Books




Face of Winifred May Davies
Latest topics
» Why Jesus Is Not God
Mon 17 Apr 2017 - 0:09 by Karen

» The Fourth Reich
Fri 14 Apr 2017 - 14:14 by Karen

» Allah, The Real Serpent of the Garden
Tue 7 Mar 2017 - 11:45 by Karen

» THE INNOCENCE OF JEWS
Sat 4 Mar 2017 - 12:06 by Karen

» Hillary Clinton (Hillroy Was Here)
Fri 28 Oct 2016 - 17:38 by Karen

» Alien on the Moon
Thu 20 Oct 2016 - 21:57 by Karen

» Martian Nonsense Repeats Itself
Thu 20 Oct 2016 - 18:43 by Karen

» Enlil and Enki
Fri 7 Oct 2016 - 17:11 by Karen

» Israel Shoots Down Drone - Peter Kucznir's Threat
Wed 24 Aug 2016 - 22:55 by Karen

» Rome is Babylon
Sun 24 Jul 2016 - 21:27 by Karen

Links












Gallery



Parnell Commission Inquiry

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Parnell Commission Inquiry

Post by Karen on Sun 2 Sep 2012 - 11:37

Sixth Day of Proceedings - Tuesday, October 30, 1888

PARNELL COMMISSION.
SIXTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

THE HIBERNIAN BANK'S BOOKS.
WHY THEY ARE NOT PRODUCED.

AN EXCEEDINGLY WARM DISCUSSION.
MR. TIMOTHY HEALY APPEARS.

IRISH CONSTABLE IN THE BOX.
TRANSCRIBING HIS SHORTHAND NOTES.

MR. HEALY WATCHING THE WITNESS.

A weak attempt has been made to render this bleary, draughty, little Court-room somewhat less unendurable. Here the draughts cut one on the neck, on the legs, everywhere like a knife. An ingenious person has bethought him of hanging a heavy crimson curtain in the doorway close to which I sit - it being his benevolent purpose to keep the gales out. A white-haired, demure gentleman - demure as a Judge - in stepping, has just caught his foot in the bottom of the aforesaid, and he lurcheth and pitcheth head foremost with an oath such as I trust I shall never hear again from a venerable person of his years. We shall have quite enough of hard swearing in this place, I warrant me, without any volunteering from outside. A peal of silvery laughter issues from the gallery. The ladies are probably laughing at the venerable gentleman. Anyhow, their conduct shocks a Court official, who, rushing out into the middle of the Court, stares the offenders out of countenance. By the way, there are in the gallery two lady members of the Home Rule League. They appear to regard the proceedings in a comic light. The Court is very crowded today in anticipation of lively scenes. But as yet the Irish members are not in force. The most notable among the new-comers is Mr. T.M. Healy.

