MR. O'BRIEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVII, Issue 14, 26 July 1889, Page 23

MR. O'BRIEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION.

(From the Nation.') Mr, William O'biuen was called as witness on May 21. His voice v»as weak, but he looked decidedly better than on his first appearance in court after arming from Clonmel Gaol. The President beckoned him to take a seat as he reached the witness-box, and hi£ examination was conducted by Mr. Reid. Sir Charles Easseli being absent. He said : — The first thing 1 ever wrote for a newspaper was an account of the tiial of Captain Mackey, who was, I think, sentenced to fourteen years' penal servnude for tieasoc-felony. Tbe presiding judge, afterwards Lord Chancellor O'HagaD, she i tears duiing tbe prisoner's speech, and. in sentencing him, said it was a speech wjrtby of a patriot and a peitleman." My elder brother was a comrade of Captain Mackey. Through him 1 was a thorough-going sympathiser, and, as saw a good deal of tl c Fenian?, and was trusted by them as Wy.e of themselves, though 1 never took a Fenian oath. I was introduced to the late Is >ac Buit at a private banquet given at Hood's Hotel, in Dublin, to some of tbe first Fenian prisoners who were amnestied, I think in 1870 or thereabouts. A very remarkable incident happened. Mr. Butt did not arrive till very late, having had to wait for the verdict iv the Cisc of a man named Barrett, who was tried for shooting a Galway landlord named Lambert. Mr. Butt, iv his s\ c eh, eaid : — '■ His day's work was an epitome of the whole unhappy history

of Ireland. He had epent the day saving a matt from the gallowi in reference to the land question, and he was now speaking to young men who had suffered penal servitude for their political aspirations." He appealed to them to trust him in the constitutional movement he he then contemplated!, and he declared it was the ambition of bis life to end this wretched and unnatural state of things, and to give the peasant a better hope than the bluderbuss, and to secure for the young men of Ireland a better fate than penal servitude. I think it was about 1874 I became acquainted with the troubles on Mr. Nathaniel Buckley's estate around the Galtees, near Miehelstowo. This was another part of the Kingston estate purchased in the Encumbered Estates Court by an English manufacturer, and the rents revalued and raised enormously. The tenants were forced to contract themselves out of the Land Act of 1870, and to accept leases at the increased rents. This estate, like tbe Cullane one, immediately adjoins and once formed part of the Kingston estate, on which the Plan of Campaign was in force for twelve months. Though the Kingston estate contains nearly ten times as many tenants, there was not a murder or shooting affray on <t throughout the prolonged and angry struggles in the Land League time ; and under the Plan of Campaign the only blood shed was shed by the police. The tenants on Mr. Buckley 'd estate had no organisation of any kind, and held no public meeiings. The only attempt made to enlist public opinion on their side was a letter written to the Cork Examiner by Mr. J. S. Casey. It was a most moderate letter, merely describing the wretchedness of tbe tenants, and their being obliged to draw soil on their backs to the top of the mountain to make the land on which their rents were now raised. Mr. Casey was prosecuted criminally for writing that letter. Tha ground taken by the prosecution was that a public writer bad no right to interfere in a dispute between a landlord and his tenants. At the request of the late Mr. Butt I was afterwards sent down to the estate by the late Mr. Gray to investigate the state of things there as Commissioner for the Freeman. I visited almost every tenant on the property, going from house to house day after day, and entering into every little family history, in tvery instance examining their rent receipts, their accounts with the shopkeepers, bauks, etc. That is the first time I ever realised the land question in detail. It made a horrible impression upon me — one that can never be effaced. They were poor creatures who had reclaimed patches of wild mountain by the most incredible efforts —blasting up rock', collecting the stone* into enormous masses, and bringing up soil ana lime in baskets oa their backs, living all tbe while on most wretched potatoes and Indian meal ; and then when they had a field or two reclaimed they found tha reat r&ised, and in tmny case 3 doubled, though they were up to their necks in debt to the shopkeepers for manure and Indian meal. It wag horrible to find tbat all this could be done after the Land Act of 1870, and that the tenants had absolutely no redress, for tbe judges held tbat it was criminal even tj write a letter to the newspapers oa their behalf. There was no disturbance whatever on this estate during the Land League agitation, the increased rents having been voluntarily reduced when the Land League sprang up. All these things, of which I happened to have personal experience, occurred years before the establishment of the Land League. They were, I believe, a consequnce of an almost universal movement en the part of tbe landlords to re-value the land, taking advantage of a few good yearp, and to get rid of the small tenants, or to force them to take leases at the increased rents. This they succeeded in doing in a great many cases wheie there was no tenants" organisation. Threatening notices from Kory of the Hills were quite as common in those times as those from Captain Moonligbt were during League time. In August 1879, after my return from Egypt, I was sent down by Mr. Giay to the West, iv reference to rumours of an impending famine. The state of things I came acros3 there was appalling. There seemed to be uo way out of it except wholesale famine and utter bankruptcy. Tbe Land League had not yet beeu forme i. A couple of weeks before my visit Mr. Davitt had formed a local League for the county Mayo, but '.he organisation was still confined to a few parishes. The whole population were in such a coadition of terror and despair that nobody knew what was coming. There had been two bad harvests, and the prices of cattle had gone dowu until there was a dead loss on every transaction. When 1 reached Mayo prices of cattle were still going down a' every fair, and stories of blight and failure among the potatoes were coming in every day. The landlords were ridiculing the idea of distress, and declaring the harvest a splendid one. All the old people I met were full of stories of the horrible scenes of the famine times and the tubsequent clearances, and the feeling was that they were going to see these scenes all over again. The young men said that they never would have that ; that they had only one life to lose, and that they would lose it rather than part with the food for their families Iv my opinion, if the Land League had not sprung up to give the people confidence and force the Government to act, nothing could have averted famine and a horrible civil war in Mayo that winter. After visiting Mayo, fioscommon, and Galway, I went to the South, and travelled through Tipperary, Limerick and Clare. I was astounded to find in what were supposed to be ihe richest dietricts in the South, the some feeling of dismay and almost despair about the future. Later on, during the winter of 1579-80, I again visited the distressed districts along the Galway and Mayo coasts. Almost the entire population were living on relief. Wherever the relief had not arrived, the people were literally starving. la a number of districts that I visited— among others Kossmuck, Carraroe, Carnagh, Lettermullan, Omey. Leenane, and Boffin, the people were living upon one meal of Indian meal in the day. and nothing else but seeweed, or whatever shell-fish they could collect. The distress in Achill was also of the most appalling kind, and the Protestant clergyman, as well as the Catholic, expressed the liveliest fear of deaths by starvation unless relief iv large quantities arrived immediately. With reference to tbe question of boycotting, I always regarded boycotting as defined by Mr. Parnell as the only weapon our people had, disarmed and fight id g for existence as they were. I was perfectly persuaded of constitutional courses, and tbat our strength lay in keeping within the Constitntiou ; but in the circumstances of our people I considered we were not only justified, but bound to take advantage of every possible legal weapon, and use it with the utmost

