. 
 Joly's estates telling me that he had been threatened 
 in consequence of having paid his rent, and showing 
 me the defences he was getting ready at his house. 
 Only one of the tenants on that estate went into the 
 Land Court, with the result that his rent was reduced 
 from £49 to £46 10s. In my judgment there was no 
 necessity for a wholesale reduction of rents, but only 
 in particular cases. I became receiver in 1882, under 
 the Landed Estates Court, of the Armit estate, in 
 King's County and Meath, and to a small extent in 
 Kildare. In 1881 the owner offered an abatement to 
 his tenants, provided they paid before a certain day. 
 Two tenants only paid, and their houses were fired 
 into and they were badly boycotted. That was in 
 1881. For non-payment of rent some of the tenants 
 allowed the sheriff to seize and sell their stock. 
 Among these were two — Duffy and Killain — whose 
 holdings were in county Meath. Their crops were 
 bought in by the Property Defence Association, whose 
 agents were defied to draw them. An expedition was 
 gent down to reap the crops. Every possible opposi- 
 tion was offered. Trees were felled along the road?, 
 the roads were torn up, and trenches cut across them, 
 and the bridges were broken down. A very large 
 number of people were necessary to do these things. 
 Dwyer, Tynan, and M'Namara were prominent 
 members of the National League, one being president ; 
 and for three weeks I saw these men constantly about 
 the roads. Killain, to whom one of the crops belonged, 
 came to me to serve a notice upon ire, as I was 
 acting for the Property Defence Association, not to 
 draw some portion of the crops which his advisers 
 thought the sheriff had not seized. He told me that he 
 could not help what he was doing, and that he was 
 being ruined by the action of the League. He apolo- 
 gized for serving the notice on me, and said he was 
 able and willing to pay his rent, but he could not avoid 
 doing as he had done. He several times told me that 
 the League had promised that ho should not suffer any 
 loss, but had not kept their word. The crops were 
 worth the rent three times over. Except some outside 
 pressure had been brought to bear on this poor man, I 
 know he would have paid his rent. Ho wa6 a very 
 good tenant, and had been on the estate a considerable 
 time. Duffy also told me that he had been promised he 
 should not suffer, but that the League had notkepttheir 
 word. Duffy's crops were sufficient to pay his rent. The 
 League meetings used to take place in Edenderry in a 
 room on Sundays. Since 1883 the League has had no 
 great influence, the place has been quiet, and the feel- 
 ing between landlords and tenants has improved, 
 though it is not so good as it used to be before the 
 League was started. Previous to 1881 I had never 
 
 known persons being outraged or punished for paying 
 their rents or for taking evicted lands. I never heard 
 tho expression " land-grabber " before 1881. Except 
 the Land League in 1881 and 1882, I never knew of 
 any organization preaching against the payment of 
 rent. My mother's property is situated in Kildare and 
 King's County. Up to 1881 rents were well paid. In 
 1881 I had to issue writs against those able to pay. 
 One of the Kildare tenants did not pay, and the intereFt 
 in his farm was seized by the sheriff and put up for 
 sale. It was bought in for the tenant, who paid up all 
 rent and costs, double what he was asked to pay in 
 the first instance. On the day of the sale a meet- 
 ing was held in the street of Naas. I am receiver 
 under the Landed Estates Court of the Grattan estate, 
 county Kildare. In 1886 I had a discussion with a 
 man named William Murray, who had been in the habit 
 of taking some grazing land. He considered the rent 
 too high, and declined to continue to pay it, but 
 offered to go on if the Court would settle it at a 
 lower rent. This we did not accept, and he withdrew. 
 He got the land boycotted ; and boycotting notices 
 appeared frum time to time in the Leimt.r Le%der. 
 I have the paper here. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I shall prove that tho 
 Lcintl:r Leader is owned by Mr. Carew, M.P., one of 
 the persons charged. 
 
 Mr. Eeid.— I must ask the Attorney-General to givo 
 proof of what he states. 
 
 The President. — It will bo noted as tendered, 
 
 Mr. Biggar. — Mr. Carew was not proprietor at that 
 
 time. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I will undertake to prove 
 it if necessary. I am not going into the matter now 
 (To witness).— May I take it from you that boycotting 
 notices appeared in the Leimtcr Leader ? 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — My friend has no right to put the 
 question, even if the paper were produced. 
 
 Mr. Asquith.— Mr. Carew is not one of the persons 
 charged. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I shall endeavour to take 
 it shortly that the paper of the 9th of April, 1887, is 
 owned by Mr. J. L. Carew. 
 
 The President.— But it is said he is not one of 
 the persons charged. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I am going by steps, my 
 Lord. I think it will not bo contested that Mr. Carew 
 is an active member of tha League, and a person 
 with whom the persons charged are associated. 
 I want to avoid recalling this witness if possible. 
 
 The President. — Let him identify tho paper. 
 , Examination resumed.— I produce the Leinstar Leader 
 of April 9, 1887, which contains a boycotting notice 
 of this land. We were not able to let the grazing or 
 get rid of the land until the winter. I am agent for 
 Pox's estate in King's County. It is a small estate 
 with a rental of al>out £400 a year. I have been 
 agent for it since 1883. From 18.83 to 1885. the land- 
 lord had not made reductions, as they had not been 
 asked for. The tenants were all in a position to pay. 
 
 Mr. Garrett 1'yrelL 
 
The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 r47 
 
 In November, 1887, tho tenants declined to pay un* 
 less they got an abatement. Thoy asked for 20 per 
 cent. Having regard to what had passed in previous 
 years I did not think there was any necessity for such 
 an abatement. The landlord offered 10 per cent. Two 
 of the tenants came secretly and paid me and asked 
 me to say nothing, as they were afraid of its being 
 known. They told me that the principal opponents to 
 the payment of rent were Grennan and M'Aulay, two of 
 the tenants. They said thst these were the men they 
 were the most frightened of. One of the men put his 
 rent into the bottom of my dog-cart as he passed me 
 when leaving the yard, and asked me not to stop and 
 speak to him nor to send him a receipt. I gave the 
 tenants until December 15 to pay, and by that date 
 they all paid except one. I had to do with a con- 
 siderable amount of grazing land in King's County. 
 Up to 1880 it principally belonged to Mr. Ball, and 
 it had been let from year to year for three or four 
 years previously. It used to be let by auction, but 
 then it was let by private contract. The cattle 
 generally went on from May to November. Some- 
 times it was let again at a lower rent from November 
 to May — up to 1880 this had been done without op- 
 position. At the end of 1880 and in 1881, when the 
 Land League was established, the rule was made that 
 grazing land was not to be let. After 1881 people did 
 not take it. There was a great deal of grazing land 
 in that neighbourhood. Anybody who took grazing 
 laud after 1880 against the rule of the League was 
 called a grass-grabber. Except for this ■ people 
 would have continued to-take grazing land in the ordi- 
 nary way. The reason which was given why grazing 
 land should not be taken was that it was usually let at 
 a high rent, and was therefore valuable. Boycotting 
 notices were posted about this land early in 1881. 
 Some of the people who took the grazing land after 
 that were severely boycotted, and one man was fired 
 at. The man who was fired at was named Thomas 
 Smith, and he was crippled for life. There was nothing 
 else against him except taking the grazing land, and 
 he had always been a popular man. The landlord of 
 that grass laud was under police protection, and one of 
 his labourers' houses was burned. The auctioneer who 
 let the land, Mr. Barnes of Bdenderry, is severely boy- 
 cotted up to the present time. I have seen notices 
 posted threatening to shoot him. I also saw notices 
 threatening to shoot Smith, who was afterwards shot. 
 There was nothing against Barnes except letting the 
 grazing land. I know of many other outrages where 
 grazing ls.nd was taken in county Meath. In some cases 
 hay was burned, and in one case some sheep were 
 killed. I was also agent for the Swinger estate in 
 county Meath. It is a small estate, worth about £500 
 a year. I became agent in 1883, and before that a 
 tenant had been evicted for non-payment of rent. 
 A man took the evicted land . ■ from me about 
 Four years ago. He was a neighbouring tenant. 
 Ho was so much boycotted that, although he 
 had paid me a fine for it, he had to surrender it. 
 
 He was a mason by trade and was always in good 
 employment till he took the land, but afterwards he 
 could get none. One of the tenants on the Joly and 
 Armit estates is Thomas M. Carew, brother of Mr. 
 Carew, M.P. for Kildare. I believe Mr. T. M. Carew 
 is owner of the Leinster Leader. In 1886 I bought 
 some boycotted hay ; I took half and my brother took 
 half. My part was in a locked-up yard, his was on a 
 detached farm. His was burnt, mine was not. My 
 brother had been unpopular before, owing to his oppo- 
 sition to the League. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Eeid. — You were agent of 
 the Property Defence Association ? — I was the local- 
 secretary. 
 
 Was your brother connected with it ? — He was a 
 member of it. 
 
 Does that association make it part of its business 
 to take evicted farms ? — No. 
 
 Did they assist in evictions ? — Yes ; they kept 
 bailiffs to assist at evictions. 
 
 Your experience began in 1881 1 — About November, 
 1881. 
 
 You say it was a rule of the League that no one should 
 take grazing land ?— Yes ; that is what I always un- 
 derstood. 
 
 Can you tell me any cases of persons being boycotted 
 for taking grazing land except where tenants had been 
 evicted ? — Yes ; that was the case with regard to Ball's 
 estate. The land had been in the occupation of the 
 landlord for generations, and there had been no evic- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I will inquire into that. 
 
 You say certain tenants said they wished to pay 
 their rent, but were afraid ? — Yes. 
 
 How many on Dr. Joly's estate ? — A good many. 
 
 How many ? — A dozen at least. All those were pro- 
 ceeded against. 
 
 Can you give me the names ? — I can of som6. 
 
 What aro they ? — Jones, Hickey, Killean, Mont- 
 gomery. 
 
 Any more ? — I cannot recollect any more. 
 
 You are unable to give me the names of any others 1 
 — A man named Cooley. 
 
 Am I to understand you believe the whole 118 of 
 Dr. Joly's tenants were intimidated ? — Yes. 
 
 And on the other estates ? — I do not say that all 
 were. Some were actively engaged in intimidating 
 others. 
 
 By a few 'I — The great bulk were ready and anxious 
 to pay their rents, but were intimidated by the few. 
 
 On Dr. Joly's estate was any abatement given in 
 1878 and 1880 ?— No. 
 
 1'hey were leaseholders most of them ?— Yes ; they 
 came' within the meaning of the Act of 1887. 
 
 Did at>y go into Court ? — Twenty-five have gone into 
 Court, but only fiye cases have been heard. 
 
 In the other eftaitos — the next was Armit's — were 
 reductions given "in; 1879 ? — No ; a reduction was 
 offered at the end of' 1880 or 1881. 
 
 Mr. Garrett Tyrell. 
 
748 
 
 The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 Did these tenants go into the Land Court ? — Some. 
 Of 46 tenants only six or eight were leaseholders. 
 
 Were they prevented from going into Court by 
 arrears ?— No. The Landed Estates Conrt would not 
 sanction any tenant's being prevented from going into 
 Court by arrears. 
 
 Were reductions subsequently made by the Land 
 Court ? — In a few cases a reduction was made. 
 
 As soon as the cases got into the control of the 
 Judge he directed some reductions ? — In a few cases 
 he granted a reduction, but he refused in others. 
 
 With regard to Fox's estate, were, any reductions 
 made in 1879 and 1880 ?— No, not until 1885, and then 
 the reduction was made by the landlord, and not by 
 the Court. 
 
 Did they not ask for reductions between 1879 and 
 1885 ? — I was not agent in 1879, but they did not 
 apply to me until 1885. 
 
 How many evictions were carried out upon these 
 several estates ? — Very few. I can only recollect 
 four evictions altogether being carried out upon 
 the estates for which I am agent. Of course 
 there were several demonstrations when the 
 sheriff was brought upon the scene. 
 
 How many tenants have been converted into care- 
 takers and have not settled afterwards ? — Only four. 
 
 Are there some still in as caretakers ?— Only in 
 one case. 
 
 On the Armit estate you have said that two persons 
 were fired at. Can you give me their names ? — Pat 
 Mitchell and Thomas Smith. Thomas Smith was fired 
 at for taking grazing land in 1881. 
 
 You have told the Attorney-General that you never 
 heard of outrages before 1880. Had you never heard of 
 persons being moonlighted in Meath and in the other 
 counties round it before 1880 ? — No ; we never heard 
 of moonlighters before that, and we never heard of 
 any cases of firing into houses. 
 
 Do you consider that the Land League was strong in 
 these counties ?— It was in 1881 and 1882. I do not 
 think the National League was ever very strong there. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Asquith. — There was a local 
 branch of the Land League at Edenderry and at two 
 neighbouring places. 
 
 Do you say that these branches were in existence 
 and active operation in the winter of 1881 and the 
 beginning of 1882 ? — I believe they were. 
 
 What grounds have you for believing that ? — The 
 tenants told me so and the meetings were reported in 
 the paper. 
 
 Meetings of what ? — Of the Land League. 
 
 What kind of meetings— meetings of the committee, 
 or public meetings ? — Meetings of the committee. 
 
 In what paper did you see accounts of them ? — In 
 the Leinster Leader. 
 
 The date I am putting to you is after November, 
 1881 ? — I cannot say about that. 
 
 Will you undertake to say that after that date there 
 were any meetings of any branches advertised in any 
 papers ? — I cannot say as to an exact date. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Are you paid for your work by com- 
 mission ? — Yes. 
 
 So much on the amount you collected f — Yes. 
 
 Then if the Land League succeeded in lowering the 
 rents your salary would be lowered f-r-To some extent. 
 
 And on that ground you would have a strong personal 
 objection to the Land League ? — Yes. 
 
 And you would think it your duty to do all in your 
 power to put it down ? You would not be an en- 
 thusiastic supporter of the Land League, at all events ? 
 — No ; I was not. 
 
 About how much have you lost as the result of the 
 Land League action ? — I cannot say what is the exact 
 amount. The landlord, as a general rule, did not 
 deduct commission on account of a temporary reduc- 
 tion of rent. 
 
 Then is your commission the same now as it was 
 before the Land League was established ? — No ; not in 
 some cases. On the other hand it is more, because I 
 am doing more work. 
 
 You have spoken of an outrage on some of the 
 tenants. Where did those tenants reside ? — Near Castle 
 Jordan. 
 
 Was any one punished for it ? — No. 
 
 How long have you had any knowledge of Kildare 
 and Meath ?— I have lived in Kildare all my life. 
 
 Do you remember the great clearances that took 
 place in Meath ? — No ; I do not. I have no recollec- 
 tion of the famine years at all. 
 
 You have heard of them ? — Oh, yes. 
 
 And that a great deal of suffering was caused by 
 evictions ?— I have heard that a great deal of suffering 
 was endured through the famine. 
 
 And these memories exist now in the minds of the 
 peasants ? — I have never heard of them. 
 
 Now, with regard to grazing land. How many 
 people would get employment on 1,000 acres of grazing 
 land f — I cannot exactly say, but very few. 
 
 Would you say ten ? — I should say so. 
 
 Twenty ?— Possibly 20. 
 
 How many would get employment on 1,000 acres of 
 tillage land ?— Oh, a great many. 
 
 A great many more than would find work on grazing 
 land ? — Yes. 
 
 Then a small country town which had no manufactur- • 
 ing industry would suffer great loss if the surrounding 
 land was converted from tillage to grazing ? — It would. 
 
 And naturally the memory of any such thing would 
 remain in the minds of the people ? — I should say so. 
 
 And make grazing land unpopular ? — Yes ; but this 
 land has never been under tillage. 
 
 Yes, but that is a particular instance. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— Was 
 there at any time any agitation to turn this grazing 
 land into plough land ? — Never, that I heard of. 
 
 The President. — In your time, to your knowledge, 
 has this land ever been tillage land P— No, my Lord. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Taking this century^ do 
 you think this land has been meadow land all that 
 time ? — I believe the most of it has. 
 
 Mr. Garrett Tyrell. 
 
The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 749 
 
 In this neighbourhood with which you are personally 
 acquainted, have there been any wholesale or large 
 clearances in 1880 or 1881 ?— Oh, no. 
 
 Now, I want to know whether you have ever heard 
 of a man being outraged simply because he had taken 
 a Farm from which another man had been evicted ? — 
 No, never. 
 
 Now with regard to the people who were converted 
 into caretakers, as I understand, in a great many cases 
 people were in fact let in ? — Yes ; in almost every 
 case. 
 
 In how many cases did they abstain from redeeming 
 within six months ? — I can only recollect four. 
 
 And the ultimate result would be the resumption of 
 the relation of landlord and tenant ? — Yes. 
 
 Mr. Asquith has put a particular date and I want 
 to ask you about 1880 and the early part of 1881. 
 Speaking to the best of your recollection, were there 
 meetings advertised in the years 1880 and 1881 ? — I 
 believe there were. 
 
 Those are the years you spoke of as those in which 
 the Land League was first established. You said, in 
 answer to Mr. Davitt, that you objected to the Land 
 League on other than personal grounds. What are 
 those grounds ? — Outrages of various kinds were com- 
 mitted, and the League broke up the friendly relations 
 that had before existed in the district. 
 
 You also said that, although you have lost some 
 commission, you have got other business. "What do you 
 mean by that ? — I got additional work because of the 
 League. Landlords who had heretofore collected their 
 own rents employed me, their estates having become 
 more difficult for them to manage of themselves. 
 
 Mr. Eeid has asked you about an objection to grass- 
 grabbing. Except the League, do you know of any 
 organization that ever objected to grass-grabbing ? — 
 No. 
 
 Was there anything in grass-grabbing different to 
 an ordinary tenancy ? — No. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — Arising out of the cross-examination, 
 my Lords, I should like to ask one or two more ques- 
 tions. (To witness.) You said you never heard any 
 objection to grass-grabbing in Meath or Kildare 
 before the Land League. Do you not know Thomas 
 Eobertson, a large Scotch farmer in that part of the 
 country ? — I have heard his name, but I do not know 
 anything about him. 
 
 And do you not know that he has agitated on the 
 platform and in the Press against grass land and advo- 
 cated tillage ? — I do not know. 
 
 Did you ever hear of outrages in Ireland before the 
 existence of the Land League ? — Yes. 
 
 Many of them ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you not know that in the year 1849 there were 
 203 agrarian murders ? — No. 
 
 Do you not know that in counties where there are 
 no landlords there are no agrarian murders ? 
 
 The President. — This is scarcely fresh. matter. 
 
 The ATTORNEr-GENEEAi.— I do not object/my Lord. 
 
 Robert Powell, examined by Mr. Atkinsok, said, — I 
 live near Westport, in county Mayo, and have been 
 agent on several estates in that county. Up to 
 1881 I was agent for three estates. The owners of 
 these estates are Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Robertson, and 
 Mr. George Clive. Their rental is about £6,000 or £7,000 
 a year. In 1881 I was appointed agent on Lord Sligo's 
 estate, the rental of which is about £22,000 a year. 
 There are about 1,600 tenants. 
 
 When was the Land League established in county 
 Mayo ?— In 1879, I think. 
 
 Up to that time what were the relations between 
 landlords and tenants in the county ? — Very friendly. 
 The rents were paid. 
 
 After 1879 — that is, after the establishment of the 
 Land League — did you observe any difference in the 
 state of things ? — Oh, yes. The tenants on Mr. Fitz- 
 gerald's estate came in a body and demanded a reduc« 
 tion of 5s. in the pound. Mr. Fitzgerald refused to 
 allow that, but told them that rather than be on un- 
 friendly terms he would give them 3s. in the pound. 
 They refused that. That was the first occasion on 
 which they came in a body. After that I was obliged 
 to take proceedings on that estate. About five tenants 
 were evicted. The evictions were actually carried 
 out in 1880 and 1881, I think. 
 
 Were these tenants you were obliged to evict able 
 to pay their rent ? — I think some were, because they 
 redeemed and went back again afterwards. 
 
 Did they give you any reasons for not paying ? — Oh, 
 yes ; they said they were afraid to pay. They said they 
 were afraid of the people. 
 
 Did any of the tenants on these estates pay their 
 rent secretly ? — Yes, on Mr. Fitzgerald's estate. They 
 came to my house by night and wanted to pay the rent. 
 They told me they were afraid to be Seen paying. 
 They said they were afraid of the people. 
 
 Have rents been paid to you by third parties ? — Oh, 
 yes, frequently, and by post-office orders. 
 
 Did you have much difficulty with the tenants on Lord 
 Sligo's estate ?— No, not much. 
 
 Was there any Land League branch on any part of 
 the estate ? — There were two or three branches. 
 
 Did you receive letters from any of the tenants in 
 respect to their rent ? — I received a great number of 
 letters. 
 
 Did you receive any with reference to their being 
 afraid to pay ? — I did receive letters of that sort, but 
 I did not think very much of them. I did not keep 
 them. They just said they would pay by and bye, as 
 soon as times got quiet. They had the money. 
 
 In January, 1881, did you receive any threatening 
 notices yourself ?— Yes. I have not got them. I 
 handed them to the police. 
 
 After that, was anything done to any of your cattle ? 
 
 Six of my sheep were killed one night and several 
 
 injured. I have been under police protection since. I 
 gave up the agency on Mr. Fitzgerald's estate in 1882. 
 I have been agent 24 years, and all that time in 
 Mayo. 
 
 Mr. Garrett Tyrell. 
 
 Mr. Robert .poweLL 
 
750 
 
 The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 Up to 1879 have you ever known of any outrage being 
 committed on a man who took a farm from which 
 another had been evicted for not paying his rent ? — No, 
 
 Or for having paid his rent ? — No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid. — You had no trouble on 
 Lord Sligo's estate ? — No, not much. 
 
 When did you become his agent ?— Not until May, 
 1S81. 
 
 Did you hear there had been trouble before ? — 
 I heard there had been about 1879 and 1880. 
 
 Had he granted reductions ?— I do not know. 
 
 Did you give reductions in 1881 ?— No, not in 1881. 
 
 In any other subsequent year ?— In the year before 
 last. 
 
 That is 1887. In 1886 ?— No. 
 
 Did you have trouble on Mr. Robertson's estate in 
 1879 and 1880 ?— I had, and also in 1881. 
 
 Did you give any reduction in 1879 and 1880 on Mr. 
 Fitzgerald's estate ? — He offered 3s. in the pound to 
 the tenants in October, 1879. 
 
 Was any reduction given in fact to those who paid ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 And those who did not pay were, I suppose, evicted ? 
 — Five only were evicted. 
 
 Did you give reductions in those years on Mr. 
 Robertson's estate ? — No. 
 
 Did you not think it necessary ? — No. 
 
 Did the tenants go into the Courts ? — No. 
 
 Were they leaseholders ? — They were all yearly 
 tenants. 
 
 Did you agree to any reductions with the tenants on 
 Mr. Robertson's estate ? — Yes. 
 
 I suppose agreed instead of letting them go into 
 Court ? — The tenants asked for the land on Griffith's 
 valuation, and the reduction was so very small that 
 Mr. Robertson was quite glad to do so. The re- 
 duction was somewhere about 10 per cent. That was 
 agreed out of Court. 
 
 In what part of the county is Lord Sligo's estate ? — 
 Near Westport. 
 
 Were there Land League branches there in 1881, 
 1882, and 1883 ?— In 1881, but not in 1882 or 1883. 
 
 You mean the Land League was suppressed in 1881 ? 
 — Yes ; and the National League started immediately 
 after, with branches on Lord Sligo's property. 
 
 These evictions take some time before they mature, 
 do they not ? Notice is given some time before ? — Yes. 
 In 1881 before we came to an eviction about two or 
 three months would elapse, and after that the tenant 
 would have his six months in which to redeem. 
 
 Have you never heard of a tenant being outraged, 
 moonlighted, or attacked for taking a farm before 1879? 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My Lords, may I inter- 
 rupt for a moment ? We have never suggested there 
 was no instance of private malice. Our point is that 
 there never was any organization to prevent persons 
 paying rent or to punish persons for taking evicted farms 
 prior to 1879. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I will net discuss what previous ques- 
 tions have been. 
 
 The President. — That has been the form of the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I am speaking of the whole of the evi- 
 dence. (To witness.) Have you not heard of a man 
 who took evicted land being attacked by a moonlight- 
 ing party long before 1879 ? — No, never. 
 
 Then you say that attacks for this cause have not 
 occurred before 1879 ?— No. 
 
 Do you suggest that it was a novel form of crime ? 
 — I do certainly. 
 
 So far as Mayo is concerned, or the whole of Ire- 
 land ? — The whole of Ireland. 
 
 I suppose as an agent you have taken some interest 
 in noticing public proceedings ? — Yes. 
 
 And that is your view ? — Yes. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — What was the rental on Lord Sligo's 
 estate ?— About £22,000. 
 
 Is he a resident landlord ? — No. 
 
 Do you know how much he spends in a year upon 
 the estate ? — I do. 
 
 How much ? 
 
 Witness.— Must I answer the question, my Lord. 
 
 The President. — Unless you have some serious 
 objection. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — I will not press the question. How 
 long has Lord Sligo been an absentee landlord ? — He 
 has not been a resident landlord since I have been 
 agent ; but he has been over several times. 
 
 The people in part of Mayo are poor ? — There are 
 some poor. 
 
 In 1879 relief was distributed among the tenants on 
 the estate ? — All over Mayo, I believe. 
 
 The potato crop in that part of Mayo was a complete 
 failure ? — I believe the potatoes were very bad. 
 
 Of course, you do not know whether reductions were 
 granted then by Lord Sligo ? — I have heard that they 
 were. 
 
 Do you know that a large number of people go to 
 England in the summer months ? — Yes. 
 
 And seek work there for three or four months ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Out of the wages earned in England the rent is 
 largely paid ? — I believe that some of it is. 
 
 And when this labour falls off of course the tenants' 
 difficulties in paying rent are increased ? — Of course, 
 they are not so well off. 
 
 Were you agent on Mr. Robertson's estate in 1879 ? 
 — I think so. 
 
 Do you know whether relief was given by a Dublin 
 committee on that estate ? — Hundreds or thousands 
 got relief who did not require it. That was the case 
 on the Robertson estate. 
 
 But on that estate some people got relief who were 
 in need of it ? — I believe very few were in need of it. 
 They are all well-to-do people. 
 
 But relief was giveu in 1879 to some of these 
 tenants ? — Undoubtedly. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Atkinson. — You have been 
 asked questions with respect to moonlighting outrages. 
 
 Mr. Robert Powell. 
 
The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 751 
 
 During your management of those estates have you 
 ■evicted tenants ? — I have, for non-payment of rent. 
 
 Had you any difficulty in letting the evicted farms ? 
 —Never, up to 1879 or 1880. 
 
 And nothing was ever done to those who took the 
 farms ? — Nothing. 
 
 Mr. Henry Vereker, examined by Mr. Graham, 
 deposed, — In January, 1879, I was appointed agent 
 over the Acton estate at Ballyhean, county 
 Mayo. At first I found no difficulty in col- 
 lecting the rents. On behalf of the owners 
 of the property I farmed myself a holding 
 of about 150 acres. I farmed the holding until Novem- 
 ber, 1880, when I determined to give it up because 
 difficulties were put in my way. The herds put their 
 own cattle on the farm, and allowed other people's 
 cattle to trespass. When spoken to they said they 
 could not help it. After I had announced my intention 
 of leaving the farm a meeting was held upon the land 
 for the purpose of advocating the claims of six persons 
 who stated that they represented tenants who had been 
 evicted 20 years before. I let the farm to John Joyce, 
 of Castlebar. Afterwards some of the walls were 
 knocked down, and in January, 1881, five head of 
 cattle were driven off the farm, bound together, and 
 thrown into a disused quarry. They were killed. 
 Joyce got £60 as compensation. I received a number 
 of threatening notices, and some notices were posted 
 up.* Joyce was boycotted. There was no reason for 
 all this except that I had not let the farm to the 
 descendants of the people who had held it 20 years 
 before. In 1879 a tenant named John Kelly died. He 
 had held two holdings, one under tillage, the other in 
 grass. The rent was in arrear. I saw the widow, and 
 she said she would give up the grass farm if the arrears 
 were wiped off and she was allowed to retain the 
 tillage holding. I agreed to this. I could not get 
 a tenant for the grass farm, and J took it in 
 hand myself ou behalf of the owner, but I 
 could not get any labourers to cut the grass or 
 carry the hay. My bailiff and his son carried it and 
 set it up in cocks. These were tossed down, and two 
 oat stacks belonging to the bailiff were also tossed 
 down in the same night. I sent carts the next day and 
 carried the hay to a distance and stacked it. One 
 stormy night the rick was scattered about the place, 
 and I never recovered any of it. In November, 1886, 
 I gave notice to the tenants of Mrs. Temple that I 
 would hold a rent office in Castlebar on the 18th. I 
 received an intimation from Father M'Philpin, the 
 curate, that he would accompany the tenants and see 
 me that day. He met me at the hotel with about 20 
 tenants who had been before the Land Courts and had 
 obtained abatements. He proposed that I should take 
 a half-year's rent and grant a reduction of 30 per cent. 
 I offered 15 per cent., and the priest refused the offer. 
 In consequence of this I had to evict some of the 
 tenants. The evictions were resisted. Stones were 
 thrown and the police had to charge the people. The 
 
 day before the eviction the holdings of the tenants to 
 be evicted were sown with oats and potatoes. I was 
 told that about 300 people attended to do this. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Keid.— You said that Joyce 
 was boycotted ?— Yes. 
 
 What was the date of the transaction between you 
 and Joyce ? — November 1, 1880. 
 
 He was boycotted only — nothing further ? — His cattle 
 were killed in January, 1881. 
 
 What was the name of the widow you have men- 
 tioned ?— Mrs. Kelly. 
 
 You caused her to quit her holding ?— I arranged 
 with her. 
 
 Did she remain in the neighbourhood ? — She lived on 
 the tillage holding. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — How many of Joyce's cows were 
 killed ?— Five. 
 
 He got £60 compensation ? — Yes. 
 
 What would have been the value of the cows in the 
 market ? — £12 each. They were the best cattle on his 
 farm. ' 
 
 Did the police investigate the affair ? — They did, but 
 nobody was brought to justice. 
 
 Did you hear a rumour that Joyce himself killed 
 the cows ? — I never heard it. 
 
 Mr. John Barrett, examined by Mr.' Atkinson, said, 
 — I live at Carriganass, near Bantry, in county Cork. 
 I have lived there since 1856. I lived near Cork 
 before that. I am a landlord and have also been agent. 
 Up to 1879 the relations between landlord and tenant 
 were extremely friendly and the rents were well paid. 
 The land was fairly let, as far as my observation went. 
 On October 17, 1880, the Land League was established 
 at Bantry. 
 
 Do you know Cornelius Manning ? — I do. He took 
 an evicted farm in September, 1880, of which Michael 
 M'Grath had been tenant. The farm was on the Ken- 
 mare estate in Cork. I was assisting Mr. Hussey in 
 the management of the estate, superintending the 
 works of improvement that were being executed. 
 M'Grath, I understood, had been evicted for nonpay- 
 ment of rent. At the end of 1883 or beginning of 
 1884 Eugene M'Carthy took an evicted farm on the 
 estate of Mr. Eobert White, of Glengariff Castle. Cor- 
 nelius Brien and Cornelius Collins also took evicted 
 farms on the same estate. Denis Sullivan and Denis 
 Murphy took evicted farms on Lord Kenmare's estate. 
 I was personally acquainted with these men, and they 
 lived in my immediate neighbourhood. 
 
 Did they suffer any inconvenience after taking 
 these farms ? — They were boycotted. I interfered, en- 
 couraging them to hold the farms. I then became 
 unpopular, having previously been on excellent 
 terms with everybody. 
 
 Were these tenants obliged to carry arms ? — Some of 
 them were, and I was also. 
 
 Was a meeting of the Land League held near 
 Manning's farm ?— Yes. On October 17, 1880. 
 
 Mr. Henry Vereker. 
 
 Mr. John Barrett. 
 
752 
 
 The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 Mr. T. Healy and Mr. Walsh held the first Land 
 League meeting in the district. On October 31 what 
 was called an indignation meeting was held between 
 tny house and Manning's. At the first League meeting 
 the parish priest presided. 
 
 After the first meeting did you address a letter to 
 Canon Shinkwin, P.P. ?— I did. 
 
 The learned counsel read the letter : — 
 
 " Carrlganass. 
 
 " Rev. Sir, — I delayed writing to yon with refer- 
 ence to the meeting held in Bantry on 17 October 
 1880 under your patronage until I got an attested copy 
 of the Government reporter's notes then taken and I 
 am informed and believe the language used on that 
 occasion was so foul that the local reporters refused 
 to publish it. From the report of these proceedings 
 now before me I find that the assassination of Cornelius 
 Manning and myself was suggested as plainly as words 
 could make it and that Mr. Healy in his speech used 
 language towards us so filthy that it is horrible to 
 read them. Yet I perceive during all this time and 
 while two of your most respectable parishioners were 
 thus denounced you never opened your'lips to prevent 
 it or uttered one word of remonstrance against the 
 calumnies hurled against us. You know that Cornelius 
 Manning and his family are about the most well-con- 
 ducted and industrious people in your parish and his 
 offence lay in taking a farm from which an idle and 
 dissipated man was evicted. You also know that I 
 have to do with a great many tenants in your parish 
 both in the capacity of landlord and agent and I 
 defy you to show one single act of mine where hard- 
 ship or severity was exercised by me towards any of 
 them. I further defy you to point to any similar 
 act of mine in my dealings with the large body of 
 tenants I have to do with in the surrounding parishes. 
 Yet you preside at a meeting and by your presence and 
 silence sanction the use of language used towards us 
 too abominable to report and instead of calming the 
 excited mob you presided over and turning its atten- 
 tion from the pursuit of blood you only made a pass- 
 ing observation on the murder of Downing who was 
 one of your own flock and shot dead by an assassin 
 only a lew hours before and within a short distance 
 of where you were speaking. Under these circum- 
 stances it is not to be wondered at that I should 
 request that the friendly relations which hitherto 
 existed between us should now cease and that your 
 connexion with me shall henceforth be of only a 
 formal character. I forward a copy of this letter to 
 your Bishop that he may understand my reason for 
 severing our connexion." 
 
 Was any reply ever received to that letter ? — No. 
 
 Are the statements of facts in the letter true ? — 
 Perfectly true. 
 
 Shortly after writing that letter did you observe any 
 difference in the way you were treated ?— Yes. The 
 people became very hostile and insulting. They even 
 burnt me in effigy in my own presence. I was in the 
 house of the resident magistrate in Bantry one day, 
 and an excited mob marched by, bringing with them a 
 tar barrel and my effigy, which they burned. 
 
 Do you remember the tenants on the Kenmare estate 
 coming to the rent office in 1885 ? — Yes, in October, 
 1885. The entire tenantry, about 200 men, came to 
 the office and demanded an abatement of 40 per cent. 
 
 Was the demand refused ?— Yes, and they left in a 
 
 body without paying anything. A few days afterwards 
 there was a meeting in the town of Bantry. I was 
 so informed. Canon Shinkwin presided. 
 
 Did several tenants come afterwards and pay by 
 stealth ? — Yes. I had no authority to receive rents 
 myself, as I was only engaged by Mr. Hussey to 
 superintend the works that were being carried out. 
 Nevertheless some of the tenants came to me and 
 asked me to transmit their rents to the Killarney 
 office. Much the same thing had been done in 1881, 
 when the tenants refused to pay except according to 
 Griffith's valuation. At that time two tenants brought 
 their rents by night. 
 
 In 1885 did any tenants pay their rents without re- 
 duction, having previously refused to pay unless they 
 were granted a reduction of 40 per. cent. ? — That 
 occurred in a good many cases in 1885. 
 
 Before 1879 did you ever hear of an outrage being 
 committed upon a tenant because he had taken an 
 evicted farm ? — No. 
 
 Did you ever hear before 1879 of an outrage being 
 committed on a man on account of the payment of his 
 rent ? — No. I had no difficulty whatever when a tenant 
 was evicted, even on notice to quit and not for non-pay- 
 ment of rent, in letting the evicted farm. Prior to 
 
 1879 I did not know of outrages being committed on 
 persons who took evicted farms. I have known of 
 agrarian crime before 1879. We were very peaceable 
 in the West Riding of the county of Cork, with which I 
 am connected. I should not say that there was any 
 agrarian crime in West Cork prior to 1879. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. R. T. REID. — My recollec- 
 tion goes back to the famine years, and there was no 
 agrarian crime that came under my immediate notice. 
 None came to my personal .knowledge. 
 
 Are you not perfectly aware that there was agra- 
 rian crime, even, I am sorry to say, in West Cork, 
 previous to 1879 ? — I am not aware of any. 
 
 We know it all occurs in the Government returns. 
 You have spoken about a meeting on October 17, 
 1880. You say that you addressed a letter to the 
 priest who presided ? — I did, after getting the official 
 report of Mr. Healy's speech — a copy of the Govern- 
 ment notetaker's notes. I am a magistrate and I got 
 it at the time. 
 
 With regard to the case of Michael M'Grath, was he 
 evicted ? — Yes ; twice. I think he was first evicted 
 in 1882. It was either 1881 or 1882. There was a 
 long litigation ovor it. I cannot fix the date. I was 
 present at the eviction. 
 
 Are you sure he was not evicted before October 17, 
 
 1880 ?— He was. He gave up possession of the farm, 
 the farm was taken, but not the house. 
 
 Was he first evicted in 1880 ?— I think so. 
 
 For what ? — 1 understand for not paying rent. 
 The legal proceedings were outside my province 
 altogether. 
 
 You quoted this case yourself. I propose to ask 
 you a question about it. Do you know that he was 
 evicted ? — I understand so. 
 
 Mr. John Barrett 
 
The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 753 
 
 Do you know it was for non-payment of rent ?— I 
 believe so. 
 
 Do you know whether he was reinstated and paid 
 the arrears ? — He was not. 
 
 Do you know whether a lease was offered to him ? — I 
 am not aware. 
 
 You do not know anything about the circumstances 
 of these evictions ? — No, not outside my special 
 duties. 
 
 You do not know what his valuation was ? — No. I 
 think his rent was £72. 
 
 Was the rent raised to £103 ? — I am not aware. 
 
 Was the man turned out for not being able to pay 
 that increased rent ? — I am not sure. 
 
 Did the man die in a boat under circumstances of 
 great destitution and misery ? — He died in a hut on 
 the farm. 
 
 Did he die under an upturned boat in circumstances 
 of great distress ? — Yes. 
 
 And you know nothing about the circumstances 
 under which he was evicted ? — Nothing whatever. It 
 was outside my province altogether. 
 
 Were there many evictions in your neighbourhood ? — 
 Very few. 
 
 Are you aware of any Government returns showing 
 what the evictions are ? — No. 
 
 The police, I understand, would be able to inform us 
 of the number of eviction notices there were ? — Very 
 possibly. 
 
 Was there distress in Cork in 1879 and 1880 ?— 
 There was ; but I think it was greatly exaggerated. 
 It was severe. There were relief works and com- 
 mittees for the purpose of relieving the destitution 
 and distress of the people. I was on the committees. 
 I was carrying on very extensive works at the time 
 under the Act of 1879. Besides acting for Lord 
 Kenmare's estate I acted in respect of my own, of 
 Lady White's, and another estate. 
 
 By Mr. Arthur O'Connor. — You say that before 
 1879 there was little or no crime in the West Riding 
 of Cork ?— Not that I am aware of. 
 
 You are well acquainted with the neighbourhood of 
 Bantry and the rest of the West Riding ?— I am. 
 
 In 1878, do you recollect the murder of a man 
 named Crowley in the West Riding of Cork ?— No. 
 
 Do you not remember that three men of the name of 
 Murphy and a man named Crowley were arrested and 
 discharged for it ? — No. 
 
 Do you recollect an assault on Patrick Donovan in 
 1878 ?— No. 
 
 Are you not a magistrate ? — I am. 
 
 You do not recollect two men being brought up in 
 connexion with that assault ?— No, I do not. I look 
 upon these as the results of personal squabbles. I do 
 not remember the cases, whether they were agrarian 
 or not. 
 
 Do you remember agrarian incendiary fires in 
 1878 ? — No ; there was a fire close to me, but I did 
 not consider it agrarian ; the man got compensation, 
 
 Mahony was the tenant. It was oh the estate of Mr. 
 Robert White. 
 
 Do you remember incendiary fires on the property of 
 Mr. Timothy Crdnin or Mr. Jeremiah Kelleher in 
 1878 ? — No ; they are tenant farmers, I suppose. The 
 only fire I remember is the one I have spoken of. 
 
 Do you remember any threatening letters or notices 
 in connexion with agrarian disputes in 1878 ? — Yes. 
 I. got threatening letters in 1880 after the Land 
 League was established. I never got threatening 
 letters before 1880. 
 
 Do you remember any threatening letters in 
 1878 ?— No. 
 
 Not to persons of the name of O'Donovan or the 
 Rev. F. H. Cole ? — Oh, they are far away from me. 
 
 Then you do not remember any single thing in con- 
 nexion with agrarian disputes in the West Riding of 
 Cork in 1878 ? — Not that I have personal knowledge of. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — About this meeting. Mr. Healy 
 and Mr. Walsh were prosecuted ?— They were. 
 