The first portion of the proceedings was occupied with a long wrangle between Sir Richard Webster and a legal luminary who has appeared for the first time in the case - Sir W. Phillimore. Sir Richard Webster made a formal application for the production of the League bank books and other documents which their present possessors refused, at the present stage, to submit for examination. He read, among other documents, the affidavit of the Hibernian Bank to the effect that considerations for the privacy of their customers' affairs precluded the bank from submitting its books until compelled to do so by a competent legal authority. But Sir Walter Phillimore's objections to the production of these documents were so long-winded, and, to Sir James Hannen's mind, so unreasonable, that Sir James grew impatient. His brow contracted; he moved about restlessly in his chair; and finally he characterised the action of Sir Walter and certain of his colleagues, as "obstructive." One thing is pretty clear - that if Sir James Hannen can help it, no counsel, on either side, will be allowed to break the tether of his text. The contention between Sir Walter and Sir Richard ended with the formal decision of Sir James Hannen (after brief consultation with his colleagues) that the books of the Hibernian, National, and Munster Banks should be put in evidence. Whereupon the first witness in this historical trial, entered the witness-box. This was Mr. Collins, of the Hibernian Bank. Mr. Collins merely answered a formal question or two, and then another little dispute ensued between the Attorney-General and Sir Charles Russell as to the course and order of the forthcoming evidence.
Sir Charles complained that, as far as the accusation had already gone, it consisted of bits of speeches from one M.P., bits from another, and from different parts of the country - without any order or sequence, and, in reality, bringing no complete, distinct, coherent charge against anybody in particular. All that Sir James Hannen could say was that he hoped the Attorney-General's evidence would follow in regular sequence during the examination of witnesses, because, as he said in effect, the presentation of a "mass of testimony not hanging together" would occupy the Court for an indefinite period.
The next witness was B. O'Malley, of the Irish Constabulary Force. With his evidence the real work of the Commission began. O'Malley deposed to having been present at a meeting at Milltown, in July, 1880, and having taken notes of the speech there of Brennan, treasurer or secretary of the Land League, which had been founded in 1879. Brennan's speech, part of which was read out by Sir Henry James, was an oration of the usual description - preaching the abolition of landlordism, and the independence of Ireland. When Sir Henry James began to read parts of the second speech - namely, P.J. Gordon's - delivered at the same Land League meeting, Mr. T.M. Healy, and after him Mr. Biggar, jumped one after the other to protest. The interruption reminded one of the scenes in the House of Commons - and all the more forcibly because in the Court, as in the House, the two arch-"obstructives" appeared side by side. Don't let us have extracts merely - let us hear all, was the gist of their objection. Mr. Healy spoke in a somewhat low tone of quiet remonstrance. But Mr. Biggar gabbled out his protest in rapid, indistinct utterance - rather angrily declaring that the English public would only see Sir Henry James's selected extracts in tomorrow morning's papers, and would know nothing of the context - which context might materially change their meaning. "All that can be done in cross-examination," was the President's ruling, and Sir Henry James went on with his reading. The Irish constable in the witness-box looked intently at his notes while Sir Henry read at railway speed. Land Leaguer Gordon's oration was to the same purport as Brennan's.
"Heavens! Heavens!" I hear someone groan, almost under his breath; "this will last six months." The despairing exclamation was provoked by Mr. Constable O'Malley's leisurely way of reading his shorthand notes. And it certainly was a terrible infliction. Stopping now and then, for a minute or two at a time, to decipher his shorthand notes, the constable read out in a slow, dull, mumbling drawl, and in a pretty strong Irish accent, long dreary paragraphs about the squalor and misery of Irish cabins, &c. At last, Sir James Hannen's patience gave way. He frowned ominously, and at last exclaimed, "How long is this going to last?" Laughter in Court. And the laughter was renewed when, in answer to the President's remonstrance, the witness quietly damped his thumb in his mouth, and proceeded in a leisurely way to turn over some few scores of pages! Clearly, if all the constabulary shorthand writers who appear in this case are to crawl at that rate through their nine years' pothook records of hundreds of speeches delivered in hundreds of Irish localities, we may never see the end of this case - we may all get drowned in it, as if in a bottomless Irish bog. I notice that Mr. Justice Smith yawns, and that his eyes wink somewhat drowsily.

A good many who were in Court during the morning sitting took care not to return in the afternoon. As the Attorney-General had hitherto done all the talking, so Sir Henry James was now doing all the reading; and the reading of Land League speeches - while the stenographic Irish constable in his witness-box kept his eye on his notebook - was anything but an exhilarating performance.
At a few minutes before three o'clock, Mr. Parnell entered the Court for the first time during the day. He sat down on the front seat, facing the Judges, Mr. Labouchere vacating his seat to make room for him. Sir Henry James's reading proceeded without interruption.

For the first time since the opening of the Commission there was something like a demonstration in the dismal corridor outside the Court this morning. Around the barricades were a large number of people; and to prevent them from peering into the Court the ushers had resorted to the novel device of pasting sheets of paper over the glass panels of the doors. Within, all was life and bustle shortly after ten o'clock; and when, at half-past, the Commissioners - Mr. Justice Hannen, Mr. Justice Day, and Mr. Justice Smith - entered the Court, it was much more crowded than on any preceding day.
The counsel for the Times are the Attorney-General (Sir Richard Webster), Sir Henry James, Q.C., Mr. W. Murphy, Q.C., and Mr. W. Graham, of the English Bar, with Mr. J. Atkinson, Q.C., and Mr. Ronan, of the Irish Bar. The counsel for the Irish Members are Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., Mr. Asquith, Mr. R.T. Reid, Q.C., Mr. F. Lockwood, Q.C., Mr. Lionel Hart, Mr. Arthur Russell, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, and Mr. Harrington. Mr. P.A. Chance is represented by Mr. Hammond, solicitor, and Mr. Biggar, M.P., and Mr. Michael Davitt, appear personally.

