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

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



Parnell Commission Inquiry

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Parnell Commission Inquiry

Post by Karen on Thu 13 Sep 2012 - 0:23

Ninth Day of Proceedings - Tuesday, November 6, 1888





After an interval of four clear days, including Sunday, Mr. Justice Hannen, Mr. Justice Day, and Mr. Justice Smith resumed this morning the investigation of the charges and allegations made by the Times against the Parnellite Party. The welcome break in the proceedings had given an additional interest to the Commission, judging from the crowded state of the Court at half-past ten. The specially arranged gallery at the back of the inconvenient little Court, the alcove away up at the top of the southern wall, and the body of the Court, were crowded. Amongst the interested spectators were a large number of ladies, many of whom displayed Nationalist emblems, and it was stated, were members of an offshoot of the Land League.

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 Attorney-General at once rose and said that, before proceeding with the inquiry, he wished to ask their Lordships to look at a paragraph in a certain paper. He did not, he said, wish at the present time to call attention to such statements, unless it was absolutely necessary. Having regard to the expressions in the paragraph, he hoped the President would think it necessary to make some public expression of opinion upon it; because, having regard to the fact that there was a system of intimidation of witnesses for the Times going on, it would be necessary to bring before the Commission certain evidence dealing with the matter in the course of the inquiry.
A London evening paper was then handed up to the learned Judges. The President carefully read a paragraph indicated by Sir R. Webster.
The Attorney-General impressed upon the Commission that he did not wish to interfere with any publication, but he called attention to the matter because it might be necessary to stop any proceedings which might have the effect of carrying on still further that which he should, at some time or other, have to bring before their Lordships - viz., the intimidation of witnesses.


Sir Charles Russell said a statement of that kind ought to be made on some kind of evidence.
The President observed that of course it would have to be substantiated.
Sir Charles Russell observed that he thought, if any such application was made, notice should be given to the paper interested. As the matter had been mentioned, he had to call their Lordships' attention to certain other matters. First of all, he was informed that the Times, day after day, and even during the time the Commission was sitting, published an advertisement, in which they described the letter, about which there was so much dispute, as "Mr. Parnell's fac-simile letter." He had also been informed that they had done such a thing as he had never heard of any newspaper doing. They had, he said, published and caused to be circulated an ex parte statement - viz., that contained in the opening speech of the Attorney-General in this case - and which he (Sir Charles) was informed contained some most serious misrepresentations of the evidence given in the case, so late as that of Captain O'Shea - viz., as to the concurrence of Mr. Parnell in the manifesto.
The Attorney-General said he was, of course, prepared to meet any charge made against his clients, but he had brought forward a specific case, and had to ask for an expression of opinion from the Commission.


Sir James Hannen said he thought it was desirable, not only in the interest of the undisturbed course of justice, but also in the interest of the parties themselves, that he should say that, if it could be established that the language, as reported, had been used, it amounted to intimidation of the clearest possible kind, and would subject the person using it to the action of the Court. He (the learned President) hoped that those who expressed public opinion would abstain during this inquiry from making comment, and thus leave the Commissioners undisturbed in the painful duty they had to perform.
Sir Charles Russell said he had to make a similar application with reference to the announcements in the Times which he had previously mentioned, and also to the ex-parte publication of the Attorney-General's speech.


The President remarked that if they asked his opinion he should suggest that the word "alleged" should be placed to any matter connected with the case, because that was as to alleged charges which the Commissioners were inquiring into.
Sir Charles Russell said he should regard it as a great misfortune and peril to those connected with this case if it should be thought that any of them had been either directly or indirectly connected with any intimidation. He thought what the Attorney-General referred to took place at the Limerick Board of Guardians.
The Attorney-General (warmly) said he referred to a paragraph published in a London paper.


Mr. Albert Chester Ives then entered the witness-box.
"You were, I believe," said the Attorney-General, addressing him, "the Correspondent of the New York Herald in 1879." - Yes.
Did you sail from England in the steamer Scythia for New York on the 21st December, 1879, arriving at New York on January 1st, 1880? - Yes.
On board that steamer were there Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon? - Yes.
Did you have several interviews with them? - Yes, subsequently writing out those interviews and submitting them to Mr. Parnell for revision.
And were the corrections made by him in the presence of yourself and Mr. Dillon? - Yes.
The corrected transcript of the memorandum was published in the New York Herald of Jan. 2, 1880? - Yes. They were (continued the witness) the result of about twenty conversations or more.