 And acquitted ? — They were sent to trial and 
 acquitted. I got the report of Mr. Healy's speech from 
 the Crown Solicitor and paid two guineas for it. I 
 did not adjudicate iu the first instance. 
 
 Did M'Grath die in a ditch under a boat, right 
 opposite his own house ? — Yes. 
 
 I have seen him in the hut myself, and therefore 
 I know all about it. 
 
 Ke-examinedbytho Attorney-General.— My Lords, 
 I will ask you to look at page 9 of the return I put 
 in yesterday. West Riding of Cork. — The total of 
 agrarian outrages in 1877 was one ; in 1878, two ; in 
 1879, 16 ; in 1880, 133 ; in 1881, 338. (To witness.) 
 Do these figures agree with your recollection ? — Quite 
 so. 
 
 What were Mr. Healy and Walsh tried for ? — 
 For intimidating Manning. He was the tenant 
 who took M'Grath's evicted farm. He had made an 
 information, upon which the proceedings were taken. 
 I was at the trial, but had to leave the court. 
 
 Do you know whether at the trial Manning gave the 
 same evidence ? 
 
 Mr. R. T. Reid. — My Lords, I object to that, be- 
 cause the witness was not there. 
 
 Witness. — The witnesses were ordered out of court, 
 and I was a witness. I saw a report of the trial 
 afterwards. (Witness here produced a copy of the 
 Cork Herald.) 
 
 The Attorney-General.— My recollection is that 
 the Cork Herald is one of the papers which we have 
 proved. 
 
 Mr. Harrington. — No, my Lords, not at that date. 
 
 The Attorney-General (to witness). — The date is 
 November 2, 1880. You identify that as a copy of the 
 Cork Herald of that date ?— I do. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I put that in, my Lords. 
 
 You know this— that Manning was a witness at the 
 trial ?— Yes. 
 
 And the jury at the trial acquitted Mr. Healy ?— . 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. John. Barrett. 
 
754 
 
 The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — Just one question, my Lords. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Excuse me, Mr. Davitt, 
 you are not entitled to ask questions now. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — My Lords, it is arising out of a ques- 
 tion of the Attorney-General's. (The question was 
 allowed.) Was not Mr. Healy defended on that occa- 
 sion by the present Attorney-General for Ireland ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— He was, my Lords. He 
 defended him with great ability, and succeeded in 
 getting him off. 
 
 Mr. Dominick O'Donnell was next called and 
 examined by Mr. Murphy. Witness said,— In 1879 I 
 was in Mayo county, and I was on good terms with 
 the people. I was secretary to the organization for 
 relieving distress, and the Roman Catholic and Pro- 
 testant clergy were in the habit of accepting hospi- 
 tality at my house. In 1880 there were difficulties with 
 my tenants. They began then ; up to that time the 
 tenants had paid their rents fairly well. In 1880 the 
 difficulty arose. They had heard of the Land League 
 and they hesitated to pay. They made demands for 
 reductions. I offered 3s. 6d. in the pound on the rental, 
 and they would not accept it. As a result, the rents 
 were not paid after that time. There were cases in 
 which the tenants paid secretly, and sometimes by 
 night. After my offer some of them went to the Land 
 Court, and the average reduction was 3s. Id. After I 
 refused the reduction I had difficulty with the ser- 
 vants ; that was later on, in 1881. I had a man named 
 Fat Monaghan in my service as a car-driver. He had 
 been with me five or six years. He left suddenly, and 
 alleged as his reason that he was afraid to remain. A 
 neighbour, Mr. O'Donnell, who used to give me a seat 
 on his car occasionally, said that he had been 
 threatened, and declined to oblige me for the future. 
 There were servants who left me, apparently without 
 cause. They said they were coerced to leave me ; 
 they were discharging their fathers' rents by their 
 service. I was not able to get my crops reaped by 
 the men I employed. In 1881 I found much difficulty 
 in getting any persons to work for me. I had done 
 nothing beyond refusing to make this reduction. I 
 wrote a letter to one of the Dublin papers, and a couple 
 of men were very kindly offered to me to help me. I 
 received a few threatening letters, which I handed 
 over to the police authorities. I was fired at twice. 
 The first time the bullet passed through my coat, and I 
 got police protection ; and after that I was shot at 
 again and hit. I was once on a coroner's jury for 13 
 days. There was not a unanimous jury. I was one 
 of the dissentients — it was justifiable homicide — which 
 made me rather unpopular. The tenants who paid rent 
 had their corn-ricks upset. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. R. T. Reid. — On this occa- 
 sion that the police shot at the people, how many were 
 shot ? — Two were shot down. 
 
 Were they men ? — Women. 
 
 Any others shot ? — About 20 or 25 wounded. 
 
 Any children among them ? — Not that I heard of. 
 
 The reason I know the circumstances so well is that I 
 issued tickets for the dispensary, the doctor. 
 
 Were there no women shot besides ?— I do not think 
 so. 
 
 Little children ? — I never heard of that. This was 
 in October, 1881. 
 
 The police in Ireland carry rifles ? — Yes ; on duty. 
 I do not know who gave the order. The verdict was 
 wilful murder against the police. The proceedings 
 entered were quashed. 
 
 Did the Attorney-General enter a nolle prosequi ? — I 
 think the grand jury ignored the bill. 
 
 What was the date of this jury finding the verdict of 
 wilful murder ? — October, 1881. 
 
 When was it that you were fired at ? — The first week 
 of April, 1882. 
 
 And the second time ? — In June, 1882. 
 
 Was there anything at that time in your relations 
 with your tenants which might account for your 
 being shot at ? — No ; I got on fairly well with my 
 tenants up to that time. 
 
 Do you think it was the coroner's jury business or 
 the landlord's business that caused you to be shot at ? 
 — I think a combination of both. 
 
 What had you done as a landlord to make yourself 
 unpopular ? — I had two evictions in 1881. Those are 
 the only two I had in my life, up to that period. But 
 I reinstated them as caretakers ; they subsequently 
 became tenants again. 
 
 Of course you could not tell what was the cause of 
 your being fired at ? — Well, I drew an inference in 
 consequence of my servants being obliged to leave me. 
 One of my servants left me three times ; he ultimately 
 came back to me. 
 
 You say that your servants left you, although they 
 were discharging their fathers' rents 'I — Yes ; it was 
 their interest to remain. 
 
 The fact remains that you had tenants whose sons 
 had to serve in order to pay their fathers' rents ? — I 
 gave a great deal of employment on the estate. 
 
 Had you many tenants whose rents could not be paid 
 except with the assistance of their children's wages ? 
 — The rents could be paid without that assistance, but 
 the employment was a great assistance towards it. 
 
 When was the Land League established in youi 
 neighbourhood ? — I heard of it about 1880. 
 
 Do you know when it was established ? — I heard of 
 its being established, and I saw people collecting and 
 going to meetings. , 
 
 Now, did you distribute money for distress in 1879 ? 
 — There was a sum of about £1,300 ; I was the secre- 
 tary. 
 
 In what district of Mayo was this ? — The Glencullin 
 Relief Fund was the one of which I was secretary. 
 
 Is that in the direction of Gort ? — It is in the ex- 
 treme west of Mayo. 
 
 Was there extreme distress there ? — Considerable 
 distress. 
 
 Did any of your tenantB get any distress money P— 
 Yes, for a short period. 
 
 Mr. Dominick O'DonnelL 
 
The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 755 
 
 Did you reduce jour rents in 1879 1 — No. 
 
 Did you ask tenants who were getting money 
 received from charity to pay their rents ? — No ; when 
 they were receiving relief they had no rent. When 
 they had reaped their crops they were able to pay 
 their rent very satisfactorily. 
 
 Did you get no rent from them when they were 
 receiving relief ? — No. 
 
 Did you remit their rent ? — No ; they were able to 
 pay their rent afterwards. In some cases I remitted 
 it, where I saw inability to pay. 
 
 Your tenants all went into Court ? — I think all did. 
 There was a reduction of 3s. Id. ; I had offered 
 3s. 6d. That was in the year 1880. 
 
 Was the reduction offered with regard to the 1879 
 rent ? — No ; the reduction was to commence from 
 1880. 
 
 Were all arrears to be paid ? — It is so long since 
 that I forget about it. I had a hayrick burnt down. 
 
 By Mr. A. O'Connor. — Are you aware of any inci- 
 dent in your relations with your tenants which would 
 explain their hostility to yourself ? — No, not any par- 
 ticular matter ; the tenants became generally hostile 
 to the landlords. 
 
 Do you not remember anything in which you took 
 part likely to raise the feeling of the tenants against 
 you ? — Nothing, except being on that jury which I 
 ' mentioned. 
 
 Now, you told us that you had two evictions on 
 your property ? — Two up to the time I was fired at. 
 
 What were the names of the tenants ? — Healy and 
 Kilker. 
 
 Do you know a man named Froome — Frank Froome ? 
 — Yes, he was assistant to the sheriff. 
 
 Was he ever present at evictions ? — Yes, at those 
 two I mentioned. 
 
 Was the wife of one of the tenants who was evicted 
 in bed at the time of the eviction ? — Yes, she was. 
 
 What was her name ? — Kilker. 
 
 Did she refuse to leave her bed ? — Yes. 
 
 Did the police refuse to interfere to remove her ? — 
 They were not asked. 
 
 They did not remove her ?— No. 
 
 Did any bailiffs refuse ? — No. 
 
 Did you and Froome together remove her out of the 
 house ? — Yes, quietly. 
 
 Did a policeman run up to cover her with a coat ? — 
 Yes. She began to kick all the clothes off her. It was 
 about 2 o'clock in the day. 
 
 Did you not, with Froome, carry that woman out 
 naked in the presence of the bystanders ? — Yes, and she 
 made a very considerable resistance. I had seen her 
 going about hale and healthy on the previous evening. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt.— What was the amount of rent on 
 your estate when you were fired at ? — It was over 
 £300 a year when I first came into possession. 
 
 What was it when the tenants first went into Court 'I 
 — Take off 3s. Id. and you have it. 
 
 What was the annual rental from the estate ? — There 
 was only the difference of 3s. Id. ; that exists now. 
 
 What were the crops in 1879 which allowed the 
 tenants to pay their rent ? — The oat crop principally, 
 and the sale of pigs. They also depended upon the 
 potato crop. 
 
 Was not the potato crop very bad in 1879 ? — Yes ; a 
 half or perhaps two-thirds of it failed. 
 
 Then they could not pay rent from the potato crop ? 
 —No. 
 
 Did you distribute money among tenants who paid 
 you rent for 1879 ? — Yes. When the crops grew up 
 .they were in a condition to pay. ' They paid without a 
 word. 
 
 Although you had distributed relief among them ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 You said that the tenants did not pay their rent out 
 of the potato crop ? — Some of the potatoes were grown 
 to sell, but generally for the people's own consump- 
 tion. 
 
 Now, about these evictions. In the first place you 
 said that the tenants were restored as caretakers and 
 ultimately became your tenants again ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, with regard to thijS woman Kilker ; you said 
 you had seen her walking about the day before ? — Yes, 
 
 Now I ask you, as a matter of fact, was it not a 
 question of these women being sick or ill ? — They 
 were quite well on the previous evening. In both 
 cases the women went to bel to evade eviction. 
 
 Now, was there any Land League at that time in 
 your neighbourhood ? — I do not think there was in 
 1879. These evictions took place in 1881. 
 
 Did you deal yourself with each particular case 
 when you made an allowance ? — In some cases the re- 
 duction was larger than 3s. Id., and in some smaller ; 
 that was the average. 
 
 You say that one of your servants returned three 
 times ? — Yes ; he had been five or six years in my 
 employment. District Inspector Stritch spoke to him, 
 but he would give no reason. He returned and again 
 left me, saying he was afraid. He sued me for his 
 wages, but failed, having deserted my employment. 
 Subsequently I paid him voluntarily. 
 
 The Commissioners then adjourned for lunch. 
 
 On the Court resuming, 
 
 Mr. Reid said, — I am exceedingly sorry to be 
 obliged to call your Lordships' attention to a very 
 serious matter. Here is a publication — the Sheffield 
 Telegraph — the placard of which reads thus : — " Sheffield 
 Daily Telegraph, Thursday, January 17. The League 
 Murder Ring. Full Confession in open Court." This 
 is a well-known paper with a very large circulation 
 in Sheffield, and I am sorry to say that I must make 
 this application. My Lord, I would do a great deal 
 rather than make it, I assure you. 
 
 The President. — You must base it upon some 
 affidavit. We cannot have these things brought forward 
 in this manner on the mere sight of something. 
 
 Mr. Eeid.— I presume, as in every other case, I 
 must make an affidavit. 
 
 Mr. Dominick O'Donnell. 
 
 Contempt of Court C" Sheffield Telegraph"). 
 
756 
 
 The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 Captain Plunkett was then called and examined by 
 the Attobney-General. He said,— I lave been a 
 resident magistrate in Ireland for the last 22 years. 
 In the first 15 I was in Longford, Sligo, Mayo, and 
 Meath, and in the remainder of the time, in the 
 last seven years, I have been in Cork, Limerick, and 
 Kerry. Previous to that I had been in the Army. 
 
 From 1866 to 1880 what was the condition of Mayo, 
 Meath, Longford, and Sligo ? — Quiet, and fairly free 
 from crime. 
 
 What sort of feeling was there between landlord and- 
 tenant ?— Friendly. 
 
 Had evictions from time to time been carried out ? 
 •— Oh, yes ; isolated cases. 
 
 What was the way in which evictions were carried 
 out prior to 1880 ? — Prior to 1879 there was never any 
 force employed ; perhaps two, three, or four men would 
 be with the sheriff. 
 
 Were evictions • ever productive of disturbance or 
 crime ? — No. 
 
 Now, you have known, of course, from time to time, 
 agrarian outrage in Ireland — I am still speaking of 
 before 1879. What, speaking from your own experi- 
 ence, was the principal cause of these crimes ? — They 
 proceeded from combinations. One was the Ribbon 
 Society, existing'principally in Westmeath. 
 
 Was it confined to Westmeath ? — To Westmeath 
 and the borders;of two or three adjoining counties. 
 
 Had you ever known any organization against the 
 payment of rent in the counties you have named until 
 1879 ?— Never. 
 
 Or any organization against taking evicted farms ? — 
 Never. 
 
 Did you ever know before 1879 any person outraged 
 because he paid his rent ? — Never. 
 
 Or because he had. taken possession of a farm from 
 which the tenant had been evicted for non-payment of 
 rent ? — No. 
 
 Did you ever know any organization to outrage 
 people for taking evicted farms ? — Never. 
 
 Did you ever hear the expression " land-grabber " 
 used before 1880 ?— No. 
 
 Except the society you have mentioned, did you 
 ever hear of any society instigating the commission of 
 moonlighting outrages before 1879 ? — No. 
 
 Could there have been during the years you have 
 mentioned any extensive organization of the kind you 
 have indicated without its coming to your knowledge ? 
 — I think not. 
 
 What is the district to which you are referring ? — It 
 is on the borders of Longford. 
 
 . What were the characteristics of the Eibbon 
 Society ? — It was partly directed against the landlords 
 and partly against the agents. 
 
 Did you ever know tenants outraged by the Ribbon- 
 men ? — I do not know of any case. 
 
 Do you recollect the Westmeath Committee ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 That committee was appointed to inquire into Rib- 
 bonism ? — Yes. 
 
 To your knowledge was there any secret society in 
 your district independent of the Land League or of the 
 National League which affected the condition of the 
 country after 1880 ?— No. 
 
 Will you just tell me in your oWd way, after the Land 
 League was established in 1879, how it affected the 
 counties in which you were working ? — There was a 
 general disorder that set in ; there was resistance to the 
 execution of processes in every shape, large crowds 
 assembled at evictions, and the police were assaulted. 
 
 Are you able to tell their Lordships, from your own 
 personal experience in those counties, whether there 
 was any — and, if so, what — difference in the condition 
 of those parts of the country where the Land League 
 was active as compared with those parts in which it 
 was not active ? — There were three districts in Kerry 
 which were practically free from crime. 
 
 Name them. — Dingle, Kenmare, and Cahirciveen, 
 which were comparatively quiet. 
 
 And which were the districts in Which crime and 
 outrage were frequent ? — Listowel, Tralee, Killarney, 
 and Castleisland. 
 
 What was the activity of the Land League 
 in the first three districts as compared with its 
 activity in the other four ? — In the three first-Damed 
 districts there was practically no Land League and no 
 National League. In the other four there was. 
 
 Active or not ? — Active. 
 
 Now, I want to ask you with reference to this 
 matter, did outrages occur chiefly in the poorer parts 
 Of Kerry ? — The three first-named districts were the 
 poorest parts of the district. 
 
 Then in your experience the principal development 
 of the moonlighting and outrages took place in those 
 parts of Kerry where the people were in a better 
 position ? — Yes, and where the land was better. 
 
 Had the action of the Land League any effect upon 
 the way in which you were able to cope with 
 crime, and upon the manipulation of the police 
 force ? — I was enabled in 1881 and 1882 to practically 
 strip the three first-named districts of their police 
 force. 
 
 For what purpose ?-^To draft the police into the 
 other districts. 
 
 That means that you were able to transfer the police 
 from the three first-named districts for duty in the 
 other four districts? — Yes. 
 
 What dates are you speaking of ?— Up to 1886. Sir 
 Redvers Buller succeeded me in the summer of 1886. 
 
 During this period, from 1879 to 1886, had you any- 
 thing to do with evictions — had you any experience of 
 what went on at evictions ?— Oh, yes, I was frequently 
 present at them. 
 
 Had you the command of the police at some of those' 
 evictions ?— Yes. 
 
 What was your position as a resident magistrate i* 
 Had you any judicial duties to perform ?— None what- 
 ever. 
 
 When evictions took place you had to take charge of 
 *» the force present for the protection of the sheriffs ?— i 
 
 Captain Plunkett. 
 
The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 757 
 
 We collected a force near — a force consisting of police, 
 and sometimes military. « 
 
 In what numbers ? — In numbers varying from 60 up 
 to 150 and 200. 
 
 What number of people used to oppose the evictions ? 
 — Latterly the custom has been to barricade the houses. 
 
 I will come to that by-and-by. I am now aBking 
 you as to the number of people who used to oppose the 
 evictions ? — There was generally a crowd — sometimes 
 hundreds, sometimes thousands. 
 
 What used to be done in the way of barricading 
 houses ? — They used to be filled with trunks of trees 
 and branches, and sometimes the flooring would be cut 
 away. 
 
 Were there sometimes more persons in the houses 
 than the tenants themselves ? — Invariably ; on nearly 
 every occasion. 
 
 How many other people would there be besides the 
 tenants themselves ? — Sometimes 14 or 15 other persons. 
 
 I want to get this fact from you. Was there any 
 actual resistance offered besides the mere barricading 
 the houses ? — Yes. 
 
 What kind of resistance ? — There were thrown from 
 the windows empty bottles, stones, boiling water, and 
 sometimes boiling tar. 
 
 That was the kind of resistance offered ?— Yes. 
 
 Do you know of any organizations existing at the 
 time we are now speaking of which were assisting in re- 
 sisting evictions and the payment of rent up to 1883 
 except the Land League and the National League ? — 
 No. 
 
 It has been suggested that some of the acts com- 
 plained of were those of secret societies independent 
 of the Land League. What is your opinion upon 
 that point ? — I do not think that there were any such 
 societies. 
 
 Of course, from time to time you saw in the news- 
 papers reports of meetings and things of that kind ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you see any of the tenants yourself at any of 
 these evictions ? — Yes, often. 
 
 Did you ever have any conversation with them ? — 
 Yes, with some of them. 
 
 With reference to what was going on ? — Yes. 
 
 Just tell us what kind of conversation. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. — My Lords, I must take the objection that 
 this is absolutely inadmissible. Your Lordships have 
 ruled that when a person comes here and says that he 
 has given up his situation he is to be allowed to state 
 the cause of his resigning his situation. But my learned 
 friend is going far beyond that, and is seeking to in- 
 troduce simple unqualified hearsay as evidence against 
 the persons charged. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The ground on which I 
 rest my question is that a statement made by a tenant 
 who is not a party or Who is unwillingly a party to 
 not paying his rent, bat who is compelled to refuse to 
 pay his rent by intimidation.that he does not desire to 
 resist the law, is evidence of .the fact. The issue here 
 
 is, was there intimidation ornot which is to be proved 
 •by acts done ? 
 
 The President, having briefly conferred with the 
 other Commissioners, said, — It appears to us that the 
 statement made by the tenant is not admissible as 
 against others— that is to say, his statement that ' ' so 
 and so did it " — but it is legitimate to take a statement 
 of the tenant that he is not the guilty party. There is 
 resistance going on to prevent possession being got of 
 a man's land, and if he says that that resistance is 
 not desired by him then it is admissible as regards 
 himself, but not against third parties. 
 
 The Attorney-General (to the witness). — Very 
 well, you have heard my Lords' decision. I do not 
 ask you to give any statement against third parties. 
 Have you heard any statements from tenants as to 
 their part in these evictions ? — I recollect two occa- 
 sions on which tenants themselves said they were will- 
 ing to pay, but they were not allowed to do so. They 
 said they did not want to resist, they wanted to pay. 
 There was one case where the tenant, who held an ex- 
 ceedingly nice, three-storied house, made such a state- 
 ment. 
 
 Was the actual injury done to the property great on 
 some of these occasions ? — Yes. 
 
 I do not know whether you are able to say whethej 
 the injury done to the property in some eases was al 
 all commensurate with the amount in dispute ? — It 
 was a great deal more in some cases. 
 
 So that the way in which the houses were treated for 
 the purposes of resistance would be far in excess of the 
 mere amount in dispute ? — Yes, I should say so. 
 
 You have spoken of the districts of Tralee, Listowel, 
 Killarney, and Castleisland as being bad up to 1883. 
 Did you find any improvement after the suppression of 
 the Land League in 1881 ?— I think 1882 was the worst 
 year. After that they improved. 
 
 Now as regards the other districts. After the pass- 
 ing of the Coercion Act did they improve ?— Yes, after 
 1882. 
 
 Of course, you knew by name the Land League, the 
 Ladies' Land League, and the National League ? — Yes. 
 In the neighbourhood of Dingle, Kenmare, and 
 Cahirciveen, which you say were comparatively quiet, 
 did you find any difference after the establishment of 
 the National League ?— No, they remained quiet until 
 I gave up. 
 That was in 1886 ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you know of the boycotting of the Cork Steam 
 Packet Company ?— Yes. 
 "And of the Cork Defence Union?— Yes. 
 
 What was that association? — It was an association 
 on the lines of the Property Defence Union, for the 
 purpose of supplying emergency men on evicted farms, 
 and labourers, and of stocking farms. 
 
 Were meetings held and inflammatory speeches de« 
 livered from time to time in the district ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you find any effect from those inflammatorj 
 speeches ?— Yes, outrages generally followed. 
 Now, I must ask you for some detailed information 
 
 Captain Plunkett. 
 
758 
 
 The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 with regard to the police. What before 1879 was the 
 number of the police in Castleisland, South District ? 
 •—I was not present personally at the time, but the 
 record shows the number to have been eight. 
 
 What was it in 1881 ?— Fifty-nine. 
 
 For 1882 ? — One hundred and seventy-nine. 
 
 What was it at Listowel for the same years ? — 
 Thirty-nine in 1878, 5G in 1881, 77 in 1882, and 97 in 
 1883. 
 
 And in Tralee ?— 59 in 1878, 79 in 1881, 112 in 
 1882, and 146 in 1883. These numbers refer to the out- 
 stations, of which, up to 1880, Castleisland was one. 
 
 And in Killarney ?— 55 in 1878, 54 in 1879, 51 in 
 1880, 66 in 1881, 108 in 1882, and 105 in 1SS3. 
 
 We have evidence to show that the moonlight out- 
 rages to prevent the payment of rent or the taking of 
 evicted farms were new in the history of Ireland. Do 
 you know of any other illegal authority carrying out 
 the behests of the Land League except the moon- 
 lighters ? — No. 
 
 What part have you been in since you left Kerry ? — 
 1 have been in Cork and Limerick. 
 
 What do you say with regard to the condition of 
 Cork before and after the existence of the Land League 
 aud the National League ? — There were four districts 
 in Cork that were more disturbed than the others. 
 
 What are they ? — Ballincollig, Kanturk, Mallow, 
 and Youghal. 
 
 What are the other districts ?— Kinsale, Charleville, 
 Mitchelstown and I am afraid I cannot remember 
 the fourth. The first four are in East Cork, and were 
 more disorderly than the others, aud in them the 
 National League had great influence. 
 
 Are you drawing any distinction between the 
 National League and the Land League ? — No, I was 
 not there in the days of the Land League. 
 
 Will you tell us of what date you speak when you 
 say these districts were more disturbed ? — I speak of 
 the beginning of 1882. 
 
 Now, as to Limerick. Have you any experience 
 with regard to the parts of that county where the Land 
 League was active ? — It was fairly active in most dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 Did you find the crime and outrage pretty uniformly 
 spread ? — There was a good deal of outrage, the princi- 
 pal class being incendiary fires. 
 
 What period are you speaking of ? — From the begin- 
 ning of 1883 upwards. 
 
 I do not know whether you have any personal know- 
 ledge of the secret payment of rent yourself ? — No, I 
 have no personal knowledge. 
 
 Has the condition of the country improved since the 
 Crimes Act of 1887 ?— Oh, very much. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Keid. — I do not know, Cap- 
 tain Plunkett, if you are a resident magistrate now or 
 a divisional magistrate? — I am a divisional magistrate. 
 
 That is to say, you have several counties under you ? 
 —Yes, two at present— Cork and Limerick. 
 
 The resident magistrates sit in a judicial capacity, 
 I think ?— They do. 
 
 Quite apart from the present Crimes Act which is in 
 force ? — Oh, yes. Every resident magistrate has his 
 district. 
 
 Have you found that the unpaid magistrates have 
 greatly ceased to discharge magisterial duties since 
 1880 and 1881 ?— Yes, almost entirely. 
 
 The resident magistrates are also Executive officers? 
 —Yes. 
 
 They have the control of the police, and, in fact, in 
 cases of conflict and difficulty they lead and command 
 the police ?— Yes. 
 
 In fact, they are officials of the police ? — Well, they 
 are not in the police. 
 
 But they are in official command of the police and 
 military when they are called out ? — Yes. 
 
 Now, I wish to ask you about these districts. First, 
 as to the Kerry districts. I understood you to say there 
 were three quiet districts — Dingle, Kenmare, and 
 Cahirciveen ? — Yes. 
 
 And the others were disturbed ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you know whether there were Land League 
 branches in Dingle and about there ? — I believe there 
 was a branch started in Dingle about 1885. 
 
 That would be the National League. Were there any 
 branches of the Land League in every part of the 
 quiet districts ? — They may have been established, but 
 they had no vitality whatever. 
 
 Were there not Land League branches in every 
 parish in these districts 1 — No, I do not think there 
 was one in every parish. 
 
 Had the branches any vitality in the places in the 
 Castleisland district ? — Yes ; but it was not necessary 
 to have vitality there, the place was so thoroughly 
 organized. 
 
 Do you say that the Land League at Castleisland, 
 which was established in 1880, was a strong or a weak 
 branch ? — I should say it was a strong branch. 
 
 And the same of the other branches in Tralee and 
 Killarney ?— Yes. 
 
 Will you give me the facts on which you rely for 
 the purpose of showing that the branches were weak 
 in the quiet districts and strong in others ? — What I 
 rely on is that, wherever a branch was established and 
 had any vitality, crime immediately followed, and in 
 the thiee districts named there was little or no crime. 
 
 And therefore you inferred that the League was 
 weak in those three districts, and strong iu the Castle- 
 island district ? — Yes, that is one of my reasons. 
 
 Well, that is one reason. Will you give me another ? 
 — My other reason has been formed from private in- 
 formation received. 
 
 Information about the strength and weakness of the 
 different branches f— Yes, about the action of the 
 different branches. 
 
 Very well, I will ask you about that. In the mean- 
 time, I am asking you your ground for saying the Land 
 League was strong in some places and weak in others, 
 and you said that where the League was strong crime 
 immediately followed. Have you any other ground ? — 
 Another ground is that, whenever they thought fit ta 
 
 Captain Plunkett. 
 
The Special Commission, January 13, 1889. 
 
 759 
 
 denounce a man, he invariably suffered. That, I limit, 
 shows their strength. 
 
 Will you give me the names of the persons you refer 
 to in that answer ?— Oh, well, Mr. Herbert was 
 denounced for one, and he was afterwards murdered ; 
 and I heard a speech made by the parish priest de- 
 nouncing a man — Mr. Curtin — and he was murdered a 
 week afterwards. 
 
 Who was the parish priest ?— Father O'Connor, of 
 Firies. 
 
 Did he refer to Mr. Curtin by name ? — No, but it 
 was clearly understood by the people listening to him 
 whom ho meant. 
 
 Curtin was vice-president of the League at Firies, was 
 he not 1 — He was a member, I think. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — He was vice-president. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Forgive me, Mr. Eeid, 
 our information does not go so far. 
 
 Mr. Kkid.— Well, Captain Plunkett, what did 
 Father O'Connor say ? — I took a Dote of it. 
 
 Thank you, what is it he said ? Bead it, please. — 
 It was at a sale of cattle belonging to a tenant by the 
 sheriff. He said : — " Now, my friends, we are face to 
 face with (he minions of the law ; but we don't come 
 here to fight. In fact, we are not able to fight the 
 armed force of the Crown. But we can defend our 
 rights in other ways, and with combination, by stand- 
 ing shoulder to shoulder, we cannot fail. He who 
 goes behind the back of his neighbour is a traitor to 
 the cause. (Cries of ' Curtin. ') I don't wish to name 
 any one ; tut they are known." He then called on 
 the men to disperse. At that time Curtin had paid 
 his rent. 
 
 You say that referred to Curtin ? — I have no doubt of it. 
 
 Is it not the fact that Curtin's name is not entered 
 in the return as an agrarian outrage at all ? — I can- 
 not say. 
 
 Is this your charge, that the Rev. Father O'Connor 
 denounced Curtin in that language and that he was 
 shot in consequence ? — I believe it was a great deal 
 due to that. 
 
 You believe that ? — I believe it was an incitement 
 to murder. 
 
 You believe that Curtin was shot in consequence of 
 that speech ?— I say that inflammatory speeches 
 brought about crime. 
 
 Do you suggest that that was a denunciation of 
 Curtin which led to his murder ?— I say it was well 
 calculated to do so. 
 
 Have you any other case ?— Yes. There was a man 
 named Fitzmaurice murdered in Kerry. 
 
 That is a case in which wo have had evidence, there- 
 fore I need not review it. You were not in Kerry at 
 all at that time ?— I read the denunciation of him. I 
 think it was the Liinaw branch. 
 
 You said that every one who was denounced by the 
 League suffered for it ? — No, I did not say every one. 
 I mean to say that in most cases where a man was 
 denounced he had to receive protection in some shape 
 or form. 
 
 Have you any other instances ? We want to follow 
 this out. I want to know whether you can support 
 yourself by giving me cases of denunciation followed by 
 crime, beyond those you have given already ? — I cannot 
 recollect any particular case at the present moment. 
 There are so many of them. 
 
 You havo not made out any list of them ? — No, I 
 have not one here. 
 
 I understood you to say that there were meetings at 
 which persons were mentioned in adverse sense and 
 afterwards suffered some injury '/ — Yes. 
 
 You cannot give any more than you have given at 
 present ? — No. 
 
 What is your further ground for saying that the 
 National League or the Land League led to crime ? 
 You referred to private information. Name a few 
 cases ? — I think I have given you my strongest grounds 
 already. Wherever it existed with any vitality there 
 was crime and outrage. 
 
 What are your facts for asserting the vitality of the 
 League at Castleisland and the weakness of it in other 
 districts ? — Well, a branch might be established, and 
 after a time meetings become very few and far be- 
 tween ; perhaps no meeting for months. In another 
 place the meetings might go on week by week. 
 
 I suppose you would be guided also by the number of 
 members ?— Not necessarily. 
 
 What test do you go by in order to determine 
 strength or weakness ?— I think I have given the prin- 
 cipal one. 
 
 The test of crime ? — Yes ; that is, I say that where 
 there is vitality of the League there is crime. 
 
 What is your reason for saying they are strong or 
 weak ? — Whenever a man was denounced, or whenever 
 his name was referred to at a meeting as having 
 violated any of the rules of the League, he was 
 almost invariably outraged in some way unless he got 
 protection. 
 
 Am I to understand you have no further evidence you 
 can put before the Court as to the strength or weak- 
 ness of the different branches ? — Yes. 
 
 You tell us that crime existed and was caused, in 
 your belief, by the Land League and the National 
 League. Have you any private information to 
 strengthen your belief ? — I have. 
 
 Statements made to you by different persons ?— Yes, 
 members of the League. 
 
 How many have made statements to you ? — Two. 
 
 Whsn ?— Within the last two years. 
 
 Are both those persons alive ? — I do not know. 
 
 You do not know where they are ? You have not 
 heard of them since ?— Oh, yes, I havo. 
 
 Are they in this country — in the United Kingdom — 
 that is a large area ?— I do not know. I can give no 
 further information about them. 
 
 Are these persons available to be called as wit- 
 nesses ?— Well, I cannot say ; I do not know where 
 they are at present. 
 
 You do not know even whether they are alive ?— No. 
 I believe they are 
 
 Captain Plunkett. 
 
760 
 
 The Special Commission, January 19, 1889. 
 
 Did these persons state that they themselves had 
 taken part in organizing crime ? — They had attended 
 meetings. 
 
 At which crime had been planned ? — At which it 
 wa3 decided to commit outrage. 
 
 And they had been present as parties ? — I do not 
 think they said that. 
 
 They were not present as spies, as emissaries from 
 yon, were they ; but as belonging to some com- 
 mittee ? — They were members of the association. 
 
 Bat they conveyed to you, as I understand, that they 
 had been present and taken part in resolutions and 
 arrangements to commit crime ? — They told me what 
 took place at the meetings. 
 
 Did they profess to take part in organizing these 
 meetings ? — No. 
 
 How long after the date on which these meetings 
 took place did they communicate with you? — They told 
 me after the meetings. 
 
 How long after ?— I cannot say now. Shortly after- 
 wards. 
 
 Did they tell you what year it was ? — It was within 
 the last two years. 
 
 Did they say the meetings they attended took place 
 within the last two years ? — Yes. 
 
 In what county was this ? — In county Cork. 
 
 Were both in the same place or in different places ? 
 «».In different places. 
 
 They were persons whom you would call informers ? 
 —Yes. . 
 
 Was any action taken by the police in consequence, 
 or by you ? — Oh, yes, I took action. 
 
 Did you take action in the form of prosecutions ? — 
 Oh, no. 
 
 What steps you thought proper ? — Yes. 
 
 I suppose you communicated to Dublin the names of 
 these persons ? — Oh dear, no. 
 
 You kept them to yourself ? — I never communicate 
 the name of an informer to any one. 
 
 Not even to a superior ? To the Chief Secretary ? 
 -—Certainly not. 
 
 That is the rule ?— Yes. 
 
 Did you take any steps to prosecute any one ? — No. 
 
 The offences said to be planned at these meetings, 
 were they murders ? — No. 
 
 Moonlighting ?— Yes. 
 
 Moonlighting expeditions. ?— Yes. 
 
 I understand that you object on public grounds to 
 give the names of the persons who gave you informa- 
 tion '—Certainly. 
 
 As a resident magistrate you were of course familiar 
 with all that was going on in the county ?— Yes. 
 
 And as a divisional magistrate subsequently you 
 would be sure to be told of any discovery of crime ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 Have you any other private information whatever 
 upon which you base your opinion that the League was 
 the cause of crime ? — Oh, yes. 
 
 What is it ?— It is of the same character. 
 
 Information supplied by informers uf the samo 
 character ? — Yes. 
 
 Will you give me the dates when the information 
 was supplied to you ? — I could only give you the 
 years. I have received 6uch information every year 
 for the last seven years. 
 
 How many persons in all have given you information 
 of this character ? — Ten or twelve, probably more. 
 
 I suppose some of them have been called as wit- 
 nesses and informers at trials ? — I think not. 
 
 Have none of them been called ?— Not as far as I 
 know. 
 
 Were any of these people paid by Government 
 money ?— Of course they are paid. 
 
 They come to you and give you information and are 
 remunerated ? — Yes, if I discover that the informa- 
 tion is correct. 
 
 Mr. Rbid. — When you think it is correct. 
 
 The Attobnby-GeneeAL. — You must take his answer, 
 Mr. Keid. 
 
 Mr. Ehd. — I do not think you have any cause to 
 complain, Mr. Attorney. (To witness.) These persons 
 were paid ? — Yes. 
 
 Were they in the receipt of pay from year to year ? 
 —Some of them. 
 
 So that there were persons receiving money regu- 
 larly and giving information ? — Certainly. 
 
 Well, I am not saying there is anything wrong in 
 that. Have you followed up the career of any of 
 these people, and are they available to be called as 
 witnesses ? — I suppose they are. I do not know 
 whether all Of them are alive or not. 
 
 Are any of them among persons who have been 
 called ? — I must decline to answer that. 
 
 For example, there was an informer called of the 
 name of Connor. I know, my Lord, that this is one 
 of those matters with respect to which one has to be 
 careful, but I submit that, when an informer has 
 actually been sailed, evidence such as I am asking for 
 may be given. 
 
 The Peesident. — That cannot make any difference. 
 I must leave it to Captain Plunkett to say whether he 
 thinks the question ought not to be answered on 
 public grounds. If he says that he thinks so I shall 
 not oblige him to answer the question. 
 
 Mr. EETD. — Of course I must bow to your Lordship's 
 ruling. (To witness.) You deoline to say whether 
 any of your informants have already been called ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 But they were all of the same class — persons who 
 had themselves participated in the acts which they 
 reported to you P — Oh, no ; they are not aU of the 
 same class. 
 
 Some of them, then, were persons against whose 
 character nothing could be said ? — Against whose 
 character nothing is known. 
 
 And they stated that they had been present when 
 resolutions were passed arranging outrage and that 
 they had not protested ? — That is what I gathered. 
 
 Did they tell you this in so many words ? — I could 
 
 Captain Plunkett. 
 
The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 761 
 
 not tell you now what actually occurred, but that was 
 the substance of the conversation. 
 
 Some of these people you know are available to be 
 called as witnesses ? — I suppose they are. 
 
 Now, have you any other ground for the conclusion at 
 which you have arrived ? — I have no other at present. 
 
 Any more such private information ? — No. 
 
 You say ten or twelve persons in all have given you 
 information about these matters ? — Yes ; about that 
 number. 
 
 With regard to evictions, can you tell me whether 
 any list is kept of evictions and eviction notices ? — 
 Yes ; there is a Government return. 
 
 You have told us that certain districts were quiet 
 and certain districts disturbed. Is there an outrage 
 book for each of these districts ? — Yes. 
 
 When the book contains all kinds of crime the agra- 
 rian crimes are marked so that we can identify them ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Are there any books for the same districts showing 
 the number of evictions there ? — Yes. Every officer 
 has a record. Every eviction that takes place is 
 reported and then the record is transmitted to Dublin. 
 
 Is a copy kept at the office ?— I think so, but I am 
 not sure. 
 
 We should like to have the record of district evic- 
 tions concurrently with the record of district crimes. 
 Now, am I to understand you to say that you think 
 there were no secret societies in Kerry in 1879, 1880, 
 and 1881 ?— I did not say that. I think the moon- 
 lighters formed the principal, if not the only, secret 
 society in Kerry ; but I would hardly characterize 
 them as a secret society. 
 
 Do you know whether they had an oath ? — I have 
 heard they have. 
 
 That they acted under captains ? — I have heard that 
 also, but I do not believe it. I think they were 
 simply the police of the League. 
 
 The President. — I understand that you heard that 
 they had an oath ? — I heard so. 
 
 The President. — At the time of their taking action 
 did you hear that they had an oath ? — I did. 
 
 Mri Reid. — You put upon me the statement as to 
 your belief that they were the police of the League. I 
 was not asking you about, the League. — I know no 
 other secret society in Kerry except the moonlighters, 
 if you characterize them as a secret society as distinct 
 from the League. 
 
 You suppose that they are the secret police of the 
 League ? — Yes. 
 
 And I suppose that the grounds of your belief are 
 the grounds which you have already given us ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you not hear of any other secret society ? — I 
 know of no other in Kerry. 
 
 Had you never heard of moonlighting before 1879 ? 
 •—Never. 
 
 Never heard of gangs of men going about armed at 
 night and inflicting injuries and firing shots ?— I 
 heard of Whiteboys before 1879, but never of moon- 
 lighters. 
 
 When I speak of moonlighting I am referring to 
 acts, not to any particular application of the word. 
 Am I to understand that you did not hear of m"n going 
 about at night in disguise, and committing acts of 
 violence upon individuals ? — No ; I never heard of 
 it before 1879 in the counties which I have named. 
 
 Did you hear of it in other parts of Ireland ?— No. 
 
 Is it your view that the practice of going about in 
 bands, disguised, and committing outrages was a novel 
 practice in 1879 ?— Yes. 
 
