THE PARNELL COMMISSION

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 336, 23 January 1889, Page 5

THE PARN ELL COMMISSION

London, January 16. Patrick Delaney, in tho course of his cvi" dence, said : Tynan was the real "Number 1." Witness tools the oath to murder the Dublin Executive, and received orders to shoot Judge Lawson and Mr Burke after Mr Forster had been disposed of. It was arranged to shoot* Mr Forster in Brunswickstreet on pne occasion, but the plan failed in consequence of that gentleman proceeding to his home by another route. Molloy was deputed to murder Anderson, Crown Solicitor. Witness stated that he was present when Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr" Burke were murdered in Phoenix Park, but he did not assist in the murders beyond keeping watch. He confessed, and was sentenced to death by the Special Commission which tried the Phoenix Park murdereis, but his sentence had since been commuted. Evidence was yesteiday adduced before the "Times "-Parnell Commission to show complicity of the Irish members in the Phcenix Park murders. Patrick Delaney stated that in 1879 he several times attended joint meetings of members of the Land League and the Fenian organisation, which were held at Dublin, and that Messrs Michael Da\itt, Parnell, Daniel Egan, Joseph Biggar, John Dillon, Brennan, and Harris were present on these occasions. The witness named seventeen Invincibles, including Brennan, Egan, Sheridan, Tynan (the alleged mysterious No. 1), and - Byrne, who were regarded as leaders of the Fenians, to which party witness afterwards belonged. The Central Administration of the Fenian party issued orders that members of the organisation were not to oppose the •n ishes oi decisions of the Land League. Egan and Byrne supplied them with money at different times, the Fenians sometimes receiving as much as £400 at one time, and Mrs Byrne provided them with the knives and revolvers intended to be used in the murder of Castle officials. The olan of the murders was discussed by fche~liwincibles' Council, who ordered Joseph Brady and Timothy Kelly to shoot " Buckshot " Forster. The witness Delaney, on the occasion of the Phcenix Park murders, was posted at a certain suot, with instructions to kill anyone crossing King's Bridge while the murder was proceeding. Repeated efforts were made to kill Mr Forster, who had several very narrow escapes ; but they all miscarried. The Invincibles' Council also gave orders to murder Mr Burke and others several times. The officials were "shadowed" with the view of carrying out this intention, bub something turned up at each time which caused the failure of the plans, until at last Sir Frederick Cavendish and Mr Burke fell victims in Phcenix Park. Immediately after the murders, a committee meeting of the Invincibles was held, at which Byrne produced hush-money, and more daggers and l'evolvers. Brady suggested at this meeting that the Dublin detective* should also be killed, but Byrne ■objected to this proposal, unless they had the authority of Egan. Byrne said he preferred that Earl Spenser should be killed. The witness identified the hand-writing of a number of the letters as that of Egan. Several of the letters show that Parnell was being consulted. In the course of his evidence before the " Times "-Parnell Commission, the witness Delaney said that he undertook to murder Judge Lawson, but his movements exciting the attention of detectives who were protecting the Judge, he was arrested and sentenced to ten yeais' peual servitude. The witness swore tbat Michael Davitt was on most intimate terms with Sheridan and Egan, with whom he had important relations.

