Page images
PDF

afterwards as the Clan-na-Gael; and, since I880, Mr. Parnell, and others of his followers, have been in close relation with the Clan-na-Gael and its leaders. In 1883 the Irish National League of America was founded at Philadelphia; many of Mr. Parnell’s trusted lieutenants were present at its inauguration, and took part in it; and the Clan-na-Gael have ever since been its master spirits. The professed object of the Clan-na-Gael is to ruin our cities by fire and dynamite, and they have made several attempts to carry out their purpose; what these desperadoes

are may be inferred from the following :-—

“ Though the efforts of your Executive have not been fully realised, or rather, “ indeed, were marred by the informer's treason, yet those brothers (with one " solitary exception) intrusted with the work did nobly, and were at the very “ threshold of deeds that would have startled the world, and put the fear of “ the organization in the hearts of the enemy. These brothers, with heroic “ faith, have carried your secrets to the dungeon, under a fate and torture “ worse than death."

It is significant that, about the time when the dynamite explosions occurred, the Parnellite Irishman contained this passage :—

" The outcome of the " (Philadelphia) “ Convention we never can accurately “forecast. It threatens to compass an end of thrilling interest to England. “ From the union and resolve and determination of the Gael in the American

“ Continent, there is no prophecying what may issue. In the hearts of those “ I5 or 20 millions of men of Irish blood rankles a wound which refuses to be

“ healed.”

The American League, led by the Clan-na-Gael, filled the Parnellite Exchequer with thousands of pounds. Patrick Ford, we have seen, was a huge contributor; and the Parnellites sought and obtained funds, but for which the agitation would have been impotent. The Treasury of the Clan-na-Gael was in truth the base of supplies for Parnellism; it could not have carried on the campaign otherwise. Further comment is needless. We quote the last sentence of the Report on the charge fully proved in its substance. “Though it has not been proved that Mr.

“ Parnell and the other respondents knew that the Clan-na“Gael controlled the League, or that the Clan-na-Gael “ was collecting money for the Parliamentary Fund, it has “ been proved that they incited and obtained the assist“ ance and co-operation of the physical force party in “ America, including the Clan-na-Gael, and in order to “ obtain that assistance abstained from repudiating and “ condemning the action of that party. It has also been “ proved that the respondents invited the assistance and “ co-operation, and accepted subscriptions from Patrick “ Ford, a known advocate of crime and the use of “ dynamite.”

Do the people who toss up their hats for “ Home Rule" at meetings addressed by Nationalist orators ever reflect that Mr. Parnell and his crew in Parliament have been shewn to have taken the money of dynamitards, who, from across the Atlantic, would fire our cities, and “ have “been silent for years, and silent for money,” that they might attain the objects of the Leagues ?

I have reviewed eight of the nine charges, and shall now consider the third count, which I have designedly placed last. This charge is that “when, on certain “ occasions, the respondents thought it politic to denounce, and did denounce certain crimes in public, they after“ wards led their supporters to believe that such denuncia“ tion was not sincere.” Extraordinary misapprehension prevails as to the finding of the Commissioners on this charge, largely owing to careless reading of the Report. This charge, they observe, “was chiefly based” on the letter ascribed to Mr. Parnell, expressing “ regret for the “ accident of Lord F. Cavendish,” but stating that the writer “ could not refuse to admit that Burke got no more “ than his deserts; ” and as this, and another set of letters were found to have been wicked forgeries, the Commissioners as a matter of course, “ entirely acquit Mr. Parnell and the “ other respondents of insincerity in their denunciation of “the Phoenix Park murders.” I pass by the absurd nonsense spoken and written by partizans on this subject, men who declared that the charge was a trifle, when it was believed that it might be true, and who now exclaim that it is nine-tenths of the case; men who say that the whole indictment fails, because Mr. Parnell and his allied M.P.’s and Mr. Davitt have been acquitted most justly, on a part ofa single count! I come to the point on this finding; the Commissioners, having pronounced the letters forged, absolve the accused of double dealing as regards the tragedy of the 6th May, but they are silent as to insincere conduct as regards the denunciation of crime generally; and, if we recollect that they have distinctly stated that the respondents did not denounce “boycotting,” we may infer what is their view in the matter. If we pass, too, from the question of insincerity with respect to criminal acts, to that of insincerity in the general conduct of the Parnellite movement since its origin, the judges have impliedly found Mr. Parnell guilty of grave duplicity, and of a marked and singular want of truthfulness. He professes to lead “a constitutional movement; ” but, apart from his dealings with Ford, and such worthies—the Commissioners report that “ he used language indicating “ a desire for the complete separation of Ireland from the “ United Kingdom,” that he did utter the remarkable words, “ a true revolutionary movement in Ireland should, in my opinion, partake both of a constitutional and an illegal “ character; ” that he probably said to the witness, Le Caron, that “ he had long ceased to believe that anything “but force of arms would bring about the redemption of “ Ireland! ” Though, too, he disclaims extravagant views on the Irish Land Question, the judges have found that he did tell the peasantry “to hold a firm grip

on their lands,” and to resist eviction; that he did say

[ocr errors]

“ let us not suppose that a great cause like this can be won “without shedding a drop of blood ; ” that he did order that farms should be left derelict, whether the rent that caused the eviction was fair or not. It should be observed, moreover, that Mr. Parnell is understood to be one of the proprietors of United Ireland, an incendiary journal of the worst type; and it must be added that the judges have formed many of these conclusions in direct defiance of Mr. Parnell’s evidence as a sworn witness. This shews pretty clearly what their opinion is of the straightforwardness and the veracity of the Gladstonian suspect now marked out for Gladstonian honour, and if it is no doubt a difficult task to play a revolutionary and a constitutional game in concert, to take the money of Ford and of the Clan-na-Gael, and to angle for Gladstonian Liberals, this scarcely absolves even an “ uncrowned king " from the first obligations of moral duty. In view of all this it is but a small thing that Mr. Parnell admitted on oath that he had sought “ to mislead the House of Commons,” in a deliberate statement of great importance, and that the Commissioners have evidently given no credit to a contrary statement he made in the box.

The judgment of the Commissioners on the whole indictment may be summed up in a few sentences. They find eight of the accused guilty of seeking to make Ireland an independent State; and all the accused might have been charged with a conspiracy of a treasonable kind. They convict the accused of a settled purpose to make paupers and exiles of the Irish landlords through a general and systematic attack on their property; and they find that, in order to carry out this object, they adopted methods of “coercion and intimidation,” that is of “boycotting,” which produced a Reign of Terror in large parts of Ireland. They acquit the accused of direct complicity with murder and crime of a murderous nature; but they do not absolve them of moral complicity, for they expressly say that “the “ speeches made" conduced to “ assassination” on the part of the peasantry. They report that the accused diffused a literature of the worst kind in the form of pestilent journals—rebellious, incendiary, and in a word, jacobin ;— and they find that the accused did not condemn “boy“cotting,” but promoted it, well knowing its frightful effects. They acquit the accused of concerting with notorious criminals, and of getting up testimonials for them; but they allege that they lavished funds in the defence of criminals, and in compensating persons injured in the perpetration of crime, the wounded soldiery of an agrarian war declared for treasonable and felonious ends. Lastly they bring the accused in direct contact with the dynamite anarchists in the Far West, who have made attempts to destroy our cities; they have proved that the accused were paid by these men, and would have been powerless but for their aid ; and while they acquit the accused of the minor charge of insincerity in denouncing crime, they plainly intimate that Mr. Parnell's conduct was insincere in the highest degree, and they have often disregarded his evidence on oath. Such a dishonouring verdict has never been pronounced before on any body of men engaged in politics; and the miserable efforts that have been made to distinguish between personal and {political acts, and between direct and indirect guilt, may be brushed aside as not worth comment. This judgment, too, it will be borne in mind, has been delivered in the case only of those who dared to face British justice; many iucriminated persons made default, and these, no doubt, were the most culpable; and the judgment was given, on limited charges, with most important matter of proof withheld, and by judges bound by the strict rules of evidence, in what practically was a criminal trial. History will be searched in vain for a like example of guilt brought

« PreviousContinue »