"THE QUESTION OF THE BANKS."

At the outset the Attorney-General said he thought they had better deal with the question of the banks.
Sir Walter Phillimore, Q.C., hereupon said he appeared for the Hibernian Bank, and Mr. T.W. Wheeler, Q.C., added that he appeared for the National Bank.
The Attorney-General then explained to the Commission that an order was made on the 17th of September, 1888, for the inspection of books connected with the associations already dealt with, in the possession of the two banks named. That order, he said, had not been complied with. In the first place, he would ask if the books were present.
Mr. Wheeler said that so far as the National Bank was concerned they were not.
Sir Walter Phillimore observed that when he was persuaded that the Attorney-General had a right to ask that question he would answer it.
The Attorney-General then said that if they did not get inspection he must apply for a subpoena duces tecum - an order to compel the officials of the bank to attend, and bring the original bankers' books over. They had delayed making such an application because they did not wish to place the bank in such a difficult position. Sir Richard pointed out that, under the Act appointing the Commissioners, they had the same powers as were vested in any of Her Majesty's Judges. He proceeded to read the affidavit of the secretary of the Hibernian Bank, in which it was stated that the bankers felt it to be their duty to protect in every way the private property of their customers; and, whilst not wishing to place any obstacle in the way of the inquiry, felt that they could not disclose the documents unless absolutely bound to do so. The affidavit, however, added that the officials of the bank would bring over the books upon receipt of a wire from London.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER'S APPLICATION.

The President - Well, what is the question, then?
The Attorney-General - I understand they will come over; but that the books will not be open to inspection.
The President - Well, we must see them.
The Attorney-General said if the books were there, and the position the bankers took was that they were not to be allowed to see them, he should ask the Commission to treat the books as in the custody of the Court, and allow an inspection.
The President said the bank took up a very respectable position. He supposed they did not want to disclose the secrets of their clients until forced to do so.
The Attorney-General then asked for an order to be made against the National Bank and the Munster Bank for the production of their books.
Sir Walter Phillimore - who now intimated that Mr. Fitzgerald was associated with him - contended that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of their Lordships.

SIR JAMES HANNEN'S ORDER.

Sir James Hannen - Our time is very valuable, and I understand that the bank has obeyed by bringing the books here. We don't want then an academical discussion. So far, the books are here. We shall order them to be brought into Court.
Sir Walter Phillimore - I object to that.
The President (sternly) - Who is in possession of the books?
Sir Walter Phillimore (after some hesitation) was understood to say Mr. Alfred D. Collins.
The President - He is in possession of them?

SIR W. PHILLIMORE'S POSITION.

Sir Walter Phillimore - I do not propose to give your Lordships any further information. My position is this. Your Lordships have not the power to make any order for inspection in Ireland of Irish banking books.
The President - And it was because I expected that argument that I put the question. I pass over that. If any man is here in possession of these books we shall order them to be produced, unless you can show the Court why such an order should not be made.
Sir W. Phillimore - Starting from the point that your Lordships have not the power to order the inspection of bank-books in Ireland ----
Mr. Justice A.L. Smith (smiling) - They are now bankers' books in England. (A laugh.)
Sir Walter Phillimore - Your Lordships cannot, by a side wind, obtain possession of them. I am here strictly to defend my clients on application for contempt.
Sir James Hannen - Not at all. You are here to show cause why we are not to have the books.
Sir W. Phillimore - My Lords -----
Sir James Hannen (warmly) - But I have told you to pass over that, and only take the substantial question.
Sir Walter Phillimore again called their Lordships' attention to the fact that he was before them on account of the notice of motion.
The President, however, at once interrupted him, and reminded the learned counsel that the Court wanted the books.
"My client will be ready to produce the books on the order of the Court after a full discussion," Sir Walter answered.
The President - We have passed over the notice of motion. I want the books.
Sir Walter (raising his voice) - When my client is called upon he will produce the books.

