marriage to be celebrated between a Catholic and a Protestant. [Here
read Registrar's notice in full.] We have now to inform you that the
law of the Catholic Church regarding such marriages is: that the
Catholic party contracting marriage before a Registrar or other
unauthorised person is, by the very fact of so doing,
Excommunicated; and the witnesses to such marriage are also
Excommunicated.'
"I should be very much obliged if, as occasion may require, you
would explain the effects of this Excommunication from the Altar.
"You will please take notice that the Registrar or Minister is bound
legally to send the notice of marriage referred to above, and also,
that in reading it out _in the form, and with the accompanying
remarks above_, you incur no legal penalty.
"I feel sure that with your accustomed zeal you will do everything
in your power to prevent abuses in regard to the Sacrament of
Matrimony, which is great in Christ and the Church, and to induce
the faithful to prepare for receiving it by Prayer, by works of
Charity, and by approaching the Sacrament of Penance to purify their
souls.--Yours faithfully in Christ,
[Image: Cross] A. BROWNRIGG."
"MY DEAR BRETHREN,--We have been very much pained to learn, within
the past month, that marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics
have increased very much in this city of Kilkenny. Many
_evil-disposed_ persons, utterly unmindful of the prohibitions of
the Church, and regardless of the dreadful consequences they bring
on themselves, have not hesitated to enter into those _unholy
matrimonial alliances_ called "Mixed Marriages," which the Catholic
Church has always _hated and detested_. Those misguided Catholics,
who do not deserve the name, have not blushed to go, in some
instances, before the Protestant Minister, in other instances,
before the Public Registrar, to ask them to assist at their marriage
with a Protestant. By contracting marriage in this way, they run a
great risk of bringing on themselves and on their children, should
they have any, the _maledictions_ of Heaven instead of the blessings
of religion. In order to put a stop to this growing abuse, and to
prevent it from spreading like a contagion to other parts of the
Diocese, we beg to remind the faithful of certain regulations which,
for the future, shall have force in the Diocese of Ossory in
reference to the Catholics, who so far forget themselves as to
contract such marriages.
"1. In the first place, any one who contracts a "Mixed Marriage"
without a dispensation from the Holy See and before a Protestant
Minister or a Registrar is, by the very fact, guilty of a most
grievous mortal sin by violating a solemn law of the Church in a
most grave matter.
"2. The Catholic who assists as witness at such marriage also
commits a most grievous sin by co-operating in an unlawful act.
"3. Both the Catholic party contracting the marriage and the
Catholic witnesses to it cannot be absolved by any priest in the
Diocese of Ossory, unless by the Bishop or by those to whom he
grants special faculties.
"4. In order more effectually to deter people from entering into
_those detestable marriages_, the penalty of _Excommunication_
is hereby attached to that sin both for the Catholic _contracting_
party as also for the Catholic _witnesses_ to such marriage.
"5. The notice which the Protestant Rector or the Registrar is
legally bound in such cases to send to the Parish Priest of the
Catholic party, will be read from the Altar for three consecutive
Sundays, and thus the _crime_ of the offending party brought out
into open light before his or her fellow-parishioners.
"6. For the rest, we hope the sense of decency and religion of the
Catholic people and their Pastors shall be no more hurt by any
Catholic entering into those marriages, so full of, misery and evil
of every kind for themselves, their children, and society at
large.--Yours faithfully in Christ,
[Image: Cross] ABRAHAM, Bishop of Ossory.
NOTE H.
TULLY AND THE WOODFORD EVICTIONS.
(Vol. ii. p. 149.)
Since the first edition of this book was published certain "evictions"
mentioned in it as impending on the Clanricarde estates have been
carried out. I have no reason to suppose that there was more or less
reason for carrying out these evictions than there usually is, not in
Ireland only, but all over the civilised world, for a resort by the
legal owners of property to legal means of recovering the possession of
it from persons who fail to comply with the terms on which it was put
into their keeping. Whether this failure results from dishonesty or from
misfortune is a consideration not often allowed, I think, to affect the
right of the legal owner of the property concerned to his legal remedy
in any other country but Ireland, nor even in Ireland in the case of any
property other than property in land. But as what I learned on the spot
touching the general condition of the Clanricarde tenants, and touching
the conduct and character of Lord Clanricarde's agent, Mr. Tener, led me
to take a special interest in these evictions, I asked him to send me
some account of them. In reply he gave me a number of interesting
details.
The only serious attempt at resisting the execution of the law was made
by "Dr." Tully, one of the leading local "agitators," to the tendency of
whose harangues judicial reference was made during the investigation
into the case of Mr. Wilfrid Blunt. Tully had a holding of seventeen
acres at a rent of £2, 10s., the Government valuation being £4. He
earned a good livelihood as a boat-builder, and he had put up a slated
house on his holding. But in November 1884 he chose to stop paying the
very low rent at which he held his place, and he has paid no rent since
that time. As is stated in a footnote on page 153, vol. ii. of this
book, a decree was granted against Tully by Judge Henn for three years'
rent due in May 1887, and his equity of redemption having expired July
9, 1888, this recourse was had to the law against him.