possible persistence and boldness. It was only by showing the people what power they could exercise in this way that they could be kept within the law. Sly view was that although " tbe Jew should have all justice," he shonld have nothing but the penalty." Nationalists bad hitherto been excluded from every office and ruined in business, •nd their nationality made a stigma. I was for reversing this to some extent, and for organising and showing the power of the people to capture every position of influence, and to make the people stick to their own friends in every possible way. I contend that wherever boycotting has been practised in this way crime has not gained ground. In July, 1881, 1 got a letter from Mr. Parnell stating that Mr. Eean and himself had purchased Mr. Pigott's interests in the Irishman, and pressing me in very strong terms to take charge of the establishment. I hesitated a great deal, because I was on very affectionate terms with Mr. Gray, the proprietor of the Freeman, and had shortly before refused, on account of my health, to become principal leader-writer on tbe Freeman. Beside?, Mr. Pigott's papers bad such an evil reputation, and were so well known to be in the last stages of bankruptcy, that 1 shuddered at the notion of connecting myself with the place. I was pressed very hard, however, and eventually agreed, on the nnderstanding tbat I was to start an entirely new paper, the United Ireland, and that I was to be quite free in the management of the establishment. In my interview with Mr. Paruail he told me that the papers would have to be conducted on constitutional lines, but that within these lines I should be free to use my own discretion. He intimated a desire that nobody should be disemployed, if possible, bat that I should take care that nothing inimical to the principles of the movement were printed. Mr. Parnell was at first In favour of stopping the Irishman, but, on looking into the matter, I found that its circulation was so insignificant that it was dying a natural death. Messrs. Smith and Son were the chief purchasers. I considered that if it were stopped at once the advanced section would say we had suppressed their organ, and would assume that it had much more power and circulation than it really had ; whereas I saw that in the natural course of things, owing to tbe change of opinion among the young men, it would gradually die out of its own accord. On the other hand, lest it should be said tbat we had starved it to death, I thought it well, sn far as possible, to have it conducted by the same persons if I could satisfy myself that they were disposed to do so in a spirit friendly to the movement. Coming to United Ireland, Mr. O'Brien pointed out that Mr. Parnell had been cross-examined as to something that appeared in the first number of the paper which was supposed to advocate the use of dynamite. This was a cutting from an English newspaper, which appeared in an obscure part of the paper as an item of news, and in the very nest number there was a leading article expressing abhorrence of all such means, but of this no notice was taken by the prosecution. For some time he had no control over the paper, being placed in Kilmainham, and at one time no fewer than sixteen members of tbe staff were locked up. For some time they did not attempt to publish any leaders, but left a column blank, with a mourning border, and tbe words "Freedom of the Press in Ireland." Again and again he had written against all " unmanly modes of warfare." The issue following the Phoenix Park murders was filled with horror at tbe detestable crime. Speaking as to the denunciation of crime, Mr. O'Brien said the Freeman's Journal denounced it twice a week and was ridiculed for it. Their own denunciations were treated as msincere. So fur as the Irish people were concerned, these disclaimers were superfluous, and they did not care what the English PreßS might say. Yet from beginning to end United Ireland and the Irish party denounced crime without cessation. In 1882 the second Coercion Act was passed ; and for three years there was a desperate struggle for liberty of speech in Ireland. There weie three things to contend against : (1) the methods taken in the administration of justice, (2) attempts made to suppress tbe organisation, and (3) constant attempts to insult the Irish members and to confound them with criminals, as well as to accuse them of sympathy with ciime. He had made grave accusations against, officials — against French, for example — and he was prepared to prove that the agents of tbe police organised dynamite conspiracies *nd outrage. He was proceeding to give details of these cases, when the Attorney -General very warmly objected. Sir James Hannen said Mr. Reid could only ask whether the witnees was satisfied with the truth of these chirges when he made them. He must give co particulars. Mr. Reid then directed Mr. O'Brien's attention to jury-packing. He was proceeding to give particulars. The Attorney-General again interfered. Mr. O'Brien admitted entire responsibility fjr United Ireland during the whole time, except when he was in prison under Forster's Act, when the paper had some curious adventures. Tnen the Attorney - Qeneral wanted to get a thoroughly clear definition of the position Mr. O'Brien took up, and "by Gad, he got it," as a bystander remarked. In an impassioned tone Mr. O'Brien asseitei distinctly that he had acted solely on constitutional grounds throughout his public life. " The worst I ever thought I said," he laconically put it, and then, in response tofurthfr pressure from the Attorney -General, he went on to state categorically that neither by word, speech, action, wiiting, nor even thought, had he ever favoured unconstitutional means. Boycotting he considered to be merely the Irish for blackballing ; but admitted with a smile that while brutality, cruelty, and rial crime were obnoxious to the Irish people, yet in tbe matter of reverence to mere law as law " illega ity is bred in ue."