 A novel practice in Ireland ? — Yes. 
 
 A thing practically unknown before P— As far 
 as I know. 
 
 The President. — Does that mean simply in your 
 experience ? — Yes, in my experience. 
 
 The President. — Do you mean that you never 
 heard of it ?— I never heard of it, except in the case 
 of the Whiteboys whom I mentioned before. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— The Whiteboys existed 
 some years before, I believe ? 
 
 The ATTOR>-Er-GENERAL.— At the beginning of the 
 century, my Lord. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I will give you a couple of illustrations. 
 Take 1852. Do you not recollect, or have you not 
 read, that precisely the same thing went on in Ulster 
 in 1852, and to such an extent that it became a 
 subject of Parliamentary inquiry, there being a large 
 Blue-book recording the result ?— No. 
 
 Have you never heard of the Westmeath Act f — Yes ; 
 that was in 1870. 
 
 Was not that Act due to precisely similar occurrences 
 in the West ?— No. 
 
 Were there not gangs of murderers going about ?— 
 No ; the Act was directed against simple murder. 
 
 Was not moonlighting going on in Westmeath ? — I 
 never heard of it, and I was ten years in the adjoining 
 county. 
 
 Have you inspected the returns for Kerry for 1869 
 and 1870 ?— No. 
 
 Are you aware that these very things appear in the 
 Government returns for the county of Kerry for a 
 great number of years before 1879 ? — I never heard of it. 
 
 When General Buller came to succeed you in 1886 
 was it not your opinion that the injudicious and harsh 
 action of certain landlords in Kerry had a good deal 
 to do with the disturbance in the county ? — It was 
 not. 
 
 Did you not assist in putting a certain degree of 
 pressure on the landlords to make concessions to their 
 tenants ? — Never. 
 
 Do you know that Sir Redvers Buller did ?— No. I 
 am aware he was charged with it, and so was I ; but I 
 am not aware that either he or myself did it. 
 
 Was he not examined as a witness before the Cowper 
 Commission ? — I believe he was. I never read his evi- 
 dence nor my own either. 
 
 By Mr. A. O'Connor. — You have read a report of 
 some words alleged to have been spoken by Father 
 O'Connor at a sheriff's sale ?— Yes. I took a note of 
 them immediately after. 
 
 Captain Plunkett. 
 
762 
 
 The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 Were you present ? — I was. 
 
 Do you write shorthand ?— No. 
 
 Did you say that the informants with whom you 
 were in communication belonged to the city of Cork ? 
 —I did not say to what place they belonged. All I 
 said was that I believed they were in the county of 
 Cork. 
 
 Do you know whether any of these men belonged to 
 any other organization besides the Land League ?— I 
 do not know. 
 
 Do you know that they did not ?— No. 
 
 How long is it since you were first in communication 
 with them ?— Since 1882. 
 
 Were you acquainted with Kerry before that ?— Only 
 since October, 1881. 
 
 Do you say that there were no other organizations in 
 Kerry besides the National League and the moon- 
 lighters ? — None that I knew of. 
 
 Do you know whether there was a branch of the Land 
 League in the neighbourhood of Eallybunion in 1881 ? 
 — I cannot say whether there was one theie, but I 
 think there was in 1882. 
 
 Do you know that in 1881 there was an organiza- 
 tion of a different kind in the neighbourhood of Bally- 
 bunion ?— I do not know. I was not there. 
 
 Have you learnt since that there existed such an 
 organization in the neighbourhood ? — No. 
 
 Do you know anything about the secret organiza- 
 tions of Kerry ? — I know of none besides the two which 
 I have mentioned. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt.— You were iu Mayo in 1879 and 
 1880 ?— In 1880. 
 
 There were a large number of Land League meetings 
 held in Mayo in those years ? — Yes. 
 
 And branches of the League were active in that 
 county ? — I cannot answer of my own knowledge, as at 
 that time I was only there on special duty for three 
 mouths. 
 
 Do you know that the county was remarkably free 
 from very serious crime in 1879 and 1880 ? — I would not 
 say that with respect to 1880, because a man was shot 
 when I was there. 
 
 In that case was it not doubtful whether the crime 
 was an agrarian outrage or committed from motives 
 of personal revenge ? — I did not understand that. 
 There were several other cases of crime, but I cannot 
 recollect the details now. If there had been no crime, 
 I probably should not have been sent there. 
 
 Would you say, then, that there was serious crime in 
 Mayo ? — Yes, where I was in Castlebar and some 
 other districts. There were some serious outrages in 
 those districts. 
 
 Of course they would be recorded in the official 
 returns ? — I suppose so. 
 
 With reference to Kerry, you have said that after 
 the Coercion Act of 1882 things improved very much ? 
 — They did some time after. 
 In 1883 ?— Yes, in 1883. 
 
 Then how was it that in many of the districts the 
 police were increased in 1883 and 1884 ?— A large pro- 
 
 portion of the police in Kerry were on protection 
 duty. The intimidation continued. That accounts ior 
 the increase in 1883 and 1884. 
 
 Were you at the Imperial Hotel in Cork at the 
 beginning of 1883 ? — I was living there. 
 ■ Did you meet James Macdermott at the hotel— an 
 Irish-American ? — I saw him. 
 
 Frequently ?— No, not frequently ; I think he was 
 there about a week. 
 
 Did you meet him in private 1 — Oh. no : and if I 
 had I would not tell you. 
 
 Would you tell me what his business was ? — I did 
 not know. 
 
 Did you ever ask ?— No. 
 
 Cannot you give a guess ? — No. 
 
 Will you swear seriously you did not know what 
 his business was in Cork ? — I have already sworn it. 
 
 And you maintain that ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you know that he was a paid agent of Dublin 
 Castle P— No. 
 
 You knew James Ellis French.the Detective Director 
 of the Eoyal Irish Constabulary ; did you meet him in 
 Cork ? — Yes, frequently. 
 
 About the time Macdermott was there ? — I could not 
 say now. I used to meet Mr. French frequently in 
 those days, but I cannot say whether I did so when 
 Macdermott was there. 
 
 Have you heard anything of Macdermott since then ? 
 -No. 
 
 Nothing ?— No. * 
 
 Did you hear of his subsequent arrest in Liverpool ? 
 — I do not remember. 1 may have fteard of it at the 
 time, but I do not recollect it. 
 
 You read the newspapers regularly ? — I very seldom 
 look at any newspaper. (Lauguter.) 
 
 The Attokney-Geneual.— You are not singular iif 
 that respect. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — Then you do not know that it after- 
 wards transpired in the public Press of England, 
 Ireland, and America 
 
 The Attokney-General.— I think you are going too 
 far. 
 
 The President. — Yes ; that is a very large question. 
 
 Mr. Davitt.— You do not know that Macdermott 
 organized dynamite conspiracies and plots in Cork ?— 
 No. 
 
 You do not know that he got money from James 
 Ellis French to do this ?— No. 
 
 Do you believe he had any such dealings with Mr. 
 French ? — I can form no such belief at all. I know 
 nothing of his business. He was pointed out to me as 
 Macdermott. 
 
 You did not speak to him ? — No ; nor he to me. 
 
 You are positive of that ? — Yes. 
 
 He did not write anything to you ? — No ; and if ho 
 did I should refuse to tell you. 
 
 The President. — I understand you to volunteer to 
 say that he did not ? — No ; he did not. 
 
 Mr. Davitt. — You had no dealings whatever with 
 him ?-No, 
 
 Captain Plunkett. 
 
The Special Commission, January 18, 1889. 
 
 763 
 
 And you do not know if he had dealings with Mr. 
 French ?— No. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attof.ney-Genek.AL.— About the 
 magistrates and the police. When any riot or commo- 
 tion takes place, who reads the Riot Act ? — The magis- 
 trate, as a civil magistrate, not as a police officer. 
 
 It is only in the event of a riot or commotion taking 
 place that he has anything to do with the police ? — 
 That is all. 
 
 You stated that you had by some persons, numbering 
 altogether ten or 12, received information, and you 
 stated that when you discovered it was correct they 
 were paid. What do you mean by " discovered it was 
 correct " ? — From others. 
 
 Have you ever taken steps, in consequence of infor- 
 mation you have received, to test its correctness ? — 
 Oh, always. 
 
 What sort of steps do yon mean ? — I tested it by the 
 information of other informers. 
 
 Have you ever taken steps to prevent any occurrence 
 that it was suggested was going to take place ? — Yes, 
 I have. 
 
 Have you ever received information of a coming 
 outrage ? — Yes. 
 
 Have you taken steps to ascertain whether that 
 outrage was going to be perpetrated ? — Yes, by taking 
 precautions, and the attempt to carry out the outrage 
 came off. 
 
 That has been prevented by your steps ? — One was 
 prevented by one of the moonlighters being shot. 
 
 You, as a police officer, have acted in order to 
 prevent outrage on information you have received '! — 
 Yes, and in many cases have found it to be correct. 
 
 So it was not a Question of your thinking it was 
 correct, but absolutely discovering it to be correct ? 
 -Yes. 
 
 As to the actual names of persons who were denounced 
 by the League, and afterwards subjected to outrage, 
 have j ou any list of them ? — I have no such list here 
 now. 
 
 You speak from recollection. Do you think the cases 
 were confined to those three districts ?— Many of them 
 were. 
 
 Do you remember whether in the Castleisland district 
 names of individuals were referred to ? — As well as I 
 recollect, there was a man named Cahill referred to. 
 He was a caretaker on an evicted farm, and was 
 murdered in 1882, I think. 
 
 Do you remember any others ? I do not want to get 
 any list from you, only to get it clearly before my 
 Lords whether there were any other cases of which 
 you remember the names ? — Yes, there were several 
 cases. 
 
 Where was Cahill denounced ?— In the Tralee dis- 
 trict, I think. 
 
 Can you name the way in which he was denounced ? 
 Was it in a paper or at a League meeting, or what ?— 
 In a paper. It was some time ago. 
 
 By Mr. Reid.— Perhaps your Lordships will allow 
 
 Captain Plunkett, if he can, to supply the infor- 
 mation. 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal.— I have not the smallest 
 objection. 
 
 The President.— I understand Captain Plunkett to 
 say he cannot remember at the moment the denuncia- 
 tions. (To witness). Could you find out ?— The district- 
 inspector of the district would know. I could 
 ascertain from him. 
 
 The Attokney-Geneeal.— Captain Plunkett has not 
 come hero to prove anything of that kind. 
 
 The President.— If he has the means he will 
 perhaps get the information. 
 
 The Attoeney-Geneeal (to witness).— If you have 
 the means, will you communicate with Mr. Soames, 
 who will hand the information to Mr. Reid ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— You said you were at 
 
 Longford, a county bordering on Westmeath ; and 
 
 you said the Westmeath Act was directed against 
 
 murder ?— Yes. 
 
 What kind of murder ? — Murder of landlords and agents. 
 
 Whatever it was, was it any incident of Ribbonism, 
 or of that society, that there were gangs of men going 
 about with masks ? — I never heard of it. I think I 
 should have heard of it if it had existed as a system. 
 
 You said that you formed the conclusion that the 
 moonlighters were the police of the League and 
 connected with the League. Explain to my Lords why 
 you came to that conclusion. — There were certain 
 rules of the National League, and unless there was 
 some means of enforcing those rules no attention 
 would be paid to them. And every occasion on which 
 moonlighting and raids took place, as a rule, the 
 specific object of the moonlighters was stated. It 
 was either to bring about the payment of certain 
 rent or of no rent, or to give up an evicted farm, or 
 to give up caretaking an evicted farm, or something 
 of that sort. 
 
 What I understand you to say is that the action of 
 the moonlighters in a great many cases was to carry 
 out the things that the League preached ? — Certainly. 
 
 Whether it was connected with the League or not, 
 had there been such moonlighting either in Kerry or 
 Limerick before 1879 ?— I was not there. 
 
 In any county where you were ? — Never. 
 
 Had you ever heard of moonlighting for such a 
 causa before ? — Never. 
 
 When were the Whiteboy Acts? Do you remember?— 
 About the beginning of the century, I think ; about 
 1803 to 1S04. 
 
 What do you understand by Whiteboyism ? 
 
 The President.— It is referred to as something 
 historical. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Very well, my Lord. 
 You have mentioned the police protection. Did you 
 happen to have a number of persons under police 
 protection ?— A very large number in Kerry. 
 
 How many in Castleisland in 1881, 1882, or 1883 ?- 
 There were 17 protection posts in Castleisland in 1882 
 
 Captain Plunkett. 
 
764 
 
 The Special Commission, January 18 and 22, 1889. 
 
 and 1883. One would represent the head o! the 
 house. 
 
 Seventeen householders would be in receipt of pro- 
 tection ? — Yes ; there would be 80 or 90 people. In 
 Limerick there were not very many. They were 
 principally established on evicted farms for the pro- 
 tection of people who had been in the position of 
 caretakers or bailiffs. 
 
 Had there ever been any police protection of 
 persons before 1879 or 1880 ?— Oh, no. I never had 
 ftny. 
 
 That was quite new ? — Yes. 
 
 The Commission adjourned at six minutes to 4 
 o'clock until Tuesday morning. 
 
 TUESDAY, JANUARY 22. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 36th sitting to- 
 day at half-past 10 o'clock in No. 1 Probate Court of 
 the Eoyal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On their Lordships' taking their seats, 
 
 SlK C. RUSSELL said, — My Lords, I must refer your 
 Lordships, but I am glad to say only for a moment,for 
 the purpose of getting rid of it, to an application 
 which my learned friend, Mr. Beid, made in reference 
 to a publication which we considered to be a very 
 gross contempt of Court in the Sheffield Daily Tele- 
 graph. I assure your Lordships that it is only because 
 this is one of many cases that we trouble your Lord- 
 ships with it at all. Wo did it in the hope that, once 
 a notification came from the Court that these things 
 were objectionable and condemnatory, they would be 
 stopped. My Lords, this is a case which we could not, 
 we conceive, properly pass over, because this is a docu- 
 ment circulated, as the affidavit I have in my hand shows, 
 very largely indeed in the neighbourhood of Sheffield. 
 The placard was, — " The League's Murder Ring : Full 
 Confession in open Court." Since this application was 
 made by my learned friend, Mr. Eeid, I understand, 
 although I have not seen it, that a paragraph has ap- 
 peared in this paper under the authority of Sir Wm. 
 Christopher Leng, who is, I understand, the proprietor 
 or principal proprietor and manager of this paper, in 
 which he states that this heading was not published 
 with his authority, and I understand he has expressed 
 regret for it. My Lords, under these circumstances I 
 am glad to say, and I do really most willingly, that I 
 withdraw this application ; but I do hope that it will 
 be understood that your Lordships condemn and wholly 
 disapprove of these things, and that it will not be neces- 
 sary to trouble your Lordships again by this and 
 similar applications. 
 
 The President. — I am very glad this application is 
 withdrawn, because it relieves the Court of a most 
 serious embarrassment created by these applications. I 
 hope I have sufficiently expressed in the most emphatic 
 language I can my disapprobation of articles or posters 
 of the kind which have been brought to our notice. I 
 have had occasion to lay down the principles which I 
 think ought to guide journals in the matter, and, if they 
 
 are capable of being appealed to, I trust those princi- 
 ples will be borne in mind by them in future, and that 
 we may be left to the very arduous duties we have to 
 discharge without being under the necessity from time 
 to time of having to consider these applications. 
 
 Mr. Hallam George Studdert was then called 
 and examined by Mr. Atkinson. The witness said, 
 — I reside in county Clare and am agent for the 
 Earl of Norbury, Mr. Edward Singleton, Mr. John 
 Singleton, Mr. Hector Vandeleur, and Mr. Bagot 
 Blood. The rental of the estates I am agent for 
 in county Clare amounts to about £22,000 a 
 year. I have been agent of the Earl of Norbury since 
 1866, and of the others varying from 1880 upwards. 
 I have been agent for estates in Mayo, Sligo, Clare, 
 Kerry, Galway, Limerick, and Tipperary since 1866. 
 With regard to the Clare estates, the relations between 
 the landlord and the tenants up to 1878 and 1879 
 were most friendly. Up to that time I experienced 
 no difficulty in collecting rents. I had some diffi- 
 culty after 1879. It commenced in 1880, and was 
 on all the estates that I had to do with. I was 
 obliged to take proceedings against some of the 
 tenants to recover the rents. A good many came to 
 me by stealth to ask me to take proceedings and 
 serve processes. I remember going to Tipperary to 
 meet the tenants on the Norbury estate. About 40 of 
 them met me as I went into the town. They said 
 they were afraid I should be attacked that day, and 
 that if I chose they would stay in town to protect me, 
 but they would rather leave town. After that a bell- 
 man went about the town to say I was there. I was 
 obliged to leave without getting any rent. Some of 
 these tenants who were there afterwards came and paid 
 secretly. I object to give their names. I was shot at 
 in September, 1881, and I was also boycotted. In re- 
 ference to Mr. Christy's estate, Tipperary, things were 
 quiet there up to 1879. After that I had difficulty in 
 collecting the rents there also, and several asked me 
 to take proceedings against them, and I did so. When 
 I did so they said they would not pay until their farms 
 were sold out by the sheriffs. They then paid 
 up, and costs. The costs amounted in some cases 
 to £40. They said they were afraid to pay otherwise- 
 On ■ the Vandeleur estate, in county Clare, the same 
 thing occurred. Several of the tenants asked me to 
 sue them, and I got paid, and costs. I never knew 
 up till 1879 of any instance of outrage committed on 
 a tenant for paying his rent or taking an evicted farm. 
 I had no difficulty in letting evicted farms up to that 
 time. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — What age are 
 y OU i — I am either 47 or 48. I think I was 48 last 
 September. 
 
 Do you recollect the state of things existing in 
 1852?— Yes. 
 
 And do you still persist in your statement that you 
 never heard of outrage following evictions or the 
 taking of evicted farms, or boycotting ?— Certainly. 
 
 Contempt of Court (" Sheffield Telegraph"). 
 
 Mr. Hallam George Studdert. 
 
The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 761 
 
 Then you never read the evidence before the Parlia- 
 mentary Commission of 1852? — No. 
 
 Was not the state of things in two Ulster counties, 
 Cavanand Monaghan.and inane of the border counties, 
 Louth, exactly the same state of things that you 
 mention now ? — I have no knowledge of the counties 
 you have mentioned. I do not recollect the Parliamen- 
 tary Committee. 
 
 What was the rental on the Norbury property in 
 1879 ?— About £6,000 a year, more or less. 
 
 Have the tenants been in the Court ? — Very few. 
 
 Have you made arrangements with the tenants ? — 
 No ; I have made them allowances. 
 
 Were any of them leaseholders ? — About a dozen 
 altogether, I think. 
 
 What is the reduction that you have made ? Some 
 cases have begun by getting 15 per cent., and then 
 followed on until they got 25 per cent. That was the 
 highest they ever got. 
 
 May I take it, then, that the rental, £6,000 a 
 year in 1879, is now about 25 per cent, less than 
 that ? — Yes ; they got 25 per cent, in some parts, 
 and in others 20 per cent. 
 
 I suppose you made allowances ? — The tenants who 
 did go into Court got little allowances in some cases, 
 in some cases nothing at all. Some got 10 per cent., 
 some 20 per cent. A few went ia. 
 
 You know the allowances made by the Commission 
 considerably increased after the opening of the Com- 
 mission ? — Yes. 
 
 Was the system upon Lord Norbury's property a 
 system of wiping off the arrears or carrying oh the 
 arrears, giving time for payment ? — Carrying on the 
 arrears. As a general rule that was the system on each 
 of the estates with which I was connected. 
 
 What was Singleton's rental ? — It was very small. 
 
 What was Vandeleur's ?— About £12,000. I have 
 made allowances there, and the tenants, several 
 hundreds Of them, have gone in there. The abatements 
 vary according to the year they went in. Taking it 
 all round I should say the abatement was about 22 per 
 cent. 
 
 I will call your attention to some. They may not 
 be fair average specimens. I see one tenant's, Mary 
 Taylor's, Poor Law valuation was £17 ; former rent, 
 £22 ; reduced judicial rent, £15. That you see leaves 
 on the £22 rental a reduction of £7. You notice that 
 is about 30 per cent.— I base my calculation on an 
 averase. I can tell you exactly what the average in 
 each year was. 
 
 The next case is Bridget Managhan. Poor Law 
 valuation, £29 15s. ; former rent, £42 ; Judicial rent, 
 £29. That is again about 30 per cent. Was not the 
 rent raised in 1873 in the first case I put to you from 
 £13 16s. to £22 ?— There was a rise put on. 
 
 Had Mr. Vaadeleur laid out any money on Mary 
 Taylor's farm ? — Not to my knowledge. As far as I 
 know he had not. I was going to say that I made 
 inquiries, where I saw considerable increase of rent 
 
 put on, from Mr. Vandeleur's accountant. He said 
 that in every case when a rise was put on it was 
 accompanied by an increase of land. 
 
 Do you allege there was any increase in Mary 
 Taylor's ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 Bridget Managhan's rent was raised from £32 ia 
 1873 to £42 ? — I was not agent at the time. 
 
 My Lords, that return which I have just quoted from 
 would appear to be in 1887 ; this which I am now 
 going to cite is in 1885. I will just take these as 
 they appear here, one after the other. Francis 
 Griffin — Poor Law valuation, £29 Is. ; rent, £40 10s. ; 
 reduced to £34. In 1875, the rent was changed. In 
 that case apparently the rent in 1875 was reduced 
 from £42 10s. to £40 10s. The next case is Patrick 
 Flanagan— Poor Law valuation, £16 15s ; former rentj 
 £22 ; judicial rent, £18 10s. ; raised in 1873 from £16. 
 The next is a reduction of the rent from £18 to £13, 
 which rent was raised in 1873 from £12 10s. to £18. 
 
 The President. — Is there no instance in which a 
 change in the amount of land held was mentioned ? 
 
 Sir O. Russell. — Not one, my Lords. 
 
 The President. — It may be that it was not within 
 the scope of the return to give that. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The Commissioners would note it, 
 my Lords, of course, if the holding had been 
 increased. My Lords, I think there are cases which 
 I have noted, not in reference to this estate, where 
 they have noticed changes in tenancies as well as 
 with regard to rent. (To witness.) Was it not a fact 
 that there was in 1873 a general rise ? — I am told so. 
 
 The value of the tenancy to the tenant would of 
 course depend largely upon the state of his farm ; 
 whether he had expended money upon it or whether 
 the landlord had ? — I suppose so. 
 
 You are aware that in estimation of the value of 
 the tenant's interest, the Land Commission did not 
 take into account, could not take into account, the 
 expenditure by the landlord ? — Yes. 
 
 In the case of these small holdings, even, I find the 
 value of the tenancies. I take one for instance, the 
 first I read, where the rent was £40 10s. ; the value 
 of the tenancy is £240. The next valuation is £150 ; 
 the next £200, £70, £100, £130, £80 and so on. What 
 was the deduction, do you think, in 1879 ; was that a 
 year in which it would have been fair to make con- 
 siderable allowances to the tenants ?— I think it was 
 about one of the worst years we had. 
 
 On what gale of rent did you as a Blatter of fact 
 first make an allowance on any of the properties to 
 which you are agent ?— In 1881. The rents accrued 
 due in 1880. 
 
 Upon the gale of rent which accrued in 1880 ?— Yes ; 
 I think it was the May gale. 
 
 By Mr. Beid. — Do you know anything about the Steel 
 property in the parish of Kilkelly ?— No. 
 
 Is there not aa ageat of 'the same name as yourself 
 who owned property at Kilkelly ?— A relative of mine. 
 He is quite close to my place. 
 
 Is this the fact, that the practice on that estate was 
 
 Mr. Hallam George Studdert. 
 
766 
 
 The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 to have a notice to quit written on the back of every 
 rent receipt that was given ? — I am certain it is not. 
 
 Not now. Have you not heard that that was the 
 practice until every tenant on the estate had boen 
 evicted ? — I never heard it ; no. 
 
 Never ? — Never ; and I live within 20 minutes' 
 drive of his place. I never heard of that practice at all. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt.— You had some experience as an 
 agent in Tipperary in 1870 ? — I did. 
 
 Any Land League there then ? — I never heard of it. 
 
 Any agrarian murders in that year ? — I cannot say. I 
 could not trace them to that particular cause. 
 
 Do you remember the murder of Mr. Cole Baker, 
 J. P. , in Tipperary ? — No ; I do not. 
 
 Do you remember the terrible murder of Mr. Pierce 
 in county Meath ? — I had no experience of county 
 Meath. 
 
 Do you remember a gentleman farmer, Mr. Topham, 
 being shot at ? — I may have heard of it. I do not 
 remember it. 
 
 Do you remember the attempt to blow up the house 
 of Dr. Blunden in Tipperary in 1873 ? — I do not 
 remember. 
 
 Do you remember the murder of Mr. Bradshaw ? — I 
 have heard of it. 
 
 Now you have experience of Tipperary during the 
 time of the Land League ; do you remember a single 
 agrarian murder taking place in Tipperary in 1879, 
 1880, and 1881 ? — Well, I could not fix any particular 
 date. 
 
 ' Do you know the Land League was very active in 
 those years in Tipperary ?— My experience was that it 
 was less active in that county than in any other I had to 
 do with. I had less trouble with Tipperary tenants 
 than any of the tenants. 
 
 You cannot say whether the League was very active ? 
 ■ — I cannot say. 
 
 Would you be surprised to hear that there were more 
 branches of the League in that county than in any other 
 county in Ireland at that time ?— I had less difficulty 
 in that county than in any other county I had to do 
 with. 
 
 Do you not remember a single agrarian murder in 
 those years ? — I do not remember. 
 
 Ke-examined by Mr. Atkinson.— With reference to 
 those tenants who paid their rent by stealth, had you 
 previously offered them abatements ?— No. 
 
 Sik C. Russell. — There is one question I should 
 like to ask the witness. Do you know Sergeant Hemp- 
 hill ?-I do. 
 
 Did you ever read the evidence which he gave 
 before the Bessborough Commission ?— No 
 
 Do you recollect his being asked 
 
 Sie H. James.— My Lords, the witness says he did 
 not read the evidence. 
 
 Sie C. Kussell.— Well, I will not press it. 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher was then called and examined 
 by Sir H. James. He said,— I originally came from 
 
 county Mayo, where I held a farm. I was evicted 
 from it in 1879 for non-payment of rent. 
 
 Is there a place called Aughamore in county Mayo P 
 — There is. I remember a public meeting being held 
 there in 1879. 
 
 Was Mr. Davitt at the meeting ? — He was. 
 
 Was there a man called John W. Walsh there ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Was that a public meeting, held openly ? — It was. 
 
 What was the subject spoken of at the meeting ? — It 
 was to induce tenants to hold out against the payment 
 of rent until they got reductions. 
 
 On what estate was your farm? — TheMannin estate. 
 
 Who was agent on that estate ? — Mr. Joseph Blake. 
 
 Did he continue agent or did he resign ? — He 
 resigned. 
 
 When was that ; was it after the meeting ? — Yes, it 
 was after the meeting that he resigned. 
 
 Was he denounced at the meeting ? — He was. 
 
 Who was agent when you left your farm ? — Mr. 
 George Cuming Kennet. 
 
 When did you leave your farm ? — It was in the end 
 of 1879— no, it was August of 1880, I believe ; I can- 
 not tell the exact date, but I think it was then. I 
 was evicted ; I owed a year's rent, and proceedings 
 were taken against me in superior Courts in Dublin. 
 
 How long before the eviction did the meeting take 
 place ? — I should say about six months ; that is my 
 idea. I am not certain as to dates at all. 
 
 After this meeting did a dinner take place at which 
 Davitt and J. W. Walsh were present ? — Yes. 
 
 Had you any conversation with Davitt or Walsh ? — 
 Yes, with both of them. 
 
 What — if anything — was said about your paying 
 rent ?— I was told by Mr. Walsh first, in Mr. Davitt "s 
 presence, not to pay my rent, and then afterwards, when 
 we were separating, they told me to hold out against 
 the payment of rent and they would see that I was 
 properly looked after. 
 
 Was anything said as to the amount of reduction to 
 bo obtained or the action of other tenants ?— I was not 
 to pay until we got 25 per cent, reduction. 
 
 Tell me a little more clearly what was said as to 
 what would happen if you were evicted ?— They said 
 —Walsh particularly— that they would give me a posi- 
 tion in the Land League if they could do nothing else. 
 
 Did you after "this refuse to pay your rent ?— I did. 
 
 Had you the means to pay it ? — I had. 
 
 In consequence of that refusal were you evicted ? — I 
 was. 
 
 When you were evicted where did yon go ? — I went 
 to a neighbour's house, and after that to Dublin. 
 
 When you went to Dublin did you see any one about 
 your being taken care of ? — Yes, I saw Davitt, 
 Breiman, Walsh, whom I had known years before, and 
 Joseph Quinn. 
 
 Did you make any application to them as to employ- 
 ment ?— Several. 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 767 
 
 What application did you make to them ? — I said I 
 wanted a way of earning my bread ; that was all. 
 
 You have given me four names ; did you apply to 
 all of them ?— I did. 
 
 Are you certain you applied to Davitt ? — I am ; 
 perfectly certain. 
 
 Where did you see him ? — At the Land League, in 
 Middle Abbey-street. 
 
 How long were you in Dublin before yon obtained 
 any employment ?— I was eight or nine months walking 
 about doing nothing. At the end of that time my 
 money was expended. In the end I did obtain employ- 
 ment. 
 
 What employment did you obtain ? — I was employed 
 in the Land League rooms at £1 a week, in Upper 
 Sackville-street. 
 
 You said you were eight or nine months before you 
 got employment ; can you give me the date when you 
 were employed in these rooms ? — It was about May, 
 1SS0, as well as I can remember ; I am not certain as 
 to the date. I do not know the dates well. 
 
 You gave us just now to believe that you were 
 evicted in August, 1880 ?— I said 1879. 
 
 Me. Justice A. L. Smith. — He said 1879 first and 
 then 1880. 
 
 Examination continued. — When was it that you were 
 evicted ?— In 1879. 
 
 The President. — What was the date of the meet- 
 ing ? — It was six months before. 
 
 Examination continued. — You say you were evicted 
 in August, 1879, and that the meeting was some six 
 months before ? — It was six months at least, but I 
 could not tell the exact time. 
 
 It does not matter ; we can get the date from 
 other sources— for instance, from United Ireland. 
 Now tell me ; you went to Upper Sackville-street ; 
 what was the business — what was carried on there ? 
 Was it the central or a branch League ? — Central. 
 
 Was the whole house occupied by the League, or 
 certain rooms ? — Certain rooms in the house. 
 
 In what capacity were you employed ? — I was 
 employed writing. 
 
 In any particular department ? — In the law depart- 
 ment most of the time. 
 
 Who told you you were employed ; from whom did 
 you receive the announcement of your employment ? — 
 From Mr. Brennan. 
 
 How much were you paid per week ? — £1 at first ; 
 it was afterwards increased to £1 6s. and then to 30s. 
 a week, but I could not give you the dates. I was also 
 paid for overtime. 
 
 Now, you say you were employed in the law depart- 
 ment ; what took place in that department ? — The 
 taking up of writs sent up from the country. The name 
 of the person and the defendant in the case and the 
 subject-matter were entered, and an answer sent back. 
 
 Who was the head of that department ? — M'Gough 
 was the legal adviser, and a man named Doriss was in 
 charge of the department. 
 
 Did these communications you speak of come from 
 the branches of the League ? — Yes. 
 
 And were replies sent ?— Certainly. 
 
 Were cheques sometimes sent ? — Certainly. 
 
 Now, tell me — you say that M'Gough was legal ad- 
 viser, and Doriss head of the department ; who else 
 was in the habit of coming there ? — Oh,>a great many 
 people. 
 
 But who attended frequently ; who principally at- 
 tended there ? Was Egan in attendance there ?— Yes, 
 as treasurer. 
 
 Patrick Egan ?— Yes. 
 
 Did Brennan attend ? — Yes, as secretary. 
 
 Were there any other officers of the League ? — Several. 
 Quinn was assistant secretary, and Dr. Kenny 
 treasurer after Patrick Egan ; and there were other 
 clerks in the office. 
 
 Did Mr. Harrison come there at all? — Yes, when Mr. 
 Arthur O'Connor left. He wasthereonly about three or 
 four weeks before its suppression. 
 
 In what position was Mr. Arthur O'Connor ? — He 
 was an M.P., and was in charge of the whole depart- 
 ment for some time. 
 
 Was there a person named Pearson there ? — Yes ; he 
 was a clerk in the office. I could not tell you how long 
 he was there ; I do not know his Christian name ; I 
 could not be sure. 
 
 Was there a person named Philips ? — Yes ; he was 
 an accountant. 
 
 Do you remember a person called O'Donoghue ? — Yes. 
 
 What was his Christian name ?— Denis. He was 
 employed as a clerk in the same department with me. 
 
 Did you ever see Matthew Harris at the Land League 
 house in Upper Sackville-street ? — I did. 
 
 Did you know John Ferguson, of Glasgow ? — I did. 
 
 Did he ever interfere with the business of the League 
 in Sackville-street ? — He did. 
 
 In what way ? — He was often at the meetings there. 
 
 Did he take any part in looking at documents ? — He 
 was chairman of some of the executive meetings ; they 
 were held on the night before, or on several nights 
 before, a general meeting. 
 
 What do you mean by executive meetings ? — They 
 represented the Land League, for passing money and 
 granting cheques, and things of that kind. 
 
 There was a committee for those purposes ?— There 
 was. 
 
 When did these committees generally meet ? — As a 
 general rule the night before a general mseting ; from 
 time to time some nights before. 
 
 Were the general meetings meetings of the members 
 of the League, or of the committee ?— Of members of 
 the League. They took place in the rooms in Upper 
 Sackville-street. 
 
 Who formed the executive committee of which Fer- 
 guson was chairman ? — He was not the chairman ; he 
 took the chair at some meetings. 
 
 Was there any regular chairman ?— I think Mr. Par- 
 nell was the chairman. 
 
 Patrick J, Farragher, 
 
768 
 
 The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 But did Mr. Parnell attend the executive meetings 
 regularly ?— No ; he might not be in Dublin at all. 
 
 Do you recollect any other members of the execu- 
 tive ? — There were several others. There were Mr. 
 Davitt, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Healy, Mr, T. Harrington, 
 and others. 
 
 How long did you continue in the office in Upper 
 Sackville-street ? — Until the suppression of the League 
 in 1881. 
 
 Now, I want some facts from you, if you please. 
 When you were there acting as clerk had you been in 
 the habit of carrying messages for Egan ? — Yes. 
 
 Among other things have you sent off telegrams for 
 him ?— Yes. 
 
 Have you ever taken letters from the League rooms 
 to James Mullett's publichouse ? — Yes. 
 
 From whom did such letters come ? — From Mr. Egan. 
 
 And to whom were they directed? — To James Mullett, 
 4, Dawson-street. 
 
 Is that where his publichouse is ? — Where it was. 
 
 Did you give these letters to Mullett ? — Certainly. 
 
 Were they directed in Egan's handwriting ? — Cer- 
 tainly. 
 
 Have you seen Mullett open any such letters ? — I 
 have. 
 
 Have or have not these letters sometimes contained 
 money ? — Yes. 
 
 In what shape ? — Cheques. 
 
 About how many times do you think you have taken 
 letters in this way ? — I could not say exactly ; several 
 times. 
 
 About how many times have you taken letters which 
 you saw contained cheques ? — Two or three times. 
 
 Now, I do not ask the exact date, but can you give 
 me about the date when you took such letters ? — I 
 cannot tell you even as to a month. 
 
 Was it the beginning, or the middle, or the end of the 
 time you were there? — It was during the time I was 
 there. I remember one case about the end of July, 
 1881, I should say, when I remember carrying letters. 
 
 Have you ever seen cheques, so as to know the 
 amount of them ? — No. 
 
 Were you in the habit of going to Mullett's public- 
 houses apart from carrying messages ? — I was. 
 
 For what purpose ? — Before I went to the League 
 rooms I was in the habit of dealing with him, buying 
 tea, sugar, and other necessaries there. 
 
 Had he any shop besides his publichouse ? — Yes, he 
 used to sell tea and sugar and other things. 
 
 Have you seen Egan at Mullett's publichouse ? — Yes. 
 
 About how often should you say that you have seen 
 Egan in the company of Mullett ?— I could not tell 
 you exactly. 
 
 I do not ask you to say exactly — once or twice, or 
 many times ? — About ten or 12 times, I should think. ' 
 
 At the publichouse ? — Yes, and elsewhere. 
 
 Apart from seeing them in the publichouse, where 
 else did you see them ? — I often saw them together in 
 the streets. 
 
 Wheu you saw them together did they appear to be 
 on friendly terms ? — They were on friendly terms. 
 
 Why do you say that ? — Because I am aware of it. 
 
 How did you become aware of it ? — I saw them 
 together many times. 
 
 Did you gather that they were on friendly terms 
 from their conversation ? — From conversation with 
 others and from what I saw going on myself. 
 
 When you first came to Dublin in whose house did 
 you stay ? — I had lodgings at 11, Avoca-road, on the 
 south side. 
 
 After that did you go to Weldon's ? — I did after 
 about a fortnight. I met him, and so found out where 
 he lived. 
 
 Had you known Weldon before ? — Yes. 
 
 He is the man who was tried for firing at a man 
 named Young at Casjlereagh ? — Yes. 
 
 Was Weldon known to you as a Fenian ? — He was. 
 
 Did the trial of Weldon take place before or after 
 you went to the Land League rooms ? — Before. 
 
 He was acquitted ? — Yes. 
 
 Young was shot dead, was he not ? — Yes. 
 
 Weldon was rather an important man, I believe ?— • 
 He was a very nice fellow. 
 
 Have you seen Weldon with Egan and Mullett at 
 Mullett's publichouse ? — Yes. 
 
 And you heard their conversation ? — Yes. 
 
 From their conversation did you learn that there 
 was any particular object in those three men meeting? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I object to that form of the ques- 
 tion. We must judge for ourselves of the effect of 
 the conversation. 
 
 Sir H. JAMES.— I think I am all right. (To the wit- 
 ness.) Just tell me what took place between the 
 three men. — I was not present at their conversation. 
 
 Did they meet once only or more than once ? — More 
 than once. 
 
 How do you know that ? — Because I was with them 
 at the publichouse, although I was not in the room 
 when they were conversing. 
 
 About Christmas, 1881, did you know of Weldon 
 going to England ? — Yes. I accompanied him to the 
 boat. 
 
 About when was it ?— I should say before Christmas, 
 1881. 
 
 Was the boat going from Dublin 1— Yes, from North 
 Wall. 
 
 Where to ? — He was going to Manchester. 
 
 Did you see any cheque in his possession ? — I did the 
 day before he started. 
 
 On what bank was the cheque ?— On the Hibernian 
 Bank. 
 
 Did you often see Weldon at Mullett's publichouse— 
 frequently ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you see Weldon and Mullett go into any room 
 together ?— Yes. ' 
 
 What room ? — A room behind the bar. 
 
 Then there would be Mullett, Weldon, and Egan 
 together ? — Yes. 
 
 When was that ?— About March, 1880. 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 769 
 
 Would that be before you went to the Land League 
 offices or not ? — Before. 
 
 When Weldon showed jou the cheque did you see 
 him go to the bant ? — I did. 
 
 Did you see him get the money from the bank ?— 
 No ; I did not see the money pass, but I waited out- 
 side for ( hira. 
 
 While the Land League offices were in Upper Sack- 
 ville-street did the Ladies' Land League occupy any 
 room there ? — Yes. 
 
 When, as far as you recollect, did they commence to 
 do so 1 — When the Coercion Act was passed and the 
 prisoners arrested under it were sent to gaol. 
 
 What part did the Ladies' Land League take in the 
 work ? — They catered for the suspects. 
 
 Did they do anything else ?— They paid money away 
 to evicted tenants. 
 
 Who were the persons principally in charge of the 
 Ladies' Land League ?— Miss Lynch, Miss Nally, Miss 
 Parnell, Mrs. Moloney, and others. 
 
 Was Miss Stritch there ?— Yes. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not know whether your 
 Lordships see the relevancy of this evidence. 
 
 The President. — The suggestion is that the Land 
 League, the Ladies' Land League, and the National 
 League were all one continuous combination. Whether 
 the organization was carried on by men or women does 
 not matter. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — At this time Mr. Parnell was in 
 prison. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My learned friend is not accurate 
 in his' dates. This was before Mr. Parnell was 
 arrested. 
 
 The President. — I have assumed, I do not know 
 whether it is true.that the Ladies' Land League carried 
 on whatever they did in the rooms of the Land League 
 in Sackville-street. (To the witness.) Is that so ? — 
 Yes, but they had different rooms. 
 
 Examination continued. — Where were the Ladies' 
 Land League rooms ? — They were over those which the 
 men occupied. 
 
 I want you to give me the names of the ladies who 
 were present. Do you know a lady named Miss 
 Reynolds ? — I cannot say that I do, but I know that 
 she was there. 
 
 Where ?— In the office of the Ladies' Land League. 
 
 There are certain persons I want to ask you about. 
 Did you know a man named Pat Kearney ? — Of 
 Clonbur ? 
 