The Attorney-General then read the article in the New York Herald of the 2nd of January. It was headed "Conversations with Parnell." In that article the witness was represented to have asked Mr. Parnell what was the actual amount of distress in Ireland. "There will be doubtless a partial famine," answered Mr. Parnell; "25,000 persons will be utterly destitute before the 1st of February." Questioned as to his opinion of the appeal for relief by the Duchess of Marlborough, Mr. Parnell answered that relief would only be given to those who paid their rent. He also added, so it was stated, that English relief funds were meant to help the landlords and not the tenants. "Are you going to ask for money in America?" asked the correspondent. Mr. Parnell answered, "I consider the British Government ought to relieve the distress. As they have not done so, the Land League has decided to receive subscriptions. Although our primary object is to raise money in aid of the Land League, if any Americans desire to entrust us with funds for the relief of the poor in Ireland we shall be happy to receive them. It would not, however, be necessary for me to go to America to seek assistance for the distress." Asked what was the object of the Land League, Mr. Parnell said it was started for the purpose of obtaining the land for the tillers of it.


"How much money do you want?" queried the correspondent. "About 25,000 dollars would, I calculate, be sufficient for our movements for three or four years," answered Mr. Parnell. "I hope the land question will be settled by that time," he added. "We want funds to compensate unjustly evicted tenants. A fund for that purpose would encourage the tenants to maintain a determined attitude and hold out longer than they otherwise would. Then with little money, we could extend the agitation very materially. There are numbers of young men who would go about addressing the people with regard to the political economy of the Land Question if only their expenses were paid."


In the course of the interview, and in reply to further questions, Mr. Parnell was represented to have said that they could not, of course, prevent all tenants paying rent, for there were cowards among them who had not ceased to have belief in the landlords. It was this belief they were trying to eradicate. They did not attach so much importance as people thought to a mere reduction of rents, and they did not consider the land question settled by a reduction of rents. The greatest object was to instil into the minds of the people an idea as to their rights as far as the land was concerned. It was further represented that Mr. Parnell - in reply to questions as to how people who did not join in the movement would be dealt with - said it might be accepted as an axiom that they could not affect a social revolution such as that by dealing with it with kid gloves, and that pressure must be brought to bear upon the weak and cowardly. The account went on to state that Mr. Parnell said that agitation, like obstruction, was necessary, in order to draw the attention of the Government to the evils. "Do you intend to resume your obstruction next session?" was asked, to which Mr. Parnell replied that he hoped it would not be necessary; but it was their object to make the position as difficult as possible, or otherwise the Government would give no attention to Irish affairs.


The Attorney-General, having concluded reading the account of the interview, Sir Charles Russell cross-examined Mr. Ives. That gentleman replied that he was in Ireland in November, before Mr. Davitt's trial, in 1879. Witness had no colleague with him. He cabled his observations on Ireland to the New York Herald. He did not accompany Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon on their tour when in America, as he (Mr. Ives) had only been there twelve days when he received a telegram from Mr. Gordon-Bennett, who was then in Paris, directing him to return to Ireland at once. A relief fund for the distress in Ireland was started by the New York Herald. It amounted altogether to 69,000 pounds, of which Mr. Gordon-Bennett gave 20,000 pounds. Witness visited Galway, Mayo, and all the more distressed districts while he was in Ireland. He could not swear positively to all the cablegrams, as some of them were sent by an assistant whom witness had at that time.
"There is another question," said Sir Charles Russell. "Was not your paper hostile to Mr. Parnell?" - The policy of the paper was opposed to Mr. Parnell.


The Attorney-General then handed in the certificate of registration of United Ireland. He said the name of the Company was The Irish National Newspaper and Publishing Company. Patrick Egan had 237 shares; Mr. C.S. Parnell had 257 shares; Mr. J.E. Kenny, 10 shares; Mr. J.G. Biggar, 10 shares; Mr. W. O'Brien, 2 shares; Mr. Justin M'Carthy, 2 shares; and Mr. B. Lawler, 2 shares.


John Rafferty, of Cloonmoylan, co. Galway, was then examined by the Attorney-General.
"Did you," he asked the witness, "take between nine and ten acres of land in the year 1879?" - Yes.
That land was formerly in the occupation of a man named Lynch? - I think it was in the possession of a man named Brown.
Had anyone been evicted from it? - No. The man who occupied it before me made an arrangement with his landlord to leave the farm, and he was compensated.
Then he gave up the land and you took it? - Yes.
Sir Charles Russell (in an undertone) - "He does not know anything about it."
The Attorney-General, however, did not notice the interruption. "Do you remember," he asked, "the night of the 27th of May or thereabouts, in the year 1880?" - Yes, Sir.
What was it that happened to you that night? - A party of fifteen to twenty men came about the place, and five or six of them came into the house. They had blackened faces, and


Sir Charles Russell (interrupting) - How, may I ask, is this evidence justifiable?
The Attorney-General said that their Lordships would find that this outrage would be proved to be directly connected with a speech that would be put in. The course of evidence with regard to these outrages, the Commission would find to be connected with the local branches of the Land League. He should give evidence that the direct representatives of the League laid down a rule over and over again, that if persons took land from which a person was evicted, or which the local branch of the League did not wish them to take, they were first of all to be warned; and if they did not obey the warning, were otherwise dealt with. And he would also show that persons were summoned before the League, and if they did not agree to what was proposed, they were punished. He would also show that reports of meetings were sent to United Ireland, of which Mr. Parnell, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Biggar, and Mr. Davitt were proprietors - and he would add, with regard to Mr. Parnell, that he thought he would be able to show that statements were made in that journal for which Mr. Parnell was, equally with the others, both civilly and criminally responsible. He asked their Lordships to receive the evidence upon the ground that the laws of the Land League, to which he had referred, were directly connected with the persons charged, and, further than that, that the outrages were referred to, and reported, in the columns of United Ireland.
Mr. Murphy (following Sir R. Webster) said there would be evidence called as to the outrages committed, and it would be for their Lordships to say whether it was sufficiently strong to connect those outrages with the Land League.


Sir Charles Russell agreed with the Attorney-General that this was a Commission of Inquiry, but it was not a Commission of Inquiry into the whole agrarian question of Ireland. It was an inquiry not against an organisation, but against persons. If the line suggested by the Attorney-General were adopted, there was no outrage which had occurred during the agitation in Ireland from 1879 which could not be brought before the Court. The Commissioners were not required to do that under the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Reid contended that the Attorney-General should prove that the organisation was a murderous one before he sought to prove that the persons whom his learned friend named were acting in complicity with it.
Mr. Lockwood objected to the Attorney-General proving a course of outrages, and then taking the chance of connecting the persons with them.
The Attorney-General said their Lordships would, doubtless, draw their own inference when he should place before the Court evidence to show that in parts of counties where the Land League organisation was established outrages took place, and that in those parts where the organisation did not exist there was an absence of outrages.


The President ruled that the Commissioners were of opinion that the evidence was admissible; but it was necessary that the particular outrages as to which evidence was to be given should be established to the satisfaction of the Court. As the inquiry, however, would be a long one, the Commissioners would rely on the discretion of the learned counsel. It would be competent for Sir Charles Russell to show that there was no connection between the acts of the persons named and the offences committed.


Mr. Murphy then continued the examination of the witness. Will you tell us (he asked) what happened on the night of the 27th of May, 1880? - Yes, Sir. As I said before, a party of about fifteen or twenty men came about the house, and five or six of them came in. Their faces were blackened. They pulled me out of bed, and dragged me into the kitchen. They had a piece of wood with some nails in it; and with that they scraped my back. They also kicked me. They also "pitched" my wife about. They warned me to get off the land.
Were you on bad terms with your neighbours, or had you given them any cause for the outrage? - The only cause I had given for it was taking the land which the previous tenant had agreed to give up on receiving compensation from his landlord.
Did you have protection from the police? - Yes, I was under police protection for about thirteen months. At the time the attack was made on him, however (so Rafferty said), there had been no meetings of the Land League in the neighbourhood. He was not a Land Leaguer himself, certainly not; and, "Faith, I don't know that any of my neighbours were," he said, emphatically, and with a considerable Irish accent.


Sir Charles Russell proceeded to cross-examine Rafferty, who admitted that the grazier from whom he took the land had been in it about a year, and was not attacked at all. He himself took the land with the agreement to pay 13 pounds a year, but then he went in under the Land Act, and the rent was reduced 30s.
"Now," said Sir Charles, "do you think any of the members of the Land League had anything to do with this outrage on you?"
"Well, I don't think," haltingly replied the witness, "I don't think they had, because there was no talk about the League then."
Again Sir Charles pressed the question, and again Rafferty declared that he did not think the Land League had anything whatever to do with the outrage. He didn't know of any Land League branch in the locality at that time, and, indeed, not for many miles.
How many miles? - I couldn't say, belad!
Could you reach a branch in four miles? - Faith, and I never reached one at all. (Laughter.)
Well, now, as to this outrage, what was it they "carded" you with? - With a bit of a boot, with a few nails put in it.
Did they hurt you much? - Well, they might have hurt me more.
I am sorry to hear about the insult to your wife. What was done to her? - Well, she was only "cast" about.