"ONLY DEALT WITH AS WITNESS'S BOOKS."

"Then we will have the books at once," retorted the President.
Sir Walter - Then I submit to your Lordship that if you have the books, they can only be dealt with as witness's books. That is to say, the whole of the books shall not be examined, but that the witnesses shall turn to the various pages that are required.
The President (with severity) - If the bankers, under cover of protecting their clients' interests, put us to that trouble, of course, we must do so.
Sir Walter - I hope your Lordship does not suggest anything by that remark, "under cover of protecting their clients."
Mr. Justice Smith - If he does not I should.

SIR C. RUSSELL'S INTERPOSITION.

Sir Charles Russell interposed at this point. "So far as any persons whom I represent, and who are clients at the bank, are concerned (he said), they have not the slightest objection to the bank books being examined."
The President - I am glad to have that disclaimer from you, Sir Charles, of the obstruction that has evidently been attempted by other persons.
Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Reid, Q.C., also intimated that their clients had no objection to the books being examined.

MR. PATRICK EGAN'S ACCOUNT.

Sir Walter Phillimore then asked that the accounts of those persons who were not before the Court should not be examined.
Sir Richard Webster, however, pointed out that Patrick Egan, who was the treasurer of the Land League, was not before the Commission, and it was most necessary that his account should be examined.
Sir Walter Phillimore then obtained a promise that the accounts of those persons who were not before the Commission should not be examined before those persons had been formally informed that the examination would take place.

THE BOOKS OF THE NATIONAL BANK.

Mr. Wheeler explained that he was instructed to say that the bank he represented was not actuated by any spirit of disobedience. No order had, in fact, been served that they would have been justified in obeying.
The President interposed with a question as to where the head office of the bank was. After a while, Mr. Wheeler stated the directors hold their meetings in London.
Mr. Justice Smith asked Mr. Wheeler if he thought the order subpoena duces tecum would apply to the bank, following up the question with the observation, "I should think it does, for the Act says it does."
The Attorney-General pointed out that the books were now in the custody of the Chancery-lane Safe Deposit Company.
The President decided, in regard to the Hibernian Bank, that either the books must be left in the custody of the Court, or copies made for the use of the Commission. As to the National Bank, it was said that they had an office in London. Well, if a subpoena duces tecum had not been served upon the officials, he (Sir James Hannen) should order that one be served. The same would apply to the Munster Bank.
Mr. Alfred D. Collins was then called forward, and said the books of the Hibernian Bank were in London.
The President made an order for their production and inspection.

MR. T. HEALY'S EXPLANATION.

Mr. T. Healy said he was ordinarily represented by Mr. Reid, but he now wished to make a personal application. He understood that their Lordships wished to avail themselves of the facility of the Bankers' Act to compel the production of copies of particular accounts. One account at the bank being his own, he (Mr. Healy) asked that the parties incriminated might examine the books themselves.
The President: Of course, you are entitled to.
The orders were then made by the Court for the banks named to produce.
Sir Walter Phillimore - It will be physically impossible to bring the books into Court.
The President directed that the key of the safe wherein they are deposited should be handed to Mr. Cunyngham, secretary of the Commission.

"A HIGGLEDY-PIGGLEDY FASHION."