 Yes.— Yes. 
 
 Have you seen him at the Land League rooms ? — Yes. 
 I The Attorney-General.— These are all persons 
 with regard to whom evidence has been given, my 
 Lord. 
 
 Examination continued. — What have you seen 
 Kearney do there ? — Visiting there, that is alU 
 
 Visiting whom ?— Members of the Land League. 
 
 Do you know P. W. Nally ? — Yes ; I know him 
 well. 
 
 Have you seen him at the Land League rooms ? — Yes. 
 
 Often or not? — On several occasions. 
 
 Tell me of your own knowledge whether you know 
 of his receiving any money from the Land League. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell.— My Lords, I would ask my learned 
 friend to be particular as to that question " of his 
 own .knowledge " after the experience we had oE 
 Delaney's evidence. " Did he see any one pay him 1" 
 is the proper form of question. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I think not. 
 
 Sir C. Russell .—With great deference, my Lords, 
 it is. We had a deliberate statement the other day in 
 answer to a similar question put to a witness-—" Did 
 you know this ?" and " Did you know that ?' : and 
 afterwards, in cross-examination, it turned out that he 
 did not know it of his owu knowledge, but it was 
 what had been told him. I want to guard against a 
 repetition of that. The proper form of question as I 
 submit is " Did he see any money paid ?" 
 
 Sir H.James (to the witness). — You understand what 
 I mean — do you know this of your own knowledge ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I am objecting to the form of the 
 question. 
 
 The President. — It is a very usual form of 
 question. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I respectfully say, in view of the 
 reasons I have given.that the proper question is " Did 
 he see any money paid ?" 
 
 The President. — I shall not interfere with the dis- 
 cretion of counsel in asking a question in a manner 
 which is quite usual. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have pointed out the danger — the 
 great danger — of putting the question in the form in 
 which my learned friend is putting it. 
 
 The President. — Precisely so ; and you have also 
 shown where the safeguard lies— namely, in cross- 
 examination. 
 
 Sir. C. Russell.— I agree, my Lords. 
 
 Examination continued. — You understand, I presume, 
 what I mean when I ask you whether you know of 
 your own knowledge— do not tell me if you do not-" 
 whether Nally received money or not ?— I did not sec 
 any money paid to him. 
 
 First answer this question either Yes or No only. DM 
 this man Nally make any statement to you about re- 
 ceiving money ? — He did. 
 
 Sir H. James.— Now, notwithstanding the questiou 
 my learned friend has raised, I wish to ask the witness 
 what Nally 's statement to him was. Nally is a persou 
 charged. 
 
 The President.— Yes. 
 
 Sir H. James (to the witness).— Has Nally told yon 
 anything about receiving any money ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— My Lords, I wish to take your 
 Lordships' opinion about this. I quite agree that Nally 
 is one of the persons mentioned in the particulars. My 
 learned friend says that this is an inquiry into Nally's 
 criminality. 
 
 Sir H. JAMES. --Partly. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— I really wish to bring your Lord* 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
 U5 
 
I /(J 
 
 The Special Commission, January 22, 1S89. 
 
 ships' attention to the pointwhichl conceive to be import- 
 ant. I sit to be said gravely that this isan inquiry into the 
 criminality of Patrick Nally, or into the criminality of 
 another person who is mentioned in these particulars 
 — namely, Patrick Ford ? It clearly is not what the 
 statute contemplated, for he is not one of the persons 
 against whom specific allegations were made within 
 the meaning of the Act of Parliament, and he is not 
 one of the persons as to whose criminality or accessory- 
 ship to crime this inquiry is instituted, and to which 
 it is directed. Therefore, is the indirect — the unfair 
 indirect — effect of the evidence against others to be 
 let in ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — I do not wish to discuss this point, 
 if I may say so respectfully to my learned friend, in 
 the somewhat popular manner in which he has ad- 
 dressed your Lordships. I desire, on the contrary, to 
 look at it from the legal point of view. Nally is a 
 person charged, and we are entitled to make charges 
 not only against members of Parliament, but against 
 others. Against this man Nally particular evidence has 
 been given. For legal purposes, therefore, I submit 
 that we are as much entitled to prove what Nally said 
 as we are to prove what has been said by any of the 
 SO members of Parliament who are charged. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — May I say a word before your Lordships 
 decide this question ? I submit that, if it is sought to 
 give evidence as to what has been stated by different 
 persons other than the persons particularly named, we 
 are entitled to have a list of the persons whom theysay 
 the persons charged have associated with. Your Lord- 
 ships will remember that they have not given us any 
 such list. I also submit that it is necessary that such 
 persons should have notice given them of the intention 
 to give evidence of their alleged statements, in order 
 that they may have an opportunity of being here. More 
 than that, I think that it will be found that P. \V. Nally 
 is not one of the persons charged in the proceedings in 
 " O'Donnell v. Walter." 
 
 StR C. Eussell. — There is a point as to which I 
 think I was right. Your Lordship's observation made 
 me doubt my own recollection ; but I find I am 
 right with regard to it. The only way in which the 
 name of Nally is mentioned in the particulars is not 
 as a person whom they seek to incriminate as being one 
 of the persons against whom certain charges and alle- 
 gations are made, as the Act of Parliament under 
 which your Lordships are sitting states, but as one of 
 the persons guilty of crime, or an advocate of crime, 
 with whom the members of Parliament charged have 
 associated, so that he is not one of the persons men- 
 tioned. This is the way in which it is put in the 
 particulars : — " The following are the persons who are 
 guilty of crime," and so forth, " with whom it- is 
 alleged the said members of Parliament associated." 
 
 Mb. Justice A. L. Smith. — Then, have they not 
 got to prove that Nally was guilty of crime ? 
 
 Sm C. Russell. — It is not suggested that this ques- 
 tion is put with a view to establish that Nally was 
 guilty of crime. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — We are on a question 
 whether what Nally said is evidence or not. If he 
 said that he had committed murder, could not they 
 prove that ? 
 Sir C. Eussell.— No, certainly not. 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — They have to prove that 
 Nally was guilty of crime. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell.— How can his , statement be evi- 
 dence against the persons for whom I appear ? We 
 are not inquiring into Nally's criminality, because it 
 is a notorious matter of fact that Nally is now under- 
 going a sentence following upon a conviction of crime. 
 That has been mentioned again and again in the 
 course of this case. 
 Mr. Eeid. — That has been already proved. 
 The President. — That has no bearing upon the 
 question whether this evidence is admissible or not. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — My Lord, I put that forward in 
 answer to the observation of Mr. Justice A. L. Smith 
 that evidence would be admissible to prove that Nally, 
 with whom association on the part of the persons 
 charged is alleged, was guilty of crime. I was answer- 
 ing that observation by saying that it is not in dispute 
 that Nally was guilty of crime, because it has been 
 already proved over and over again that he is under- 
 going a sentence. 
 
 The President.— Bat you may prove a great many 
 things which are nut in dispute. 
 
 Sir C. Eussell. — But I am submitting that that is 
 not the object with which the question is asked. Nor 
 is Nally mentioned in " O'Donnell v. Walter," I am 
 told. K 
 
 The President, having consulted with the other 
 Commissioners, said : — We are of opinion that the 
 evidence is admissible. Evidence has been given that 
 this person Nally took part in the meetings of the 
 Land League and made speeches and so on. It has been 
 suggested by way of disparagement of his evidence 
 that he was a drunkard and a man not responsible for 
 his actions at all times, but that can make no 
 difference on a question of the admissibility of the 
 evidence. He has been shown to be a person engaged 
 in this combination, and therefore the statements 
 made by him are admissible. Of course, we shall see 
 whether they have a bearing and what that bearing is, 
 and how far they touch the other people. 
 
 Sir 0. Eussell.— I do not desire to dispute your 
 Lordship's ruling, but I think that your Lordship is 
 under a misapprehension as to the fact. The fact is 
 that the Nally who took part in the meetings i3 not 
 this man, but " Serab " Nally. 
 
 Sir H. James. — My learned friend is correct in 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — I certainly thought that 
 this was " Scrab " Nally. 
 
 The President. — I certainly was also under the 
 
 impression that this was " Scrab " Nally. But is 
 
 there not evidence of the same kind against this man ? 
 
 Sir H. James. — It is my fault for not having made 
 
 the matter quite clear to your Lordships. This is a 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 771 
 
 person who was referred to in a speech made by Mr. 
 Paraell, in which he said that the Land League was 
 under great obligations to him for the services he 
 had rendered, and we have given proof that he acted as 
 a Land Leaguer. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — No, nothing beyond that he was a 
 member of the League. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Yes, and that he took part in certain 
 meetings. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— He merely took part in a con- 
 vention for the selection of members of Parliament. 
 
 The President. — If it is disputed that this man was 
 taking an active part in the Land League, then 
 evidence of that fact must be given, but I am still 
 under the impression that there is evidence which 
 affects both the Nallys. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Will your Lordships allow us to 
 get this accurately ? We will refer to the shorthand 
 notes and to the speeches, and in the meantime I will 
 pass on for the moment. 
 
 Examination continued. — I knew a man named 
 Michael J. Kelly. He lodged with me in Dublin for 
 some time. He came from Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He 
 came to the Land League office. I saw him receive 
 money. He was paid weekly as a clerk in the office, 
 and afterwards as an organizer of the Land League in the 
 country. I knew a man named J. G. Butterfield. I have 
 seen him at the Land League offices. I have not seen him 
 receive any money. He was an organizer for the North. 
 I know a man of the name of M'Hugh. He was 
 tried with Weldon for the murder of Young. I 
 have seen him at Weldon's and also at the Land 
 League offices. He came to the latter place to 
 see some members of the Land League. Egan 
 left Dublin after the Phoenix Park murders ; it was 
 common knowledge that he did so. I did not see Egan 
 at Mullett'spublichouse after the Phcenix Park murders. 
 I knew Mr. Joseph Poole ; he was charged with the 
 murder of a man named Kenny, and executed, I believe. 
 I have seen him come out of the League rooms in 
 Upper Sackville-street. In 1881, or in the beginning 
 of 1882, in the League rooms he showed me some 
 money. He told me it was £50 ; it was in notes. 
 Just outside the League doors he made a statement to 
 me about the money. After leaving the Land- League I 
 went to work at Mr. M'Gough's office. He was de- 
 scribed as the legal adviser of the League. I remained 
 in Mr. M'Gough's office for about four months, until 
 November, 1882. After the suppression of the Land 
 League I know that meetings took place at the 
 Imperial Hotel. They were attended chiefly by mem- 
 bers of Parliament who were members of the League 
 and had previously taken part in its meetings. The 
 officers of the League attended the meetings at the 
 Imperial Hotel. I was sent to the hotel by one of the 
 members with letters. I did not see any of the old 
 officers of the League there. I saw Mr. Pa.rnell and 
 othpr members of Parliament there. I cannot recollect 
 the names of any but Mr. Parnell and Mr. Sexton. I 
 
 know John W. Walsh, and I have seen him pay money 
 to people in the presence of P. J. Sheridan. I recol- 
 lect the time when the League was suppressed. The 
 books and papers of the Land League were removed 
 from the offices, some to the house of Mr. Pearson and 
 some to that of Mr. Moloney. They were clerks in 
 the League offices. Mr. Pearson lived in North 
 Prederick-street. Besides the books, all letters and 
 documents were taken away. One parcel was taken in 
 a van and the other in a large dray. Mr. Pearson was 
 present at the removal. I know Mr. Campbell, M.P. 
 I cannot say whether he was present at the removal, 
 but he was in Dublin at the time. Mr. Campbell was 
 Mr. Parnell's private secretary. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— There is no doubt that Mr. 
 Campbell was and is secretary to Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Examination continued. — I saw Mr. Campbell at the 
 Land League offices in Upper Sackville-street the day 
 before the removal of the books and papers. I 
 knew James Carey, though I did not know him by 
 that name. I have often seen him at Mullett's 
 publichouse. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — What name did you know 
 James Carey by ? 
 
 Witness. — I cannot remember, my Lord ; it was 
 only one word. It was an assumed name. I have. seen 
 Carey go into Mullett's five or six times. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I now propose, my Lord, to ask the 
 witness to identify the handwriting of various letters 
 which have come from the Land League offices. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — These letters have not been dis- 
 closed to us. 
 
 The President. — I presume they are some of the 
 letters which have been before us. 
 
 Sir IT. James.— Yes, my Lord. 
 
 The following letters were then put in and read by 
 the learned counsel, and the handwriting was identi- 
 fied by the witness : — 
 
 " The Irish National Land League and Labour 
 and Industrial Union, 39, Upper Sackville- 
 street, Dublin, Sept. 22nd, 1881. 
 " Rev. Martin Mullet, Killeen Spiddal.co. Galway. 
 " Rev. Dear Sir, — I am directed to inform you 
 that the executive will contribute £5 towards the 
 expenses of the prisoners at the Quarter Sessions at 
 Galway. 
 
 " You should preserve this letter and produce it 
 when the expenses are claimed. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, " William Doriss." 
 
 " The Irish National Land League and Labour 
 and Industrial Union, 39, Upper Sackville- 
 street, Dublin, Sept. 28th, 1881. 
 " Dear Sir, — We only received yours of the 23d 
 instant to-day, and regret extremely that the notice 
 was so short and we were unable to send counsel. I 
 hope that you have succeeded in the ease. Kindly let 
 us know on the enclosed form what expenses you were 
 put to. " Yours faithfully, "WiLLM. DORKias 
 
 " Mr. D. O'Shea, Castletoun Bere." 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
 25—2 
 
772 
 
 The Special Cpmmission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 " The Irish National Land League and Labour 
 and Industrial Union, 39,- Upper Sackville- 
 street, Dublin, Oct. 7th, 1881. 
 " Mr. Patrick Higgins, Castletown Nursery, 
 
 Cong, co. Mayo. 
 " Dear Sir, — The League will contribute £1 towards 
 the expenses in the case to which you refer. 
 
 " Your caution to the tenants to keep away from 
 the Law Courts until we see the result of the test 
 cases is quite right. " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " William Dokiss." 
 
 Upon the back of this letter is written £1, and below 
 £8 3s. lid., making £9 3s. lid. ; and below " autho- 
 rized A. O'.C," the initials of Mr. A. O'Connor, M.P. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I think we are now entitled to 
 see these letters. 
 
 The President. — That is a matter of consideration. 
 We are to blame, if blame there has been. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — As it is material to our case, I 
 should have thought that we were entitled to see them 
 as a matter of right. 
 
 The President. — The question is whether there is 
 any reason why these documents should not now be 
 seen, Sir Henry. We have always thought that there 
 was a time when these documents should be inspected. 
 The question is whether this is the proper time. 
 
 Sip. H. James. — Perhaps your Lordships will allow 
 me to answer that question later on. The next 
 letter is one addressed to Mr. A. O'Connor, M.P., 
 by a person named John Cullen. I understand that the 
 notes upon it " Air. pd. cheque £5. — A. O'C," and 
 " Receipt enter. — A. O'C." are admitted to be those of 
 Mr. A. O'Connor, M.P. The letter is as follows : — 
 " Brackreybeg Manorhamilton October loth 1881. 
 " A. O'Conner Esq. M.P. 
 
 " Dear Sir — Enclosed you will find a cheque for 
 fiye pounds as a first instalment from our new branch 
 and we request you to fix a day that you or Mr. Sexton 
 might find it convenient to attend a monster meeting 
 here for never as I stated in a previous communication 
 was it as nessary to hold such a meeting, I enclose the 
 names of our new executive committee with a few words 
 explaining how things stand here. As I stated before 
 immediately after the election here I organized the 
 first branch of the League here in Manorhamilton in 
 direct opisition to the priests of the locality so 
 bitter was their opisition that Dr. McGuire dared a 
 parishoner of his to give us a room to ait in well 
 fortunately the half of Manorhamilton town belongs 
 to the parish of Kilasnet & I live in the latter parish 
 well after all opisition we had our first monster meet- 
 ing which was a great sucksess as Mr. Sherdan is 
 aware as he attended on behalf of the Central League, 
 Well after our first meeting opisition ceased & aftor a 
 short time the priest came to the front & almost all 
 joined the League, well the people was delighted at 
 the change but after some time the began to use there 
 influence to promote the interests of the Whig party, 
 A trick that I soon exposed & the result was that as 
 president of the Manorhamilton branch I had some 
 bitter discussion with the priests at many a commitee 
 meeting well I resigned the presidency but still I was 
 recognised as leader on account of the part I took in 
 organizing some half-score of branches of the League. 
 Well that left me at daggers points with the Whig 
 party here I seen the branch going from bad to worse 
 
 & as I organized a branch of the Labour League some 
 weeks ago in the Kilasnet part of the town I seen 
 under the arangement come to at the convention the 
 would have to amoligamate with the other Manor- 
 hamilton branch & as it is one of the strongholds of 
 the Whig party here I advised to become a Land & 
 Labour League so the agreed & an last night at their 
 meeting called in order to adopt resolutions condem- 
 ing the action of the hiprocrate & brutal government 
 in aresting Irelands noble leader. The afterwards 
 reconstuted there branch & gave it the name of East 
 Kilasnet Michael Davit Branch of the Irish National 
 Land League & Labour & Industrial Union. Wel| as the 
 (eldest one) elected one there sectrary I withdrew 
 from the other branch so did eleven members in fact 
 all from the Kilassnet parish withdrew in a body 
 after me. Now a word in reference to the other 
 Kilesnet branch least you might imagine that our new 
 branch might injure it but as you must perceive by the 
 fact of eleven townlads & the half of the town 
 going to an other parish branch on account of its being 
 to unconveniant to go to the parish branch Hoping 
 you will fix a day for our demonstration 
 
 " I have the honour to remain yours very faithfully 
 
 " John Cullen." 
 
 The next letter is from John Cullen to Mr. A. O'Con- 
 nor, and the note at the end i6 in the handwriting of 
 Mr. A. O'Connor as a direction to th« clerk to reply. 
 
 " Arthur O'Conner, Esq., M.P., 
 " Brackreybeg, Manorhamilton, October 20th, 1881. 
 
 " Dear Sir, I enclose you a draft on the Ulster 
 Bank for five pounds on Saturday the 14th, as a first 
 instalment from our new branch, East Killasnet 
 Michael Davit Branch, which has not been acknow- 
 ledged yet. Please let me know have you received it. 
 The manefesto that appeared on yesterdays papers 
 from irelands imprisoned Chief & his able coleages has 
 been favorably received here by all sincear Land 
 Leagures, but it has exploded a mine amongst the 
 Whig & luke-warm section & as I know a good deal 
 about the diferent branches in this part of the country 
 I would humbly sugest that a county convention be 
 called to give effect to the Commara of the mana- 
 festo. And for the future every branch should held 
 fortnightly meetings not of the committee but of all 
 the members cf the branch such meetings could be 
 held conveniant to each choppel on Sunday there 
 would be no expense attending such meetings and the 
 would be the means of keeping up the spirit of the 
 people & the would bring the weaknead face to face 
 with the determined & the local leaders would have 
 an opertunity of giving council & advice & condemning 
 any acts of the backsliders, I would also like to know 
 have you submited my letter in reference to the anoint- 
 ing of a county organiser to the executive council as I 
 would be most auksious at the present time to bring 
 all the influence I have with a good deal of the local 
 branches to bear on others with a view of imposing a 
 new spirit into them. 
 
 " Hoping for a speedy reply 
 
 " I have the honour to remain yours very faithfully, 
 
 " John Cullen." 
 
 " Write informing him that not having papers or 
 books of any kind I cannot remember such details as 
 the receipt of his draft but I have a dim recollection 
 of some such remittance. He ought to have received 
 an acknowledgment, let him not send any more till the 
 first is duly acknowledged. As to the other matters 
 you can reply to them. <' A. Q.C." 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 773' 
 
 Then, my Lords, October 15, 1881, there is another 
 letter. It is not a very important one, but I put it in. 
 It is written by F. P. O'Neill to Mr. A. O'Connor, 
 and is dated from the Irish National Land Leaguo 
 Office, Cork Branch, 26, Prince's-street, Cork :— 
 
 " Sir, — I send you enclosed cheque value ten pounds 
 from the Youghal Branch (Co. Cork) which please ac- 
 knowledge. They require some cards of membership 
 which it would be well to forward to them as they are 
 newly reorganized. Next Tuesday is the day decided 
 for to build the huts of the two evicted tenants in the 
 Kilbuttain district. The papers furnish a faint idea of 
 the indignation prevailing in Cork consequent on the 
 arrests.— Yours faithfully, F. P. O'Neill." 
 (Written across.) 
 
 " Abstd. cheque for £10.— A. O'C. 
 
 " Write receipt & enter. 
 
 " The delay in the issue of cards will be understood in 
 the present circes. of the Exce : & the members of th 9 
 different branches are urged to lean upon their local 
 organization in case of need. — A. O'C." 
 
 Examination continued.— Tell me if you know in 
 whose handwriting this is (handing a letter up to wit- 
 ness) ? — Moloney's. 
 
 Who was Moloney ? — Treasurer of the Land League. 
 
 Sib C. Hussell.— I thought he said Kenny was 
 treasurer. 
 
 Sir H. James (to witness).— You have given the 
 name Kenny as treasurer. Did Moloney follow him 
 or precede him ? — He followed him. 
 
 This, my Lords, is a letter signed by John P. Brode- 
 riek and addressed to Messrs. M'Gough and Fowler, 
 and dated Edward-street.Tralee, November 17, 1881 :— 
 
 " Dear Sirs, — On my return from Dublin two days 
 ago I found your letter dated the 9th inst. before me, 
 to which being very much occupied in the Land Com- 
 mission business, I omitted to reply earlier. At one of 
 my last interviews with your Mr. McGough he stated 
 he had been informed by some one of the L. L. Execu- 
 tive some Barrister a man named Lowden I shall be 
 said that I have been paid the fee of my taxed costs, 
 and I informed Mr. McGough according to the fact that 
 I had not been paid and that any statement to the con- 
 trary was seemly an error. Subsequently Mr. Monally 
 B. L. wrote to me saying without then naming his 
 informant that he had heard I was, paid. I wrote to 
 him in reply referring him to Mr. McGough that I had 
 not been paid. Later Mr. Dunlop of the Freeman to 
 whom part of my costs are still due wrote me saying 
 he had been informed I had been paid. I wrote him 
 also in reply that I had not and referred him to Mr. 
 McGough. I have reason to believe that the statements 
 of Mr. Monally and of Mr. Dunlop were founded upon 
 an allegation of Mr. McGough himself to them that I 
 had been paid ! In fact, I may be quite frank about 
 the matter, Mr. Moriarty told me so at the Gresham 
 on Monday night just as I was leaving for Kerry. I 
 am now content myself by repeating that I have not 
 been paid the price of my taxed costs that I never re- 
 ceived any money whatever from the League on foot of 
 my taxed costs since the date of taxation. I must and 
 will insist on Mr. McGough giving me the name of any 
 party ' some of the members of the tall executive ' in- 
 cluding ' Barrister Lowden ' whoever states ' they were 
 under the impression that the balance due on foot of 
 taxation was P a i d to me ' a statement which is as in- 
 sulting as it is mischievous and unwarrantable. 
 
 "I will thank Mr. McGough to send me certificate of 
 taxation which he holds by return post. — Yrs. truly, 
 Jno. P. BroDerick." 
 
 Then there is an endorsement :— "Paid, £58 16s. Od. 
 in full 18 November 81. P. CM." These are the 
 initials of Mr. M'Gough, legal adviser to the Land 
 League. To show what that meant, there is a letter 
 dated November 18, 1881, from Mr. M'Gough to W. F. 
 Moloney, Esq. : — " My dear Moloney— Send on re- 
 ceipt ' ' 
 
 Sib C. Bussell. — Is it necessary to read all that ? 
 
 Sir H. James.— It is certainly only the expression 
 of the opinion of one gentleman of another. Perhaps, 
 however, it had better be read :— 
 
 " My dear Moloney, — Send on receipt a cheque to 
 John P. Brodericfc, Esq., Solicitor, for £58 6s., in full 
 discharge of all claims on foot of Costs or otherwise. 
 He is a most wretched disagreeable nature, and I want 
 to get rid of him now and for ever. I must at same 
 time admit he has been badly treated. I have written 
 to say a cheque will fee at once forwarded to him.— 
 Yours very truly, P. C- McGough, W. F. Moloney, 
 Esq., Mount joy Square. P.S.— I enclose Broderick's 
 last letter." 
 
 Examination continued. — Just tell me, is that Mr. 
 Doriss's signature (handing a letter to witness) ?— The 
 body of the letter is in the handwriting of O'Donoghue. 
 
 Sir H. James.— This is a letter dated October 13, 
 1881, from William Doriss, Irish National Land 
 League, Sackville-street, to Mr. F. Seymor 
 Clarke :— "Defend the parties and the League will contri- 
 bute £2 towards the expenses." Then there appears in 
 red ink :— " Paid £2 W. E. M. i November 1881." 
 Attached to it is a letter of November 3 from F. 
 Seymor Clarke and addressed tp Mr. M'Gough :— 
 
 " Cloghan Banagher, 3rd Nov. 1881.— Dear Sir,— I 
 have received a circular from Mr. P. Egan,directing me 
 to forward my claims as Secretary of this Branch, 
 I. N. L. L. ,for £2 towards expenses of a trial to be heard 
 at Queen's Bench next Tuesday for ' Soycotting.J trust- 
 ing you will lot mp have same as soon possible,— I 
 am, dear Sir, yours, most faithfully, F. Seymor 
 Clarke. N.B.— I enclose you a letter from Mr- Doriss. 
 — F. S. C." 
 
 Attached to this letter is a note, " Paid £2.— 
 P. C. M." (To witness.) Do ypu know the handwrit" 
 ing of Mr. Ferguson of Glasgow ? Look at that (hand- 
 ing letter to witness).— No, I cannot say. 
 
 Then, my Lords, there is another letter, initialed 
 W.F . M.— that is Moloney— and dated from " G oot Hpuse, 
 Mohill, Nov. 5,1881." It is written by Kobert O'Brien 
 to Mr. Peter C. M'Gpugh :— 
 
 " Dear Sir,— Were it not for your letter and tele- 
 gram I would not have taken up the defence of the 
 Armaduff men at last Leitrim Assizes without having 
 made them pay me in the first instance. The amount is 
 not much, but I find that when money was to be 
 earned at petty sessions in tnis county, coming from 
 the same quarter, I was thrown overboard and others 
 employed. I am quite sure you would be no party to 
 see me humbugged and laughed at, and I trust you will 
 see me paid £5, my costs in this matter." 
 This is endorsed " W. F. M." and " Pay £5 Nov. 11, 
 1881.— P. C. M." Then, my Lords, a letter of Novem- 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
774 
 
 The Special Commission, January 22, 18S9. 
 
 ber 2, 1881, from J. F. Murphy to P. C. M'Gough, 
 Esq. :— 
 
 " Castletown Bere, Nov. 2, 1881.— Dear Sir,— I beg 
 to enclose bill received from Mr. Deyds, Cork. I trust 
 it will satisfy you as to the accuracy of my application. 
 Hoping to hear from you on an early day, I remain, 
 dear Sir, yours respectively, James F. MuitrHY." 
 
 That, again, is endorsed :— " Pay £10 10s. Od. in full 
 discharge of annexed accounts, the arrangement gene- 
 rally made with publicans being that they should pay 
 one half the costs.— P. C. M. 5. 11. 81." 
 Under date 10. 11. 81, that is, November 10, 1881, 
 there is a letter from P. Murphy to Mr. M'Gough : — 
 
 " Eathdowney, 10. 11. 81. Dear Sirs, — I am in re- 
 ceipt of your letter 7th inst. I and all here congratu- 
 late you on your legal victory over L. H. for the 
 tenant. It is surely a ' sign of the times.' To put 
 them (the Whelans) in line with the rest of the 
 tenantry as well as to mark local appreciation of your 
 splendid achievement it has been arranged to not offer 
 any disapproval of them (the Whelans) paying the rent 
 as per judgment. You will therefore kindly let me 
 know to whom the money is to be sent." 
 
 That is endorsed, " Pay £4 19s. Od. in full.— P. C. M. 
 12.11.81." Then there is a letter from William 
 Doriss, addressed to P. J. Cullen : — 
 
 " The Irish National Land League and Labour and 
 Industrial Union 39 Upper Sackville Street Dublin 
 Sept. 27 1881. Mr. P. J. Cullen, French park.— Dear 
 Sir, — I enclose the notice which you forwarded with 
 your letter of the 23rd instant. I regret to say that it 
 only reached us this evening We wired you in the 
 morning authorising you to employ a Local Solicitor 
 and I sincerely hope that all will go right.— Yours 
 faithfully, William Doriss." 
 
 Then there is a letter from P. J. Cullen addressed to 
 M'Gough, and dated " French Park, November 10, 
 1881 " :— 
 
 " Dear Sir, — Enclosed I beg to hand you Solicitor's 
 Bill of Costs, also telegram and letter received from 
 League, expecting amount of fame when convenient." 
 This also bears an endorsement :— " Pay £2 2s. Od. — 
 P. C. M. 11. 11. 81." The telegram referred to in 
 effect is — " Date, September 23. From Quinn, Land 
 League, Dublin, to Cullen, French Park. Procure 
 best legal assistance, and if necessary apply for an ad- 
 journment of the case until you can get a solicitor. 
 League will contribute to expenses." Then there is a 
 memorandum dated November 19, 1881, from Owen 
 Cogan, auctioneer, valuer, and general merchant, 
 Ballytore, County Kildare, to Mr. P. C. M'Gough, 
 Dublin: — " Dear Sir, — Enclosed you have an applica- 
 tion for £3 13s. Od. for costs in defending three licences 
 ■whose owners refused goods to a boycotted person. Mr. 
 Thomas Sexton told me to employ a Solicitor." There 
 is a postscript added : — " I had made the application 
 long ago but did not know whom to make it to." 
 
 The next is this letter :— 
 
 " Legal Department, tho Irish National Land 
 League 39 Upper Sackville Street Dublin 
 Sept. 29th 1881. 
 "To Mr. Owen Cogan Ballytore Co. Kildare 
 
 " re Publicans Licenses. 
 " Dear Sir,— Referring to your application for 
 costs I have to request that you will fill up the en- 
 
 closed form and forward it to us when the matter will 
 receive immediate attention. Yours obediently 
 
 William Doriss for Secretary." 
 
 The document referred to as enclosed is litho- 
 graphed and contains the statement that no appli- 
 cation for costs and expenses can be entertained 
 in future unless it be made according to the form. It 
 is stated that the application must be verified by the 
 secretary and treasurer of the local branch of the 
 League, and that the nature of the claim must be duly 
 set forth, showing among other things whether the 
 costs have been incurred in a civil trial, a criminal 
 prosecution, in connexion with a sheriff's sale, or 
 otherwise. I have now to read the report of a speech 
 delivered by Mr. Parnell with reference to P. Nally 
 and reported in United Ireland on November 7, 1885. 
 Mr. Parnell was speaking at Castlebar,at the National 
 League Convention of the county of Mayo. He said : — 
 " They were assisted in coming to this conclusion " 
 (in favour of the four candidates who had been adopted) 
 " in no small degree by the spirit of self-sacrifice 
 which was exhibited by the candidates who were not 
 chosen. There were other candidates, and foremost 
 among them I will mention the name of Mr. P. Nally; 
 and I wish to say oF Mr. P. Nally that he is a man 
 who performed great and important services in the 
 cause of the Land League when it was formed in this 
 county, the county of its birthplace. I believe of Mr. 
 Nally that he is one of the victims to the infamous 
 system which existed in this country during the three 
 years of the Coercion Act. I believe of Patrick Nally 
 that he is a victim of the conspiracy which was formed 
 between Lord Spencer and the informers of their 
 country for the purpose of obtaining victims for what 
 they called law and justice by any and every means, 
 whether they were innocent or not. I am convinced, 
 after a firm and impartial examination of the facts of 
 his case which it was my duty to make in common with 
 many other cases, that Mr. Nally is one of the 
 many victims who at present innocently occupy prison 
 cells in this country, that he was guilty of no crime 
 even against English law, and that he was innocent 
 especially and in a marked degree of the offence with 
 which he was charged ; and I consider it is our duty 
 and the duty of every honest man not to rest until we 
 have caused the prison doors to be unlocked to those 
 innocent victims. We are under a deal of gratitude to 
 the friends of Mr. Nally for the cordial way in which 
 they withdrew his candidature." 
 
 Mr. Sexton, speaking at the same meeting, said, — 
 " The Nationalists of Mayo deserved the sincere and 
 cordial thanks of the Irish leader, the Irish party, and 
 the Irish people for the self-denying action they took 
 at the convention. With reference to the name of his 
 friend, Mr. P. Nally, six years ago, when he (Mr. 
 Sexton) attended the famous meeting at Balla, he met 
 Mr. P. W. Nally. He wished to say that Mr. Nally 
 was a man who performed great and important services 
 in tho cause of the Land League and of his country." 
 
 Now I wish to refer your Lordships to some of the 
 evidence given by Sergeant Feeley. On page 1,673 of 
 the shorthand transcript your Lordships will see that 
 the witness speaks of a meeting held at Irishtown on 
 April 20, 1879, and our view is that that was tho great 
 meeting at which the Land League was formed. The 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 75 
 
 witness says that there was a procession, and that P. 
 W. Nally was in it. I will read some of the questions 
 and replies : — 
 
 " Had he apparently any people under him or not ? 
 — The people seemed to be all going up to him. 
 
 ' ' P. W. Nally is the man we have heard of who has 
 since been sent to penal servitude ? — Yes." 
 
 At this poinc a question arose as to the admissibility 
 of evidence concerning P. W. Nally. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — The point has already arisen, as 
 your Lordships will remember. It was when Constable 
 Peter Lavender was giving evidence. I pointed out 
 that the witness stated that Nally had nothing to do 
 with the Land League, that he was not a person 
 charged, and that he was merely mentioned in the 
 particulars as a person with whom persons charged 
 continued to associate. Your Lordships will see that 
 upon that occasion the speech just read by my learned 
 friend was read, I think, in czlenso, by the Attorney- 
 General. I fail to s?e anything to justify my learned 
 friend in raising the question again. 
 
 The Attoeney-General. — The discussion referred 
 to by Sir C. Russell took place before the Court had 
 heard the evidence of Feeley, the report of which 
 begins on page 1,G73 of the transcript. 
 
 Mr. JusticeA. L. Smith. — We thought at first that 
 the person concerned was"Scrab" Nally, there being no 
 evidence of P. W. Nally having anything to do with 
 the Land League. But then came Sergeant Feeley*s 
 evidence next day. 
 
 The Attorney-Genkbal. — Feeley brings together J. 
 W. Nally, P. W. Nally, P. J. Gordon, and others. He 
 saw tb.2m at the head of the procession going towards 
 the maeting at Irishtown. I will read some of his 
 evidence. Ha is asked about a subsequent occasion : — 
 
 ■' About how many people were there ? — It was the 
 largest number of people I have ever seen in Mayo ; I 
 should say there were nearly 20,000 people in it. 
 
 " 13th July, who do you recollect were there — give 
 me some of the names ?— Well, Mr. P. W. Nally was 
 in it ; John William Nally ; Mr. Davitt was in it. 
 
 " I am speaking merely of the platform, not in the 
 boJy of the crowd ? — They were on the platform also, 
 but they came in in the body of the crowd. Mr. Dillon 
 was in it and Mr. Daly, of Castlebar. 
 
 " (Sir C. Russell).— You mean Mr. John Dillon ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 " (Mr. Murphy).— And Mr. Daly, of Castlebar ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 " Is that James Daly ?— Yes. 
 
 " The proprietor of the Connavr/ht Telegraph ? — Yes. 
 
 " Did Mr. J. W. Nally arrive ?— He did. 
 
 " And Mr. Lowden ?— Yes. 
 
 " Mr. J. W. Nally lives at Ballagh ?— Yes, he does. 
 
 " Where does Mr. Lowden live ? — Westport. 
 
 M On their arrival can you tell me where they went? 
 ■ — They went to the reading-room — the League room I 
 think it was — in Ballagh. 
 
 " The reading-room is used as the League room ? — 
 Well, it was used as the League room subsequently. 
 
 " Were they joined by any gentlemen there ? — Yes, 
 John Walsh, of Ballagh, and Mr. Delaney,of Ballyhaunis. 
 
 "Is it the 10th or 18th August ?— The 10th of 
 August. 
 
 " I do not think I need trouble you with that one, 
 then. Will you pass to the 21st September — still in 
 1879— and on that morning did Mr. Lowden, of West- 
 port, Mr. James Daly, Mr. J. W. Nally — correct me if 
 I am not right ?— You are right. 
 
 " Mr. J. W. Nally, of Ballagh, Mr. P. W. Nally, of 
 Ballagh, Mr. Davitt ?— Yes. 
 
 " And Mr. Hickey ? — Yes, a commercial traveller. 
 
 " Did they leave the town for a Tuam land meeting 
 together ? — They did. 
 
 " Did they go with any number of people or not ? — 
 No, they did not bring any procession with them. 
 
 '" They went on cars.perhaps ? — Yes, John Walsh, of 
 Ballagh, also went. 
 
 , " Did they come home together or separately ? — 
 They came home within a short time of each other, on 
 cars. 
 
 " Where did they go ?— To Mr. Hughes's hotel. 
 
 " And did Mr. Walsh, Mr. Davitt, and Mr. P. W. 
 Nally go away by the train at 1 in the morning ? — 
 They did, in the direction of Ballagh by train. 
 
 " Mr. J. W. Nally, I think, remained in town that 
 night ?— Yes. 
 
 " The 20th of October, were you on duty again at 
 the railway station '/ — I was. 
 
 " On that date did Mr. Davitt cnme from Ballagh 
 along with a Mr. Ferguson, a gentleman from Glasgow ? 
 — He did, in company with Mr. Ferguson, of Glasgow. 
 
 " Is that Mr. John Ferguson ? — Yes. 
 
 " Were they met at the station by Mr. J. W. Nally 1 
 —Yes. 
 
 " And Mr. P. J. Gordon, of Claremorris ?— Yes. 
 
 " Did they have some conversation together ? — Yes, 
 while the train remained at the station. 
 
 " (Mr. Davitt).— When is this ?— The 20th of Octo- 
 ber, 1879. 
 
 " (Mr. Murphy). — Then, which of them was it went 
 to Dublin then ?— Mr. Davitt and Mr. Daly, or Mr. 
 Ferguson. 
 
 " 26th October, 1879, did ■ you see Mr. Josepl 
 Quinn ? — Yes. 
 
 " He is the gentleman, my Lords, whom, I think, 
 we have proved to be secretary to the Land League- 
 did he arrive along with Mr. Slattery ? — No, Flatley. 
 
 " For a land meeting at Kilkelly ? — Yes. 
 
 " Now, that was about 11 o'clock. Shortly after- 
 wards did Mr. J. W. Nally, and Mr. James Daly, and 
 Mr. Lowden leave for the same meeting together ? 
 
 " (Sir C. Russell). — If anything turns upon this you 
 had better not lead. 
 
 " (Mr. Murphy). — He has a note of it. If objection 
 is taken, of course I must get the witness to say what 
 occurred. Read me your note of the meeting, that is 
 the shortest way — Sunday, 26th October ?— ' At 11 a.m. 
 Joseph Quinn, of this town, left by car, accompanied 
 by William Flatley, for a land meeting to be held at 
 Kilkelly. At 11 30 o'clock a.m. John William Nally, 
 of Ballagh, James Daly, of Castlebar, J. J. Lowden, of 
 Westport, left for the same place. At 12 o'clock John 
 O'Connor, P. J. Gordon, and Ernest M'Grath, com- 
 mercial traveller, left for the same place by car, also 
 a Freeman reporter. Quinn, Flatley, Daly, Nally, 
 Lowden, O'Connor, and M'Grath returned to town by 
 the 7 o'clock p.m. At 11 o'clock p.m. Michael Davitt 
 arrived by train, and entered Martin Hughes's hotel, 
 and remained there with John O'Kane, J. W. Nally, 
 and J. J. Lowden, and at 1 30 o'clock a.m.'— that 
 would be the following morning, because the train 
 leaves Claremorris at 1 12—' James Daly, of Castle- 
 bar, left by train for Castlebar.' 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
776 
 
 The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 " Read your note of the 30th of November. 
 
 " (The President).— Is it again an actual note of the 
 same persons ? 
 
 " (Mr. Murphy).— It is, in substance. 
 
 " Tell me, shortly, did you see the same gentlemen, 
 or some of them, from time to time arrive at these 
 meetings ?— Yes. 
 
 ' ' And as regards now, for instance, J. W. Nally and 
 P. W. Nally, and Mr. Daly, have you seen them on the 
 platform when speeches were being made during this 
 period ? — Yes. 
 
 " And on some occasions Mr. Davitt was along with 
 them?— Yes." 
 