Sir C. Russell sat down, and Mr. Murphy rose to re-examine Rafferty, prefacing his questions by observing that Sir Charles seemed to treat the evidence of the injury as a joke. This Sir C. Russell indignantly denied.
Rafferty, in answer to Mr. Murphy, said the machine with which the men attacked him was drawn down his body, and he was unable to work for quite a month.


Dominick McBarry, a stalwart, burly, sub-inspector of the R.I.C., was the next witness. He was examined by Mr. Atkinson. He knew a farm at Ballynachaven, in Galway, occupied by a man named Birmingham, in 1880, and remembered the eviction of that man. Murty Hynes was put in possession. After that a meeting was held on the farm, amongst the speakers being Mr. Matt Harris. The boundary wall of the farm upon that occasion was thrown down. After some speeches, Hynes came forward on the platform and said he surrendered the farm. He was greeted with cheers, and the crowd was very demonstrative. McBarry declared positively that the meeting was that of the Land League, and after that Hynes left the farm. Subsequently Peter Dempsey - perhaps three or four months afterwards - was put in possession, and he was frequently told of the necessity of having a personal police escort. He, however, said he was amongst friends, and he did not apprehend any difficulty.


"Did you afterwards see him dead?" asked Mr. Atkinson.
"Yes," was the reply. "I saw him dead on Sunday, the 28th May. He was shot dead in a footpath as he was going to church." McBarry added that they made several arrests at the time, but the murderer was never detected.


Sir Charles Russell then cross-examined the witness. He said the meeting he had referred to was held on the 18th of September, on the evicted farm. Murty Hynes' father had a farm a short distance from it. Dempsey took possession in February or March, 1881. From the 19th of September, 1880, to 1881, when Dempsey was murdered, there had been no meeting in the particular locality, but there had been meetings throughout the district.
What countrymen are you? - "From Galway - Tuam," said the witness. He knew there existed a strong feeling against what was called landgrabbing. It existed since 1879. For years there had been a strong feeling - individually expressed - against "landgrabbing"; but it was not publicly denounced until 1879. He had no knowledge of the fact that in 1880, in Galway, when seed potatoes were distributed, many of the people their potatoes and relied upon charity for their seed for planting. Witness received a subpoena to attend the O'Donnell trial.
From whom did you get the subpoena? - "From Mr. Bolton, Crown Prosecutor," replied the witness, who stated also that he previously wrote a statement himself, and made one to Mr. Beetham, an Irish solicitor. Witness knew Mr. Horne, a divisional magistrate, but had made no statement in particular to him.


Mr. Davitt then continued the cross-examination. "Have you," he asked, "been at any meetings which have been addressed by me?" - "Yes," said the witness; "I was at one at Loughrea in 1879."
Did you hear me warn people against outrage and crime at that meeting? - I have no distinct recollection of it.


In answer to Sir Henry James, witness said that before Dempsey's murder the district was in a peaceable condition; but afterwards it was very disturbed. It was, he continued, not until the year 1879, when the Land League was started, that he heard the term "landgrabber" used.
At Land League meetings were not persons who took farms from which others had been evicted denounced as "landgrabbers?" - Yes.


Mrs. Dempsey then entered the witness-box. She remained seated while giving her evidence. She is a young woman, apparently about 30 years of age. She has a fresh-coloured, good-natured looking face, and a youthful figure. She gave her evidence intelligibly, and was very visibly affected when she described how her husband met his death when going to mass with his two children. Describing the events leading up to the murder, she said that when they first took the farm her husband paid out a lot of money on it. They also set up a shop, but only their immediate friends dealt with them. The neighbours were not very civil. At that time she had four children, the eldest of whom was twelve and the youngest eighteen months.


She remembered well the day of the murder. Her husband went to the chapel, which was about a mile distant. He had two of the children with him. He went across the fields instead of by the road. She never saw him alive again. She remained in the farm for some years after that, but had to have police protection. Witness also found it difficult to get anyone to work for her. She, in fact, asked strangers to do so instead of the people she knew.
The President - Why did you not ask the people whom you knew? - Because I did not like to.
Why not? - Because I knew they would refuse. Witness, continuing, said she applied to the Grand Jury for compensation for her husband's murder. A barrister was employed to oppose her claims.