Lo.vdon, November 16. On the fourteenth day Mr Michael Davitfc displayed the knack of a quick and close cross-examiner. He operated upon the in' former Flaneigan, the nervous Avitness who had appeared in the box the day before. According to Flanergan's story, a Land League official named ivienney had, in conjunction with O'Donovan Eossa and Patrick Ford, collected money from him and others — money for the purchase of, arms to be conveyed secretly to Ireland. Flanergan looked very foolish — blushed lobster-red —as he confessed how he had misappropriated * two revolvers ' that had been entrusted to him in America, for two persons in Ireland. And when sharply and severely cross-ex-amined by Mr Pavitt as to the organisation (the Hibernian Friendly Society) of which he claimed to be a member, he betrayed almost total ignorance. He knew nothing of the constitution of the society of which, said Mr Pavitb, ' I am a member myself.' However, he declared he had paid hi 3 weekly dollar subscription. Flanergan slipped sideways out of the box; and another took his place. This was Mike Hoarty. Mike had been a Fenian. Unlike his fellows who appeared yesteiday, Mike Hoarty turned out to be a singularly intelligent witness. He gave his answers promptly, clearly, and to the point. Mike Hoarty was in 1879-80 a member of the Committee of the Land League branch of his own locality, which was situated about three miles from Galway ; and the parish priest was president of the branch, and a young doctor was its secretary. Instead of cursing the Land League, exFenian Mike rather blessed it. The oniy object of the League was — as far as Mike knew— to keep the tenants in * unity " for the purpose of prevailing upon the landlords to concede rent reductions. Mike declared his belief that the League Committee never passed a single resolution to boycott anybody. But the thing was talked about in an informal manner, according to Mike's testimony. Though Mike had himself been a Fenian * for four months,' he did not believe that any of his fellow members on the League Committee were Fenians. And though his house had been moonlighted and fired into, he declined to connect the offence with the action of vhe League. He ga,ve the ,Land League Committee of his parish a high character. All its members were, he said, respectable farmers. Mike Hoarty also contradicted flatly thefavourable accounts already given in this trial by constables and landlords as to the prosperity of Galway in 1879-80. * Distress then V * Indeed bbere was, 1 he exclaimed, nodding emphatically and folding his arms. 'It was nob possible for, the people to pay the rents demanded of them and live.' Sir Charles Russell then read out some extracts from , the official account of the Relief Funds of 1879-80: gloomy accounts they were. - ,Was that so ? asked Sir Charles," * Yes,' Mike again exclaimed, nodding his head. ' That's a very fair' description of the state of things. Another point upon which Mike contradicted the landlord and constabulary witnesses was the state of the" country before 1879.' The police witnesses in this trial have declared that till the rise of the, Land League, the occupation of evicted .farms a&acted 'hardly , any notice. But Mike Hoarty declared that as long as he coujd.re-