 These parties are thus brought together on several 
 occasions— P. W. Nally, J. W. Nally, Davitt, Qondon, 
 Dillon, Daly, Lowden, and others. But my learned 
 friend says that the organization was not galled the 
 Land League at that time. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I say there was no Land League. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— We are dealing with 
 an organization which was commenced in the 
 middle of 1879 and gradually assumed the form, 
 and then the name of the Land League. 
 When you find P. W. Nally making speeches on 
 platforms with these other persons I submit we have 
 sufficient evidence. It is true that when Mr. Parnell's 
 speech was first read there was no evidence to show 
 what service P. W. Nally had rendered, but by 
 Sergeant Feeley's evidence the aspect of the case was 
 very much altered. Sir C. Russell, in his cross- 
 examination of Feeley, never questioned the fact that 
 P. W. Nally was at these meetings. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — It was before the Land League 
 was established. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— It was •established on 
 October 28, 1S79 ; but we have a statement that the 
 agitation had begun in February in Mayo. 
 
 Tne Attorney-General.— We have had evidence 
 showing that League meetings began on April 20, 1879, 
 at Irishtown, and on September 21 P. W. Nally is at a 
 meeting with Mr. Davitt. There was not a word of 
 cross-examination to show that P. W. Nally was not at 
 that meeting. The only meeting about which there is 
 any question is a meeting at Irishtown in April, 1S79, 
 when Mr. Davitt was late and unable to get to it. We 
 now have evidence showing that P. W. Nally took an 
 active part in the foundation of the Land League in 
 Mayo, and it was for that service that Mr. Parnell 
 commended him. In the Nation for November 1, 
 1879, there is a report of a demonstration near Augha- 
 more, at which were present Canon Kavanagh, James 
 Daly, Lowden, P. J. Gordon, Sheridan, P. W. Nally, 
 &c. I submit that it is not possible to exclude state- 
 ments made by a man so closely connected with the 
 Land League as these facts show P. W. Nally to have 
 been. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — The Attorney-General has forgotten 
 for what purpose it is now sought to make us respon- 
 sible for the statements and actions of P. W. Nally. 
 What the witness was asked was as to the statement 
 alleged to have been made to him by P. W. Nally in 
 the year 1881. Therefore, even if Nally could be 
 
 shown to have been a member of the Land League at 
 some time or other in its early history it lies upon 
 my learned friends to show he was a member of 
 the Land League when he made that statement, 
 and no such evidence has been, or can be, given. 
 Now, my Lords, with reference to the evidence 
 that my learned friend has read, it is common ground 
 between us that the Land League, as an organization, 
 was founded in October, 1879, and towards the latter 
 end of October. Now, my Lords, I undertake to say 
 that there is no evidenoe before your Lordships as to 
 the existence of any branch of the Land League as an 
 organized body at any date prior to the 25th or 26th 
 of October, 1879. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— The 21st of October. 
 
 Mr. Asquith.— The latter end of October, at any 
 rate, my Lords. Now, what are the meetings at which 
 Mr. P. W. Nally is alleged to have been present ? 
 But, first, I ought perhaps to point out that the only 
 witness who has been asked the question whether 
 P. W. Nally was a member of the' League has stated 
 that in his opinion he was not. Now, what are the 
 meetings ? They are three — the first, on April 20, 
 1879, at Irishtown ; the nest, on July 13, 1879, 1 think 
 at Ciaremorris ; and the last, September 21, at West- 
 port ; and there is no evidence of his having ever been 
 present even at any other meeting. My Lords, at all 
 these three meetings you will find thatthe witness does 
 not speak to any speech of any kind having been made 
 by Nally, or any act done, except his having on one 
 occasion ridden in or led a procession, and on another 
 occasion sat upon a platform with Mr. Davitt and 
 other persons who were, no doubt, prominent leaders of 
 the agitation. That is the whole of the evidence. It 
 ceases in September, 1879. From that day to this my 
 learned friends are not able to produce a witness who 
 can speak to a single fact showing direct or indirect 
 connexion between P. W. Nally and the Land League 
 organization, and yet your Lordships are asked to 
 assume that a statement made in 1881 was made by 
 him as a member of the League, and that, therefore, 
 we are constructively responsible for it. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — What was the date of 
 Mr. Parnell's speech when he said Nally had rendered 
 important services ? 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — November 7, 1885 ; and if any im- 
 portance is to be attached to that I wish to point out 
 Mr. Parnell's words: — " I wish to say of Mr. P. W. 
 Nally that he is a man who performed great and im- 
 portant services in the cause of the Land League when 
 it was formed in this county." That is what Mr. 
 Parnell says. 
 
 The President. — Mr. Parnell was referring to some- 
 thing before October, when the Land League was 
 specifically established, even from your point of view. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. — I should think he was referring to 
 the presence of Nally at these very meetings ; but the 
 inference which my learned friends seek to found is that, 
 because Nally was present at the meetings prior to the 
 formation of the League, that statement made two 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 777 
 
 years afterwards — he never having been shown to be 
 a. member of the Land League even for a moment — is 
 admissible in evidence against us. I submit to your 
 Lordships that it is not admissible. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. 
 
 On its reassembling, 
 
 The President said, — We are not prepared at pre- 
 sent to givo an absolute decision on this point. 
 I may say this much — that I do not think the 
 formation of the Land League in October, 1879, 
 is the terminus a quo. The combination which 
 resulted in the formation of the Land League at that 
 time existed in some state or other for several months 
 before ; and, supposing it to be proved that the same 
 objects were advocated, and by the same means, at these 
 earlier meetings in 1879, as were afterwards advocated 
 subsequent to the formation of the League, that would 
 carry back the combination several months earlier ; 
 and anything said by the persons combining would be 
 evidence under the same circumstances before October 
 as after. But at present I have not in my mind, nor, 
 I believe, have my colleagues in their mind, any 
 sufficient definite evidence as to what were the pro- 
 ceedings before the formation of the League ; and 
 therefore, until fresh evidence on that point has been 
 given, we are not prepared to admit this evidence. 
 
 SlE H. JAMES. — My Lords, there are one or two 
 handwritings I have to prove. (To witness.) Just tell 
 me, do you know the handwriting of Mr. Henry Camp- 
 bell ? 
 
 SlE C. EtJSSEliL. — I do not think yon need trouble 
 the witness about that. Mr. Campbell is here. (The 
 documents were then handed to Mr. Campbell, who 
 was standing in the body of the Court.) 
 
 Mr. Campbell, after examining them, said, — Yes ; 
 they are all mine. 
 
 Sib H. JAMBS. — My Lords, I put in the handwriting 
 of Mr. Henry Campbell. It is a question of hand- 
 writing to a great extent. The first is a document of 
 the Executive of the Irish Land League in account 
 with H. Campbell. 
 
 The following document was put in and read : — 
 
 " By seven days' expenses incurred in looking up 
 test cases in King's county, Kilkenny, Tipperary, Wex- 
 ford, Waterford, Limerick, £13 12s. Id. ; balance to 
 Mr. Phillips, £1 7b. lid.— £15." Then — 
 
 " Sept. 24, 1881. To H. Devine, Esq., Tubbercnrry, 
 county Sligo. 
 ' ' My dear Mr. Devine, — I am in receipt of yours of 
 the 23d inst., and shall at once instruct our solicitor to 
 procure counsel for the defence of the cases at 
 Tubbercurry on Thursday next. Meanwhile the branch 
 can engage any local solicitor of whom they may 
 approve for the purpose of collecting and arranging 
 the evidence. " I am, Sir, yours very truly, 
 
 " Thomas Sexton." 
 
 The body of the writing is Mr. Campbell's, the signa- 
 tore is Mr. Sexton's, and the postscript, " P,S. Send 
 
 the name of the solicitor you engage to Mr. McGough 
 as soon as possible." The next is a small account of 
 C. S. Parnell, Esq. 
 
 " C. S. Parnell, Esq., debtor to H. Campbell. 
 
 £ s.d. 
 
 Sept. 4. 1 Telegram 10 
 
 15. 2 „ 2 
 
 17. Carriage of box from North-wall 
 
 Station 2 
 
 21. 1 Telegram 10 
 
 27. 1 „ 10 
 
 30. 7 „ 9 6 
 
 Oct. 2. 1 ,, 16 
 
 „ „ Repairing lock of box 3 
 
 £110 
 
 Can you tell me whose initial that is (handing a 
 letter to witness) ?— I could not tell. 
 
 The next letter is addressed to the hon. secretary of 
 the Irish National League, Dublin, and is as follows :— 
 
 " Answered 26.10.81. D. O'D. 
 
 " The Hon. Sec. Irish National L. L. Dublin. 
 " I. N. L. L. Carryallen, 25th Oct. 1881. 
 
 " Gentlemen, — I .am instructed to apply to you for 
 costs to fee a lawyer td defend Lawrence M'Dermot, 
 who has been returned from the petty sessions of 
 Carryallen, held 11th July, under bail, to stand his 
 trial for taking forcible possession. He was evicted 
 on the 16th May, and immediately afterwards retook 
 possession, which he holds since, and has also taken 
 all the crops of the land. He lives in Aughamilton ; 
 has a wife, 7 children, and his rent is £10 0s. 0d. ( 
 valuation £9 10s. Od. Landlord, John Latouche ; 
 agent, John McLean, both of Harristown, co. Kildare. 
 He and his mother have each got two grants. I have 
 to request that you will send as soon as possible a 
 grant to fee a lawyer to defend his case, and as the 
 sessions commences on the 29th, you will require to 
 lose no time in forwarding it. I would consider that 
 £2 or £2 10s. Od. would be sufficient. ^ 
 " Faithfully yours, 
 
 " CONSTANTINE O'REILLY. 
 
 " P.S. — I have also to request that you will as soon 
 as possible let me know in cases of processes that 
 have been served for these sessions should any one take 
 a defence. I ask you this, as several have asked me 
 the question ; my answer was nonpossumus. Let me 
 know is that yours ? " Faithfully, 
 
 " O. O'Reilly." 
 
 The next is from Martin Mellett, and is addressed to 
 the secretary of the Land League :— 
 
 " Killan Lippal, Galway, Oct. 21, 81. 
 " Dear Sir,— I enclose the solicitor's letter in re- 
 ference to the amount of fee required for defending 
 the persons from this locality who are prosecuted for 
 assaulting the police and process server. I enclose also 
 your letter in reference to same. There are other 
 incidental expenses which the poor defendants can 
 hardly afford to pay. If you could help them it would 
 be much required. 
 " Kindly send at any rate £4 4s. 0d., solicitor's fee. 
 " I remain, dear Sir, 
 
 " yours faithfully, 
 " The Secretary, " MABTIN Mellett, 
 
 •• N. Land Iieague." " R.C.A. 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
77S 
 
 The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 " Pay £4 4s. Od. 
 
 "EM 
 
 " 13 11 81. 
 
 " Killeen Spiddal, Galway, Nov. 11, 81. 
 14 Dear Sir, — I beg to inform you that I paid Mr. 
 Blate £4 4s. Od. for defending the persons to whom 
 referenco is made in the enclosed letter from Mr. 
 Doriss. By sending me the amount I will feel very 
 thankful. " Yours faithfully 
 
 " Maetin Mellett. 
 " P. C. McGough, Esq." " R.C.A. 
 
 Whose initials are those after the words " Pay 
 £4 4s. Od." ?— M'Gough's. 
 
 Whose is this letter (handing in letter) ? — Sweeney's. 
 
 Do you yourself know what he was ? — Yes, organizer 
 in Galway for the Land League at that time. 
 
 Sib H. James. — It is really only to prove the hand- 
 writing that I put in this letter. 
 
 Examination continued. — Do you know the signatures 
 of this cheque ? — Miss Parnell and Striteh. 
 
 Sib H. James. — This is a cheque dated July 21, 
 1881. for £5, payable to M. Devey. 
 
 Do you know what that bill, Henry M. Barton to 
 Reynolds and Sons, represents (handing document to 
 witness! ? — Yes ; he got vans to remove furniture 
 from Sackville-street. 
 
 Did Burton give orders for the things to be 
 removed ? — He got orders to get them removed. I 
 know he had them removed. 
 
 Sib H. James. — We have now proved the hand- 
 writing of the officials, and I propose that the docu- 
 ments shall go in as proof of handwriting. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — I think, my Lords, that this is a 
 convenient time to make the application that we 
 should be allowed to see a copy of the entire mass of 
 letters taken surreptitiously from the Land League 
 offices. The only ground on which we were not 
 allowed to see them was that they were not relevant 
 to the case. Now, my learned friends have made thpm 
 in some sense part of the case, and, that being so, we 
 are entitled to sec them. My learned friend has put 
 them in for the purpose of comparison of hand- 
 writing ; I think, therefore, that your Lordships will 
 agree that I am making a reasonable request when I 
 ask to be furnished with a printed copy of all the 
 documents. I say all, because I notice that there are 
 certain numbers on the papers, but they are not in 
 their consecutive order. For instance, one is marked ' 
 69, and the last was number 39. I think, therefore, 
 that, in the interests of juntice, to which my learned 
 friend so often made reference, your Lordships will be 
 of opinion that it is desirable that we should have the 
 entire mass of documents which were taken from the 
 Land League offices. 
 
 The Attobney-GeneeAL. — I have no objection to 
 my learned friends seeing the documents if your 
 Lordships think fit, but I must say a few words with 
 regard to what has fallen from my learned friend. He 
 has ventured to state in the course of his observations 
 that these documents were takon in some surreptitious 
 
 manner from the Land League offices. Your Lordships 
 will hear how these documents came into the posses- 
 sion of Mr. Soames, and I respectfully protest against 
 my learned friend interlarding his argument with 
 expressions of this nature. Now with regard to these 
 documents being treated as not being relevant before, 
 they' were sworn to bo documents retained by Mr. 
 Soames for the purpose of the defence in " O'DOnnell 
 v. Walter," and put into a box. It was never 
 suggested that they were not relevant, but they 
 were sworn to be documents privileged and protected . 
 Your Lordships saw the documents and said that the 
 time had not yet come for Sir C. Russell and his 
 friends to see them. I have no particular objection 
 to my learned friend seeing them at the present 
 . time. With reference to what my learned friend says 
 as to the numbers on the documents, that has been 
 done by the officer of the Court. 
 
 The Pbesident. — That is so. 
 
 The Attoeney-Genekal. — We have not put in at 
 the present time the whole of the documents which 
 we have got, because we have not yet put your Lord- 
 ships in a position to admit them. There are the docu- 
 ments, for instance, signed " J. F.," which I submit 
 my learned friends are not entitled to see until we are 
 in a position to prove that this is James Ferguson's 
 handwriting. I do not object to my learoed friend 
 seeing them when it is admitted that they are signed 
 by James Ferguson, of Glasgow. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I do not wish to get into any dis- 
 cussion on the matter, but it has not been alleged that 
 these documents were obtained from any responsible 
 officer of the League, and therefore they have been 
 taken surreptitiously. I shall be glad to hear how thoy 
 were obtained by Mr. Soames. My learned friend now 
 says that the reason why he alleged that they were 
 not properly to be inspected by us was not that they 
 were not material to the case, but that Mr. Soames 
 had them in his possession in connexion with the case 
 of " O'Donnell v. Walter," and he assigns that as 
 the reason why we should not see them. But the 
 decision of the Court of Appeal is to the effect that 
 documents are not the less bound to be discovered if 
 relevant to the case of A against B because they 
 were for special use in the case of C against F. My 
 learned friend objects to the contention that we should 
 see some of the documents before they are proved, but 
 it is not a question of what he proves, but of what he 
 is in possession of, and we have a right to every docu- 
 ment in his possession and in any way relevant to any 
 part of this case. I am not content with any narrow- 
 ing or qualification of that to which we claim to have 
 an undoubted right. 
 
 The Attoeney-Genebal. — I may say that we have 
 not got copies of some of the documents to be put in to- 
 morrow. 
 
 After consulting with his colleagues, 
 
 The Pbesidekt said, — This matter was very fully 
 argued on a former occasion and very fully considered 
 by us, and we take upon ourselves the responsibility. 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 779 
 
 There is no blame whatever with the Attorney-General 
 and those with him. We gave a decision which was 
 in their favour. Let me observe, with regard to what 
 has fallen from Sir Charles Russell with regard to the 
 decision of the Court of Appeal, that, with respect to 
 the question now before us, the parties in this inquiry 
 invited us to inspect the documents ourselves, and it 
 has been held by the Court of Appeal that when the 
 Judge is invited by the parties to examine documents 
 that takes it out of the ordinary rule. It is submitted 
 to our discretion, and we must exercise our discretion 
 in the best way we can. We came to the conclusion, 
 for various reasons, that they ought not to be inspected 
 at that time. I think now the time has come when 
 there should bo an inspection of them. There is ample 
 time for the other side to make any inspection which 
 they may think fit. I think, therefore, that these 
 documents should be inspected, and without the re- 
 servation which you, Mr. Attorney-General, mt.ke. 
 
 The Attokney-General. — Yes, my Lord, I under- 
 stand. All the documents put into the possession of 
 the Court. 
 
 Sib C. Russell. — Yes, or any other documents not 
 in the box. The same rule applies. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — My learned friend is not 
 entitled to see any documents which witnesses may 
 bring up. 
 
 The President. — No. 
 
 Sir C. Kussell then commenced his cross-examina- 
 tion of the witness. Have you had anything to do 
 with the production of these letters ? — I never saw 
 them, unless it were in the League office. 
 
 They were not shown to you in the course of taking 
 your evidence ? — No. 
 
 You said you were a farmer ? — I was. 
 
 And evicted, owing one year's rent ?— Yes. 
 
 Was that the rent for 1878 ?— No ; rent due up to 
 May, 1879. t 
 
 You were evicted, then, in 1879 ?— Yes. 
 
 For rent partly accruing in 1879 ? — I was evicted in 
 August, 1879. 
 
 Did you claim a reduction ? — I did, but did not get 
 it. I had a lease. 
 
 Then you went to the Land League and served as a 
 clerk ? — Yes. 
 
 After that what did you do ?— I was in Mr. 
 M'Gough's office. 
 
 After that ? — I was appointed master of the work- 
 house at Ballinrobe. 
 
 Are you still ? — No. 
 
 When did you cease to be master of the workhouse ? 
 — On the 3d of January. 
 
 This month ?— Yes. 
 
 Did an order come from the Local Government 
 Board ? — No : it was left to the decision of the 
 guardians whether 1 should be called upon to resign 
 or not. It was left optional to the guardians. 
 
 Were you called upon by the guardians to resign ?— ■ 
 
 Yes. 
 And an order was made for your removal ? — It was 
 
 left to the decision of the guardians whether I should 
 be called upon to resign or not, and I was called 
 upon by them to resign. 
 
 What were the charges against you ? — The first was 
 brought up against me by the parish priest, and was 
 one of immorality and drunkenness before I went 
 there at all. 
 
 What was the next charge. ? — The next charge was 
 for insulting language towards the matron. 
 
 And what was the next ? — The next was for immo- 
 rality again. I came out of all these. 
 
 What were the other charges made ? — I was after- 
 wards charged with not making my rounds according 
 to regulation, and for being drunk on September 4. 
 I was exonerated from those charges, but the Local 
 Government Board decided that the guardians might 
 call upon me to resign if they thought proper. On 
 January 3 I received notice. 
 
 Did you make any appeal to the Local Government 
 Board ? — I did not. 
 
 Was it a sealed order from the Local Government 
 Board ?— No. 
 
 When were you spoken to about giving evidence 
 here ? — I was not spoken to ; it came on inadver- 
 tently. 
 
 How ? — I was speaking about matters that went on 
 under the Land League and was subpoenaed. 
 To whom ? — To several people in Ballinrobe. 
 To whom ? — To four or five people. I think two were 
 policemen. 
 You think ?— Well, I know one was. 
 What was his name ? — Kirby. 
 Stationed where ? — In Ballinrobe. 
 How many persons were present ? — Five or six. 
 Will you swear they were not all constables ? — I 
 will. I am sure of one, and cannot say if another 
 was. 
 Where was this ?— It was in a publichouse. 
 When ? — About two months ago. 
 What was the next you heard of the inadvertent con- 
 versation ? — I was subpoenaed. 
 
 Who by ?— I do not know. He was a black man. 
 (Laughter.) A retired policeman, I think. A black- 
 looking man. I do not know his occupation or his 
 name. 
 
 Did Kirby tell you you were to be subpoenaed ?— 
 Yes, he told me I should get it in a couple of days. 
 
 When did you come to this country ? — On Wednesday 
 last. 
 And then your evidence was taken down ? — Yes. 
 What time of the year was it you were evicted ?— 
 August or September, 1879. 
 
 And the meeting of which you spoke was six months 
 before that ?— I could not tell you the date of the 
 eviction, but the meeting was held before the evic- 
 tion. 
 
 Then you went to Dublin, how soon after the evic- 
 tion ?— I kept writing to the Land League for about 
 three months and got no answer, and then I went to 
 Dublin. It would be about October or about November. 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
780 
 
 The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 You think it was November ? — Yes. 
 
 How long were you there before you got service in 
 the Land League ? — About eight months. 
 
 That would make it June, 1880 ?— I think it was 
 May, 188Q, I was employed by the League, but I am 
 not certain of the dates. 
 
 There were a number of clerks in the employment 
 of the League ? — There were. 
 
 There was an immense amount of correspondence 
 from all over the country R — Yes. 
 
 Do yon recollect the passing of the Land Act ?— Not 
 distinctly, but I heard of it. 
 
 How long altogether were you engaged by the 
 League ?— Until its suppression in October, 1881. 
 
 That would be from May or June, 1880 f— Yes ; 
 about that time. 
 
 There was a large amount of correspondence from all 
 the branches of the League all over Ireland ? — Yes. 
 
 And do you recollect whether it largely increased 
 after the Land Act was passed ? — I do not. One man 
 Would not know about it all. 
 
 How many clerks were engaged ? — About eight. 
 
 Not more ? — About eight. 
 
 And who were the persons you say were in the habit 
 of attending the executive meetings when you were 
 there ?— Mr. Parnell, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. T. P. 
 O'Connor. I did not see Mr. A. O'Connor till he 
 took charge of the office. 
 
 Who else ? — A great number more. There was Dr. 
 Kenny. 
 
 I want you to tell me who attended ? — There would 
 be three or four, or perhaps four or five at a time. 
 
 For what period ?— For six or nine months before the 
 suppression of the Land League. 
 
 Members of Parliament would be attending Parlia- 
 ment ?— Yes ; but they might come backwards and for- 
 wards, as they often did. 
 
 Are you able to say that Mr. Parnell ever attended a 
 meeting of the executive while Parliament was 
 sitting ? — Well, I do not mind whether Parliament was 
 sitting, but I saw him at several meetings. 
 
 Will you say Mr. Sexton ever attended these meet- 
 ings while Parliament was sitting ? — I think he did. 
 
 There was a fortnightly public meeting of the 
 League? — And a weekly one. 
 
 I suppose you were never present at executive 
 meetings ?— No. 
 
 When did the League go to Sackville-street ?— I 
 believe in 1880 ; I cannot say the exact time. 
 
 Were ypu employed at the offices in Middle Abbey- 
 street ? — No ; but I went there asking for employment. 
 
 Mr. M'Gough is a member of a firm of solicitors in 
 Dublin ?— Yes— M'GQugh and Fowler. 
 
 You were appointed clerk by whom f— Thomas 
 Brennan. 
 
 Were any of the executive present ?— No ; only some 
 clerks. 
 
 When did Mr. M'Gough first become solicitor ?— I 
 could not say exactly. 
 
 Do you remember the State trials in Dublin ?— Yes. 
 
 You were not in the employment of the League at 
 the time ?• — Np. 
 
 Do you recollect who was the solicitor ? — I cannot 
 tell you. 
 
 How long after that trial were you appointed ? — 
 About two or three months after the case was over. 
 
 Having that clearly in your recollection, let me 
 remind you that the trial was not over till January, 
 1881. What State trials did you mean when you 
 answered Sir H. James ?— I mean the trials heard in 
 the Four Courts in Dublin at which Mr. Parnell and 
 others were charged. 
 
 But these trials, I ard informed, ended in January, 
 1881 ? — I do not know whether I was in the office at 
 the time of the trial, but I know I was there on 
 several occasions. 
 
 Will you swear that you were in the service of the 
 League before February, 1881 ? — I will. I could not 
 tell you the exact date, but I think it was the 
 summer of 1880. I was there a good while before the 
 suppression of the League. 
 
 How many months were you there altogether ? — I 
 could not tell you. I kept no letters or correspond- 
 ence. 
 
 Were you there a year ? — I could not say that I was. 
 
 Will you undertake to swear you were there a year? 
 — I cannot, because I will swear nothing that I am not 
 sure of. 
 
 You said that Thomas Brennan gave you your em- 
 ployment as clerk. How long did he remain as secre- 
 tary of the League after you went there ? — Three or 
 four months, I believe. 
 
 After him who came as secretary ? — Mr. Quinn did 
 the business, but signed himself " assistant secre- 
 tary." I do not believe he was ever appointed secre- 
 tary. Mr. Harrington afterwards became secretary. 
 
 Do you recollect when M r - Quinn began to act as 
 assistant secretary ?— I cannot give the date, but I 
 believe it was after the arrest of Mr. Thomas Brennan. 
 
 You say you had been in the employment of the 
 League three or four months before Brennan was 
 arrested. 1 may inform you that Brennan was 
 arrested in May, 1881. Assuming that you were there 
 three or four months before Brennan's arrest, that 
 would bring you back to January or February ; will 
 you undertake to swear that you were ever in the 
 service of the League before February, 1881 ? — I was 
 to the best of my knowledge. 
 
 Now, let me ask you, please. You mentioned the 
 name of Mr. Egan. When did you see Egan at the 
 Land League office ? — I often saw him there. 
 
 Was he in the habit of being there every week or 
 several times a week ? — Be was. 
 
 How often did you see him there ?— I cannot say. 
 
 You must try. About how often ? About 20 or 30 
 times altogether ? — J saw him, that at least. 
 
 Did you see him there the whole time you were 
 there or only part of the time ? — I do not remember 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 781 
 
 that I saw him the whole time. I saw him occa- 
 sionally. 
 
 You know you left when the Land League was sup- 
 pressed. Before that had you seen him ? — I cannot 
 tell you. 
 
 Did you see him in October, 1881 ?— I cannot tell you . 
 
 In the previous September, or August, or July ? — I 
 cannot say. I saw him occasionally during the time I 
 was there, up to the end. Whenever he came over 
 from Paris he came to the office. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. — I thought he was in 
 Paris the whole of 1881. I did not know he came 
 back . 
 
 Sir C. Russell. —That is the important point, my 
 Lord. (To witness.) Did you see Egan at the Land 
 League offices during your employment there ? — I saw 
 him there on several occasions during the time I was 
 with the Land Leagae. 
 
 Over the whole period of your employment ? — Cer- 
 tainly not, only occasionally. 
 
 Did you see him at the beginning of your employ- 
 ment, at the end of your employment, and towards the 
 middle of your employment at the Land League ? — I 
 saw him occasionally during the time of my employ- 
 ment. 
 
 The question was repeated. — I saw him before I was 
 in it, while I was in it, and after I was out of it. 
 
 I must try once more. Was there any part of the 
 time when you were in the employment of the Land 
 League that you did not see Mr. Egan occasionally 
 visit the Land League offices ?— There was. 
 
 What time was that ? — I cannot tell you. (Laughter.) 
 
 Do you recollect Mr. Egan going to Paris ? — I do. 
 
 When did he go ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 When did he come back ? — He often came back. 
 
 How often ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 But try. — 1 cannot. I tell you I did not keep any 
 dates. 
 
 But we must make the best we can of you. — Very 
 well, Sir. 
 
 How often should you say, during the time you were 
 in the employment of the Land League, did Mr. Egan 
 fisit the offices 'I — I cannot say. 
 
 About how often ? — I cannot tell you : 
 
 Once ? — Oh, yes. 
 
 Twice ?— Yes. 
 
 Ten times ? — Perhaps ten times. 
 
 Is that as near as you can go ?— I cannot tell you, Sn\ 
 
 What did you mean by saying ten times P— I saw 
 him that at least, if not more. 
 
 Then I may take it that he visited the Land League 
 offices after February, 1881, and during the period of 
 your employment there, as well as you can say, about 
 ten times ? — I do not say that at all. I say I saw 
 him several times. 
 
 You did say that. — I said perhaps that or more. 
 
 Or more ? Very good. Now, was Egan a member of 
 the executive committee ? — I believe so. 
 
 All the time ?— I believe so. 
 
 As far as you. know ?— I mentioned that he was 
 
 treasurer, and that Dr. Kenny succeeded him as 
 treasurer. 
 
 Now, you spoke of taking letters to James Mullett? 
 —I did. 
 
 Whose place has been spoken of a3 a publichouse, 
 but which was in fact also a grocery and general goods 
 establishment ? — Oh, no. He sold tea and sugar and 
 drink. 
 
 Was he considered at that time a respectable man f 
 — He was. 
 
 In a respectable position in his calling ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you a member of any secret society ? — Oh, no, 
 not at that time. 
 
 What time ? — The time you are speaking of. 
 
 I have not spoken of any time. Were you ever a 
 member of a secret society ? — I was once a member. 
 
 Of what society ? — The Fenian society. 
 
 And when did you cease to be a member ? — I never 
 took any active part. 
 
 Beyond being sworn ? — I do not know. 
 
 When were you sworn in ?— In 1867. 
 
 You were quite a lad at the time ? — Yes. 
 
 And what was your native place ? — Mayo. 
 
 What part, I mean ? — Near Ballinrobe. 
 
 When do you say you took letters from Egan to 
 James Mullett ? — When I was in the Land League 
 offices. 
 
 When ? — I could not say. 
 
 When ? — I can give no date at all. 
 
 How many months were you in the Land League 
 offices ? It was you who took all the letters ? — I can- 
 not say. 
 
 Some time, at all events ? — Yes. 
 
 How many letters did you take to James Mullett ?— • 
 I cannot tell you. 
 
 One ? Two ? Three ? Four ? Five ? Six ? Seven ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Eight ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 Why did you stop short at eight ? — Because I am not 
 prepared to swear I took more than eight. 
 
 Will you swear you took eight ? — I will not swear 
 it. About seven or eight. 
 
 Will you swear positively you took six ? — Yes, I will. 
 
 Were they all taken about the same week or month? 
 — They were not. They were spread over a time. 
 
 When was the last ? — I cannot tell you. About Sep« 
 tember or October, 1881. It was near the suppression 
 of the Land League. 
 
 Which was the one as to which you were understood 
 to say that the letter was opened in your preseuce, and 
 you saw that it contained a cheque ? — I cannot say. I 
 know there were two letters in which there were 
 cheques. 
 
 You have only mentioned one so far. Had yon for« 
 gotten the other P— No, I think not. I will not be 
 certain I mentioned the other. 
 
 I do not recollect that you mentioned more than one. 
 However, I will take it you said there were two. Did 
 Mnllett show them to you ?— He did not. 
 
 Did he tell you the amount ?— He did no8. 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
782 
 
 The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 Do you know where Egan lived ? — I do not know 
 where his private house was, but I know where his 
 place of business was. 
 
 Do you know where he lived ? — I do not know his 
 private house. 
 
 Do you know whether he lived within a few yards of 
 Mullett ?— I do not know. 
 
 These were letters from the Land League offices that 
 Egan sent you with ? — Yes. 
 
 On Land League paper ? — I do not know. I did not 
 read what was inside them. 
 
 Was there no stamp of the office on the seal of the 
 envelope ? — There may or may not have been. My 
 recollection is that there was not. 
 
 What was Egan's position at that time apart from 
 the Land League 1 — He was partner with a Mr. Ogle 
 in a bakery, and he had something to do with the 
 North City Milling Company. 
 
 Was he considered a man in a respectable position ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Did Ejgan himself hand you those letters ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there any concealment about them ? — No. 
 
 I think you said you saw Egan in Mullett's house ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Drinking ? — No, not drinking. 
 
 Who is this man Weldon of whom you have spoken ? 
 — A man in whose house I was lodging. 
 
 Was he a Fenian ? — I believe he was. 
 
 Do you know ? — I did not meet him at any 
 meetings. 
 
 Do you know he was ? — He told me he was. 
 
 Was he a Fenian of the same kind you were your- 
 self, or an active one ? — He was an active one. 
 
 He told you so ? — Yes. 
 
 Where is he now ? — He is in America. 
 
 When did he go to America ? — I think it was 
 Christmas, 188.1. He went to Manchester first. 
 
 You have mentioned several other names ? — Yes. 
 
 How far is Clonbur from Ballinrobe ? — More than six 
 miles. 
 
 Did you know Kearney when you were living at 
 Ballinrobe ?— I did. 
 
 Well or not ?— Well. 
 
 Did you meet him frequently in the course of the 
 year ? — I often met him. 
 
 Where ? — At Ballinrobe on several occasions. 
 
 At fairs ? — At markets. 
 
 What was he ? — A trader. 
 
 What kind of business did he carry on ? — He used to 
 job in coals, generally. 
 
 Did you see him at the League offices ? — Yes, but I 
 could not tell you when. 
 
 Was it at the time of the Ladies' Land League ? — 
 Well, the Men's League and the Ladies' League were 
 in existence at the same time. I could not have seen 
 him at the offices when the Men's League was 
 suppressed. 
 
 You mean you are not certain whether it was before 
 the suppression of the Land League or not ?— I am sure 
 
 it was before the suppression, because I could not be 
 there after. 
 
 How long before ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 Whom did he see — you do not recollect the cir- 
 cumstance, probably ? — Indeed, I do not. There were 
 great numbers of people coming in and out. 
 
 I put the same question as regards P. W. Nally. 
 Are you quite sure you 'saw him at the Land League 
 offices ? — Yes. 
 
 You have spoken of one occasion when you saw 
 him ? — I saw him on several occasions. 
 
 When ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 Did you attach any importance to that ? — No. 
 
 Kelly. He lodged with you in Dublin ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you ever see him at the Land League ? — I did. 
 
 I do not think you said that, did you ? I think you 
 said that as regards him he was employed in the 
 offices of the Land League organization ? — He was. 
 
 And you afterwards said he was employed in 
 organizing ? Attending sales ? — Yes. 
 
 Very good. Now Butterfield — he was assisting in 
 organizing the north of Ireland ? — Yes. 
 
 Now Poole — had he anything to do with the Land 
 League ? — Not that I am aware of. 
 
 This man was afterwards tried and hanged for murder 
 in Dublin ? — Yes. 
 
 But that had nothing to do with any agrarian matter, 
 had it ? — Not that I know of. Except what I saw in 
 the paper. 
 
 You talked of meetings at the Imperial Hotel after 
 the suppression of the League. That hotel was used, 
 was it not, by the Irish members ?■ — Yes. 
 
 Now, I want to come to the period after the passing 
 of the Land Act. Do you recollect at that time you 
 were in the law department '{ — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember that at that time the League was 
 engaged in getting up test cases ? — Yes. 
 
 That meant, did it not, that instead of tenants rush- 
 ing indiscriminately into the Court, test cases repre- 
 senting different classes of tenants in different parts 
 of the country should be presented to the Court ? — Yes, 
 that was what was generally understood by it. 
 
 And the Land League took the charge and cost and 
 responsibility of having these cases brought into Court 
 and fought ? — I believe so. 
 
 And you also know that after the suppression of the 
 Land League there was a fund got up for the support 
 of persons imprisoned as suspects ? — I believe so. 
 
 I mean that was a matter of public notoriety ? — Yes. 
 
 And also that the League defended by counsel, assist- 
 ing them to get witnesses and so forth, a number of 
 people charged with various offences under Forster's 
 Act ? — I am not aware of that of my own knowledge. 
 
 But you were in the law department ? — I was. 
 
 And did you not know that the Land League did 
 spend large sums of money in defending persons 
 charged under that Act, and employed counsel and 
 solicitors ? — They did. 
 
 And a considerable part of your business — — f — Was 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
The Special Commission, January 22, 1889. 
 
 783 
 
 with regard to persons against whom processes of evic- 
 tion were taken. 
 
 And the League took the charge of defending them 
 and paid the costs ?— Yes. My work was generally 
 taking the names of the applicants and the subject 
 matter of the applications. 
 
 And they were principally ejectment processes ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 I do not know whether you are the best witness to 
 get it from, but as regards other charges made for 
 boycotting, assaulting the police, and so on, do you 
 know of your own knowledge that, rightly or wrongly, 
 there was in Ireland a great distrust of the adminis- 
 tration of justice ? — I do not know that. 
 
 Do you mean to say you do not know ? — I will not 
 tell you anything I cannot swear to. 
 
 Do you mean to say that feeling did not, rightly or 
 wrongly, exist ? — I do not understand you. 
 
 A feeling of distrust that the law was not fairly ad- 
 ministered ? — In Ireland ? 
 
 In Ireland. Do you not know that feeling existed ? 
 — Sometimes it might. 
 
 Have you heard of jury-packing ?— I have. 
 
 Have you known of the practice yourself ? — No. 
 
 You have mentioned Mr. T. Harrington's name iu 
 connexion with the secretaryship of the League. Was 
 it the business of the secretary to pay the employis of 
 the League each week ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you still swear that Mr. T. Harrington held an 
 official position under the Land League ?— I will not 
 swear that he did. 
 
 But you have sworn it already. — I have not. I never 
 knew that he was actually secretary of the Land 
 League. I only spoke from hearsay, 
 i Did you ever know him to hold any position in the 
 Land League ? — I did. 
 
 What ? — He was there on and off. It was a notorious 
 fact. 
 
 Mind, I am talkiDg of the Land League. — Oh ! the 
 Land League ! I do not believe that he held any posi- 
 tion in connexion with it. 
 
 If you ref'jr to the National League you are quite 
 right in what you say as to Mr. Harrington's position. 
 The man Kearney who has been mentioned, was he a 
 Fenian ? — I am not aware that he was. 
 
 Was he a member of a secret society ? — Not to my 
 personal knowledge. 
 
 Did he never tell you that he was ? — He might 
 have. 
 
 Did he ? — I believe he did. 
 
 What secret society ? — The Fenian Society. 
 
 Why, then, did you answer as you did a moment 
 a g ? — What could I say ? I did not know the fact of 
 my own personal knowledge. 
 
 But he did tell you that he was a Fenian ? — I believe 
 he did. I would not swear it. 
 
 Was James Carey a well-known man in Dublin ?— I 
 believe he was. He was made notorious by being 
 made town councillor,. 
 
 You have said that he went under an assumed name ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Where ? — At Mullett's publiohouse. 
 
 What was the name ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Did you know the man ? Have you spoken to him ? 
 —No. I saw him several times at Mullett's under an 
 assumed name. 
 
 How did you know that it was Carey whom you 
 saw ? — I saw him again after he was arrested. 
 
 Who called him by the assumed name ? — Mullett. 
 
 What did he call him ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 Was it a double or a single name ? — A surname. 
 
 Have you tried to recollect what the name was ?— I 
 have. 
 
 Did Mullett go by an assumed name ? — No. 
 
 Did anybody else go under an assumed name ?— Oh, 
 certainly. 
 
 What names did they go by ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 The President. — How did you know that the names 
 were assumed ? — I was informed that they were. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Did you hear any one else call 
 Carey by this assumed name ? — I did. 
 
 Whom ? — Several of them there. I could not tell 
 you who they were. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Do you remember my speech at 
 Aughamore, where you say I spoke ? — I do. 
 
 Do you remember my warning the people against 
 illegality of all kinds ? — I do not. 
 
 You swear that I and John Walsh asked you not to 
 pay rent ? — I do. 
 
 Did you take the words down ? — No. 
 
 Your memory seems very clear upon that point ? — It 
 is ; because it affected me very much. 
 
 You say that you saw several members of the executive 
 of the Land League attending meetings in 1881. Did 
 you see me among them ? — I could not say that ; but I 
 often saw you going- in and out. 
 
 When ? — I could not tell you. 
 
 In what year ? — I could not say. 
 
 In 1880 ?— I could not tell you. 
 
 In 1881 ? — I cannot remember the dates or even the 
 years when I saw you there, but I saw you there 
 several times, and you saw me. 
 
 Did you ever see me going to a meeting of the 
 executive 'i — I could not tell you. 
 
 You cannot tell me at what times in 1880 or 1881 
 you saw me ? — No. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir H. James. — Did you see Egan 
 in Dublin towards the end of your employment at the 
 Land League offices, shortly before the suppression of 
 the Land League ? — I think I saw him after. 
 
 Did you see him shortly before ? — I think so ; I am 
 not sure. 
 
 Taking it that the Land League was suppressed in 
 October, 1881, did you see him in that year ? — I could 
 not tell you. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — I submit that my learned friend is not 
 entitled to press the witness. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I am entitled to endeavour to 
 revive his memory. I propose to put in a report in 
 
 Patrick J. Farragher. 
 
784 
 
 The Special Commission, January 22 and 23, 1889. 
 
 United Ireland showing that Egan was in Dublin on 
 Saturday, October 8, 1881. 
 
 Mr. Reid. — When a witness is under re-examination it 
 is not regular to read from a newspaper in order to 
 suggest a date. 
 
 The President.— I think he is entitled to fix the 
 date if he can. 
 
 The Attorney-Geneeal.— It has been stated that 
 he never returned from Paris. 
 
 Mr. T. HAEEINGTON.— No. What has been stated 
 is that he did not return up to the time of the suppres- 
 sion of the League. 
 