Patrick Hughes was next examined. He said he attended the funeral of the murdered man. The coffin was obtained by some of his friends. No one attended the funeral but the immediate friends of the deceased. On returning from the funeral at night, they saw several bonfires. Witness, continuing, said no one could work for Mrs. Dempsey unless they were under police protection.


Julia Connors, a woman of middle age, who appeared in the box in mourning, said she was the widow of James Connors, who, in 1881, was a tenant of Lord Dunsandle, in county Galway. She remembered the log-ranger, Keogh, who also had a piece of bog land, giving up the latter because he would not look after the wild-fowl. Connors then took it. After that the people treated them badly as they went to and returned from chapel; and in the town of Loughrea they shouted after them calling Connors a "landgrabber." The Land League meetings were held in the neighbourhood. She declared that people would not allow her husband to walk along the road with them when he went to pay the rent, and that they were boycotted.
"He couldn't get any food," she continued, "and the police used to bring it to us by night."


"This went on for some little time, but not for long before my husband was murdered." Mrs. Connors asserted further that she had no difficulty in getting on with her neighbours before the Land League was established there. "In May, 1881," Mrs. Connors proceeded, "my husband and me went to the funeral of my father. We'd got a few miles from home when some shots were fired at us. One shot knocked my husband off the car, and we saw some men run away. He died next morning from the effects of the wounds." She added that some of the neighbours attended the wake, but they would not go to the funeral.


After the death they refused to give her food, and when her crops were ripe she had to get people from thirty miles to get them in.
"Did you know any of the men who fired at your husband?" asked Mr. Murphy. - "I did," was the reply.
Were they disguised? - No.
Were they charged or not? - They were, and I gave evidence against them.
Were they convicted or acquitted? - Acquitted.
Who were they? - Keogh, Ryan, Fahy, and Riley.
How many were tried? - Two; Keogh and Ryan.
In reply to Mr. Asquith, the witness said her husband had held the land a fortnight when he was murdered.
At this point the Commission adjourned for luncheon.


John Michael Lewis, a Magistrate, of Galway, said he lived three miles from Woodford. Up to the time of the establishing of the Land League branches in his district - about November, 1880 - he and his tenants were on friendly terms. On the 8th of September, 1880, his cattle were "boycotted." When he wanted to use his mowing-machine he found that it was broken - some spikes had been driven into it. In November, 1885, a day was appointed for receiving the rents. The tenants asked to see him in a body, but he declined. The next day there was a Land League meeting held at witness's gate, 4,000 or 5,000 people being present.


On the 18th of September an attempt was made to blow up witness's house. The hall door was blown in, and the windows in the front of the house broken. His workmen then left, and they had not since returned. A man named Finlay was boycotted, and witness had to supply him with food. Edward Farran, a butcher, was boycotted because he supplied witness and Finlay. Finlay was afterwards murdered.
And did you see Finlay's widow? - Yes.
What were the people in the crowd doing? - Laughing and jeering at her.


Mr. Lewis went on to say that a priest - Father Fahy - told witness that if he did not give up his house it would be blown up and his life taken, adding, "It will be my duty to denounce you from the altar." In December Father Fahy again paid him a visit.
Mr. Murphy - And what did Father Fahy say?
Witness - He stood outside the house, and called out, "Blind Lewis of the glass eye, I challenge you to come out and fight in the presence of the men of Galway." (Laughter.)


Mr. Murphy then handed a boycotting notice to the witness. That, said the witness, was a notice stating that Ellen Lewis and her son were to be boycotted. It called upon the servants of Ballygar to leave their work, or - (here followed a blank). Several other passages of a similar character occurred, and the notice was completed with the following words: - "Down with Landlordism. Hurrah for the people!" In April, 1887, continued witness, a portion of my woods and mountains were burnt, and some of the timber cut down. In August some men visited the evicted farms at night-time and carried away the crops. A number of men who were in his employ also left him because they said they could not go against the people. A man who asked for compensation for him for the injuries which witness had received was afterwards attacked in Woodford, and his head was cut open with a stone. A man named Shaghnessy also suffered outrage.


In cross-examination, witness said he had collected the rents for his mother. When he first became her agent, the rental of the estate was about 15,000 pounds. That rental had been reduced by about 300 pounds. Witness claimed 40 pounds for the injury to his plantation, but he was awarded only 16s.
In answer to Mr. Lockwood, witness said there were only two or three evictions on his estate before 1886. There were none in 1879 or 1880. In 1886 the tenants demanded a reduction of 50 per cent; but he declined to see them. Witness, however, offered them a reduction of 15 per cent, in November, 1886. Sir H. Burke and Lord Clanricarde's property adjoined witness's estate.


