PARNELLISM AND CRIME.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 185, 21 August 1888, Page 2

PARNELLISM AND CRIME.

THE TIMES AND O’DONNELL. INTEREST IN THE CASE. London, July 6. This case has created a wonderful amount of interest here. Five thousand pounds damages were claimed. The plaintiff was represented by a single barrister quite unknown to fame, while the other side had the AttorneyGeneral and four other leading members o the bar. As Mr O’Donnell had charged everything said against the constitutional leaders of the Irish party as a libel upon himself, it became necessary, of course, to go into the whole subject known as “ Parnell sm and Crime, ” and put the whole case of The Times against the Parnellites before the Court. At the same time, the Attorney-General declared that The Times never intended to libel Mr O’Donnell, that there was no criminal allegations against him in the incriminating articles ; that, in fact, there was no case for the jury, and for this reason, that Mr O'Donnell never was constituted a leader of the Irish party. He was not even a member of the Land League. On the contrary, his application to be admitted a member of the league was contemptuously rejected by the council in Dublin. It was true that the plaintiff was at times engaged in the London office of the British Land League with Frank Byrne when this new organisation was established on this side of St. George’s Channel after Mr Forster had suppressed the league in Ireland, butjhe was not a member of this newer league, and he had no sort of influence whatever in directing the policy of the party such as would entitle him to claim for himself the position of leader. Nothing but amazing vanity, or something worse, could have induced him to bring the action, but the Times shrank from nothing, and was still willing to meet in open court those at whom it had really aimed. The Attorney General repeated this as an important matter in his instructions. Something was known of the strength of the charge made, but much had been reserved, which he now proposed to reveal. At the same time, he had to observe that nothiug would induce The Times to make known the sources of its information. This was an obligation of honor ;to fail in it would not only be disgraceful, but would probably lead to assassination. Hence the secret would be kept, even if it cost the Time* the verdict. I need not travel afresh over the old ground of Parnellism and crime, but must keep close to the real revelations of the trial. The At-torney-General produced some remarkable correspondence between Messrs Parnell and Egan and Carey, the informer. Certain parts of it made a profound sensation, and must produce a feeling of bewilderment wherever they are read. Counsel took oare to insist in advance upon the genuineness of the letters, including the fac-simile letter denounced by Mr Parnell in the House of Commons, and promised the jury every op. portunity, by the evidence of experts and direct comparison with other writing the authorship of which was admitted, of form, ing safe conclusions in regard to. them. The correspondence began in the days of 1881, . about 16 months before the occurrence of the , Phoenix-Park tragedy. In February, 1881, Mr Parnell was in Pari* with Egan, and ac. cording to a letter written by Egan to ' “Mat” Harris, he there agreed to make i further advances to what was known as the “ fund of the league.” He again mentioned, further, that Mr Parnell and he had met with O’Leary, the Fenian, and that they all agreed ' that prompt and decisive action was called for. In June of the same year Mr Parnell i wrote to the plaintiff, Mr O'Donnell, iu refer, i ence to another application from Egan to this effect; —X see no objection to the amount required, f«r there is not the least likelihood of of what you are apprehensive of happening, I The body of this letter was written in the handwriting of Mr H. Campbell, then acting i as Mr Parnell’s secretary, but the signature was that of Mr Parnell himself, and the two brief notes from Mr Parnell seemed to relate . to Brennan’s expedition to the west of Ire. land. In October, 1881, Mr Parnell was lodged in Kilmainham, which he shared with , Messrs Brennon, Dillon, W.O'Brien, Sexton, and others. A few days later, on the 25th of October, Egan wrote as follows to Carey, . the informer :— “Dear Sir—l have by this , post sent ‘M. ’ £2OO. He will give you what you want. When will you undertake to get to work to give us the value for our ; money?” The Attorney-General suggested j that“M” was the man Mullet, who was sentenced to 10 years’ penal servitude for i complicity in the Phcenix-park murders, Counsel next read two_ letters from Egan to [ Carey, backing Carey in his attempt to get , elected to the City Council in Dublin, and forwarding him money. Then came the i great sensation of the trial in the reading of , the following letter, said to be sent out of Kilmainham, and dated January 9, 1882 ! “ Daar Egan,—What are those fellows wait, j ing for? This inaction is inexcusable. Our , best men are in prison, and nothing is being , done. Let there be an end to this hesitancy. ■ Prompt action is called for. You undertook i to make it hot for old Forster and Co. Let us have some evidence of your power to do so. My health is good, thanks.—Yours truly, Chables S. pabnkll."

The Attorney-General would not say who wrote the body of the letter, but he asked the jury to believe that the signature was what it professed to be. Dealing summarily with the remainder of the speech, I may say that counsel showed further that when Frank Byrne fled the country to avoid trial on a charge of complicity in the Phcenix-park murders, it was Mr Parnell, who, by sending him a cheque for £lOO, found the funds to enable him to make good his escape, and finally, that Mr Parnell repeated more than once the apologies of the famous fac-eimile letter for denouncing the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr Burke. It would be proved that sines the moral guilt of Sheridan, Egan, Byrne, and others was obvious to all men, the leaders of the Irish party were in regular oommunciation with them, and had received money for them ; therefore, that the articles of The Times were true in fact, But it was not in thia way that The Time* wished to meet those whom it had ad. mittedly libriled. It was a gross injustice to The Times, and still a greater 'injustice to Mr Parnell and his colleagues in the Land League, for if the guilt of the leaders of the Land League was to be tried The Times ought to be placed in a position to ransack by means of interrogations and the like the minds of Mr Parnell and his colleagues, which could not be done in this action while the Farnellites on their part ought to be represented by counsel, so as to give freely and fully their version of th* various matter* upon which explanation was invited. As soon as the Attorney-General had concluded, the judge declared emphatically that he • would not allow the charges against Mr Parnell and other persons not before the Court to be tried in this case, »nd he shortly added that at present there was no case for The Times to answer, He was really surprised that any man palling himself a man should for his purpose want to try a case in this way. There was a brief discussion between the Bench and Mr O'Donnell’s counsel, and ultimately the latter asked for an adjournment to consult his client upon the situation which had|ariseu. Thiswas allowed, and when the Court resumed it was found that counsel gave up the general libels, but persisted with those in which th* plaintiff was personally mentioned. Thereupon the Attorney-General scornfully laid bo would not attempt to prove hi* defence, As a eon, sequence the counsel for plaintiff proceeded to address the jury, but it was clear that the game was up for himself and for Mr O’DonHell. The Lord Chief Justice without further ado followed, pointing out that in none of the articles headed “ Parnellism and Crime ” was the name of the plaintiff mentioned, and that all which had been said about him arose out of letters of his owp sent in correction of The Times, yet he had never thought it necessary to go into the box to say ho had suffered a single farthing of damage by what had appeared. It need hardly be said how the verdict went. The jury instantly found for the defendents, and added in reference to the allusions to the plaintiff. “We think they were justifiable criticisms." Judgment was promptly given for The Times with coats.