 Sis H. JAMES (reading). — " United Ireland, October 
 8, 1881. — On Tuesday morning Patrick Egan, 
 treasurer of the Land League, who only arrived from 
 London by the morning mail, posted to Eilmainham, 
 and also called at the residence of Mr. Sexton, who is 
 unwell. Mr. Egan is in robust health and spirits. " I 
 now propose to put in another report and to ask the 
 witness whether Egan attended a meeting of the Land 
 
 The Peesidekt. — You are not entitled to do more 
 than ask the witness ' ' Do you remember such or such 
 a meeting ? " 
 
 Mr. Keid. — Putting in this newspaper is precisely 
 the same thing as calling another witness to prove 
 the meeting and then asking this witness whether he 
 recollects what he could not recollect before. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Here we have a certain record in 
 United Ireland. 
 
 The President. — This is very much what has taken 
 place over and over again. Sir Henry James is endeavour- 
 ing to recall to the witness's mind dates which up to 
 the present he has not been able to fix. Of course the 
 practice must not be pushed tgo far. 
 
 Sie H. James. — Do you recollect whether Egan was 
 present at a meeting of the Land League shortly before 
 its suppression ? — I do not. 
 
 Do you know of his making any financial statements 
 it the League meetings ? — I was not present. 
 
 As to the accusations made against you by the 
 guardians, you have told us that you were " dis- 
 charged " from all of them ? — Yes. 
 
 Then what was the cause of your leaving the post ? 
 — The parish priest and the curate had a spite against 
 me because I had been elected by the Conservative 
 party. The matron was called upon to resign in con- 
 sequence of a wrongful charge made against me, and 
 then the parish priest and the curate opposed me. 
 
 Was there any truth in the charges brought against 
 you ? — No. 
 
 The learned counsel then read an extract from 
 United Ireland of October 15, 1881, containing the 
 statement that on the previous Tuesday the weekly 
 meeting of the Irish National Land League was held 
 at the rooms in Upper Sackville-street, the attend- 
 ance being very large. Among those stated to have 
 been present was " Patrick Egan, treasurer." Two 
 letters were also put in, but not read. In one of them 
 the initialling of Harrison was identified by the 
 
 witness, and the other was identified by him as being 
 in the handwriting of Denis O'Donoghue and as 
 being signed by Mr. Sexton and countersigned by 
 Doriss. 
 The Commissioners adjourned at 4 o'clock. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23. 
 
 The Special Commission held their 37th sitting to- 
 day at half -past 10 o'clock in No. 1- Probate Court of 
 the Eoyal Courts of Justice. 
 
 On their Lordships' taking their seats, 
 
 Sir H. James said : — My Lords, I proceed to read 
 the letters with regard to some of which the hand- 
 writing has been particularly proved. We have proved 
 the handwriting of the persons whose names appear. 
 The first letter is October 19, 1881, from Francis 
 Little, who signs himself " Organiser." It is written 
 from Eemayhir, Fivemiletown, county Tyrone. It is 
 one I put in the hands of the witness, and he proved it 
 yesterday evening. I said I would read it this morn- 
 ing, and he proved the handwriting of Mr. Harrison, 
 who, he said, was one of the clerks in the office, 
 and the letter is addressed by Francis Little to Mr. 
 Harrison. The document was put in and was as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Kemayhir, Fivemiletown, Co. Tyrone, 
 Oct. 19, 1881. 
 " Dear Mr. Harrison, — Mr. Sexton has a number of 
 my weekly returns and letters. I don't know how I 
 am to get along at present. My funds are very low. 
 Can't I get some cash here to-day. Hoping the cause 
 to prosper under your care, " Respectfully, 
 
 " Feancis Little, Organiser. 
 " £10 in cash, H. J. H." 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I rather read it " ack.' s 
 
 The Peesident. — " Acknowledged." 
 
 Sir H. James. — It is so, I think, your Lordships. 
 See the memorandum below £10, " in " something or 
 " and " something. 
 
 The President.— I should myself guess that it was 
 an acknowledgment. 
 
 Sir H. James. — Or " on account " it may be. 
 
 The President. — It may be so ; but, however, I 
 suppose the important part is the other. 
 
 Sir H. James. — There clearly was £10 sent him. 
 Then, my Lords, on September 2, 1881, there is a 
 letter from the Irish National Land League, signed by 
 Mr. Thomas Sexton, and addressed to Mr. Francis 
 Bevine, Carrick-on-Shannon. 
 
 The document was put in and read, and was as 
 follows : — 
 
 " The Irish National Land League, 39, Upper Sack- 
 ville-street, Dublin, Sept. 2, 1881. 
 
 " Mr. Francis Bevine, Carrick-on-Shannon. 
 
 "My dear Sir, — I am not able to go to Breedogne or 
 anywhere at a distance but Mr. O'Kelly will be there. 
 
 " As yourself and Mr. Barry are now so well 
 acquainted with all the details and the whole manage- 
 ment of sheriffs' sales, I think that if you kindly 
 consent to take care of them there would be no occa- 
 
 Patricfc J, Farragher. 
 
The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 785 
 
 Bion to send a representative from here. I would find 
 it exceedingly difficult to spare a man for the purpose. 
 " Yours faithfully, " Thomas Sexton. 
 
 " P.S. — We have scored a triumph with regard to the 
 farm of Mrs. Devine. The notice did its work. With 
 regard to auction fees, the course you should pursue is 
 this — as soon as the auctioneer begins to take part in 
 the proceedings you should at once, and most emphati- 
 cally, object on behalf of the tenant to the employ- 
 ment of any auctioneer. Inform the sheriff that if he 
 employs an auctioneer he must do so at his own cost, 
 and state that as it is illegal to charge auction fees to 
 the tenant, the tenant will not pay them, and that the 
 sheriff, if he exacts them, will do so with the certainty 
 of action for damages before him. If you think it 
 essential to employ a solicitor for the day you may do 
 so ; but I think that Mr. Barrett and yourself are 
 quite able to deal with these matters. I understand 
 that Mr. Wallis's busiest day in the week is Saturday, 
 and the Herald is brought out on that day, so I con- 
 clude that it would be of no use to ask him to leave 
 Boyle on Saturdays. " Yours, &c, Th. S." 
 
 Then the next letter is a letter which my learned 
 friend mentioned yesterday, endorsed by Mr. O'Connor, 
 on October 19, 1881, from Baltinglass, written by Mr. 
 George O'Toole, and addressed to Mr. Harrison, 
 Dublin office. The document was put in and read, and 
 was as follows : — 
 
 " Sir, — I beg to apply to executive for the conside- 
 ration of the following claim. I have gone around the 
 county of Wicklow on every urgent occasion that pre- 
 sented itself during the last six months, suggested all 
 the various meetings, addressed them, attended all the 
 sales in that and the neighbouring counties, managed 
 the defence of the traversers at Wicklow Summer 
 Assizes, attended frequently the Central League meet- 
 ings for manifest purposes, and I am satisfied as a re- 
 sult that there is a perfect organization of the League 
 in this country. I regret that my exertions may at any 
 moment come to an end by arrest — a matter which 
 gives little concern. I don't grudge my time, but I 
 cannot afford to lose all my expenses, which I cannot 
 estimate at less than £2 per week for about 20 weeks, 
 which includes car hire, for which I will send you 
 vouchers by next post. I also beg for the settlement 
 of the lawyer's bill at the Wicklow Assizes furnished 
 some time ago to Mr. Doriss, and acknowledged by 
 him (number stated on the form). I can produce the 
 guarantee letter of the office if it be required. Await- 
 ing reply and settlement, 
 
 " I am, Sir, respectfully yours, 
 
 " George O'Toole. 
 
 " To Mr. Harrison, Dublin office." 
 
 Then there is endorsed by Mr. O'Connor— 
 
 " Send this to Mr. Phillips with letter authorizing 
 issue of £20 on account, but direct Ph. to call for full 
 statement of account with proper vouchers. Write 
 Doriss as to lawyer's bill referred to and ask him to 
 expedite it if not already paid, and to communicate 
 with O'Toole. Write Harrison stating what has been 
 done and desire him to obtain full details respecting 
 vouchers, and see to their being properly entered up 
 in county book." 
 
 Then there is a letter of October 18, 1881, signed 
 by H. Campbell and endorsed with the signature which 
 was proved yesterday, W. F. M,, addressed to M. J. 
 
 Kenny, Esq., M.D., Dublin. The document was put 
 in and read, and is as follows :— 
 
 " Oct. 18, 1881. 
 
 " M. J. Konny, Esq., M.D., Dublin. 
 
 " Dear Sir,— Yours received. Mr. O'C. and Mr. 
 Sheridan will proceed to London to-day. I will go by 
 Liverpool and bring the books from there to Palace- 
 chambers, and I shall also instruct the men at Liver- 
 pool to return to Dublin as you request. 
 
 " Mr. O'Connor wishes you to send him a cheque 
 for £30 on his bankers, Messrs. Kidgeway and Co., 2, 
 Waterloo-place, London. This sum is to enable us to 
 pay our way. as we go on. " Yours truly, 
 
 " H. Campbell." 
 Then, my Lords, that is endorsed " Attended to 
 22 10 81, W. P. M." Your Lordships will notice that 
 the words " Yours received, Mr. O'C. and Mr. Sheridan 
 will proceed to London," is written over an erasure, in 
 which the original words were "Mr. O'C. and Mr. 
 Biggar will proceed to London." After that is written 
 on the paper, I cannot say in whose handwriting, 
 " 52, Gladbrooke-grove-road, Notting-hill." Then, my 
 Lords, I am taking this by admission. My friends have 
 been good enough to admit a letter of the 19th of 
 October, 1881, from Jeremiah Leahy, honorary secre- 
 tary of the Firies Land League. The question arises 
 with respect to the evidence of Mr. Maurice Leonard, 
 which occurs on page 967 of the shorthand writer's 
 notes, and Mr. Leonard was asked : — " Do you know a 
 man, Jeremiah Leahy ? — Oh, yes. Will you produce, if 
 you please, a letter from Jeremiah Leahy to you ? 
 Sir C. Russell.— Who is he ? The Attorney-General.— • 
 He is a man who was referred to yesterday, at page 
 883. Sir C. Eussell.— What was he ? The Attorney. 
 General. — He was the secretary of the Corbally branch 
 of the Land League? — The Firies branch. The Attorney- 
 General. — Your Lordships may remember I withdrew a 
 letter yesterday until I could prove the handwriting. 
 The President. — Yes." The letter was admitted by my 
 learned friend to be Mr. Leahy's handwriting. Now, 
 my Lords, we have this letter. The letter was put in 
 and read, as follows : — 
 
 " Firies, Farrinfor, county Kerry, Oct. 19, 1881. 
 " The Secy. Irish N. L. League. 
 " Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of 
 £15 from the Dublin Central League for the relief of 
 two evicted tenants and a labourer, and for which, on 
 behalf of the Firies branch, I beg to return most sin- 
 cere thanks. You forgot to enclose a receipt form. 
 " Yrs. very faithfully, 
 " Jeremiah Leahy, 
 
 " Hon. Sec. Firies Land League." 
 That establishes his position beyond doubt. Then I 
 refer to some bills of costs. The first is " P.C.M., 
 Mr. McGough," with a letter of the 17th of Novem- 
 ber, 1881, from Clifden, by a person signing E. J. 
 Connolly, addressed to Messrs. McGough and Fowler :— 
 
 «' Clifden, 17th Novr., 1881. 
 " Dear Sirs,— I enclose particulars of costs as re- 
 quested. " Yrs. faithfully. 
 
 " E. J. Connolly. 
 "Messrs. McGough' and Fowler, 33, Upper Ormond 
 Quay, Dublin." 
 
786 
 
 The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 " Messrs. McUough and Fowler, solicitors, 
 " to 
 " R, J. Connolly, solicitor Dr. 
 
 {Defending the accused, 
 who was charged with 
 inciting to murder, at 
 Galway Summer Assizes 
 "£o 5 
 
 My Lords, there are other matters referring to this 
 matter. There is the letter of the 18th of November, 
 1881 :— 
 
 " Clifden, 18 Nov., 1881. 
 " Dear Sirs, — In Mr. Connolly's absence on yesdy. 
 I forwarded you name of case and amount of his 
 costs without giving you full particulars. I now 
 forwd. full parties, as there appears to be a small 
 error in costs forwarded yesdy. 
 
 " Yr. obedt. servt. 
 " J. J. Kino. 
 " Clerk to R. J. Connolly." 
 
 Then it is endorsed :— " Passed £1 10 W. F. M. 
 20 11 81." (Then followed the bill of costs as 
 amended.) Then, my Lords, we have a document on 
 one of the printed forms, initialed " W. F. M. 
 passed," authorizing the payment of the sum asked 
 for. Then the next is a form which your Lordships 
 recollect was read, setting out the particulars in the 
 margin. This is the form : — 
 
 " Criminal prosecution, assaulting and resisting the 
 bailiff at eviction out of Denis Heary's at Milane. 
 Persons indicted Denis Heary, Margaret Heary, 
 Margaret Heary, junior, Johanna Hurley, Johanna 
 Burke, Johanna McCarthy. Cork Assizes, July 10, 
 1881. Acquitted by jury. This was a very cruel 
 eviction, those parties defending their position until 
 Heary's wife was nearly killed." 
 
 Then comes " voucher enclosed from boarding-house 
 keeper, £4 8s.," and " consider tickets and bails ; " a 
 receipt for lodgings, and also six single tickets, giving 
 an amount of £7 9s. 8d. Other forms and bills of costs 
 of a similar character were also put in. Then there is 
 a bill of Mr. Patrick Kenny, Tullamore, Sept. 22, 
 1881, £7 14s., and passed. Then by admission there is 
 a letter from Mr. J. P. Quinn to Mr. James Lynan, 
 May 31, 1881 :— 
 
 " Dear Sir, — Please employ a lawyer to defend the 
 cases mentioned and we will assist. With regard to 
 the eviction of Widow Byrne and daughter, kindly fill 
 up enclosed form with particulars of case, and then 
 return to us. 
 
 " Yrs faithfully, 
 
 " J. P. Quinn." 
 Other bills of costs were put in. The following letter 
 was then read and put in : — 
 " Mr. James Boland 
 
 " Feakle L.L. 
 "Co. Clare; 
 
 " 28 Sep., 1881. 
 " Dear Sir, — Please employ a local solicitor in the 
 case, and the League will contribute £2 towards 
 expenses. Mr. Frost would be a good man to employ 
 for the defence. Please preserve this letter and pro- 
 duce it when applying for costs. 
 
 " Yrs faithfully, 
 
 " William Doeiss." 
 
 The case is a criminal prosecution — " Intimidation for 
 driving police, Thomas Gallagher, Ennis, Co. Clare, 
 Oct. 31 81. Crown adjourned the case. Amount of 
 cost, £2 6s." 
 
 Sie H. James. — Now, I have a series of communica- 
 tions from the Central League, giving authority to de- 
 fend prisoners. The documents refer to such matters 
 as riot, and forcible entry, and matters of that descrip- 
 tion. The question is whether we are entitled to put 
 them in without reading them all. 
 
 The President. — Yes, assuming them to be all of 
 that class. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — I understood that we were en- 
 titled to copies of the whole batch of documents 
 surreptitiously obtained. 
 
 The Attoeney-Genebal. — These are not documents 
 of which we have copies. 
 
 Sie C. Russell ,— We shall have copies of copies 
 such as you have ? 
 
 Sie H. James. — Yes, certainly. 
 
 The Attokney-Geneeal. — We have not copies of 
 these. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — I thought that the batch was the 
 batch that purported to be the League documents. I 
 understood that it had been arranged that Mr. Soames 
 was to produce the whole bundle. 
 
 The Attorney-Genekal. — Yes, certainly. 
 
 Sir H. James. — I now put in one of the forms as a 
 specimen. It is headed Irish National Land League, and 
 is a form with the heading printed for name of tenant, 
 address of farm, present address of tenant, whether 
 the tenant is caretaker, whether the farm has been 
 taken, &c, and then the particulars required are given 
 in writing. Then we put in a form " for the guidance 
 of organizers," with a letter from Butterfield, whose 
 handwriting has already been proved. It is marked, 
 " Paid J. Kelly per J. Butterfield." 
 
 The following letter was then read by Sie H. 
 James : — 
 
 " Friday. 
 
 " Dr. Kenny. 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I leave my account. Your clerk, Mr. 
 Harrison, said he would submit it to the executive. I 
 hope you will Mr. Redmond. He knows no more than I 
 do about him (Harrison). The money I claim is not 
 anything like I have paid out. I have had no settle- 
 ment since July 24. I wish, if possible, to start for 
 Newry by the 2 train to-morrow ; I will call at 11, or 
 a letter from you will find me at North Star Hotel, 
 Amis-street. " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " John P. Butterfield." 
 
 Then come directions as to organizers ; that each 
 branch is to be inspected once every quarter, the num- 
 ber of members to be ascertained, the number at the 
 previous inspection to be stated, whether sub- 
 scriptions are in arrear, local expenses to be 
 defrayed to be limited to necessary matters 
 connected with the working of the branch, in- 
 formation as to representatives of the League at 
 sheriff's sales, &c. These documents contain an 
 account initialled by M'Gough. Then come docu- 
 
The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 787' 
 
 ments with regard to criminal prosecutions, and a 
 letter from J. P. Quinn — the handwriting has been 
 already proved : — 
 
 " Dear Sir, — Your letter of the 18th instant 
 relative to the sales at Mooneystown to hand. We 
 will do our utmost to send you representatives of the 
 League to attend and direct sales. In the meantime 
 you are to clearly understand that where stock or 
 crops are seized their going to the emergency men 
 would he a loss to the tenant, and he must buy in. In 
 such cases the League will pay the costs. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, " J. P. Quinn." 
 
 Then there is a letter from R. M'Kenna, of October 17, 
 1881, initialled by M'Gough, which is as follows : — 
 
 " October 17, 1881. 
 " I have to apply for the costs I referred to in my 
 last. These costs have been guaranteed by Mr. Sexton. 
 I enclose letter of secretary, and also bills. Please 
 send more placards that can be sent through the post, 
 and say where we shall send our subscriptions for 
 1881. " Richard M'Kenna." 
 
 Then there is the payment of an account for £33, 
 initialled by Dr. Kenny, and attached is a letter from 
 John Kelly, of the 21st of October, 1881 :— 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I beg to hand you my statement of 
 account of expenses. This money, as I told you, every 
 penny of it I paid out of my pocket. My appointment 
 as organizer took place on the 4th of May last, and 
 since then I have not received one penny in salary. I 
 think it is proper that the account should be squared 
 up ; I cannot afford to be out of my money. Trusting 
 you will see the necessity of attending to this, 
 " I am, dear Sir, truly yours, 
 
 " John Kelly." 
 Then there is a receipt from P. J. Farragher, the 
 witness who was examined yesterday : — 
 
 " October 15, 1881. 
 " Received from Dr. Kenny fore over-time worked 
 18s. 6d. " P. J. Farragher." 
 
 Another sheet is for the guidance of organizers, with 
 the same heading, with certain expenses written on it, 
 and with the words written by Mr. Arthur O'Connor : 
 — " These should be paid, " and " Passed, W. F. M." 
 Then your Lordships will recollect that Farragher 
 said yesterday that a clerk named Burton was also 
 employed with him in the office. Here is a receipt, 
 passed by W. F. M. to H. Burton for work amounting 
 to 40 hours, from the 10th to the 14th of October, 
 and Burton acknowledges the receipt of £2. 
 
 Mr. Robert M. D. Sanders was then called and 
 examined by Mr. Murphy. He said, — I am the son 
 of Mr. Thomas Sanders, of Sanders Park, Charleville, 
 and assist him in the agency over estates in the 
 counties of Cork, Limerick, Tipperary, &c. The prin- 
 cipal estates are those of Mr. G. Massy Dawson, the 
 Board of Erasmus Smith Schools, and Mr. J. B. 
 Massy. The Erasmus Smith estate is situated in a 
 number of counties, but the southern estates are in 
 Limerick and Tipperary. He is also agent for Mr. J. 
 Cramer Roberts, about seven or eight miles from 
 Cork. 
 
 In 1880 did you become associated with your father 
 in the management of his own estate and of these 
 estates ? — I did, when I went down from the Uni« 
 versity. My father had about 300 acres in his own 
 hands as a grazing farm. He had about 30 tenants. 
 
 Was an application made to him by the tenants with 
 respect to granting Griffith's valuation ? — A demand 
 was made to take the rents at Griffith's valuation. 
 The application was made by the tenants in a body. 
 My father refused the demand. 
 
 What was the result as regards his tenants ? — Imme- 
 diately after that the Land League took up the matter — 
 
 Sir C. RUS3ELL. — How do you know that ? — I have 
 read the reports of the meetings in the papers. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — We cannot have these generaf 
 statements. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — When were these meetings of the 
 Land League ? — In the autumn of 1880. The first, I 
 think, was about the end of September — I think it 
 was the 26th. The labourers were threatened. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — How do you know it 1— They told 
 me they were threatened. 
 
 Examination continued. — What did they do in con- 
 sequence ?— They all left our employment, except two 
 men. We had to work ourselves. My brother and I 
 had to look after the cattle and feed the horses. 
 
 Was there any difficulty as to buying goods, &c. ? — 
 We could not get anything in the town of Charleville. 
 We could not get the horses shod ; the smith got into 
 some trouble for shoeing our horses, and was denounced 
 for it. We could not get the horses shod for a long time, 
 which caused great trouble, as the horses were 
 required to draw provisions, &c, from the station. 
 We applied to Dublin Castle, and they sent down a 
 farrier and a portable forge from the constabulary 
 depdt, and then we got our horses shod. 
 
 Until this time, until 1880, on what terms was your 
 father with his tenants ? — "Very good indeed ; he was 
 a very popular landlord in the district. 
 
 Was there till then any difficulty with regard to the 
 payment of rent ? — No difficulty whatsoever. 
 
 In that part of the country what is the character of 
 the land ? — Immediately about Charleville it is very 
 good land — principally dairy farms. 
 
 With reference to these other estates, what is the 
 character of the land P — The land on the Limerick and 
 Tipperary estates is very fair ; in fact, the farms on 
 them are principally dairy farms. The rents were well 
 paid up to 1880. 
 
 After this state of feeling which you have described 
 commenced, what was done by the tenants as regards 
 paying rent — did they pay openly, or secretly, or how ? 
 — My father's tenants paid secretly. They came into 
 the office, and paid one by one. None of them paid 
 openly until the following March. On the Erasmus 
 Smith property none paid openly for 18 months, I 
 think. With respect to the other estates generally 
 there was great difficulty in getting the rents. 
 
 Did you receive letters from tenants explaining why 
 they did not pay openly ?— Yes, a number. 
 
 Mr. Robert M. D. Sanders. 
 
788 
 
 The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 Did you receive one on the 3d of December, 1880 ? 
 —Yes. 
 Mr. Murphy then read the following letter :— 
 " Sir, — I take the liberty of writing to your honour, 
 hoping your honour will not refuse my request. Every 
 man here must show his poor-rate ticket, and any man 
 who cannot will not be able to sell his produce in the 
 town. If the ticket is not produced, they say, ' He 
 has paid his rent.' It would be a loss to me, for I 
 have a large amount of potatoes and cabbages for sale. 
 There will be a man appointed for each townland to 
 see the poor-rate paper ; and, as far as I can under- 
 stand, they will commence next week. If your honour 
 will oblige me with it, I will send the amount in 
 stamps or otherwise." 
 
 , The President.— It seems to me that we have had 
 specimens enough of this sort of thing. Surely you can 
 take such evidence generally. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Yes ; and with reference to these 
 letters I may say that there have been letters in the 
 newspapers contradicting them and stating that the 
 supposed writers never wrote them. If these letters 
 are to be referred to at all, it will be necessary for 
 me to ask for the names of the writers. 
 
 Mr. Murphy. — If these statements are made it will 
 be necessary for us to consider what we shall do in the 
 future. We must either give general evidence of these 
 letters or we must prove them in detail. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— We have had a good many 
 witnesses of this kind already, and I think it would 
 be better to give general evidence of such letters, as 
 your Lordship suggests. 
 
 Witness. — I should be sorry to endanger the 
 lives of any of these tenants by allowing their names 
 to be made public. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — If they all paid secretly it is 
 ridiculous to say that. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— You have no right to say 
 that. 
 
 Sir 0. Russell.— The witness had no right to make 
 that speech. The matter is not of sufficient import- 
 ance for me to keep this discussion up, but if these 
 letters are to be gone into I shall have to pursue the 
 subject and to get the names of the writers. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— Pardon me. My learned 
 friend says with reference to these letters that certain 
 statements have been made in the newspapers. That 
 is entirely irrelevant. I am perfectly willing to adopt 
 the course we have been taking during the last three 
 or four days, and to put the land agents into the box 
 simply to say that they have received letters of this 
 character, but it must not be suggested afterwards that 
 we have hesitated to give the details of the letters. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — My statement as to what appeared 
 in the newspapers was in justification of my objection. 
 
 The President. — It is not necessary for you to state 
 what your justification is. I presumed you were justi- 
 fied in making your objection. No great reproach 
 could be justly levelled at you, Mr. Attorney, if you 
 adopt the suggestion of the Court and give general 
 eyidence of these letters. 
 
 Examination continued. — Have you a number of 
 letters from tenants giving excuses as to why they paid 
 their rents secretly ? — I have. 
 
 Living, as you did, among the people, what, in your 
 judgment, was the cause of their not paying their rent 
 as they did before ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I must object tp that question. 
 
 The President. — Then we must have the letters, 
 It is only a general statement. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — Does your Lordship notice the 
 way in which the question is put — " What was the 
 cause of their not paying their rent ? " 
 
 The President. — You can ask what the tenants 
 alleged to be the cause of their not paying their 
 rent. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— I do not object to that. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— A few days ago your 
 Lordships ruled that a gentleman who had been in com- 
 munication with his tenants was entitled to say what 
 he believed to be the cause of their not paying their 
 rents. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Yes ; but Mr. Murphy did not put 
 the question in that way. 
 
 Mr. Murthy. — I will put the question in an unob- 
 jectionable fprm. 
 
 Examination continued. — What was the cause which 
 these people alleged for not paying their rent ? — 
 They said they were afraid of murder and outrages. 
 
 In your judgment was that an honest expression of 
 what they thought ? — Certainly it was. 
 
 Have you heard instances upon the estates managed 
 by you of tenants who had paid their rents being sub- 
 jected to outrages 'i— Yes. 
 
 Just give us one or two names of such persons ? — A 
 man named Timothy Burke was evicted from a farm on 
 Garranemore. for non-payment of rent, and six care-, 
 takers were put in to protect the farm. One of them, 
 named James M'Kenna, was soon after shot at and 
 was badly wounded in the head. 
 
 Did anybody take the farm afterwards ? — Yes, a 
 man named Griffin. 
 
 Was anything done to him ? — Yes, he was boy- 
 cotted. 
 
 Have you known people go a long distance in order 
 to pay their rent secretly, in a roundabout way ?— 
 Yes ; some of them went 25 miles to a post-office 
 where they were not known. One tenant who had 
 been fired at sent his rent from New Pallas, which 
 was 25 miles away. 
 
 Did you know a man named Jeremiah Ryan P — Yes ; 
 he is a national school teacher and keeps a shop in 
 Drumbane. He, in common with some other tenants 
 on the estate, was served with a writ of ejectment. 
 Judgment was obtained against him. and his farm was 
 sold by the sheriff and was bought in by the represen- 
 tative of the landlord. Subsequently Ryan came in 
 and paid the rent and costs, amounting to £56. 
 
 Did anything happen to him immediately after- 
 wards ?-^Yes ; his house was attacked by a number of 
 men and was fired into. 
 
 Mr. Robert M. D. Sanders. 
 
The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 789 
 
 Sir (J. HtTSSEix. — How do you know that ? 
 
 Witness. — I saw it in the newspapers. 
 
 Did you know a man named Michael Walsh ? — Yes ; 
 he was a tenant of Mr. Roberts's, of county Cork. 
 
 Do you recollect his being visited by some moon- 
 lighters ? — Yes. The tenants on Mr. Eoberts's estate 
 were called together to pay their rent on a certain 
 day in November, 1881, and a night or two before the 
 day fixed Walsh was visited by a body of armed men 
 and warned not to pay his rent. 
 
 Mr. Murphy.— The particulars of this case appeared 
 in United Ireland on November 5, 1881, under the 
 general heading of " The Spirit of the Country." It is 
 as follows :— " A Midnight Warning. — A telegram of 
 Thursday says ;— A party of armed, disguised men last 
 night visited the house of a farmer named Michael 
 Walsh at Berring, 12 miles from Cork, and cautioned 
 him repeatedly not to pay his rent or they would take 
 his life. He said he would pay his rent and would not 
 be intimidated by them. One of the party then fired, 
 and wounded him. it is believed, mortally. The 
 tenants were about to pay their rents to Mr. Sanders, 
 of Charleville, who is an agent. It is stated they are 
 afraid now to pay. A man named Daniel Herlihy has 
 been arrested." 
 
 Examination continued. — I do not know whether you 
 can tell me, but was the son of this man shortly after- 
 wards taken to the Cork Lunatic Asylum ? — Yes ; the 
 family were in great trouble. It was a great shock to 
 them, and soon afterwards the son became a lunatic. 
 
 Did the tenants pay after that ? — Yes ; they used to 
 pay secretly. They used to take the money into Cork 
 and pay it into my father's credit at the bank. 
 
 I will not pursue this matter further, but I will ask 
 you some general questions. Prior to 1880 had you ever 
 heard of attacks being made upon tenants because they 
 had paid their rents ? — No, never. 
 
 Did distress exist among your tenants, or was there 
 any particular reason for the existence of the state of 
 things you have been describing upon the estates under 
 your management ? — There was no exceptional distress 
 among the tenants on the estate in 1880. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — What age are 
 you ?— I shall be 27 years of age next birthday. 
 
 And in 1880 you were at the University ? — I was. 
 
 At the University at Dublin ? — Yea. 
 
 You had no previous experience in the management 
 of estates before you went to the University, I pre- 
 sume ? — No ; but of course I was a good deal at 
 home. 
 
 You mean for your holidays ? — Yes. 
 
 Did not the tenants in 1880 offer to pay if their 
 rents were reduced to Griffith's valuation ? — That 
 was their demand. 
 
 Speaking generally, how much above Griffith's 
 valuation were the rents on your estates ? — I think 
 about 30 per cent. But Griffith's valuation is excep- 
 tionally low on the rich grass lands of Limerick. 
 
 Well, there are two views about that, and I will 
 not discuss them with you. Just tell me when any 
 
 reductions were first made in the rents on any of these 
 properties by the landlords ? — On any particular l>ro> 
 perty ? 
 
 Well, I will take, for instance, your fathor's pro- 
 perty. Has any reduction been made on that property, 
 and, if so, when ? — At what period ? 
 
 I am asking you when the first reduction, if any, 
 was made. We are speaking of 1880.— My father 
 was in the habit of making allowance to tenants in 
 case of necessity. 
 
 To how many ?— I cannot tell you how many. If a 
 tenant sustained any loss an allowance was made to 
 him. 
 
 You mean that in exceptional cases, where a tenant 
 sustained any loss among his cattle by disease, an allow 
 ance was made to him ? — Yea. 
 
 But there was no general reduction of rents made ? 
 — No, there was no general reduction in 1880. 
 
 Was there in 1881 ?— Yes. My father made an allow- 
 ance to all the tenants in March, 1881. He considered 
 each case upon its merits. 
 
 Upon its supposed merits ? — Yes. 
 
 There was, therefore, no general reduction of rents ? 
 —No. 
 
 What would be the gale of rent in respect of which 
 the allowance was made ? — I could npt tell you. I 
 think it would be for the gale of the previous Novem- 
 ber. 
 
 Was there any general reduction in 1882 ?— I think a 
 similar plan was adopted in respect of that year. 
 
 What you would call a discriminating allowance 
 was made ? — Yes. 
 
 Was there any general allowance made in 1883 ?-» 
 The tenants were treated in the same way. 
 
 And I may take it that since that date there has 
 been no general reduction of the rent on the estate 'i — 
 Oh, yes ; there has been recently. 
 
 Under the Act of 1887 you mean, I suppose ?— There 
 was a reduction in 1885. 
 
 Of how much ?— I think of from 15 to 20 per cent. 
 
 How many tenants are there upon your father's own 
 property ?— They are mostly large tenants. There are 
 between 30 and 40. 
 
 You do not seem to know the property very inti- : 
 mately. — I know it very well indeed. 
 
 Well, is the number of tenants 30 or 40 ? — I do not 
 know whether you wish me to include some small 
 house tenants, which would alter the number very 
 much. 
 
 No ; only the agricultural tenants.— Then there are 
 about 30. 
 
 Did many of these 30 tenants get allowances pre- 
 vious to 1885 ? — I think all got it from time to time. 
 
 Will you pledge yourself that all got it ? — I think 
 all did with the exception of one. 
 
 They all got these discriminating allowances in 
 cases where they had lost cattle ? — Whenever there 
 was good reason they got an allowance. They got it, 
 for instance, whenever they had not been able to get a 
 good sale for their butter and other produce. 
 
 Mr. Robert M. D. Sanders. 
 
790 
 
 The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 What was the rental of the property up to 1880 ?— I 
 eannot tell you the exact agricultural rental, because 
 there are town holdings as well. The rental of the 
 whole property was something like £3,000. 
 
 What is it now ? — The nominal rental is nearly the 
 same. 
 
 Have any of the tenants been in the Court ? — They 
 have applied to the Court. 
 
 Have they got a reduction ? — Only two. The rest 
 were leaseholders, and they have only now applied. 
 
 Were all the tenants on the estate leaseholders ? — 
 Yes, with the exception of one or two. 
 
 You are aware that until the Act of 1887 lease- 
 holders could not go into Court ? — Yes ; they might 
 have done so by consent of the landlord. 
 
 Did you offer consent ?— Yes. 
 
 When ? — I wish to explain. 
 
 You can explain afterwards. When do you say that 
 you gave consent to the tenants to go into the Court ? 
 — I wish to explain how it was. 
 
 Answer my question. When ? 
 
 The President. — The witness is endeavouring to 
 answer it. He says he wishes to explain. He has 
 some difficulty in answering your question directly. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — Go on. — The old 
 leases fell iu in 1878, and new leases were granted. 
 My father thought that that was not a time for a final 
 settlement of the rents, as it was difficult to know 
 how things would go on. He therefore made leases 
 binding himself to give the tenants their farms at a 
 certain rent, but leaving it open to them in three 
 years' time to have the rents re-fized. 
 
 These leases were in writing ? — They were. 
 
 Were they asked for by the tenants ? — They were 
 very anxious to obtain them. 
 
 For what term were the leases ? — For 21 years. 
 
 With the option, as I understand you, of their 
 claiming a revision of the rents at the expiration of 
 three years ?— Yes ; a re-settlement of the rent. 
 
 Did their putting forward that claim to a revision of 
 the rent involve the surrender of their leases ? — Yes ; 
 they would then become yearly tenants. 
 
 They would become yearly tenants from 1878 ? — No, 
 no ; they would be in the same position as if their 
 leases had expired in 1881. 
 
 Now, I want to pursue this, please. Two of the 
 tenants had gone into Court. Have any more done so 
 since ? — They have allgone into Courtnow. The judicial 
 rents are not yet fixed, however, except in one or two 
 cases. 
 
 There was no Land Act in 1881 ? — There was the 
 Act of 1870. The new rents were to be made a 
 matter of agreement between the landlord and the 
 tenants, unless the latter went into Court. The 
 tenants had the option of either holding their leases, 
 of settling the rent by agreement, or of breaking their 
 leases and going into Court to get judicial rents fixed. 
 
 What was the rental of the Dawson property in 
 18S0 ?— I think about £7,300, 
 
 Have many of the tenants gone into Court ? — 
 No, very few. 
 
 Were the greater number of them leaseholders ?— 
 No, they were principally yearly tenants. 
 
 Ho iv many of them were leaseholders ? — Only a 
 small minority of them. 
 
 What is the present rental of the estate ? — The, 
 rental in 1888 was £7,070. 
 
 Mr. Justice A. L. Smith.— What is the number of 
 the tenants on the estate? 
 
 Witness.— Between 200 and 300, my Lord. 
 
 Cross-examination continued. — How many of the 
 tenants on that estate went into Court ? — I fancy 
 about 30. 
 
 May I take it that, as regards this property, no 
 general allowance was made to the tenants from 1880 
 to 1888 ? — Very large allowances were made them. 
 
 Then I must ask you when the first allowance was 
 made them ? — They had an allowance in 1880. 
 
 On what gale ? — On that which accrued due in the 
 early part of that year. 
 
 What general reduction did Mr. Dawson authorize 
 your father to make to the tenants on the estate ? — A 
 general reduction of about 20 per cent. 
 
 This property was principally dairy land, was it 
 not ? — Yes ; the tenants are small farmers and carry 
 on other agricultural work. 
 
 What was the rental of the Erasmus Smith property 
 in Limerick and Tipperary in 1880 ?— About £7,370. 
 
 What is it now ?— About £6,300. 
 
 Then I may take it that either the landlord made 
 some reductions or that the tenants got it in Court ? — 
 The present rents were fixed under a valuation made 
 by a gentleman agreed upon. 
 
 Do I understand you that the gentleman was agreed 
 upon mutually by the tenants and the landlord ? — The 
 tenants in 1881, instead of going into the Laud Court, 
 agreed to a revaluation, and the rents were settled by 
 a valuer. 
 
 Who appointed the valuer 'I — The landlord. 
 
 The reduction was considerable ? — Yes, but a small 
 number were not satisfied with the valuation and went 
 into Court. 
 
 From what date did the new valuation come into 
 force ? — It came into force in 1881. It was made in 
 1881 retrospectively as regards the last half of that 
 year. 
 
 Then I take it there was no reduction in respect of 
 rents in 1878, 1879, and 1880 ?— There were no 
 general reductions to tenants except those obtained 
 in this way. 
 
 What is the rental of the Cramer Roberts property 
 in the county Cork ? — I have not the exact figures, 
 but it is about £1,000 a year. 
 
 Did the tenants there go into Court ? — No, the 
 landlord gave reductions.. All through the season of 
 the depreciation of prices the landlord gave the 
 tenants a liberal allowance— about 20 per cent. 
 
 From what do you consider the depreciation of 
 prices begins ? — Different parts of the country were 
 
 Mr. Robert M. D. Sanders. 
 
The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 791 
 
 differently affected. The Cramer Roberts estate was 
 not a dairy property. 
 
 You would not say 1879 was a good year for estates 
 of that class ? — I believe not. 
 
 The worst you have known ? — It was a bad year to 
 the dairy farmers. 
 
 Did the allowance on the Cramer Roberts estate 
 date back to that time ? — I cannot say for certain 
 because I was not intimate with the estate in 1879, 
 but I believe there were special concessions to the 
 tenants. 
 
 Was it a general allowance ? — I will not say it was. 
 
 I gather that on all these estates, except on jour 
 father's property, where there were discriminating 
 allowances, there were general allowances and abate- 
 ments ? — With the exception of my father's and the 
 Erasmus Smith estate, general allowances were granted 
 on all. 
 
 Notwithstanding that reduction did not some of the 
 tenants go into Court ? — They did. 
 
 I will give you some instances on the Erasmus 
 Smith estate. M. Lynch— valuation £11, old rent 
 £18, judicial rent £11. J. Ryan — valuation £7 5s., old 
 rent £12 9s. 3d., judicial rent £8 os. M'Carthy — 
 valuation £26, old rent £46, judicial rent £35. T. 
 Iiyan — valuation £12, old rent £23 12s. 8d., judicial 
 rent £18 10s. Bourke — valuation £10, old rent £15, 
 judicial rent £12. Do you remember those cases ? — 
 There were some cases in which the tenants got con- 
 siderable reductions under special circumstances. 
 
 As I understand, notwithstanding the fact of the 
 reduction of the valuation, there was a very appreci- 
 able reduction of rent ? — There was a rise in the 
 rentals in 1861, and, in point of fatt, the revaluation 
 put back the rentals to much what they were before 
 1861. 
 
 There were a good many evictions by means of 
 Dublin writs ? — There were some, principally on the 
 Erasmus Smith property. There was a tremendous 
 combination against the payment of rent on that 
 estate in 1880, and it had to be met. A large number 
 of writs were accordingly served, perhaps as many as 
 20. 
 
 How many on the Cramer Roberts estate ? — I do 
 not remember any there, and on the Dawson property 
 there were very few legal proceedings during these 
 years. 
 
 How many were there on your father's estate ? — 
 There were three or four Dublin writs, but no evic- 
 tions. 
 
 There were evictions on the Erasmus Smith estate ? 
 —There were several, as the principal combination 
 was there. 
 
 You do not know the circumstances prior to 1880 ? — 
 My father was only appointed agent for the Erasmus 
 Smith estate in August, 1880. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General. — With re- 
 ference to the number of people who came to pay 
 their rent secretly, was there any difficulty in their 
 
 paying their rents if there had been no combination ? 
 — They were well able to pay. 
 