Mr. Reid - I think you have stated that Father Fahy has threatened you with death? - Yes.
Do you know that Father Fahy denies that statement? - I have read it in a newspaper.


Thomas White was next called. He said he lived with his father at Ballynakill. In 1886 witness went to the local branch of the Land League. He saw one of the Mr. Egans, and told him his father wished him to join the League. "I cannot follow him," pleaded Mr. Murphy, Q.C. The witness's brogue was sufficiently marked to cause considerable laughter in Court. A paper was observed in White's hand.
Mr. Lockwood asked to look at it.
The President, who had taken it, handed it to the learned counsel.
"I think there is an intelligible story on this paper," remarked Mr. Lockwood.
The witness said, amidst laughter, that he could not read it.
"Oh, dear!" plaintively observed the learned President; "we want an interpreter."
Mr. Murphy - Now, what were you told at this Land League meeting?
Witness - My sister was married to the steward of Mr. Lewis and the steward being boycotted, and my father having a public-house" - (Laughter commenced, and the witness, smiling himself, stopped short in his explanation).
The President - Oh, dear.
The official shorthand-writer, sitting close to the witness, thought he had gathered the meaning of the witness, which was that, in consequence of witness's sister having married the steward of a boycotted man, witness would not be allowed to join the Land League.
"I am sorry I cannot follow you," said Mr. Reid to the witness; "but I really cannot"; and so the cross-examination was somewhat curtailed.


Mr. Lockwood (pointing to the piece of paper already referred to) - Who wrote this?
Witness (simply) - Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lockwood - Oh, Mr. Lewis, that had the steward, that had the wife that was your sister, that ----
Witness - Yes. (Roars of laughter).
Usher - Silence!
Then the merriment gradually subsided, and the witness proceeded to say that he and his father, who kept a public-house, were boycotted. There was only that one public-house in Ballynakill.
"Then where can the people go to when the only public-house there is boycotted?" asked Mr. Lockwood.
The answer was that they went to a Land League public-house about two miles away.
The re-examination by Mr. Murphy elicited the fact that the Mr. Lewis who wrote out the witness's evidence was not the Mr. Lewis called that day, but a gentleman residing in Galway.
Mr. Lockwood said he never wished to convey an impression that Mr. Lewis, who had been called, was the one who wrote it.
The President observed that there was not the slightest imputation whatever as to witness. They had all had experience of witnesses of certain grades, and it was frequently the custom to write out their evidence before they appeared in the witness-box.


Mr. Courcey, who was at Woodford in 1884, was then called and deposed to being present at some meetings of tenants when Father Egan was there.
The Court ultimately adjourned at eight minutes past four until 10:30 tomorrow morning.


The London Correspondent of the Manchester Guardian learns from a well-informed quarter that the proprietors of the Times are disposed to rest their case so far as the authenticity of the alleged Parnell letters is concerned largely upon the evidence of Captain O'Shea, leaving it to Mr. Parnell to go into the box and deny all the documents charged against him. In that way they hope to shorten the inquiry, and compel the early appearance of Mr. Parnell as a witness, so as to get before the Court what is really the essence of their case.


The London Correspondent of the Leeds Mercury writes: - "I understand that the evidence of Mr. Parnell before the Commission will be of more than personal interest. It will be a revelation of historical importance. He intends to tell fully, frankly, and freely the whole history of the movement in which he has been engaged, from his first entrance into public life till the present time. He will describe the agitation of which he has been the leader, both in its national and its agrarian aspects; and we shall have from him a complete account of the inner history of the Parnellite movement. If report be true, Mr. Parnell's statements will surprise and disappoint many of his enemies. He has never been a voluminous correspondent, but he has received back several letters which he wrote to friends, both in Ireland and in America, in which his hostility to violence and outrage is most strongly expressed."


Mr. Parnell's action against the Times for libel came before Lord Kinnear, in the Court of Session, Edinburgh, today. His Lordship ordered proof on question of arrestments, and also as to publication in Scotland. He remarked that at the same time he was not aware of any authority or precedent for sustaining an action of this kind against an Englishman, domiciled or resident in England, without arrestment or personal service on defender.

Source: The Echo, Tuesday, November 6, 1888, pp. 2-3

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

Posts : 4907

View user profile

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