Sir Charles Russell raised an objection with reference to a letter he had received from Mr. Soames, the Times' solicitor, in which Mr. Soames said that "We shall call evidence to prove the making of speeches and the occurrence of outrages. It may be necessary, however, to interpose witnesses at other points." He (Sir Charles Russell) had therefore no information as to the place, time, or person in connection with such speeches.
The President said he did not see how the Court could control the Attorney-General in the matter mentioned.
Sir Charles Russell replied that if his learned friends on the other side were allowed to conduct their case as they had, in what he might call a higgledy-piggledy fashion - (a laugh) - a slice of speeches, then a slice of outrages - surely the Court could control the way in which the evidence was produced.
Sir Richard Webster said he had intimated to his learned friend, so far as it was possible, the course of evidence which he proposed to adopt. "We shall," continued the Attorney-General, "endeavour to prove our case in the ordinary way in which persons who are before a tribunal of this kind are entitled to do. More than that it is impossible to say, and I must protest against the remarks of my learned friend."
Sir C. Russell, however, reminded their Lordships that he had made the request for information on behalf of his clients, not on behalf of himself. "As a matter of justice, I say," Sir Charles continued, "we are entitled to know whether we are to be made answerable for the speeches and acts of persons in all parts of the country. In the commonest consideration of justice we should have the fullest and amplest notice of the evidence which will be given."
The President - The Attorney-General undertook to supply Sir Charles with that information, and I cannot take upon myself to say that he has not given all the information in his power. Certainly I do in the most hearty terms express my hope that the evidence will be brought forward in sequence, because otherwise it may be impossible for the Court - at all events, in any reasonable time - to deal with such a mass of evidence that does not hang together coherently.

MR. HEALY'S SECOND INTERPOSITION - "PROOF OF HIS SPEECHES."

Mr. Healy here interposed. "I wish to know (he said to the President), with regard to myself, whether speeches for which I have been tried and acquitted will be re-examined and re-ventilated, and whether I can make a plea against that course being taken."
The President - There is no necessity and no opportunity for doing so. When the speeches which you refer to are dealt with you can then make an application.
"With regard to all the speeches it is proposed to put in against myself," continued Mr. Healy, "I think it would save a great deal of your Lordships' time, and of expense, if those witnesses were not called. I, for my part, am prepared to admit having made all the speeches that are put down to me, and I am proud of them. I also wish to know," said Mr. Healy, "whether it would be possible to take the evidence with regard to each of the persons against whom accusations have been made separately. It is very inconvenient and expensive for me to stay in this Court day after day, and I do not care to stay here while Mr. O'Donovan Rossa's criminality is being inquired into. I think we should be allowed some consideration, and if it is possible that we could be intimated when the charges against each individual are to be inquired into, it would be a great advantage."
Sir Richard Webster said it would be impossible for him to deal with the charges individually, at least, in the first instance.

FIRST WITNESS - HOW HE GAVE HIS EVIDENCE.

Bernard O'Malley was then called, he being announced as the first witness. He is a head constable in the R.I.C. He is a man of medium height and of middle age. Prior to his examination, Sir Henry James explained that he proposed to examine O'Malley to prove speeches in County Galway, dating from the early part of 1880. This witness, he said, was one of the many who were instructed to attend the meetings and take reports of the speeches. Sir Henry then led the witness through a series of questions. O'Malley described himself as a shorthand writer, and stated that he attended a meeting at Milltown on July 25th, 1880.
"Was that a Land League meeting?" asked Sir Henry James.
Sir Charles Russell interposed. He claimed that such a question was not legal, and that the witness could not say absolutely that the meeting was one of the League.
O'Malley himself settled the dispute by asserting that he could not answer the question, nor could he say that Brennan, one of the speakers there, was the secretary of the Land League. He went on to say that he took a note of the speeches made, and subsequently transcribed it, the transcript being sent to Dublin.
Sir Charles Russell again interposed. He must, he said, submit that the people who represented the Times should prove that the Land League existed, and what was the connection of certain persons with the League. The proper course was to know if there was a League, who was at the head of the League, and who was connected with it. At this time, as a matter of fact, there was no branch of the League at Milltown.
The Attorney-General observed that these gentlemen went down to Milltown to establish a branch of the League.
The President said the giving of the evidence must be conducted in the same way as if they were inquiring into an indictment for conspiracy. It was not necessary to prove in the first instance the existence of a particular combination. Therefore it appeared to him really admissible.
Sir Charles Russell made one more attempt to establish his objection. Would it not, he asked, be necessary to prove some connection between the Association and the persons implicated?
"Yes," replied the President; "but there is no particular time for giving the evidence. Of course, the connection of the particular individuals must be shown."
O'Malley proceeded to read a portion of a speech. He did so in such muffled tones that Sir Henry James and the President, and, in fact, each of the Judges and most of the counsel, had to request him to raise his voice and speak more intelligibly. The request was of no avail, and ultimately the Attorney-General took the transcript of the speech. He was about to read it, when it was pointed out that the transcript was not that of the entire speech.