 Do you think that any question of a general reduc- 
 tion of rent was at all mixed up with the fact of send- 
 ing the rent secretly ? — I do not understand the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Were the people who sent their rent secretly those 
 who at the time were making it a condition that they 
 got a reduction ? — Some asked that they might get a 
 reduction, as they said it would be a great safeguard 
 to them if they got a reduction. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I have asked no questions thai 
 would lead to this. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — You were asked by Sir 
 Charles Russell whether there were special reasons 
 given as to the , reduction of rent being necessary. 
 Now, did these tenants who paid secretly decline to 
 pay unless they got a reduction ? — Some of them had 
 declined to pay before the other tenants, and in some 
 instances proceedings were taken against them, and in 
 others not. 
 
 Sir C. Rctssell. — I do not see how this evidence 
 arises out of anything I asked. 
 
 The President. — I confess 1 do not quite see.but the 
 very reason that I do not appreciate the re-examination 
 makes me more anxious to have the point cleared up. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I wish to bring out a Cull 
 explanation as to whether these persons who paid 
 secretly did so because they got, or wanted to get, 
 seme redaction thereby. I desire to have the circum- 
 stances under which they paid their rents secretly. 
 
 Witness.- — In some instances they sent sums of 
 money, and said that if more were required they 
 would send it. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Now, listen to this letter 
 of the 26th of October, 1881 :— " I enclose rent for 
 £8 15s. 9d., being the half-year's rent by deducting 
 £1 0s. 9d. abatements, and lis. poor rate. I am send- 
 ing this at great risk, for if it be known I paid my 
 rent, mjself and my means would not be safe." In 
 that case had a reduction been given ? — It had been 
 given. 
 
 In that case the man knew of the abatement before, 
 but sent the rent secretly ? 
 
 The President. — Oh, is that the point ? These men 
 made payment secretly, although they got their abate- 
 ments. 
 
 Witness. — Ses, my Lord ; many of them were satis- 
 fied with what the landlords offered them, and paid 
 their rents secretly. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Now, look at this letter 
 of December 11 :— " I will ask you, as a friend, if the 
 sheriff is coming on and to carry out ejectments, as 
 there is one in my townlaud to have him come to me. 
 By doing so you give me a great protection, without 
 which I should be either shot or burned. I am sur- 
 rounded here by euemies. By paying you I got my 
 house burned last June." Had he ever asked you to let 
 the sheriff go to him before ?— Never. I may mention 
 
 Mr. Robert M. D. Sanders. 
 
792 
 
 The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 tbat he afterwards paid the cost of the sheriff going 
 there. 
 
 Sie C. Russell. — What have we gained by this 
 course of proceeding ? 
 
 The Attorney-General.— I am only anxious to pre- 
 vent my learned friend's saying afterwards that those 
 tenants paid secretly because they got some reduction 
 in doing so. 
 
 Sib C. Russell.— The case proved that the tenant 
 you have stated did get a reduction. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— That is not the point. 
 (To witness.) You have a" considerable number of 
 letters here referring to this. Was it a question of 
 tenants getting a reduction if they paid secretly, or 
 was it a question of the tenants paying subject to a 
 reduction they knew had been allowed ? — They paid 
 at the reduction that the landlord had previously 
 offered. 
 
 Speaking generally, were the people who wrote 
 those letters able to pay ? — They were able to pay. 
 
 On the estates which were dairy land, were times 
 worse in 1880 than they were in 1879 ?— They were 
 better in 1880 than they had been for two years pre- 
 viously. 
 
 Your father had allowed the tenants to claim a re- 
 valuation after three years, and if they had chosen to 
 become yearly tenants in 1881 they would have come 
 under the Land Act ?— Yes. * 
 
 Did you find any difficulty on these estates ? — There 
 was considerable difficulty, but chiefly on the Erasmus 
 Smith estate. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Were the 
 tenants who got a reduction of 20 per cent, on your 
 father's or on Erasmus Smith's estate ? — On Erasmus 
 Smith's. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I think it is hardly right 
 to say 20 per cent. The rent was £10, and the reduc- 
 tion £1, or 10 per cent. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I believe it is exactly 20 per 
 cent. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have yet to learn that 
 £1 in £10 is 20 per cent. (Laughter.) 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I was wrong, my Lord. I see it 
 was £1 0s. 9d. (To witness.) Have you a lease 
 with you ? — No ; but I can let you have a copy to- 
 night. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — I have now, my Lords, 
 to put in a' paper containing the names of certain 
 branches making contributions to the Land League, 
 and the amount of the contributions. Some of the 
 contributions are from America, including Cincinnati 
 and Illinois, and some from the Ladies' Land League, 
 Dublin. I am told that Sir C. Russell admits that the 
 words are written by Mr. Campbell, M.P., Mr. 
 Parnell's* secretary, but that there is no admission 
 as to the figures which are in pencil. The total 
 of the subscriptions when added up amounts to 
 £1.764 19s. 2d. Against the items there is the letter 
 " K," which I believe to be the account to which the 
 money was to go. 
 
 Denis Tobin was then called and examined by the 
 Attorney-General. He said, — I was born at Kilmana- 
 ham, near Abbeyfeale, county Kerry, and I have lived 
 there up to the present time. In February, 1880,1 joined 
 a society of moonlighters. I was sworn in by John 
 M'Enery, of Kilemly,county Limerick. Kilemly is about 
 one mile from where I live. M'Enery was a prominent 
 member of the League and established all the branches 
 round that neighbourhood. M'Enery is living there still. 
 The names of the League branches in the district were 
 Brosna and Mountcastlo or Knocknagashel. When 
 M'Enery swore me in he said that the moonlighters 
 were the only means of supporting the League, and if 
 it were not for the moonlighters the League would be 
 no good. 
 
 Did he say anything more on that occasion ? — Yes, 
 he swore me in. I took an oath to be loyal and true 
 to my country and to keep down landlords, agents, and 
 bailiffs, and that if I refrained from that I was to 
 suffer death. That was the substance of the oath. 
 
 Was anybody else sworn in at the same time ? — No, 
 Sir, not in my presence. 
 
 Where were you sworn in ? — At James Roche's house 
 at Knockbar. James Roche is a labouring man. He is 
 still there. I went to James Roche's to be sworn in. 
 John M'Enery told me to go there. He told me to go 
 there about a fortnight after he first spoke to me about 
 joining. During that fortnight he did not speak to me 
 again about it. I was working when he came to me. 
 
 Was the district divided in any way ?— Yes, Sir. It 
 was divided into three divisions of moonlighters. 
 They were the Ahane, the Gurtroe, and the Knock- 
 nagashel divisions. Ahane and Gurtroe are townlands 
 in the neighbourhood . 
 
 Were there any officers for these divisions ?— Yes, 
 Sir. Michael Morrissey was the officer for the Ahane 
 division, Thomas Dennis Connors for the Gurtroe 
 division, and John Griffin, tailor, for Knocknagashel. 
 
 Are any of these men alive still ?— Yes, Sir. Two 
 of them are still living in Ireland ; but one of them, 
 Griffin, went to Australia. 
 
 Had M'Enery any office or not ? — Yes, he was head 
 mail when I was sworn in. He was shortly after 
 taken up as a suspect. When he was taken up a, man 
 named William. Mangan, a prominent member of the 
 League, took his place. 
 
 Will you tell me any others you met who were mem- 
 bers of the moonlighters ?— Yes, I will. Sir. There 
 was Matthew Delane, John Griffin, Thomas Griffin, 
 James Griffin, William Delane, and Tim and Maurice 
 Leahy. 
 
 How many of these were members of the League ?— 
 I could say that the whole of them were members of 
 the League, Sir. 
 
 Where used these moonlighters to meet ?— At James 
 Roche's house. The same house where I was sworn 
 in. 
 
 How often 1 — Well, we might have met on five 
 occasions. 
 
 Do yon remember Delane saying anything about 
 
 Mr. Robert M. D. Sanders. 
 
 Denis Tobin.' 
 
The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 793 
 
 resolutions of the League ? — Yes, Sir. He told me 
 thsy had to attend the Land League and hear resolu- 
 tions that were passed against the parties who were 
 to be raided upon and who were condemned by the 
 League. 
 
 How long did this moonlighting society continue ? — 
 Up to the present day. 
 
 Did you ever join either the Land League or the 
 National League ? — I joined the National League 
 about 1885 or 1886. When I joined James Moriarty 
 was secretary and David William Curtin was treasurer. 
 The branch I belonged to was the Brosna branch. 
 
 Were either of these men Poor Law guardians, do 
 you know ?— I think Moriarty became a Poor Law 
 guardian, but whether he is at present I cannot exactly 
 tell. These men are still there. 
 
 Had Thomas J. Connors anything to do with the 
 League ? — He was an officer of the Mountcastle or 
 Knocknagashel branch. 
 
 Do you know who used to preside at the meetings of 
 the Brosna branch ? — There was a man of the name of 
 Curtin presided and also a man named George 
 M'Owley. I cannot remember Curtin's Christian 
 name. 
 
 You said you attended the meetings of this secret 
 society. What was done at these meetings ?— The 
 captain would tell us what we were to do, what 
 •outrages were to be committed. 
 
 When h'e was at the meetings of this secret society 
 did the captain say anything about what passed at the 
 Land League meetings ? — No. 
 
 Then what passed at the meetings of the moon- 
 lighters ? — Parties who were to be attacked were dis- 
 cussed. The captain would explain to the whole of 
 them and tell them what was to be done. 
 
 When you say captain do you mean the captain of a 
 division ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Were the three divisions connected together in any 
 way ? — They were all under the Mountcastle central 
 branch of the League. 
 
 Did you get any arms ? — Yes, Sir. I got a good 
 number of revolvers. Matthew Delane gave them to 
 me. They were given to me, I believe, in May or 
 June of 1880. I did not pay for tham. I kept them 
 off and on, as long as I wanted them, for six years. 
 They were kept in a " certain place of hide." I hid 
 them and knew where to get them. 
 
 What becama of them afterwards? — I was authorized 
 to give them up to Michael Morrissey, the captain of 
 the Ahane district. 
 
 You have mentioned the meetings at Roche's house. 
 Do you know whether he was a member of the League ? 
 -I know very well that he was. 
 
 What branch ? — The Mountcastle branch. 
 
 Do you remember an outrage on Batt Connors's stock? 
 —I do. 
 
 Did you hear anything at any meeting of moon- 
 lighters about what was to be done with Connors's 
 stock ?— Yes, 
 
 Mention the name of the house in which you heard 
 it ? — At the house of Thomas J. Connors, the secretary 
 of the Mountcastle branch. 
 
 Did you hear it from him, or anybody else ? — From 
 him himself. 
 
 Who else was present ? — John Griffin, tailor. 
 
 What did he say to you ?— He said, " You will get 
 £5 to go and raid upon Batt Connors's stock," and he 
 added that if any more was wanted there was plenty of 
 it. 
 
 Before he gave £5 to John Griffin, I want to know 
 if he said anything of what was to be done ? — Not in 
 my hearing. All he said was that we were to go and 
 lift Batt Connors's cattle. 
 
 Do you know a place called Bchena ? — I do. We 
 were to meet there. 
 
 For what ? — To go and raid on Batt Connors's stock. 
 We met there on four occasions. 
 
 Who came ?— John Griffin was the captain over us, 
 and there were Matthew Delane, James Connor, 
 Thomas David Connors, and Tim and Maurice Leahy. 
 
 Was it daylight or night ? — It was by night, Sir. 
 
 Did you do anything on that occasion ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Why not ? — Thomas Connors said that if we went to 
 Batt Connors's that night the police would surely catch 
 us. 
 
 Had you seen anything of the police that night ?— 
 No. 
 
 Do you know why he said that ? — I think ho was 
 rather in dread to go, because Batt Connors had a hut 
 erected for the police at the time. 
 
 When did you meet again ? — About a fortnight after- 
 wards. 
 
 The same place ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 And the same people ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Did you do anything that night ? — No, Sir, for the 
 same reason. We met four times altogether, but did 
 not do anything. 
 
 Was anything done to any of Connors's cattle ?— 
 Yes, Sir ; one of them was stolen by John Dore. He 
 was a member of the moonlighters. That was after 
 the meeting. 
 
 How do you know that was done ? — John Dore told 
 me himself. 
 
 Do you know what was done with the cow ? — It was 
 slaughtered on Dore's farm. Dore was a small farmer 
 in the neighbourhood. He is not there now. He is in 
 America, but I cannot exactly say when he went there. 
 It was about a year after he told me about the cow. 
 
 Were you disguised on any occasion ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Were you disguised on the occasion of the meeting 
 at Behena ?— Yes, Sir ; we had masks and handker- 
 chiefs tied over our faces. We were not disguised in 
 any other way. 
 
 Do you remember anything about a pair of trousers 
 and a vest ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Just state what you know.— I asked Thomas J. 
 Connors for the trousers and vest, and said I had no 
 money to pay for them. He said money was of no 
 
 Denis Tobin. 
 
794 
 
 The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 account. If I -would go and assist in carrying oft Batt 
 Connors's stock I would get the trousers and vest. 
 
 Do you know anything about a raid on Miss Thomp- 
 son's cattle ? — Yes. It was arranged at a meeting at 
 Roche's. 
 
 Was that before or after the plan to raid Connors's 
 cattle ? — It was after, Sir. We were to go to Knocka- 
 lough. I was told to go, and I said it was a long way 
 from my place on the New-road. Thomas Connors told 
 me I could stop the night with him. 
 
 Did you go and slop there ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Whom did you meet there ?— I met John Griffin, 
 Ihomas Griffin, Matthew Delane, William Delane, 
 and Tim and Maurice Leahy. 
 
 Was Connors himself there ? — Yes, Sir, he was. 
 
 Anybody else ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 What did you do ? — We took four of the stock off the 
 farm, and slaughtered three ; the other got into a bog, 
 and got away. 
 
 How did you slaughter them ? — With hatchets and 
 knives. 
 
 Did anything happen about a hatchet ? — Yes. We 
 left behind a hatchet and block. 
 
 Did you hear afterwards that the police had got 
 them ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 Whose land were these cattle on ? — I cannot exactly 
 Bay. It was an evicted farm, but I do not know who 
 had been evicted from it. All I knew was that I had 
 to take the cattle away from an evicted farm. This 
 took place about the latter end of 1885. 
 
 Were you paid anything for that ? — I was, Sir. 
 
 How much ? — Seven and sixpence. 
 
 Who paid you ? — Thomas James Connors. 
 
 How did you come to go to him for it ?— -I was told 
 by a member of the League to go to him. 
 
 Who was the member of the League who told you 
 to go to him ? — James Mangan. 
 
 Of what branch was he a member ? — The Mount- 
 castle branch. 
 
 What did he say to you ? — He said Connors would 
 pay me, as he got money from the Central branch. 
 
 Did you ever post up any notices ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 What were they ? — Tnreatening notices against Batt 
 Connors to prevent men working for him. 
 
 Did you know or hear at any meeting either of the 
 moonlighters or of the League what Batt Connors had 
 done ? — Batt Connors was boycotted by order of the 
 League. 
 
 I'or what ? — For being a landlord's man, and taking 
 positions under landlords from which people had 
 resigned. 
 
 Was it for acting as rent-warner or for taking 
 evicted farms ? — Not for taking an evicted farm. 
 
 For taking situations under landlords from which 
 people had been turned away ?— Which people had re- 
 signed. 
 
 Did you post those notices ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you remember what they were ? — 1 could not 
 exactly say. 
 
 Where did you post them ? — Near a ditch on the road. 
 
 so that the people going to mass on Sunday should see 
 them. 
 
 About how many did you post ? — About four. 
 
 Were you paid ? — Yes, the sum of 3s. 
 
 By whom ? — James Mangan. 
 
 Do you remember any threat being made with refer- 
 ence to Surgeon O'Grady'fl cattle Y — Yes. 
 
 Was that before or after the raid in connexion with 
 Miss Thompson's cattle ? — After, I think. Surgeon 
 O'Grady has a property in the county about four miles 
 from where I live. 
 
 Were you present when a resolution was passed with 
 reference to the raid on Surgeon O'Grady's cattle ? — 
 No. 
 
 How then did you get to know about the matter ? — 
 One of the parties told me. 
 
 Did you see the people engaged in the raid Y — I saw 
 some of the parties going towards the place. 
 
 Whom did you see ?— George Mack, Davy Mack, 
 young Curtin, and John Cahill. 
 
 Were they members of any branch of the League ? — 
 Yes, of the Brosna branch. 
 
 Were any of the cattle slaughtered that night or 
 not ? — I heard next morning that cattle had been taken. 
 
 Did you see the carcasses ?— No. 
 
 Do you remember anything about James Walsh's 
 house ? — Yes ; there was a plan arranged with refer- 
 ence to it. • 
 
 Who were present ? — They were members of the 
 secret society, but I could not tell you who they 
 were. I do not exactly know. 
 
 When was this ? — In the month of June, as far as I 
 remember. 
 
 Was that after you saw the men going in the direc- 
 tion of Surgeon O'Grady's house or before ? — I could 
 not exactly say. 
 
 What was said at this meeting about James Walsh's 
 house ? — That he had been condemned by the League 
 and that there should be a raid, and that shots should 
 be fired so as to frighten him. He was not to be 
 harmed. 
 
 Did they say what he was condemned for by the 
 League ? — As far as my memory serves me 
 
 Sik C. Kussell. — What was said, please. 
 
 The Attorney-Gekeeal. — Tell us whether any rea- 
 son was given for condemning him Y — Yes ; because he 
 had supplied a boycotted man, Pat Sullivan, with 
 a horse. 
 
 Were you told off to fire the shots into Walsh's 
 house Y — No. 
 
 Do you remember who were ? — I do not. 
 
 Do you remember anything respecting Denis Connor ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Was anything arranged about him at a meeting of 
 the moonlighters ? — Yes ; that he should be beaten for 
 working for a boycotted man, named Batt Connors. 
 
 Were you told off to beat him ? — I was not ; but I 
 was present when the men were told off. 
 
 Do you know whether the arrangement was carried 
 , out ? — 1 know very well that the thing was done. 
 
 Denis Tobin. 
 
The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 795 
 
 When was this ? — It was after the resolution with 
 respect to the firing into Walsh's house. 
 
 Can you fix the year ? — To the best of my recollec- 
 tion it was in 1886. 
 
 Do you know a man named Patrick Ford? — Yes ; 
 Ford, of Maanwilliam. 
 
 What was he ? — A member of the secret society. 
 
 Do you mean the moonlighters ? — Yes. 
 
 Did Ford want you to do anything ? — Yes ; he 
 wanted me to join a raid upon the house of Thomas 
 Curtin at Ballyconnane, but I would not go. 
 
 Do you remember going anywhere to raid for arms ? 
 — Yes, at the house of Henry Talbot, of Kilmanahan, 
 in 1884. 
 
 Who asked you to go ? — John Griffin. 
 
 What was the object of the raid ? — To take away a 
 gun. 
 
 Was any reason given for taking the gun ? — No. 
 
 Who were to go on this raid ? — John Griffin, Denis 
 Murphy, Thomas Cournihan, and myself. 
 
 Did you go ? — Yes. 
 
 Were you disguised ? — Yes, with masks across ourfaces. 
 
 Do you remember in what month in 1884 this 
 occurred ? — No. 
 
 Did yoa get anything from Talbot's house ? — We got 
 a gun. 
 
 Do you remember anything occurring with respect to 
 the house of a justice of the peace named William C. 
 Harnett ? — Yes ; we were asked to take a gun from 
 him. 
 
 Who asked you ? — Matthew Delane. 
 
 Who were told off to do 1his besides yourself ? — 
 Leahy, Edward Morrissey, John Kane, Pat Kane, 
 Laurence Donoghue, and David Connor. 
 
 Did you start together ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you go all the way or not ? — I did not, as I got 
 the colic on the way. 
 
 Was this expedition carried out in the daytime ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Was the raid on Talbot's house effected in the day ? 
 — I think so. No, I beg your pardon, at night. 
 
 Do you remember John Rutherly, of Kilmanahan ? — 
 Yes. He was acting as steward, I think, for Mr. P. 
 Mahony, M.P. It was arranged that there should be a 
 raid for arms upon his house. The plan was made at 
 James Mangan's publichouse. 
 
 Who were present ? — Matthew Delane, Tim Leahy, 
 Morris Leahy, Thomas Sullivan, and several others. 
 Some of the parties were afterwards arrested for 
 participation in the raid, but no proof could be found 
 against them. 
 
 Was the raid carried out ? — I saw the revolver tbey 
 took from Eutherly. 
 
 Who were the men who were charged ? — Tim and 
 Morris Leahy, Matthew Delane, Thomas Sullivan, and 
 John Kane. They all got off. 
 
 Do you know whether they were defended in Court 
 or not ?— I could not say. 
 
 Before the establishment of the League in the 
 district had there been any occurrences of this kind ? — 
 
 Not to my knowledge. I never heard of any moou- 
 lighters before the League was started. 
 
 In August, 1887, were you out of work ?— Yes. 
 
 What work had you been doing before that ?— I 
 worked as a labouring man on farms. 
 
 Did you go to work anywhere in August, 1887 ?— 
 Yes, either then or at the beginning of September. 
 
 Where ? — Ou an evicted farm some three miles from 
 Castleisland. 
 
 Was anything done to you ? — Yes. The windows of 
 my father's house where I lived were broken in 
 September, 1887, and in February, 1888, the house was 
 fired into and my wife was wounded in the forehead. 
 
 Were you boycotted ? — I was. I left the farm in 
 November. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — I should like somo little time to 
 consider this man's evidence. We know nothing about 
 him, not having been told that he was to be called. 
 
 The President. — Cannot you ask any questions be- 
 fore the adjournment for luncheon ? 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Oh yes, my Lcrd. (To the wit- 
 ness.) As to your personal achievements. They con- 
 sisted aoparently io raiding for cattle at Miss Thomp- 
 son's and at Batt Connors's, in going to Talbot's house 
 and getting a gun, and in going to Mr. Harnett's in 
 the daytime to get a gun. These were all the enter- 
 prises in which you personally took part ? — Yes. 
 Those are all the outrages which I went to commit 
 myself. 
 
 I understand you to say that you were never a mem- 
 ber of the Land League, but that you joined the 
 National League in 1885 ?— Yes, in 1885 or 1886. 
 
 Who asked you to join the National League ? — John 
 M'Enery. 
 
 He had never asked you to join the Land League ?— 
 No. 
 
 You were sworn in a member of the secret society 
 five or six years before you were asked to join the 
 National League ? — Yes. 
 
 What branch did you join ? — The Brosna branch. 
 
 When was that established ? — At the latter end of 
 18S5 or in the beginning of 1886. 
 
 Who was president when you joined? — I cannot tell. 
 James Moriarty received my money as treasurer, and I 
 think that David Curtin may have been president. 
 
 Surely you can toll us who was the president ? — I 
 could not exactly say. The two men I have mentioned 
 were the two chief men. 
 
 Who was the president ? — I cannot tell you. 
 
 Who, was the treasurer ? — James Moriarty received 
 my money. He was (he treasurer. 
 
 Who was the secretary ? — I could not say. 
 
 Except for the fact that Moriarty received your 
 money, could you say that he was treasurer ? — No. 
 
 Where did the National League meet ? — At Moore's 
 house, to the best of my belief. 
 
 You cannot tell us for certain where it met ? — No ; 
 I could not tell you the house. 
 
 How far do you live from Brosna ? — Five miles by 
 the road, four miles by another way. 
 
 Denis Tobin. 
 
796 
 
 The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 Was the Erosna branch the nearest to you ? — No. 
 l'he Knocknagashel branch was the nearest ; but the 
 Brosna branch was in my parish. 
 
 Then you were not a member of the branch nearest to 
 your home ? — No. 
 
 You do not know where the Land League met ? — I 
 could not tell you. 
 
 In what street ? — There is only one street in the 
 place and one or two squares. 
 
 Who lived in the house in which the League met ? — 
 I think Moore did. 
 
 What was his business ? — He was carrying on some 
 traffic business. I could not tell you what. 
 
 Had he a shop ? — He had. 
 
 Were you ever there ? — Only twice. 
 
 When was the first time ? — The first time I went 
 there was to pay my subscription and the second time 
 to get my card. 
 
 What interval was there between the two events ? — 
 About a fortnight. 
 
 Tell me, did you get your card ? — I did not. I paid 
 for a card but did not get one. 
 
 Then after all you never had the card of member- 
 ship ? — Never. 
 
 And after your second visit, when you did not get 
 your card, you never went to Moore's again ? — 
 Never. 
 
 And never attended any meeting of the League ? — 
 Never. 
 
 You never attended any meeting at all ? — Yes, 
 when I paid my subscription. 
 
 Was there a meeting ? — They were doing some busi- 
 ness. 
 
 Was anybody in the chair ? — Yes, J. Moriarty. 
 
 What business were they carrying on ?— I could not 
 exactly tell you. 
 
 On which occasion was Moriarty in the chair ? When 
 you paid your money ? — Yes. 
 
 Who was in the chair on the second occasion ? — I 
 could not exactly tell you. 
 
 Was anybody besides Moriarty present when you 
 paid him the money ? — There were several present. 
 
 Who ?— Murty Sheehan and Owen Sweeney. 
 I know perfectly well that those two were there. 
 They were Murty Sheehan and Owen Sweeney. That 
 was when I paid my shilling to Moriarty. 
 
 Who were present on the second occasion ?— I cannot 
 tell you ; I do not remember. 
 
 Can you name a single person who was present when 
 you went for your card ? — I should not be safe in 
 saying. I do not remember. 
 
 Was Moriarty there P — Yes ; he was not in the chair. 
 
 Who was in the chair ? — David Curtin, on the second 
 occasion. 
 
 You recollect three names on the first and two on the 
 second occasion ? — Moriarty, Sheehan, Sweeney, and 
 myself were there on the first occasion, and James 
 Moriarty and David Curtin on the second. 
 
 At this point the Court adjourned for luncheon. On 
 its reassembling, 
 
 SlK C. Russell continued his cross-examination of 
 the witness. 
 
 Why did you not get your ticket ? — What do you 
 mean, Sir ? 
 
 Why did you not get your card ? — Because they said 
 they were out of cards, that they had no cards for the 
 present. I was to call for my card a second time. I 
 paid my subscription first. I went on the next occasion 
 and they had not one. 
 
 Who told you they were out of cards on the first day ? 
 — James Moriarty. 
 
 Who on the second day ? — David William Curtin. 
 
 Do you attend any church on Sundays ? — The chapel, 
 Sir. I go to the nearest chapel. 
 
 Do you know Brosna pretty well ? — Not too well. 
 I do not often visit it. 
 
 May I take it that except on these two occasions 
 that you went to some place which you are not quite 
 sure where it was, but you think it might be Moore's, 
 who traffics in something, you are not quite 
 sure what, you have never attended any National 
 League meetings ? — Never, Sir. 
 
 And never attended a Land League meeting at all ? 
 — Never, Sir. 
 
 Where is James Roche's house ? — Knockabeg. 
 
 How far is Roche's from Brosna ? — From Brosna is 
 it? 
 
 That is my question, exactly.— Better than six miles 
 from Brosna. 
 
 How far from Knocknagashel ? — At the outside two 
 miles. 
 
 And) how far is Roche's house from where you live ? 
 —A good Irish mile. 
 
 Very well ; now, never having attended any Land 
 League meetings at all, and never haying attended any 
 National League meetings but two, when you saw on 
 the first occasion Moriarty, Sheehan, and Sweeney, and 
 on the second Moriarty and Curtin, I may take it, that 
 being your statement, that you never saw M'Enery, 
 Mangau,or any of the Griffins, or either of the Leahys, 
 or any of the Connors at any National League meeting ? 
 — Never. 
 
 And, apart from anything you have been told, do you 
 know of your own knowledge that any one person of 
 these was a member of the Land League ? — Not but as 
 I was told. 
 
 You never met Sheehan or Sweeney on any of these 
 outraging expeditions ? — No ; I do not think they ever 
 took part in them. 
 
 Nor Moriarty nor Curtin ? — I cannot say that I did ; 
 I never saw them. 
 
 Well, we are getting on. What is Mr. James Mori- 
 arty ? — A fanner. 
 
 Is he considered a respectable man ? — I always 
 thought him to be a respectable man. 
 
 What is William Curtin ?— A farmer. 
 
 Is he considered a respectable man? — By appearance 
 he is a respectable man. 
 
 Perhaps your standard of respectability is high ; but, 
 
 Denis Tobin. 
 
The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 797 
 
 ordinarily speaking, is he regarded as a- respectable 
 man ? — Yes. 
 
 Can you mention anybody else in connexion with 
 the Brosna brancti, except James Moriarty, Curtin, 
 Sheehan,and Sweeney ? — Yes ; the parties I saw there 
 when I first attended were the parties I mentioned 
 before to you — James Mack, George Mack 
 
 No, no ; can you name any one as officer or official 
 of the League ? — Oh no, Sir, I cannot. 
 
 You have heard that they were also members of the 
 National League ? — Yes. 
 
 I understood you to say that you had heard from 
 Matthew Delane that some of those others you men- 
 tioned were members of the National League ? — That 
 they were members of the Knocknagashel League. 
 
 You never attended any meetings there ? — No, Sir. 
 
 Who do you say, or do you know, was the president 
 of that branch ? — I cannot say. 
 
 Who was the secretary of that branch ? — In my 
 opinion Thomas Connors was. 
 
 Who was the treasurer ?— 1 could not say, Sir, because 
 I never was inside the League room at all. 
 
 Among those other persons whose names have been 
 mentioned was Mangan ; you never met him at any 
 meeting ? — No, never. 
 
 I understand you were sworn in in 1880 ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 But did not indulge in any outrage until when ? 
 —1884. 
 
 When was your next outrage ?— In 1885 or 1886. I 
 am not sure which. 
 
 Then there might have been two years' interval 
 between the two ? — Yes. 
 
 Your next ?— The taking of Talbot's gun. 
 
 When ? — I ccald not exactly tell you. 
 
 What year ? — I could not exactly say the year. 
 
 The next ? — The next was threatening notices. 
 
 The next ?— Connors' and Miss Thompson's. 
 
 That was the last ? — Yes, Sir. 
 
 Which was the last outrage that you had anything 
 to do with ?— I could not exactly tell you. To the 
 best of my opinion it was threatening notices. 
 
 But which, apart from the threatening notices, was 
 the last outrage you had to do with ? — As far as I can 
 remember it was Miss Thompson's cattle. 
 
 You believe it was. That was after the raiding of 
 Batt Connors's cattle ?— Yes, Sir. 
 
 How long after ?— I cannot exactly say. 
 
 A month ?— It might be more. 
 
 Six months ?— I could not exactly tell you. I am not 
 going to say what I am not sure of. 
 
 Was it a year ? — I could not exactly tell you. 
 
 You cannot tell us to a year. What was the distance 
 of time between these two outrages on Miss Thomp- 
 son's cattle— or rather the Land Corporation's cattle — 
 and Batt Connors' ?— I cannot exactly say. I cannot 
 tell you to a year. It would not be safe to say what 
 time. 
 
 What year was it in ? — Either in 1885 or 1886. 
 
 Which ?— Both. 
 
 Then it one was in 1885, you are sure the other 
 
 was in 1886 ?— It may have been. I am pretty cleat 
 that it was in 1885 and 1886. 
 
 The arrangements for Batt Connors's outrage were 
 made at Roche's ? — Yes. 
 
 Who were at Batt Connors's ? — Myself, John Griffin, 
 his son, Thomas Connors, two Leahys, and some 
 others. 
 
 Are you aware that this morning, not very long ago. 
 you swore that that meeting took place at Connors's ? 
 — At Connors's ? 
 
 Aye ; at Connors's ?— No ; at Eoche's. 
 
 Were you ever at Thomas Connors's ?— Yes ; I wag 
 there to buy some clothes. 
 
 Was that before or after the meeting at Eoche's ?— 
 Before the meeting at Eoche's. 
 
 When was the meetiDg at Connors's ? — Before that at 
 Eoche's, and I do not know exactly the time. 
 
 How long before ? — 1 could not exactly tell you how 
 long before. 
 
 Where does Connors live ? — At Knocknagashel. 
 
 Who were there ? — Myself and John Griffin. 
 
 Anyone else ?— ISO. 
 
 Anybody else ? — No. 
 
 And it was then that Connors handed a £5 note to 
 Griffin ? — Yes, and said, " Go and get the men to raid 
 upon the stock, and if that is not enough there ia 
 plenty more." 
 
 What is Connors ?— A draper, secretary of the 
 League, and head man of the moonlighters. 
 
 Is he considered a respectable man or not ? — Well, 
 he is, by his own party. 
 
 Do you say he is a respectable man or not ? I do not 
 say I attach much importance to your answer ; but I 
 want to know. — He never used anything to me but 
 respect. He was respectful to me. He has lived as 
 long as I recollect at Knocknagashel, and he is living 
 there still, or his father is if he is not. 
 
 How was the money paid ? — I do not know more than 
 it was paid. 
 
 Talking of the £5, how was that paid ? — In notes. 
 
 How many notes ? — Five single notes. 
 
 Five £1 notes ?— Yes. 
 
 Counted over the counter ? — No ; in the kitchen. 
 
 Is that open to the shop or behind the shop ? — There 
 is a way from the shop into the kitchen. I was taken 
 in to see the £5 paid. He gave me the trousers and 
 the vest, and I did not pay for them. 
 
 Did you pay for the suit that is on you now ?— ■ 
 Yes. 
 
 Who helped you to do it ?— Myself. 
 
 Where did you get the money ?— Out of my two 
 arms. 
 
 Do you swear that ?— Certainly. By the sweat of my 
 two arms and my brow. 
 
 Do you swear that ?— Yes ; certainly. 
 
 Where did you get them ?— I have had them for six 
 months or more." 
 
 Where did you get them ?— At Abbeyfeale, at Wil« 
 liam Connors's ; and paid him for them six months ago, 
 if not more. 
 
 Denis Tobin. 
 
798 
 
 The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 When did you first put yourself in communication 
 with the police ? — I never had communication with a 
 policeman in my life. 
 
 Never ? — Never. 
 
 How did they get hold of you 1—1 never knew any- 
 thing about it until an agent for The Times came to 
 me and asked me. I think he was one Mr. Winn. 
 
 Is he a head constable ? — I could not tell you what 
 he is, Sir, no more than that I was told he was the 
 agent for The Times. 
 
 When was it that he came to you ? — I think it would 
 be last Tuesday week ; one day of the week before 
 last, I could not tell you the day. 
 
 Did he bring any letter of introduction to yon ? — 
 No ; he asked me about my statement, and I gave it to 
 him voluntarily. 
 
 Look about and see if you can see him in court. — I 
 do not see him. 
 
 Have you seen him since you came over ? — Never. 
 
 Was that the first statement you made ? — The first in 
 my life ; except that shots were put into my house 
 in February, 1888, and I reported the outrage to the 
 police. 
 
 Just tell me, talking of these transactions — these 
 outrages — you have mentioned, you know that they 
 were also reported in the papers ? — I never saw them in 
 any papers. 
 
 Do not you know that they were reported in the 
 papers ? — No ; it was no business of mine. 
 
 As a matter of fact, do you not know that each case 
 you have mentioned was reported in the papers ? — I 
 never saw them, but they might happen to be in ; I do 
 not know. 
 
 You swear you never saw them ? — Certainly. 
 
 Did you see Winn after that occasion ? — I never saw 
 him but once. 
 
 Until last week ? — It was the week before last : I 
 could not say the exact day. 
 
 When did you get the subpoena ?— Last Friday week. 
 
 Did you get any money from Winn ? — 1 got £5, but 
 it was from another agent ; I do not know his name. 
 
 You got no money, or promise of money, from Winn ? 
 — No, I never asked him. 
 
 When did you come over ? — Since the 15th. 
 
 Have you made any fresh statement ? — Yes, to Mr. 
 Shannon. 
 
 To anybody else ? — No, nobody asked me. 
 
 Was there no promise of anything but the £5 ; do 
 you expect anything else ? — Well, I expect to get my 
 expenses, but nothing more. 
 
 Have you ever been in any trouble ? — None at all. 
 
 Never ? — No. 
 
 Never been in prison ? — Yes, once in my life. 
 
 That is generally considered trouble, is it not ? — It 
 did not trouble me much. (Laughter.) 
 
 How long were you in prison ? — Six weeks. 
 
 What was that about ? — It was for an assault on 
 John Connors. 
 
 Anything to do with T. J. Connors ? — No. 
 
 Have you given his name before in the list of per- 
 sons you previously referred to ? — No, I do not think 
 I have. 
 
 When was that little incident of being put into 
 prison ? — In 1884, the 1st of August. 
 
 Then you were in prison until the middle of Sep- 
 tember ?— Till the 17th of September. 
 
 Now, I want to ask you about this ; you swore that 
 M'Enery swore you in ? — Yes. 
 
 As what did you understand him to swear you in ?— 
 As a moonlighter. 
 
 Not as a Fenian ? — No ; I knew nothing about 
 Fenians. 
 
 As far as you knew there were no Fenians in the 
 neighbourhood ? — No. I knew there were plenty of 
 moonlighters. 
 
 I think I am right in saying that Moriarty and 
 Brosnan are still living ? — Yes, when I was there last. 
 
 And D. Curtin also ? — Yes. 
 
 And T. J. Connors, the draper at Knocknagashel ?— 
 Yes. 
 
 There is one other point about which I want to ask 
 you. You say that after one of these little jobs you 
 were paid 7s. fid. by another Connors ?— Thomas Denis 
 Connors. 
 
 You say you were told by Mangan to gc to Connors 
 for money because he got it from the central branch ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Did you understand that it meant Dublin or Brosna ? 
 — It came from the branch of the Land League. 
 
 But what did he mean by central branch ? — I could 
 not say. 
 
 Did you regard the Knocknagashel branch as the 
 central branch ? — It was looked upon as the central 
 branch for that parish. 
 
 Now, the two achievements you were engaged in were 
 these raids upon cowa ; where were they slaughtered ? 
 — To the best of my belief it was a place called Knock- 
 nalough, but I am not sure. 
 
 What became of the carcasses ? — They were divided. 
 
 Did you get any of it ? — No. Connors got most. 
 
 Why did not you get any ? — I might have had it if I 
 had wanted, but I did not want to bring it home, as 
 a policeman might meet me. 
 
 Did that happen on each occasion ? — There was no 
 stock taken on the other occasion. 
 
 But you told us of what happened on the Land Corpora- 
 tion farm ; what became of the carcasses there ? — The 
 carcasses were divided, but I got none. 
 
 Do you mean that there was only one occasion of 
 slaughtering cattle ? — Yes, only one ; Miss Thomp- 
 son's. 
 
 By Mr. Davitt. — Do you know that that locality has 
 a bad reputation for cattle stealers ? — I never heard of 
 it. 
 
 Did not you ever suspect that they went to get beef 
 cheap ?— I did not know that. 
 
 Was not the locality suspected of men going about 
 stealing cattle on their own account ? — Yes. 
 
 Denis Tobin. 
 
The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 .'99 
 
 And they are probably doing so yet ? — I have not 
 heard of any lately. 
 
 Not since you left ? — No, nor before. 
 
 You say shots were fired into your house in February, 
 1888 ?— Yes. 
 
 Were they fired by your old chums ? — I could not 
 say ; I was in a neighbour's house. 
 
 You considered it very bad treatment ? — Yes. 
 
 But you were paid back in your own coin ? — 1 never 
 fired into a man's house in my life. 
 
 Was not James Walsh's house fired into ? — 1 never 
 had anything to do with it. 
 
 You say M'Enery told you the League would be no 
 good without the moonlighters ? — Yes. 
 
 Was any one present ? — No ; it was on my own road. 
 
 You mean the road to your house ? — Yes. 
 
 When ?— In February, 1880. He told me the Land 
 League would be no good but for the moonlighters. 
 
 Did you take part in any moonlighting in 1880 ? — No. 
 
 In 1881, 1882, or 1883 ?— No. 
 
 And yet the League existed without it during those 
 years. Did you take any part in moonlighting in 
 1884 ?— No. 
 
 What was M'Enery ? — I do not know, but I know he 
 was a head man in the society. 
 
 Did you hear of any moonlighting in those years ? — I 
 do not know. I am not exactly sure. 
 
 The League was there during those years ? — It was. 
 
 Did any one else tell you that the League would be 
 no good without the moonlighters ? — No. 
 
 Was there a police hut on Connors's land when you 
 went to work for him ? — Yes, there was. 
 
 Who was in charge of it ? — To the best of my belief, 
 Acting Sergeant Gillick. 
 
 I suppose you spoke to him several times P — Never. 
 I never went near the hut, and he never came near 
 me. 
 
 None of his successors ? — None ; no policemen ever 
 spoke to me about anything. 
 
 Do you swear that positively ? — I do. 
 
 Who brought you over ? — Mr. Bell. 
 
 Is not he a policeman ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you never speak a single word to him ? — Not on 
 any matters concerning this Commission. 
 
 Where is he stationed ?— At Listowel. 
 
 Where did he join you ? — At Abbeyfeale. 
 
 Did he pay for your ticket ? — No, I paid it 
 myself. He travelled in the same carriage with me. 
 He spoke to me, but not on any matters concerning my 
 evidence. 
 
 What did he say to you ? — He said it was a very 
 long journey. 
 
 Is that all he said to you ? — He never mentioned the 
 Commission. It was never mentioned in my hearing 
 then, or since. 
 
 Who was the policeman you were talking to when 
 the Court adjourned for lunch 1 — The man who is in 
 charge of me while I am in London, 
 r Does he live in the same house with you ? — Yes, in 
 the same hotel. 
 
 Have you any objection to saying where ? — Not the 
 leasb ; it is the Queen's Hotel, in Oxford-street. He 
 has stayed with me since the 18th. 
 
 Do you meet him every day at breakfast, at lunch, 
 and at dinner? — Yes. 
 
 Do you never speak ? — Yes, on other matters, but not 
 of this Commission. 
 
 Do you ever read the newspapers ? — Yes, every 
 morning that I have an opportunity. 
 
 Do you read about this Commission ? — Yes. 
 
 Do you simply read it without discussing iz at all ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Did this policeman say anything to you about a 
 terrible cross-examiner named Sir Charles Russell ? — 
 Never. I knew he was cross-examining. 
 
 Who told you that ? — The paper. I occasionally got 
 the Freeman and the Cork Examiner. 
 
 How do you spend your evenings together ? Do you 
 go to theatres and music-halls together ? — Yes. 
 
 And he never spoke to you about this Commission ?— 
 Never a word. 
 
 How long were you working for the Land Corpora- 
 tion ? — From the latter end of August until November. 
 I was paid in Mr. S. Hussey's office. 
 
 By Mr. Hussey himself ? — No, by one of his clerks. 
 
 When did he see you last ? — On the 6th or 7th of No- 
 vember. 
 
 When did you see Mr. Hussey before you came over 
 here ? — Not for a long time, or his clerk. 
 
 They did not speak to you about your evidence or 
 about the Commission ? — Never. 
 
 Who gave you leave of absence ? — I can go away 
 when I like. 
 
 How do you earn your living, then ? — Breaking stones 
 on the road. 
 
 Sir C. Russell. — You have spoken of Mr. Mahony. 
 Do you know he is a member of what is known as 
 the Irish Nationalist party ? — I could not exactly say 
 what member he is, but be is a member of Parliament. 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney-General.— You took 
 part in certain acts ; have you ever talked to any 
 neighbours with respect to any of these acts ?— No. 
 
 Now, how far is Brosna from Castleisland ? — Well, 
 my house is seven miles from Castleisland, and my 
 house is a mile from Brosna the other side, but I 
 cannot say how far it would be by the mountain road. 
 
 You were near Abbeyfeale ? — Yes, two and a half 
 miles. 
 
 And Brosna is between you and Castleisland ? — Yes. ' 
 
 Do yeu know why a policeman has been living with 
 you in London ?— Yes, because I asked Mr. Winn for 
 protection. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — We shall now prove certain 
 facts with regard to the connexion with the League of 
 a number of persons spoken of by the last witness. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then read the following extracts 
 from United Ireland : — 
 
 " March 22, Brosna. 
 
 " A meeting was held at the Land League rooms on 
 J Sunday, the 16th inst.,for the purpose of electing a com- 
 
 Denis Tobin. 
 
800 
 
 The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 mittee for the year, W. D. Curtin (ex-suspect) in the 
 chair. The E.I.C. were conspicuous by their absence. 
 The following officers and committee were duly 
 elected :— Mr. D. W. Curtin, M. O'Carroll, and B. 
 Murphy (ex-suspects), as president, rice-president, and 
 deputy vice-president ; J. Moriarty, P.L.G., hon. 
 treasurer; M. Hickey, hon. sec. Council.— D.J. Leahy, 
 N. Cotter, J. O'Keefe, J. Connor, J. Cotter (Knock- 
 brack), William D. Lane (as farmers' representatives), 
 and D. J. Guiney, M. Sheehan.P.L.G., David M'Auliffe, 
 P. Connor, D. Brosnahan, of Loughvalla, represent- 
 ing the labourers.' 
 
 " April 26, Brosna. 
 "Meeting at the Land League rooms on the 20th inst., 
 Mr. James Moriarty, P.L.G., in the chair." 
 
 United Ireland, December 12, 1885, page 6, col. 5, 
 D. W. Curtin, vice-president, in the chair. 
 
 United Ireland, February 6, 1886, page 6, col. 3, 
 Timothy Lyons in the chair. February 20, 1886, page 6, 
 col. 5, P. H. Sullivan, president, in the chair. Feb- 
 ruary 26, 1887, page 6, col. 5, T. O'Connor presided, 
 subsequently, D. B. O'Connor, vice-president,March 12, 
 1887. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— The next witness is with 
 reference to the maintenance of prisoners in Cork Gaol. 
 
 Sergeant Peter Fawcett, Boyal Irish Constabulary, 
 examined by Mr. Atkinson, said, — I was stationed 
 in Cork city in 1881 and 1882. I know a man named 
 Richard Cronau. He was an undertaker and had a 
 small provision store in Cork. He was a member of 
 the Land League and of the National League. I have 
 frequently seen him attending meetings of the League ; 
 he is a member of the committee of the National 
 League in Cork city. I know Mrs. Barry, of Great 
 George-street ; she was president of the Ladies' Land 
 League in Cork. In April, 1882, I assisted in the 
 arrest of Michael Scannen for firing at William Flynn. 
 He was committed to prison. I believe that he was a 
 member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. I have 
 seen Scannen in company with Mr. J. O'Connor, 
 M. P., and with the leading Nationalists of Cork. I 
 have also seen Richard Cronan in company with various 
 members, including Mr. M. Healy, Mr. Lane, Dr. 
 Tanner, Mr. O'Hea, and Mr. Gilhooly. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — These are all 
 southern members — for divisions of Cork and Cork 
 city ?— Yes. 
 
 John Thompson Geelan, examined by Mr. Atkinson, 
 said, — I am a storekeeper in Cork County Prison and 
 was gatekeeper there in 1881. I was also in the same 
 position in 1882, 1883, and 1884— until November in 
 1884. I knew Richard Cronan. He lives at St. 
 Fenns Barr-place, Cork, and is an undertaker, and has 
 a small provision shop. In 1881 and 1882 there was 
 a number of prisoners awaiting their trial for moon- 
 lighting and other offences inCork County Prison. Some 
 were awaiting theirtrial for conspiracy to murder. There 
 was an arrangement at the prison by which untried 
 prisoners could be fed with food supplied by their 
 
 friends outside. It was necessary that notice to that 
 effect should be given to the gatekeeper. I made 
 arrangements that the prisoners referred to should 
 receive their own food. While these prisoners were 
 awaiting trial Richard Cronan supplied food for all of 
 them. This went on for a period of six or 12 months. 
 I knew David Connell, who was charged with moon- 
 lighting. He was supplied with food for three days, 
 but it was afterwards found that he had become an 
 informer, and the supply of food was stopped. 
 I knew Richard Hodnett. He was awaiting his 
 trial, and was supplied with food. In addition, 
 there were some prisoners charged with con- 
 spiracy to murder. There were four or five of them 
 from county Mayo, and they were supplied with food 
 by Cronan. Of the moonlighters in custody three were 
 afterwards convicted ; their names were James 
 Twohig, Jeremiah Twohig, and John Murphy. Connell 
 was examined as an informer upon their trial. The 
 Twohigs got seven years and Murphy two years. 
 Hodnett was discharged from prison. Casey, one 
 of the prisoners, was convicted of the murder — I 
 think — of a man named Brown, but I am not sure of 
 the name. Among the prisoners from county Mayo 
 charged with conspiracy to murder were P. W. Nally, 
 J. King, Matthew Melvin, Thomas Macaulay, Thomas 
 Daly, and Peter Munelly. They were convicted. 
 
 During the time tbey were in prison did you pass 
 any visitors in to them ? — Yes. 
 
 Mention the names of any persons who came to visit 
 the Mayo prisoners ?— Mr. J. O'Connor, M.P., and Mr. 
 Healy, M.P. 
 
 You were gatekeeper at the time Poff and Barrett 
 were in prison ? • — Yes. 
 
 They were afterwards convicted of the murder of a 
 man named Brown, near Castleisland ? — Yes. 
 
 Were they supplied with food by Cronan while await" 
 ing trial ? — They were. If the prisoners did not sup- 
 ply themselves with food the gaol supplied them. 
 
 Was the dietary for untried prisoners more generous 
 than that for convicts ?— Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell. — Do you know 
 that the beginning of this matter of feeding prisoners 
 was the sustenance of persons imprisoned as suspects 
 under the Act of 1880 ?— I do not know it. 
 
 Do you know that this system of sending in food 
 to prisoners began in respect of the suspects ? — All 
 the untried prisoners got their food. 
 
 Do you know whether the provision of food by 
 Cronan for prisoners did not begin in reference to the 
 suspects under Forster's Act ? — No ; the first time 
 Cronan supplied food was in the case of the moon- 
 lighters from Millstreet in 1880. 
 
 Do you know whether the provisions came from the 
 same source in the case of all supplied by Cronan ? — 
 Mr. Richard Cronan told me that the League was pay- 
 ing for all the food. 
 
 The President. — I did not catch who paid for the 
 provisions. 
 
 Sergeant Peter Fawcett, 
 
 John Thompson Geelan, 
 
The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 801 
 
 Witness. — Mr. Richard Cronan told roe that the 
 League was paying for all the food supplied to persons 
 charged with moonlighting. He told me to stop the 
 prison food and he would supply them. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — That was in 1880 and 
 1881, long before the arrest of the suspects ? — Yes. 
 
 District-Inspector W. H. M'Ardle, Royal Irish Con- 
 stabulary, examined by the Attorney-General, said, 
 — I searched the house of Michael Coghlan atFoxford, 
 county Mayo, and I found a number of documents there, 
 which I produce. I made the search on August 10,1882. 
 Coghlan told me that he was secretary to the branch 
 of the Land League. He did not say what branch. 
 
 Did you find these two letters in his house (handing 
 witness a letter) ? — I did. 
 
 The first is a letter dated June 29, 1881, from J. P. 
 Quinn, and addressed to Michael B. Coghlan, Foxford, 
 county Mayo : — " Dear Sir, — We will see to the 
 defence of the parties you mention, at the assizes. 
 When do the assizes come on ?" The next is dated 
 July 8, 1881, from Quinn to Coghlan : — " Dear Sir, — 
 Relative to the case of obstruction of process-servers, 
 where 16 people are implicated, I have placed the 
 matter in the hands of our solicitor, Mr. M'Gongh." 
 (To witness.) Did you also find two letters signed by 
 Virginia Lynch, on behalf of the Ladies' Land League, 
 and dated respectively July 10 and 14, 1881 ? — Yes. 
 
 The first runs as follows : — " Dear Sir, — I am 
 directed to transmit to you the accompanying cheque 
 for £10, being the amount voted on your appeal for 
 assistance in defraying the costs of defence in criminal 
 prosecutions." The second is : — " Ladies' Irish 
 National Land League, 39, Upper Sackville-street, 
 Dublin. Dear Sir, — Before considering the matter 
 referred to we should like to know what the other 
 tenants have done. Have they paid and did they get. 
 any reduction? Yours truly, Virginia Lynch." 
 
 Did you also find a document signed by Anna Par- 
 neU, Clara Stritch, and Virginia Lynch ? — I did. 
 
 This, my Lords, is a printed document from the 
 Ladies'Land League,issued' by order of the Executive.' 
 
 The learned counsel read the document, which was 
 to the following effect : — 
 
 " Instructions as to procedure in cases of evictions. 
 
 When there is reason for anticipating evictions in a 
 
 district the local branch of the Land League should 
 report, on some eviction forms, to the secretary of the 
 Ladies' Land League, in Dublin, giving a descrip- 
 tion of the houses which the tenants are living in, and 
 the number of rooms and sizes of same, and whether 
 the rooms are boarded or not. As soon as it is ascer- 
 tained that evictions are actually to take place, 
 whether by the appearance of the sheriffs or other- 
 wise, the local branch should at once engage cars and 
 lodging accommodation for as many persons as may be 
 necessary. If the tenants have not the cars necessary 
 care should be taken to have them. Cars should be 
 engaged to move the families themselves to their 
 destination. Railway fare, car hire, and lodging will 
 be paid for out of the funds of the Ladies' Land 
 League. As soon as notice is received of an anti- 
 cipated eviction, the Ladies' Land League will take 
 
 steps to have a house built for the tenant 
 
 There is no objection to an evicted tenant re-entering 
 as caretaker, but grants are not made to these tenants 
 except under special circumstances." 
 The manifesto went on to advise the people not to get 
 into conflict with the police and military, and to take 
 note of any damage done by the bailiffs. It was 
 signed by Anna Parnell, general secretary ; Clara 
 Stritch, financial secretary, and Virginia Lynch, 
 assistant secretary. 
 
 Did you also find this document ? — Yes. 
 
 The learned counsel read along printed document, of 
 which the following is the substance : — 
 
 " Amended constitution of the Irish Republican 
 Brotherhood. Whereas the Irish people have never 
 ceased to struggle for the recovsry of their indepen- 
 dence, and whereas it was on the 8th day of March, 
 St. Patrick's Day, 1873, resolved by a convention of 
 Irish Patriots in Dublin, representing Irishmen in 
 England, Ireland, and Scotland, to amend the con- 
 stitution of the present Irish Revolutionary organiza- 
 tion and for establishing an independent Irish He- 
 public, that the said organization be known as the 
 Irish Republican Brotherhood, and governed by a 
 supreme council, the following is declared to be the 
 amended constitution of the Irish Republican Brother- 
 hood and of the Supreme Council of the Irish Repub- 
 lican Brotherhood and Government of the Irish Re- 
 public : — (1) The constitution of the Irish Republican 
 Brotherhood. 1. It shall be composed of Irishmen 
 irrespective of class or creed, resident in England, 
 Ireland, America, and wherever there are Irishmen 
 who are willing to labour for the establishment of a 
 free and independent Government iu Ireland. The 
 Irish Republican Brotherhood, while trying to recover 
 freedom by force of arms, shall confine itself in times 
 of peace to the exercise of moral influence, the cul- 
 tivation of union and brotherly love, the propagation 
 of Republican principles, and the spread of the know- 
 ledge of the national rights of Ireland. It shall 
 await the decision of the Irish nation as to the fitting 
 hour for inaugurating a war against England, and in 
 such an emergency, and pending that time, shall lend 
 its support to every movement to advance the cause of 
 Irish independence. The mode of initiating members 
 shall be the putting of the following oath of allegi- 
 ance : — ' I solemnly swear that I will do my utmost 
 to establish the national independence of Ireland ; shall 
 give true allegiance to the Irish Republican Brother- 
 hood ; will implicitly obey the instructions of my 
 superior officers, and will preserve inviolable the 
 secrets of the organization.' " 
 
 There were several other paragraphs dealing with the 
 division of each town and county into centres and the 
 method of government. 
 
 The Attorney-General. — Then occurs what I wish 
 to be printed, and that is the amended constitution of 
 the Supreme Council of the Irish Republican Brother- 
 hood and the Government of the Irish Republic. I do 
 not think it is necessary to read it unless my learned 
 friends desire it. 
 
 Sir C. Russell.— Oh, dear no. 
 
 The Attorney-General.— You do not. Very well. 
 It has reference, my Lords, to some matters connected 
 with the government and constitution of the organiza- 
 tion. I only want it to appear on the note. (To 
 
 District-Inspector W. H. M'Ardle. 
 
 26 
 
802 
 
 The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 witness.) Did you also find a document signed " P. 
 White," from Armagh Prison ? — I did. 
 
 Who was P. White ?— He was brother-in-law to 
 P. J. Sheridan. 
 
 Do you know anything of what he was or why he 
 was in prison ? — Yes. 
 
 What for ?— He was arrested for being a suspect. 
 
 What date ?— On January 4, 1882. 
 
 I will not put that in at present, but I want it 
 marked. (The document was hauded to the clerk.) 
 (To witness.) Did you also find a document signed 
 Joseph P. Mannion and dated July 2, 1881 ?— I did. 
 
 It is a letter, my Lords, from Joseph P. Mannion to 
 Mr. Coghlan. I only identify it at present. (To 
 witness.) Who was this Mr. Mannion ?— He was a 
 solicitor in the town of Swinford, in county Mayo. 
 
 Did you know a man named Martin Sheridan ?— Yes. 
 
 Is he any relation of P. J. Sheridan ?— A brother. 
 
 Did you search his place ?— I did. 
 
 When ?— On August 10, 1882. 
 
 Did you find a document addressed to Mr. Sheridan ? 
 —Yes. 
 
 Do you know in whose handwriting it is ?— No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell.— Under what 
 Act was it that the search was made ? — Well, I think 
 it was under the Peace Preservation Act. 
 
 What Peace Preservation Act ?— Of 1881, I think. 
 
 You mean Mr. Forster's Act ?— No, I think it was 
 the Act before that. 
 
 Do you know under what Act you were acting ? — At 
 present I do not. 
 
 I suppose you had to go through some form before 
 you searched ?— Yes, I had to apply for a search 
 warrant, and I got it. 
 
 Did you not have to apply on a sworn information ? 
 —No. 
 
 Simply applied for a warrant ? — Yes. 
 
 The witness was not re-examined. 
 
 Captain O. E. Slacke, examined by the Attorney- 
 General, said, — I am a divisional commissioner or 
 magistrate in Ireland. In 1868 I was appointed a 
 resident magistrate. Since about the end of 1881 I 
 have ceased to fulfil or carry out any judicial duties. 
 I was then appointed a divisional magistrate or com- 
 missioner. Since that date my duties have been 
 entirely administrative and executive. 
 
 What counties have you acted for ?— At present I 
 have eight counties under my charge— Waterford, Kil- 
 kenny, North Tipperary, South Tipperary, Queen's 
 County, Carlow, Wexford, and Wicklow. 
 
 May I take it that you have had them under your 
 charge since 1881 ? — Not all of them. There was a 
 little change made some years ago. Wexford and 
 Wicklow only came to me iu 1885. 
 
 What district had you served in as magistrate before 
 1880 ? — I was resident magistrate at Carrick-on-Suir, 
 which comprises three counties— Tipperary, Waterford, 
 and Kerry. 
 
 Previous to 1880 had you ever known of the offence 
 of being a land-grabber ? — I never heard of it. 
 
 Had you ever known of any person being outraged 
 for paying rent ?— Never. 
 
 Or for taking a farm from which the tenant had been 
 evicted for the non-payment of rent ?— Never. 
 
 Had you ever heard of moonlighting before 1880 ? 
 
 Never. 
 
 We know from the return that there had been in 
 stances of agrarian outrages from time to time prior 
 to 1880. What have been the general circumstances 
 of those outrages ?— Well, generally speaking, private 
 6pite among neighbours. There was nothing to show 
 that it was the result of any general combination or 
 conspiracy. 
 
 Had you ever known of any organization against the 
 payment of rent or any organization to punish people 
 for taking evicted farms ? — No. 
 
 Up to the time when you were appointed divisional 
 magistrate, what was the condition of the counties in 
 which you were acting as resident magistrate ? — They 
 were very peaceful, and the relations between land- 
 lord and tenant were generally most friendly. There 
 was no trouble about letting land from which a man 
 had been evicted. 
 
 Before the Land League was established, was there 
 ever any necessity for extra police precautions when 
 landlords had evicted tenants ? — No. 
 
 Did evictions produce crime or outrago ? — No. 
 
 Or create local excitement ? — No. 
 
 Speaking of tho years 1881 and 1882, will you 
 describe what change you found in the districts under 
 your supervision ? — The country appeared to become 
 more demoralized generally, and, as regards evictions, 
 it was one of the first things in which any opposition 
 to the law was shown. As I have said, there was no 
 excitement before. It became necessary to send a 
 large force of police for the protection of the sheriff- 
 not only at evictions, but in connexion with the pro- 
 cesses of law prior to evictions, such as the serving of 
 writs. 
 
 Of what districts are you speaking ? — Tipperary and 
 parts of Kilkenny and Waterford. 
 
 Which counties were the worst ?— Parts of South 
 Tipperary became very troubled ; also part of Water- 
 ford. It was generally not the whole county, but 
 parts of a county, which were affected. 
 
 Did you, from your own observation, ascertain what 
 cause there was for some parts of counties being worse 
 than others ? — Yes ; wherever the Land League was 
 established the country was more unsettled. 
 
 In 1880 and 1881 were you present at evictions at 
 which it was necessary to have large numbers of 
 police ? — I was, as resident magistrate. 
 
 And in 1882 as divisional magistrate ? — I was not 
 present very often as divisional magistrate ; but I 
 made the arrangements for the protection of the 
 officers of the law in charge. 
 
 In 1881 what number of people used to attend at 
 
 Captain O. K. Slacke. 
 
The Special Commission, January 23, 1889. 
 
 803 
 
 evictions ? — The first instance of serious opposition 
 which I witnessed was in May, 1880, at Kilbarry, in 
 South Tipperary. There was very violent resistance. 
 The house of the tenant, who was named Meagher, 
 was very strongly barricaded ; the sheriff was 
 assaulted, and great difficulty was encountered in 
 entering the house. The police had to support the 
 sheriff's men to enable them to effect an entrance. 
 There were 13 persons inside, who were all arrested. 
 
 Were those 13 people the usual inhabitants of the 
 house ? — Some of them were. The tenant himself was 
 there, and also his wife. The others came from the 
 neighbourhood. 
 
 Do you remember an eviction in Waterford in May, 
 1881 ? — Yes, at Ballinviua, when there was great 
 resistance to the sheriff. A large force of military 
 and police was present. 
 
 Do you remember whether caretakers were put in 
 charge of the evicted farms ? — Yes, and we were obliged 
 to leave a large party for their protection. We were 
 further compelled to send a still larger number of 
 police to protect the people who cut the crops. It was 
 absolutely necessary. 
 
 Was there an eviction at Clonmel, in Tipperary, in 
 1881 ? — That was a case of the sale of tenants' 
 interests. I think it was on the property of Colonel 
 Percival, for whom Major Tanner was agent. A large 
 force of military and police was present. A large 
 crowd collected, having flags with mottoes upon them, 
 such as "Down with landlordism," and "Pay no 
 rent." 
 
 In 1881 was the condition of things such that you 
 had to make alterations in the police arrangements ? 
 — Yes. We had to increase the police. For the police 
 in every county a certain amount is paid out of the 
 Consolidated Fund. If an extra force is wanted it 
 must be applied for by a magistrate. An extra force 
 can also be appointed by proclamation by the Lord 
 
 Lieutenant. The cost of extra police is paid by the 
 Government and the county, each paying half. In 
 North Tipperary 114 extra police were wanted ; in 
 South Tipperary 180 ; in Waterford 106 ; in Kilkenny 
 70, of whom 50 were applied for in 1881 ; and in 
 Queen's County 15. 
 
 What necessitated all this extra police ? — The 
 necessity of extra protection. 
 
 Speaking of 1880, 1881, and 1882, was there any 
 distress among the people to account for the state of 
 things that existed ? — No ; there was no distress in any 
 part of my division to account for the disturbance. 
 
 Apart from an organization with an object, was 
 there anything to call either for the outrages or the 
 exasperated feelings between landlord and tenant ?— 
 Nothing whatever. 
 
 Had you to establish police protection posts fre- 
 quently ? — Yes. 
 
 The witness produced a table of the number of pro- 
 tection posts established since 1879 in his division, the 
 south-eastern. 
 
 The Attobney-General. — From this document it 
 appears that except in Wexford there were no pro- 
 tection posts in 1879 ? — That is so. 
 
 In 1880 there were only 12 ?— Yes. 
 
 In 1881 there were 49 ?— Yes. 
 
 In addition to your statement that there was no dis- 
 tress to call for this abnormal state of things, was the 
 condition of affairs from the distress point of view 
 worse or better in 1881 than in 1879 ?— I should think 
 rather better. I consider 1887 almost a worse year 
 than those you have mentioned. 
 
 Have you also prepared a table showing the number 
 of police and military employed at evictions in your 
 division since January 1, 1879 ? — Yes. 
 
 At this point of the witness's evidence the Commis- 
 sioners adjourned, it being 4 o'clock. 
 
 Captain 0. R. Slacks. 
 
 END OP VOLUME L 
 
 26—2 
 
iisrr>E x 
 
 TO THE NAMES OF WITNESSES, &a 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 FAQE 
 
 Applications by Counsel : — 
 
 For Release of Mr. William Redmond and 
 
 for Discovery of Documents 6, 30 
 
 For Further Discovery ... ... ... 55 
 
 For Farther Particulars ... ... ... 60 
 
 Concerning Inspection of Books of Certain 
 
 Irish Banks 130 
 
 For Information as to Course of Evidence 137 
 Suggestion as to Proof of Speeches ... 169 
 
 For Further Discovery of Documents ... 416 
 
 Attof-ney-Gbneral's Opening Speech :— 
 
 First Day j ... 8 
 
 Second Day ... ... ... ... ... 31 
 
 Third Day 63 
 
 Fourth Day 79 
 
 Fifth Day 105 
 
 Charges and Allegations, Particulars of the 3 
 
 Clanp-icarde, Marquis op, Application on 
 
 behalf op 260 
 
 Contempt op Court Charges ■.— 
 
 Mr. E. Harrington {Kerry Sentinel) 316, 338 
 Colonel Mellor, Dr. Kershaw, and Mr. 
 
 Garnall 491 
 
 Colonel Mellor, Dr. Kershaw, Mr. Garnll, 
 
 and Sir F. Milner 492 
 
 Mr.W. O'Brien {United Ireland) 650, 673, 696 
 The Warden of Merton College, Mr. Brod- 
 
 rick 652, 677 
 
 Charles Henry Birbeck 672 
 
 Sheffield Telegraph 755, 764 
 
 Evidence :— 
 
 Application for Information as to the 
 
 Course of 13,7 
 
 Arrangement as to Particular Class ... 138 
 
 Admissibility of Certain 
 Harris, Matthew, Papers ... 
 Preliminary Proceedings 
 Special Commission Act 
 Witnesses, Names op :— 
 
 Agnew, George ... ... 
 
 Attridge, Thomas 
 
 Barrett, Mrs. Bridget 
 
 Barrett, Mr. John ... ... 
 
 Barry, Sub-Inspector Dominick 
 
 39S. 20? 
 
 258, 288 
 ... 731 
 
 436 
 531 
 577 
 
 761 
 23? 
 
 Witnesses, Names op (continued) : 
 Beattie, Constable 
 Beauchamp, Mr. W. M. 
 Bell, District Inspector Alan 
 Bennett, Alexander 
 Bermingham, John ... 
 Bingham, Mr. Arthur Shean ... 
 
 Blake, Mr. Henry 
 
 Blake, Mrs. Caroline 
 
 Blake, Constable Dennis 
 
 Blake, Mrs. John Henry 
 
 Bolger, Patrick ... 
 
 Botterill, Mr. Robert 
 
 Boycott, Captain... 
 
 Brady, Head Constable William 
 
 Brean, Peter 
 
 Brown, Edmund 
 
 Brown, Mrs. Johanna 
 
 Brown, Michael ... 
 
 Buckley, James ... ... ... 
 
 Buckley, Jeremiah 
 
 Burke, James 
 
 Burke, Mr. John Kennedy 
 
 Burke, Michael ... 
 
 Butler, Head Constable Michael 
 
 Cahill, Thomas 
 
 Camier, James 
 
 Carter, District Inspector 
 
 Carter, Mr. Geo. T. Shaen 
 
 Chard, Richard ... 
 
 Charleton, Sergeant William ... 
 
 Charlton, Sergeant 
 
 Clancey, Sergeant 
 
 Clarke, Sesgeant ... ... 
 
 Clifford, Thomas 
 
 Cole, Nathaniel ... 
 
 Connair, Thomas... ... ... 
 
 Connell, Mrs. Hannah ... .,. 
 
 Connell, James ... «,, .» 
 Connell, John ... ,^ 
 Oonnor, John „. ,„ „. 
 Connors, Mrs. i„ „-, ,,„ 
 Ccoaway, John «,. «*-. %v 
 Conway, William ... , r 
 
 PAGE 
 
 . 205 
 
 . 236 
 
 . 210 
 
 , 312 
 
 „ 302 
 
 , 574 
 
 . 245 
 
 .. 240 
 
 . 431 
 
 .. 253 
 
 . 225 
 
 . 228 
 
 . 613 
 
 . 6G8 
 
 . 344 
 
 . 428 
 
 . 43S 
 
 . 576 
 
 . 635 
 
 . 52J-T 
 
 . 304 
 
 . 2:!2 
 
 . 540 
 
 . 238 
 
 . 508 
 
 . 52? 
 
 . 586 
 
 .. 594 
 
 . 571 
 
 . 221 
 
 . 283 
 
 . 245> 
 
 . 645 
 
 . 815 
 
 . 58? 
 
 . 238 
 
 . 660 
 
 . 667 
 
 . CSS 
 
 . 326 
 
 . 19$ 
 
 , 305 
 
 . 237 
 
Index. 
 
 Witnesses, Names 01? (continued): — 
 
 Copithorne, Henry 
 
 Corless, Michael 
 
 Courniham, Dennis ... ... ... 
 
 Coursey, Sergeant ... ... 
 
 Crane, District Inspector ...324, 332, 
 Creagh, Sergeant James ... ... 
 
 Cregg, Sergeant Thomas ... ... 
 
 Cremen, Philip ... ... ... ... 
 
 Cronin, Daniel ... ... ... ... 
 
 Culloty, John ... ... ... ... 
 
 Curtin, George ... ... ... ... 
 
 Curtin, Miss Lizzie ... ... 
 
 Daly, Mrs. „ 
 
 Daly, Richard ... ... ... ... 
 
 Davis, District Inspector William ... 
 De Blaquiere, Mrs. 
 Deane-Tanner, Major ... 
 Delaney, Patrick 
 Dempsey, Mrs. Mary 
 
 Digby, Mr. Reginald 
 
 Dillon, John 
 
 Dohan, Sergeant ... 
 
 Donoghue, John ... ... ... ... 
 
 Donoghue, Mrs. ... 
 
 Donoghue, Patrick ... 
 Donohoe, Richard „. 
 
 Donovan, Sergeant .... 
 
 Dowling, Daniel ... 
 
 Doyle, Sergeant James... 
 
 Drohan, Sergeant 
 
 Dwyer, Constable John... ... 
 
 Elliott, Sergeant Thomas ... 573, 
 Faby, Thomas ... ... ... 
 
 Farragher, Michael „. ... .-> 
 
 Farragher, Patrick J. ... .-* 
 
 Faussstt, Sergeant ... ... .-■- 
 
 Fawcetfc, Sergeant Peter , 
 
 Feely, Sergeant Denis ... ... ... 
 
 Fenton, Michael ... ... ,<•. 
 
 Fitzgerald, Miss Ellen 
 
 Fitzgerald, Mrs. Kate ... .,». 
 
 Fitzmaurice, Miss Xorah 
 
 Fitzsimmons, District Inspector Thomas 
 
 Flaherty, Peter 
 
 Flanagan, Edward 
 
 Flynu, Sergeant William 
 
 Foran, Patrick .- ••« 
 
 Ford, James ... ... •..* ••• 
 
 Freely, David ... ... *-.' ■•* 
 
 Gallagher, Miss Ann ... 
 
 Galviuj Thomas 
 
 Gambell, District Inspector Alexander 
 Gannon, Pat ... ... ... 
 
 Geelan, John Thompson... ... 
 
 Gibbons, Sergeant Patrick ... 
 
 Gildea, Thomas 
 
 Gilhooly, Sergeant John .,, 403, 
 
 Gloster, Arthur «-. 
 
 Griffin, Andrew ... ... ». 
 
 Griffin. The Very Kef. Cnnoii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ... 530 
 
 ... 227 
 
 ... 443 
 
 ... 203 
 
 344, 450 
 
 ... 281 
 
 ... 509 
 
 ... 554 
 
 ... 446 
 
 ... 317 
 
 340, 446 
 
 334, 338 
 
 ... 534 
 
 ... 531 
 
 407, 419 
 
 ... 205 
 
 ... 686 
 
 ... 701 
 
 ... 197 
 
 ... 724 
 
 ... 589 
 
 ... 661 
 
 ... 603 
 
 ... C62 
 
 ... 430 
 
 ... 284 
 
 ... 573 
 
 ... 332 
 
 ... 508 
 
 329, 446 
 
 ... 671 
 
 614, 664 
 
 ... 593 
 
 ... 617 
 
 ... 766 
 
 ... 435 
 
 ... 800 
 
 ... 628 
 
 ... 557 
 
 ... 494 
 
 ... 007 
 
 ... 344 
 
 ... 081 
 
 ... 273 
 
 ... 275 
 
 ... 314 
 
 ... 425 
 
 ... 2S3 
 
 ... 585 
 
 ... 584 
 
 ... 425 
 
 ... 618 
 
 ... 304 
 
 ... 800 
 
 ... 205 
 
 ... 617 
 
 422, 661 
 
 ... 432 
 
 ... 443 
 
 ... 511 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Witnesses, Nakss of (ccnticEc-d) :— 
 
 Harris, Sergeant Michael _, 350 
 
 Haycrofts, Mrs «. 530 
 
 Hayes, Michaol , 468 
 
 Heagley, Cornelius ... .„ ... 230, 232 
 
 Hegarty, Mr. Jeremiah... .„ 482 
 
 Hennessy, Sergeant Michael 267 
 
 Herbert, Edward ... ... 313 
 
 Hewson, Mr. George .„ 726 
 
 Hickey, Mrs. Mary ^, 330 
 
 Hearty, Michael ... 27$ 
 
 Hobbins, Head Constable Thomas ... ... 515 
 
 Hogan, Joseph ... ... ... ... ... 579 
 
 Hogan, William ... 580 
 
 Holderness, Henry Gordon ... ... ... 236 
 
 Holderness, Mr 439 
 
 Honan, Archibald Edward ... ... ... 247 
 
 Horan, Sergeant Peter ... ... ... ... 554 
 
 Horgan, Edmund ... ... ... ... ... 427 
 
 Horgan, Martin ... ... ... ... ... 585 
 
 Huddy, Thomas ... 223 
 
 Hoggins, District Inspector David 321, 331, 379 
 
 Huggins, Head Constable 333 
 
 Hughes, Constable ifam.es 572 
 
 Hughes, John ,. 252 
 
 Hughes, Head Constable Patrick 19S 
 
 Hussey, Mr. Samuel Mwray 469 
 
 Iago, Francis ... 691, 697 
 
 Irwin, Head Constable TV. ...145, 167, 170, 351 
 
 Ives, Mr. Albert Chester 185, 217 
 
 Joyce, Michael ... 239 
 
 Kane, John 246 
 
 Keaveney, Patrick ... ... ... «*. 297 
 
 Keefe, Michael c* C63 
 
 Kelleher, Cornelius „,. 492 
 
 Kelleher, Peter «, 556 
 
 Kells, Sergeant ... ,.. 534 
 
 Kells, Sergeant William 738 
 
 Kelly, Constable 447 
 
 Kelly, Sergeant Hugh 228 
 
 Kennedy, John 443 
 
 Kennedy, Maurice 436 
 
 Kennedy, Patrick ... ■ 262 
 
 Keogh, Sergeant 257 
 
 Kerrigan, Matthias 223 
 
 Kerrigan, Mrs. Bridget ,. 224 
 
 King, David 225 
 
 Kirby, James ... ... ... ... ... 580 
 
 Lambert, Mr. J. W. H 200 
 
 Lang, Sergeant 526 
 
 Langford, Sergeant 258, 261 
 
 Lavender, Constable Peter 614 
 
 Leahy, Mrs. Johanna 322 
 
 Leap, Head Constable Daniel 640 
 
 Leonard, Matthew ... ... ... ... 282 
 
 Leonard, Mr. Maurice 352 
 
 Lewis, Mr. John ... ... ... ... •■• 198 
 
 Lyden, Mrs. Honoria 256 
 
 Lyden, Mrs. Martha 237 
 
 M'Ardle. District Inspector 581 
 
 M'Ardlo, District Ir.spec.tor W. H 801 
 
Index. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Witnesses, Names op (continued) :— 
 
 M'Auliffe, John 449 
 
 M'Call, Hugh 634 
 
 M'Carthy, Head Constable Cornelius 323 
 
 M'Carthy, Dennis ... 328 
 
 M'Carthy, Mrs. Kate 329 
 
 M'Dermott, Sergeant James 628 
 
 M'Nally, Constable Hugh 205 
 
 Mannion, James ... ... ... ... ... 268 
 
 Meehan, Sergeant Francis ... ... ... 341 
 
 Mollowney, James ... ... ... ... 593 
 
 Molloy, Patrick 539, 558 
 
 Morgan, Owen 303 
 
 Moroney, Sergeant Charles 514 
 
 Moroney, Michael 671 
 
 Mountmorres, Lady ... ... ... ... 298 
 
 Murphy, District Inspector 290 
 
 Murphy, Jeremiah ... ... ... ... 554 
 
 Murphy, Patrick 447 
 
 Murphy, Sergeant 285 
 
 Murtagh, Sergeant ... 210 
 
 Noonan, Thomas 287 
 
 O'Brien, Sergeant ... ... ... .... 430 
 
 O'Brien, Sergeant Thomas ... ... ... 517 
 
 O'Connor, Jeremiah ... ... ... ... 493 
 
 O'Connor, Sergeant William ... ... ... 255 
 
 O'Connor, Sergeant ... ... ... ... 302 
 
 O'Connor, Thomas ... ... ... 495, 653 
 
 O'Donnell, Mr. Dominick 754 
 
 O'Flaherty, Edmund 258 
 
 O'Flaherty, Mrs 257 
 
 O'Malley, Head Constable Bernard ... 138, 177 
 
 0'Sh.ea, Captain W. H 146, 170 
 
 Perry, Mr. Charles William ... 670 
 
 Philips, Constable W 617 
 
 Plunkett, Captain 756 
 
 Powell, Mr. Robert 749 
 
 Prenderville, William ... ... ... ... 333 
 
 Preston, Head Constable James ... ... 221 
 
 Rafferty, John 191, 195 
 
 Raie, Giles 311 
 
 Regan, Cornelius ... ... ... ... 519 
 
 Regan, Miss Mary ... ... ... ... 467 
 
 Rice, District Inspector W. H. 434, 436, 461 
 
 Richards, Mr. Edward Moore 609 
 
 Riordan, Daniel ... ... ... ... ... 507 
 
 Roughan, Sergeant ... 268 
 
 Royce, District Inspector G. C 636 
 
 Witnesses, Names of (continued) :— 
 Rudden, Head Constable 
 Rudden, Michael... 
 Ruttle, Sergeant Jacob .. 
 Sanders, Mr. Robert, M.D. 
 
 Scott, George 
 
 Shannon, Mr. William ... 
 
 Shea, John ... 
 
 Shea, Sergeant ... ... ... 
 
 Sheehy, Eugene ... " ' 
 
 Sheridan, Patrick ... 
 
 Slacke, Captain O. R. ... 
 
 Sloyne, Patrick ... ' ... ' 
 
 Small, Patrick, jun." ... 
 Small, Patrick, Sen. ... 
 
 Smith, Henry C. 
 
 Smith, Mr. Sydney 
 Starkie, District Inspector 
 Stratton, Head Constable Thomas 
 Stretton, Head Constable 
 Studdert, Mr. Hallani George ... 
 Sullivan, Jeremiah 
 Sullivan, John 
 
 Sullivan, Pat (Ballinorig Causeway). 
 Sullivan, Pat (Farranpierce) ... 
 Swanton, Mr. George ... 
 Sweeney, Daniel... 
 Tatlow, Mr. Espine Henry 
 Teahan, John 
 
 Thomson, Miss Lucy 
 
 Tobin, Denis ... 
 
 Tyrell, Mr. Garrett 
 
 Vereker, Mr. Henry 
 
 Wade, District Inspector Frederick . 
 
 Walker, John 
 
 Wall, District Inspector Michael 
 
 Walsh, James 
 
 Walsh, Pat (Ballybunion) 
 
 Walsh, Patrick'(Ballinrobe) ... 
 
 Walsh, William 
 
 White, Thomas 
 
 Williams, Henry ... 
 
 Williams, Sergeant 
 
 Williams, Richard 
 
 Williams, William 
 
 Wood, Thomas 
 
 Wynne, Thomas ... 
 
 Young, Mr. George 
 
 page 
 
 ... 299 
 ... 225 
 ... 533 
 ... 787 
 ... 578 
 439, 441 
 ... 467 
 ... 444 
 ... 467 
 ... 663 
 ... 802 
 ... 584 
 ... 239 
 ... 238 
 ... 245 
 ... 634 
 ... 509 
 ... 328 
 ... 427 
 ... 764 
 ... 447 
 ... 530 
 ... 308 
 ... 325 
 ... 529 
 ... 507 
 ... 591 
 ... 401 
 597, 603 
 ... 792 
 ... 745 
 ... 751 
 251 
 5C9 
 532 
 521 
 325 
 CC4 
 206 
 201 
 331 
 222 
 516 
 331 
 581 
 664 
 739 
 
 232 
 
 PEINTKD AND PUBLISHED Br GEORGE E1AVARD WRIGHT. AS THE TIME3 OPMOB. PRIMTIKG-HOOSK SQDARE, LONDON. 
 
•TV ■/ 
 
 «**** 
 
 in* 
 
 •A* 
 
■■