Thtn counsel and witness got into a metaphysical discussion on boycotting, but it was a most uneven duel, the Attorney-General being total. y unable to get behind Mr. O'Brien's stonewall defence. The joar people, with wealth, bayonets, and everything against them, had, as Mr. 0 Brien put it, no weapons of their own except the power of sticking together, and he maintained they were justified in using that power. His definition of legility in lieland was capital. " Legality," he said, " means anything which two ttcsiient Magistrates allege to be the law. I thought it was legal to give three cheers, but I suppose it v illegal, because a man got six months for it." When the Attorney-General tried to thrust down tbe witness's mouth

some statistics of alleged outrages, Mr. O'Brien hotly protested that he would not give a rush for police statistics, which went up an I down exactly as the Government required. Witness had in his posse&sitn an admission by a police officer that an outrage had been represented to him as an agrarian offence, and he had had to return it as such, although he did not believe it was. Although Mr. O'Brien admitted that the League was strong in Tipperary, the AttorneyGeneral triumphantly read out statistics which indicated an increase in ortme in that county in 1880 and 1881. Mr. O'Brien's answer to that was that neither the Land League nor any human power could have prevented crime in such a crisis as the country passed through at that time, although it did prevent other crimes which might have otherwise occurred. When it was convenient for the Tory Government to represent that the Coercion Act had succeeded in Kerry, a complete omission from the crime statistics was made in the case of Fitzmaorice, who was actually shot dead. That was a matter, pointed out the witness defiantly, which could be investigated if necessary.

In the course of further cross-examination Mr. O'Brien had occasion to mention General Buller's reign in Kerry. Before Buller left, th,e landlords, said Mr, O'Brien, were his deadliest enamies, and, he added daringly, if the members of this court had been over there and had a similar experience, it would have shortened this inquiry wonderfully. When the Attorney-General proposed to read a speech of Mr. Dillon's to the witness, to learn whether h6 agreed or not with the views therein expressed, Mr. O'Brien saved him the trouble by the generous exclamation : " I approve of everything I ever read of Mr. Dillon's speeches." He, therefore, agreed that Woodford, in resisting the evictor, set an example to be pioud of. "It was Woodfords," be added, " and the spirit of Woodforde, which made England what ahe is to-day." Mr. O'Brien next gave an explanation of the neglect &t himself and others to denounce particular murders. "To have done so," he said, "would have been to have accepted a responsibility which we wholly repudiated, and acknowledged a state of things which we absolutely denied, an admission that the country was steeped in blood, whereas we knew that, in respect to the vast area of tne country, that was an absolute falsehood, and the only districts in respect of which it was true were those where we had no power."

Not a single line of argument, says the Daily Nens, was overlooked by which Mr. O'Brien's claim of constitutionalism for his policy might be overthrown. On xesuming his cross-examination , the Attorney-General sought to find in Mr. O'Brien's "exchanges" a proof of Mr, O'Brien's sympathy — if not worse — with policies of outrage. On this point Mr. O'Brien made some >cry emphatic and indignant criticisms. It was the prominence given by the London newspapers to sensational stories about American-Irish dynamitards that did more than anything else to advertise them and encourage them. Ie Mr. O'Brien's caudid estimation, the journalists of Loldon were doing more mischief than a host of O'Donovan Rossas.

'' Yes, I wrote that," Mr. O'Brien replied in his prompt, downright way, when the Attorney-General quoted a passage from an old article referring to the toast of tbe Queen at a banquet to Mr. Parnell. "An old lady who was only known in Ireland by her scarcely decently disguised hatred of the Irish people." Was that constitutional ? Sir Richard Webster asked, in his most solemn manner. " I think," replied Mr. O'Bneo, " that it was perfectly constitutional to criticise the conduct of the eovere'gn ; I think that in the condition in which Ireland then was I was perftctly justified in writing in these terms." The calm air of smceie conviction in which Mr. O'Brien uttered thess words was perhaps more impiessive than the AtrorneyGeneial's solemnity. Sir. Richard drew him3elt up. He repeated tue words, " Scaictly— -veiled — hatiei,' 1 pausing at each, ana then pausing for a reply. "It is strong language," Mr. O'Buen replied, " but my words expressed the universal belief in Ireland." With the utmost composure Mr. O'Brien said he would write the same words again under the same cncumstances ; but the circumstances had changed. Here, in fact, Mr, O'Brien touched upon the argumcut that has iun through bis evidence tiom first to last, upon thi central idea of tua policy. In tbe earlier part cf his evidence he put his whole argument in a nutshell when be said that, it was •' the Woodford 6pirit which made England what it is." He expressed the same idea yesterday when he taid that agitations which vvould be "legally criminal" in England were morally justifiable in Ireland — anything but " morally disgraceful " provided that the agitations were kept free from intimidation. Mr. O'Bneu'a meaning was fully illustrated and made perfectly clear when the Attorney-Genera l came to Mr. O'Brien's anicies on the Piiuce of VVales's visit to Ireland. Could Mr. O'Brien reconci'c ihcbe articles with his claim to constitutional character as a politician? Yes, Mr. O'Brien could, and he proceeded to draw a distinction between constitutional "in a strict meaning," and constitutional in a certain biotd English senee. Mr. O'Buen justified his opposition to the ceremonials because the Priace of Wales's visit was regarded in Ireland as " a party move.' 1 i'he Prince's visit was üß3d (not by the Prince person illy) as a sort of " counter-demonsira-tion to the National movement." "When " continued Mr. O'Brien, "tbe Times made use of the Pnuce's visit to declare that Pdrnellism was upset by it, we felt bound, we thought it was a matter of 'desperate necessity,' to protest ; and in the broad spirit of English freedom we were right." " I would not write these articles new," repe.uel Mr. O'Brien, lor, as he had already said the relations between England and Ireland had been charged in the interval. In oue of the articles under discussion, and quoted by the Attorney-General, Mr. O'Brien had said that tbe chairman ot the Kingstown CjmmissiOLiers, the gentleman by whose casting vote the public reception was accorded to the Prince of Wales, would, when he came to seek re-jlection be hunted by his constituents from public life. "And he has been," said Mr. O'Brien when Isir Kicbard icad the passage. •' You mean that as a joke?" remarked the Attorney-General. "No sir,' leplied Mr O'Brien, sharply, with a ring of indignation in his voice ; ''I only state it as a fact Everybody in Ireland knew what wouLl bappen at the next election of the Kingstown Commissioners. Thuwo demonstrations of 'shaui loyalty' wtru only deluding the Euglisn

