PARNELL COMMISSION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1888, 7 May 1889, Page 4

PARNELL COMMISSION.

Lonbon, May 1. In cross-ex'.minntion Mr Parnel) admitted advocating the non-payment of rent. Thie ho alleged was the only unconstitutional act of his whole career. Sir R. E. Webster's questions are few in cumber, and «o far have not produced much result. May 2. The cross-examination of Mr Pnrnoll by Sir JR. E. Webster was continued yesterday. The Irish leadpr is skilfully answering the Attorney-General's questions respecting his knowledge of GulUgher, Harris, Wfllsh, Devoy, Breslin and other Irish Americans. Mr Piiniell said he did not know they were Fenians. Tiioy nevi r told him they were. The statements as to his approving Ni'sn'a past history, and Baying that them wti'n none Iruer than those standing beside Nolan, w*re mere election exaggi'iatioii-. \\* admitted that Condon, who «i> one of tli'-H« who planned the reccue of If.eMv »nH D*asy from \hn custody of the polio* near Manchester o'i 18th September, 1.867, when the po.iceman Brett wns killed, was cli«iim«n of his (Mr Parnel I'm) Reception Committee at Washington, and asserted thai ho introduced him to CoogieHF. He knew Finnery, the dynamiter, and hnd nevtr repudiated him. He admitted writing him in 1882, bb a personal friend, congratulating him upon his return to Congress, but waa not aware that he was a dynamiter tiil 1882. Before the Times-Parnoll Commission the cross-examination of Mr Parnell. was continued. Witness said he was not aware that the Chairman of his Amorican Reception Committee was a member of the Cl'in-ua-gael. Ho was not awara that Devoy had threatened to murder English Ministers of the Crown and burn cities. He admitted that ho never denounced the use of dynamite except, replying to to Mr Forster, Irish Secretary, in the House of Commonp. Me might have subscribed to present Kelly, who shot Constable Talbot, and he never condemned the past career of the violent party. Ho coohidered th» enthusiasm of Mr \V. E. Redmond, M.P., approached to rashnfi-s, and he had privately reproved him for ineDicirg ppecclicr. He admitted that his protests .-.gamut crime since 1880 were rot tmfltaiint, iu yitivv of lug iucrease of oulItaijjs, jjis no-root manifesto was an act

I of retaliation for imprisonment in KilraainI ham G»ol, aud tho arrests of other members of his party, and he was willing ; to admit th'ifc the manifesto was open Im condemnation, though it had never been formally withdrawn. He regarded many of Mr W. O'Brien'a articles in United ' Ireland newßpayer as too strong May 3. Mr Farna'l in cross-examination said that he had often remonstrated with- Mr O'Brien, but never publicly repudiated his utterances. . To-dny the cross-examination of Mr' Parneli WH3 continued before the Special Commission. Sir R. E. Webster, AttorneyGeneral, read several articles ia the Irishman newspaper in which persons committing crime in Ireland were highly eulogised. Mr Parneli admitted that these were calculated to encourage the une of physicil force. He believed that O'Donovan Rosea had never originated outrages, and only boasted of thiia .'fter they were committed. The outrages attributed to the Clan-na-Gael Soc ety were, he thought, probably the work of scattered organisations composed of Irish Amer cans. If constitr ,ional government for Ireland' failed he uight consider h}3 retirement from public life. Mr Parneli said that he disapproved of some of tho speechos doliv»red by Mr Dillon, bat it was not within his province to reprove him for tbem. He considered that the martyrs' fund was used for innocent purposes, but that the name given to tho socioty was likely to cause people to regard the executed murderers as martyrs. Mi ?Bnieil admitted ihut the statemant made by him ia tho House of Commons ou i January 7th, 1881, to the effect that the secret societies had ceased to exist in Ireland was intended to deliberately mislead the House us to his views. Owing to the rejection of Mr Foster's Habeas Corpus Suspanaioo Act he undoubtedly had wished to mislead the House, but had failed, as the Act had since been applied. His statement was a gross exaggeration aud not founded on fact. Ho intended to exaggerate in order to produce an impression of the influence of the National League. (This admission created a tremendous sensation, which was intensified by Mr Paruell's cyn'cal nonch alouce. There was also some binding.) Mr Parneli added that secret societies ond crime had ceased in Ireland after the Arrears in Rent Act had come ioto operation. The reauit was largely owing to the influence of Messrs Davitt, Egao, Sheridan, and Boyton. He assumed that some of the books of the Land League wore in the possession of Egan, but the cssbbook, the letter books, and the ledgers, had disappeared. Sir Jamtß Hanneu said that ho attached great importance to tho fact that tho books had been lost, and Mr Parneli promised to try and recover them. In reply to a further question Mr Parneli said that the accounts of the Land League had never been audited. The plebiscite which was token in Edinburgh on the proposal to confer the freedom of tho city on Parneli was largely against it, buj many voters did not record their opinion.