MR. BIGGAR GAINS ATTENTION.

Mr. Biggar here rose from his seat by the side of Mr. Davitt. "The Attorney-General," said he, "promised to give us the whole of the speeches, and now they only want to give culled portions."
There was a slight hissing sound from the gallery, and all eyes were turned there as the President retorted, with heat, "No, no, no."
Mr. Healy ventured to submit that the whole of the speeches should be read, and that the witnesses should also read from their notes. He (Mr. Healy) had seen a great deal of this police reporting.
The President - I understand that the reported identities that (pointing to the document) as a true transcript - that he swears upon his oath that it is correct?
Mr. Healy presumed it would be competent, when cross-examining the witnesses, to get them to read their notes.
Sir James Hannen - Yes.
Sir Henry James, having read the transcript of Mr. Brennan's speech, one given by P.J. Gordon, also reported by the witness, was put in and read. Mr. Gordon remarked, "We are met to denounce the landlords, who have plundered you of the land."
Sir Charles Russell asked for the whole speech to be read.
The President replied that he must address the rule made. It was competent for Sir Henry James to read passages of the speech. It was for Sir Charles Russell to cross-examine on the portions not read.
Sir Charles Russell - But I have not got the whole of the speech.
Mr. Healy and Mr. Biggar also contended that the whole of the speech should be read. "The real object of Sir Henry James," said Mr. Biggar, "is this - to get the extracts into the newspapers." (Laughter.)
Sir Henry James - My real object is to read what is material.

MR. O'MALLEY'S MANNER - THE COURT'S IMPATIENCE.

Sir Henry James then read a speech made the same day by J.W. Nally. In that speech he advocated boycotting the landlords, and asked for "three groans for Lord Randolph Churchill." Sir Henry then called witness's attention to a meeting which was held at Kilconnelly on the 19th September, 1880. Witness then read from his shorthand notes a speech made by Mr. P.J. Gordon on that occasion. Mr. Gordon told the meeting that they must be united as one man in the National Land League, and swear "that the which God had given them they were determined to hold."
O'Malley went on to read his notes very slowly. Sentences were delivered in a halting, uncertain, hesitating manner. The Court listened very patiently for some time. Then certain signs of uneasiness and impatience were visible in the features of the learned Judges themselves, whose powers of endurance were really taxed to their utmost extent.
"Is there much more of this?" suddenly asked the President, throwing down his pen in despair. The question was greeted with a burst of laughter in Court.
"My Lord, we had no copy of these speeches," apologetically essayed Sir Henry James.
But the President evinced signs of annoyance. "This mustn't occur again," he declared decisively. "A witness ought not to be put in the box to labour through his notes. He ought to have done so before. I must look after the time of the Court."
A conversation followed between the witness and Sir Henry James, the former promising to provide a transcript of this and other notes of speeches tomorrow morning. O'Malley produced another note-book from a bundle at his feet in the witness-box, and another meeting was referred to, Sir Henry reading the transcript, which O'Malley compared with his notes, supplying interpolations here and there.

NALLY'S ORATORY - WALSH'S SPEECH.

Sir Henry James next read another speech by J.W. Nally, in which - according to the note-pages - he desired to "Spread the light! Away with resolutions, away with speechifying! Let it come to pills, and pills only. When the pills are given they won't want ointment.......
Dynamite and gunpowder will blow them to pieces." A speech of Richard Walsh, who spoke as the representative of the Irish National Land League, delivered in March, 1881, was also read. In this he called for three cheers for Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien, and remarked that "glorious women took batons in their hands, and struck at the invaders." Walsh asked his hearers to do the same.
The Court then adjourned for lunch.