f collect). land-grabbing was under a social ban. " < Mr Atkinson now produced a witnessConstable Creagh, who arrested the four moonlighters who attacked Mike Hoar fay's house, and among these moonlighters was one whose National League (not Land League) membership ticket was produced. This moonlighter .belonged to tho "Michael Davitt" branch of the League. But nothing was elicited in tho examination of this constable to show that the Land League branch was implicated in 'the;;, outrage. It >vas only shown that an individual Leaguer had been engaged in a moonlighting expedition. But what followed was more" interesting. Constable Criagh — like, as already said, his fellow- cous tables in this inquiry — stated that, until the Land League arose in 1879 he had never heard of declarations against payment of rent, nor even of the word 'land-grabbing.' ' Was it pait of a policeman's duty to report upon crimes in his district, and send the leturns to his superiors?' asked Sir Charles Russell. 'Yes,' replied the constable. The importance of thequestion and itsanswer speedily appeared for Sit- Cbaries Russell produced the Parliamentary Blue Book of Agrarian Crimes for the whole of 1579, a document which gave a list, lor bolh divisions of Galway, of threatening letters, of houseburnings, of slaughter of stock, as punishment for payment of unabated rent — many of these offences and crimes beinpj shown to have occurred in the early part of the year, before the League came into being, and while, according, v typ 0 landlord and constabulary testimony,- the relations between landlord and tenant were idylically peaceful and pleasant. Nor did the testimony ot the next wit ness — also a constable — h'x responsibility upon the particular League branch concerned for the boycotting oi a man who hiied out his cais to the police. The boycotting notices were issued ' by order,' but by whose order was not precisely clear. However, their diction was noteworthy. The car-owner was described as a ' vile wretch,' and the man with whom he had dealings a 'vile worm.' The woids 'by order' appeared to have suggested a thought to Mr Davitts who, lising up with an air of a practised cross-examiner, asked tho constable whether he ever beaid of ' bogus notices,' and of certain newspaper correspondents who had put up bogus notices of their own in order that they might have some exciting ' news ' for London. The next witness, during one brief moment of his lifo, fancied that, even a moonlighter was a jocular person j but he pretty soon found out his mistake, and acted accordingly. This witness was / a keen-faced, dark-eyed, iron giey, bolt upright, dapper little warrior, who, after he left the army, took service with a boycotted landlord. Armed with a gun, he wenc to cut his employer's grass. At last the inevitable moonlighter came, in the dead of the night, 20th May, 1882. At first ' I thought it was a joke.' But when the moonlighter fired, ex-warrier Ford took down his gun from among the rafters, followed the moonlighter, and gave the 'continto' 'between the shoulder.' Having told his story, Mr Ford fired (in a metaphorical sense) a sbot at the Land League : like the constables and landlords who have appeared in this trial, he declared that until the League appeared he had never beard of ' land-grabbing.' | The Court then entered on the famous j district of Woodford, and the action of the National League there since 1885. The j opening statement, being too important to ] be left to subordinate counsel, was made by the Attorney -General. His statement was | an attempt to establish a direct connection between outrages there and the speeches made by the National League leaders — not I only the local leaders, such as Mr John Roche, Mr Pat Keary, Father Egan, Father Cohen, "Doctor Tully oi the ; "pills" (bullets), Mr John Sweeney ; but j also the Parliameatary leaders, directly | and by name, such as Mr Uil- ■ lon, Mr William OBrien, Mr Matt Harri3, and Mr Sheehy. Mr Michae l Davitt's name was also named in tho At-torney-General's list of accused. Sir Richard Webster's -witness — an important witness — was sub-Inspector Murphy, ol the Constabulary. Father Cohen, it may be here explained, is parish priest and president of the Woodford branch of the National League — perhaps the most resolute and be3t drilled branch of the League in Ireland. Mr Pat Keary is its secretary. Newspaper readers aie perhaps familiiu ! with Mr John Roches name as? that of a double-dozed prisoner under the Crimes Act. The tVoodford district is also the ' hottest ' in Ireland. Mr -Davitt, in cross-examiniug a herd from this district, made an allusion which must have added to tho stock of Irish history possessed by his listeneis. It was an allusion to the Secret Society of "Steel Boys " a strange name for hetds, who alone were members of it. Even the herds — according to Mr Davitt's suggestion — were associating in the pre-League days, for procuring or extorting more favourable conditions ot life. Only the baie3t outline of the Attorney General's long statement can be offered here. He gave brief summaries of a long series of speeches delivered by the leaders, local and Parliamentary, above-named. Port hoc— propler hoc was the Attorney-General's inference. Then Sir Charles took the Attorn eyGeneral's witness — Sub-Inspector Murphy j in hand. At n'rst Mr Murphy was fairly communicative as to facts tending to show that there was provocation — that is, eviction of a particularly cruel character — and that disturbances followed evictions. Mr Murphy even admitted that members of the Constabulary subscribed for the relief of hardly - pressed tenants. Then Mr Murphy became much less communicative. In spite of his position and his wide jurisdiction in the force, he did not know that the Land Courts were making j»reat reductions ; he knew nothing about the Cowper Commission — a confession at which Sir Charles was hugely surprised. Sir Charles next addressing bimselt toa long list of agrarian offences' which Mr Murohy had tent to his superiors. Mr Murphy made the admission that in his report he described the motives, or raoher motive, partly from hearsay— i.e., on the authority of his subordinates — and that in some casea both he and his subordinates inferred the motive from Vhat they knew of the state of the country. Here Sir Charles was specially dealing with alleged intimidation of people who had refused to join the National League. And Mr Murphy, according to hig own statements, did not remember a single case in which any of the tenants to whom he had spoken on the matter declared that they were intimidated because they refused to join, And yet, exclaimed Sir Charley, turning to the Bench and making an expressive gesture with his hands, "he says he considers himself justified in making that report." Sir Charles Russell was at his best. And he caused much amusement by his histrionic attempt at an imaginary conversation between some constable and * Paddy,' showing how Paddy might be made to lead the same constable to suspect that his intimidation sprang not from privato malice ! but from the League.

The cynic who nevec stands on Q.ei?emony< frequently treads on people's corns.