people." They " misrepresented the true position of Ireland." It was therefore " terribly necessary that we should expose them. As for the Prince of Wales personally, I never said a word against his character." Mr. O'Brien declared that if his Royal Highness had only "passed through Ireland" in his private character he would not have written as he did ; but that he considered the visit as " counterforce " to tho Nationalist movement and its purnosea to persuade the English people that the Nationalist feeling was " a bbgUß feeling." " Yes," exclaimed Mr. O'Brien again, " I say that in a large sense of constitutionalism our action was constitutional, and that we followed English example."'

Throughout the whole course of Mr. O'Brien's evidence — evidence the most profoundly impres3ive — runs this distinction between English Governments and the English people. For example, when the Attorney-General, quoting an article of Mr. O'Brien's on the destruction of English power, was leading up to the Prince's visit, Mr. O'Brien frankly declared, •' No ; I don't approve of that article now." He considered himself justified in writing it in November, 1884, before the year of the " revolution " in Irish feeling ; but he would not write it now. " I tell you," said Mr. O'Brien, " that we always distinguished between Eoglish Governments and the English democracy . ' England ' meant for us, in those times, one clasa of people." Then the Attorney-General questioned him about a speech delivered some months later in the Phoenix Park. Yes, Mr. O'Brien had used strong expressions. But he was snarling under a sense of indignation at bis expulsion from the House of Commons. And if Ireland had been strong enough to rebel then against her misrule, he would have been the first to risk his life for her. If ever there was a right of rebellion that li^ht of rebellion was with our people then, if there was the remotest chance of success ; but, there not being that chance, it would have been insanity and criminality. il Did not such language tend to inflame the people? " asked the Attorney-General "The stronger the language I used, the greater was the relief to the people," replied Mr. O'Brien ; " just as I believe the stronger the language we used against the landlords, the less the risk of outrage against them. The denunciation of them served aa a lightning-con-ductor — taking off the excessive feeling against the landlords, just as the conductor acted on the electricity in the air." And then, in his most earnest manuer, Mr. O'Brien, clenching his hand and striking the desk with it, reminded the Attorney-General that in the same speech he had declared that there were even in the House from which he had been expelled men for whom the Irish people felt a deep regard, most of all " for Mr. Gladstone, whose kindliness aad tenderness for Ireland were like drops in an ocean of prejudice." Once more Sir Richard Webster turneJ to the question of Irish hostility to " England,'* by quoting United Ireland articles about the Afghans, the Boers, and the Soudanese. " We sympathised with these peoples," said Mr. O'Brien, "because th u y were fighting against odds for what they considered to be justice." And then Mr. O'Brien repeated what he had often said before about the revolution in Irish feeling, and the " hope "of Ireland in the " English people." He gave, in the latter part of his evidence, an illustration of this revolution from the Irish-American meeting at Chicago in 1886, which Mr. O'Brien himsplf attended. In that American journey Mr. O'Brien addressed himself, as he expressed it, to tho wh >le lii9hrace. And the Chicago demonstration Wds an endorsement of the new Anglo-Irish policy, as "a triumph, ff Mi, Gladstone's policy." Mr. O'Brien's speech ut Cnicigo was made before fifteen thousand men, who received Mr. Gladstone's name with as much enthusiasm as if the demonstration were taking clace iv England, The other Doints in Mr, O'Brien's evidence may be rapidly passed over. Had he advised tenants to bamcide their houses? Certainly. He hid advitel them to offer the utmost amount of passive resistance. •■ But," said Mr. O'Bden, '• in that very speech you arc quoting I advised the tenants to shun, crimj as they would poison." In tho-e barncalia/s the suffering hau been all ou one side, lam sorry to say. He gave some information about the large circulation of United Ireland. He smiled when the AttorneyGeneral made some reference to las banking account. He laughed. Mr. O'Brien, when '* at home." lives like a tiermit in a garret in the Imperial Hotel, and voluntarily foiegoea half the silary which he is empowered to diaw. Mr. O'Brien's evidence ended with some replies to Mr. Keid'rf questions on the Chicago demonstrations already mentioned. Packi'i^ up his pipers be rose up slowly, wearily left, the box, and sat d wn beside Mr. Parnell,

■