MATT HARRIS'S POSITION.

O'Malley again entered the witness-box when the Court resumed after luncheon. He handed to Sir Henry James his transcript of a speech by Mr. Matthew Harris on the 20th March, 1881.
The President - We have not yet any information as to the position of Mr. Matthew Harris. Was he an organiser?
Mr. Lockwood - We are not yet prepared to say what his position was.
Sir Henry - He is a scheduled member of the League.

OTHER SPEECHES.

Sir Henry then read the witness's transcript of a speech made at Shinla, by Patrick Gordon, on 10th of June, 1880. He said in that speech, "It has been reported to the Government that the peaceable people of Shinla are determined to cut each other's throats. We have no intention of cutting the throats of our friends, but I do not care if half the throats of our enemies are cut before tomorrow morning."
Sir Henry James proceeded to read a speech of Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., observing that he was one of the scheduled persons.
Sir C. Russell said that Mr. Harrington was not connected with the League at that time.
Sir Henry James replied that they would leave his position in 1880 a blank for the present. He then read the speech through, O'Malley following with his shorthand notes.
A speech delivered by Mr. M.P. Boyton, at Dagle, county Kerry, in February, 1881, was next read. Mr. Boyton, after urging those present at the meeting not to pay rent, but to agitate against the landlords, concluded by saying, "I will continued the work until the bars of the British prison silence me...If you refuse to pay an unjust rent, and refuse to take a farm from which others are evicted, a brilliant victory will crown all our efforts."
Sir Henry James next read a speech by the Rev. M'Gillicuddy at Castleisland, and another by Mr. Curtain at the same meeting. "One of the rules of the Land League," said Mr. Curtain in his speech, "is that no one should bid a shilling for a farm from which anyone has been evicted. Let it stand there as a monument of Herbert's perfidy." A speech by Mr. Riordan was next read by Sir Henry.

MR. HEALY EXCITED - HIS INTERRUPTION.

Mr. Healy interrupted at this juncture. He had been for some time watching the witness, who was leaning over his note-book with a pencil in his hand. Suddenly springing to his feet, Mr. Healy said, "I beg your Lordships' pardon, but the witness is constantly writing in the middle of his notes."
O'Malley - I am simply following Sir Henry.
Mr. Healy - He has been writing for the last ten minutes.
"I have noticed what the witness has been doing," said the President. "He has only been following the speakers."
Sir Henry James (sternly to witness) - Have you been writing? - Witness: No, Sir.
The President - What has been done has been going on under our own eyes. Besides, this is not the time to ask questions."

MR. LOCKWOOD AND SIR H. JAMES.

Sir Henry James then continued reading the speeches. At last Mr. Lockwood interrupted, by asserting that it would be for the convenience of the Commission if the speeches in extenso were before their Lordships. He pointed out that only extracts were read by the Attorney-General in his speech.
Sir Henry James resented the interruption, whereupon Mr. Lockwood observed that he did not think that a courteous way of meeting his observations, and that he thought Sir Henry would think so too, upon consideration. He repeated the object of his interruption.
The President explained that the Commission would have the speeches before them in the morning, and it was with the object of having the whole speeches from which the Attorney-General read extracts that Sir Henry was now reading the context.
Sir Henry James again turned to the speeches, reading them very carefully, even including such interjections as "Cheers." He subsequently intimated - shortly before four o'clock, after reading columns of speeches, that that concluded O'Malley's evidence, so far as Galway and Kerry were concerned. This witness also spoke of certain other counties - Mayo and others; but he had not had an opportunity of getting a transcript of the speeches. They would, therefore (said Sir Henry) call another witness as to Galway and Kerry, and he understood that Sir Charles Russell would not cross-examine O'Malley until his evidence was complete.

A HEAD-CONSTABLE IN THE BOX.

Another head constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary, named Irwin, was next examined. Irwin is a comparatively young man, and read his notes with much greater fluency than his colleague, O'Malley. He was examined by Mr. Murphy, Q.C.
At four o'clock the Court again adjourned.

Source: The Echo, Tuesday October 30, 1888, pp.2-3

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum