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 Sat 2 Mar 2013 - 13:12

One hundred and fifth Day of Proceedings - Friday, July 12, 1889





Mr. Parnell was very early in Court this morning, and engaged in a brief, but very earnest, conversation with Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Reid. The visitors this morning included County Court Judge Webb, who recently heard the appeal of Mr. Conybeare. He was accommodated with a seat in the jury-box.


Directly the Judges took their seat, Sir Charles Russell was on his feet. He said he had intended calling Mr. Soames, but, as he understood that gentleman had not received notice, he would defer that step. He must, however, call upon him to produce the list of payments to witnesses, and his communications with his agents in America and Ireland.
The Attorney-General was not aware any such undertaking was given - certainly it was not with respect to America. He could not undertake to produce such documents on such an application without grounds.
Sir Charles Russell said he would form grounds on Mr. Soames's cross-examination.


Here the matter dropped for the time, and Sir Charles Russell called Mr. John Mather Hogg, a Dublin merchant. He said he was a member of the Committee of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union. He was not a member of the Finance Committee, and therefore could give no information as to its disbursements. Having briefly described the formation of the I.L.P.U., Mr. Hogg said he could not give information of the publication of "Parnellism Unmasked" and "Ipsi Dixit," nor could he say what was paid for those pamphlets, but he believed the latter was published by the Association. It was written by Judge Webb; but he could not say that 200 guineas were given for it.


Neither was he aware that Mr. Houston had been engaged as a paid agent to get up the case on the part of the Times, or that Houston had received moneys other than his salary from the funds of the Union. He (Mr. Hogg) had, however, signed cheques. He had heard of Pigott as an Irish journalist, but had no knowledge of his character.
Were you aware of the sums of money being voted to the late Dr. Maquire? - I can't remember.
Were you a party to the payment of any sum of money other than his salary? - Mr. Houston swore in his evidence that I had given him 250 pounds. I gave Mr. Houston the money without the slightest knowledge of what it was for.
Mr. Hogg went on to explain that he had advanced to Mr. Houston, purely as loans and on the assurance of Mr. Houston that the money was required for private purposes, a sum of money amounting to about 300 pounds. He swore positively that he was not aware of any money being paid to Pigott in relation to "Parnellism and Crime."


When Mr. Soames was originally in the box he gave - so it is asserted by the defence - some sort of a promise that he would produce a list of payments to his witnesses. For the purpose of getting this, and cross-examining him, Sir Charles Russell now called Mr. Soames. That gentleman complaining that he had not received notice that he was to be called, could not stipulate any items. He could not even remember when he first heard of Le Caron. Certain it was he had never heard of him from America or received telegrams about him from there. He was referred to him by Mr. Macdonald. No decision as to Le Caron's remuneration had been made, but "I may tell you at once (said Mr. Soames) he will be provided for." Indeed, he went on to say that Mr. Anderson had interested himself in Le Caron's behalf. That gentleman had represented that as Le Caron had lost his employment he should be provided for in the future, and Mr. Anderson had been informed that Le Caron would not be allowed to want so long as they had money.
Have you any registered telegraphic address? - I have several. V O G U E is the foreign one; A S S E R T, the American.
Was there any witness in America whom you describe as "Henry"? - No, but a person has been so described to me.
Who is that? - Sheridan.
Is that his name - Henry? - No, I believe it is P.J. Sheridan.
Were you a party to Pigott being employed to visit convicts in prison? - I was not aware of it until later.


From a letter written by Houston to Pigott, in November, 1888, Sir Charles read this passage: -

Mr. Soames agrees with me that it would be a good thing for you to take advantage of the permission to visit Jack Daly conveyed in the Governor's letter. Perhaps you could cross tomorrow night for this purpose. Mr. Soames will supply you with a further cheque on your arrival.

Is that true? - No, that is a misunderstanding, as I could show you by a subsequent letter.
Did you bring over here James Mullett, Daniel Delaney, and P.W. Nally? - Yes.
Were they visited by your direction, or to your knowledge, and which, by Mr. Shannon? - Not while they were here, but Mr. Shannon saw James Mullett in Downpatrick Jail.


Now, as to the letter put in in the course of Dr. Kelly's examination. From whence did it come? - It came from Scotland-yard.
Who did you learn of its existence from? - I learned of the existence of it some time ago.
From, I asked. Was it from Scotland-yard? - I rather think it was. As to the letters found at Mr. Matt Harris's house, I obtained them through the Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle, whom I subpoenaed.
Sir Charles Russell put a number of questions as to the action Mr. Soames took on Pigott's flight to Spain. Mr. Soames repeated the story already told, and Sir Charles produced the letter Mr. Soames wrote to Pigott at Madrid, with the object of keeping him there till the Scotland-yard authorities reached him.


Mr. Houston followed. He said that he was not introduced to Pigott, but went to him on his own account, having been referred to Pigott by two or three persons. He paid 60 pounds on behalf of the Union to Pigott for "Parnellism Unmasked," which was a less powerful and less literary treatment of the Irish question than "Parnellism and Crime." Sir Charles pressed Mr. Houston as to who referred him to Pigott in the first instance. He declared positively that he could not remember, but he thought it was Lord Richard Grosvenor, now Lord Stalbridge. When he obtained the loan of 850 pounds from Dr. Maguire - Mr. Houston proceeded - he told him it was to purchase the letters, and he asserted emphatically that the Doctor said the money was his own. He repaid Dr. Maguire in 1887, and he was surprised when he died lately to find that he died a poor man. "In fact," said he, "I cannot understand where the money could have gone."


Examined as to the various sums he had paid Piggott, Houston detailed the figures he has already given. He added that he gave Pigott 100 pounds for Eugene Davis for his original statement. He handed the receipt of Davis to Sir Charles Russell.
Sir Charles (looking at the document) - Well, well I must ask you, don't you think that it is in Piggott's writing?
Mr. Houston - It was given to me as being a receipt from Davis.
Sir Charles Russell - But just look at it. Don't you think that it is in Piggott's writing?
Mr. Houston (after examining the paper): I can't say.


Here a discussion arose as to the production of the books of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union. Mr. Houston informed the Court that he had the authority of the committee to say that all the books of the Union were at the disposal of the Court, but they objected to their being thrown open to their political opponents.
Sir Charles Russell: I quite appreciate that objection. (Laughter.)
Addressing the Commission, Sir Charles asked that the books might be produced.
The President - I don't see how I can order the production and inspection of the books.
Sir Charles Russell said they wished to examine as to whether the funds with which the letters were procured did not come out of the funds subscribed by powerful political opponents, and they desired the production of the books so that the Court might understand all the powerful agencies at work for the same end, and which had been at the disposal of those now representing the Times in this matter. The suspicion was, whether it was formed rightly or wrongly, that these payments to Piggott were made by the Union, through Dr. Maguire.
The President replied that whatever agencies were put in force, they had to consider the truth or falsehood of the evidence before them.
Mr. Asquith supported Sir Charles Russell's contention.


The President, after consulting with his colleagues, said, "We cannot make an order that these books should be inspected generally, because even if it were true that the money of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union had been paid for the purpose of putting before the public the statements which are now complained of, still the only question we can determine is as to whether or not they are true or false. We therefore reject the application."


Sir Charles Russell - The instruction has been given to me - indeed, it has been given in writing - by my client, and I desire, before proceeding, and in order that I may pay due respect to the Court, to consider how to act upon the Court's ruling. I therefore ask the opportunity for considering my position in the matter.
The President - Very well.
Mr. M'Carthy, of Longford, who was examined yesterday, was called and cross-examined by Mr. Atkinson.


At this point Mr. Lockwood intimated that the gentleman whom he intended to call - Mr. Matt Harris - had not yet reached London. He had been engaged in litigation in Ireland yesterday, and the decision of the Jury was only given late last night. He could not therefore call him now.
Mr. Reid also said the witness he intended calling, Mr. J.J. O'Kelly, was at present too unwell to appear in the box. That was the only reason for his absence, and he assured the Court that he would appear as soon as he was better.
The Court then rose till Tuesday next.


For the last two days some of the Irish leaders, and their morning organ in the London daily press, have been loudly proclaiming that a new Irish movement has commenced, which is to be more formidable than any that have preceded it. When Jefferson Davis was defeated, he called his congress together, and, according to Hosea Biglow, addressed them with the exhortation, "Let's cast to the winds all regard for what's lawful, and go in for something priomisc'ously awful." That is what the Irish leaders have gone in for, according to their London organ. "The new movement is to be the movement of the Irish leader, the Irish Party, the Irish people, the whole Irish race at home and abroad." It is to be a confederation of the entire tenantry. It is to strike the landlords with terror. It has already terrified Mr. Smith-Barry and Col. Saunderson. But when we come to look a little more closely into the latest project of the Irish leaders, we find it is only the same old combination in a new dress. The new League is to have the countenance of Mr. Parnell; but if he did nothing to help the old movement, neither did he do anything to hinder it. The new League is said to have the tacit sanction of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. John Morley; but that fact will not enlist any new recruits in Ireland. The new League is to be conducted on such strictly Constitutional lines that even Mr. Balfour's Resident Magistrates will be unable to find its organisers guilty of illegal conduct. We are glad to learn this, by the process by which the new League is to secure its end is all the more mysterious. The League is called into existence ostensibly to checkmate the combination of which Mr. Smith-Barry is the head. Mr. Smith-Barry's combination propose to evict tenants who refuse to pay, and to plant other tenants on the derelict farms, and we fail to see how the enrolment of the vast majority of the tenants in a kind of agricultural trades union will prevent this policy being carried out, so long as they confine themselves to legal action. So far, there is more sound than substance. At all events, no plan is revealed, no method of action is indicated. So far, the new Leaguers are following authoritative examples. We have a Home Rule movement, which may mean much or little, and which may lead to big or small results; and now we are to have a Tenants' League without a definite programme or assigned limits. It may be a reality or it may not. It may lead to revolutionary results, or it may never pass the boundary of magnificent intention. If the Land League has been such a signal success, as is so frequently proclaimed; and if the "Plan of Campaign" has been marked by so much progress that an "unboycotted landlord is as rare as a white blackbird in Ireland," as Mr. William O'Brien says in his paper, where is the necessity for a new organisation? Of two things one. Either the old organisation and methods have not been so successful as pictured, or there is no necessity for a new departure.

Source: The Echo, Friday July 12, 1889, Page 2

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