As the leading spirit of the agitation, Tully had put a garrison into
his house of twelve men and two women. He had dug a ditch around it,
taken out the window-sashes, filled up the casements and the doorways
with stones and trunks of trees. Portholes had been pierced under the
roof, through which the defenders might thrust red-hot pikes,
pitchforks, and other weapons, and empty pails of boiling water upon the
assailants. A brief parley took place. Tully refused to make any offer
of a settlement unless the agent would agree to reinstate all the
evicted tenants, to which Mr. Tener replied that he would recognise no
"combination," but was ready to deal with every tenant fairly and
individually. Finally the Sheriff ordered his men to take the place.
Ladders were planted, and while some of the constables, under the
protection of a shield covered with zinc, a sort of Roman _testudo_,
worked at removing the earthern ramparts, others nimbly climbed to the
roof and began to break in from above. In their excitement the garrison
helped this forward by breaking holes through the roof themselves to get
at the attacking party, and in about twenty minutes the fortress was
captured, and the inmates were prisoners. Two constables were burned by
the red-hot pikes, the gun of another was broken to pieces by a huge
stone, and a fourth was slightly wounded by a fork. One of the defenders
got a sword-cut; and Tully was brought forth as one too severely wounded
to walk. Upon investigation, however, the surgeon refused to certify
that he was unable to undergo the ordinary imprisonment in such cases
made and provided.
The collapse of the resistance at this central point was followed by a
general surrender.
After the capture of Tully's house, Mr. Tener writes to me, "I found it
being gutted by his family, who would have carried it away piecemeal.
They had already taken away the flooring of one of the rooms." Thereupon
Mr. Tener had the house pulled down, with the result of seeing a
statement made in a leading Nationalist paper that he was "evicting the
tenants and pulling down their houses."
"Yesterday," Mr. Tener writes to me on the 9th of September, "I walked
twenty-five miles, visiting thirty farms about Portumna. Except in two
or three cases, the tenants have ample means, and part of the live stock
alone on the farms, exclusive of the crops, would suffice to pay all the
rents I had demanded. On the farms recently 'evicted,' I found treble
the amount of the rent due in live stock alone."
As to one case of these recent evictions, I found it stated in an Irish
journal that a young man, who had been ill of consumption for two years,
the son of a tenant, was removed from the house, the local physician
refusing to certify that he was unfit for removal, and that he died a
few days afterwards. The implication was obvious, and I asked Mr. Tener
for the facts.
He replied, "This young man, John Fahey, was in consumption, but did not
appear to be in any danger. Dr. Carte, an Army surgeon, examined him,
and said there was no immediate danger. The day was fine and he walked
about wrapped in a comfortable coat, and talked with me and others. His
father, a respectable man, made no attempt to defend his house; and at
his request, after the crowd had gone away, my man in charge permitted
the invalid and the family to reoccupy the house temporarily because of
his illness. There was no inquest, and no need of any, after his death.
His father, Patrick Fahey, had means to pay, but told me he 'could not,'
which meant he 'dared not.' I went to him personally twice, and sent him
many messages. But the terror of the League was upon the poor man.
"An interesting case is that of Michael Fahey, of Dooras. In 1883 his
rent was judicially reduced about 5 per cent., from £33 to £31, 5s. His
house and all about it is substantial and comfortable. His father, about
thirty years ago, fought for a whole night and bravely beat off a party
of 'Terry-Alts,' the 'Moonlighters' of that day. For his courage the
Government presented him with a gun, of which the son is very proud.
Pity he did not inherit the pluck with the gun of his parent!
"I had been privately told that this tenant would pay; but that he would
first produce a doctor's certificate that his old mother could not be
moved. He did give the Sheriff a carefully worded document to show this,
but it was so vague that I objected to its being received by the
Sheriff. Upon this (not before! mark the craft of even a well-disposed
Irish tenant in those evil days), I was asked to go into the house. I
went in and entered the parlour. There the tenant told me he would pay
the year's rent and the costs, amounting to £50. He had risen from his
seat to fetch the money, when, lo! Father Egan (the priest upon whose
head the widow of the murdered Finlay called down the curse of God in
the open street of Woodford) appeared in the doorway. He had come in on
a pretence of seeing the old mother of the tenant, who had (for that
occasion) taken to her bed. The bedroom lay beyond the parlour, and was
entered from it. The tenant actually shook with fear as Father Egan
passed through, and I thought all hope of a settlement gone, when
suddenly the officer of the police came in, passed into the bedroom, and
told Father Egan he must withdraw. This Father Egan refused to do,
whereupon the officer said very quietly, 'I shall remove you forthwith
if you do not go out quietly.' Upon this Father Egan hastily left. The
tenant then went into the bedroom and soon reappeared with the £50 in
bank-notes, which he paid me. All this was dramatic enough. But the
comedy was next performed in front of the house, where all could see it,
of handing to the Sheriff the alleged doctor's certificate, and of my
saying aloud that 'in the circumstances' I had no objection to his
receiving it! After this all the forces proceeded to take their luncheon
on the green bank sloping down to the Shannon in front of the
farm-house. There is a fine orchard on the place, and it recalled to me
some of the farms I saw in Virginia.
"I had gone into the house again, and was standing near the fire in the
kitchen, where some of my escort were taking their luncheon. It is a
large kitchen, and perhaps a dozen people were in it, when in came
Father Egan again and called to the tenant Fahey, 'Put out those
policemen, and do not suffer one of them to remain.'
"The sergeant instantly said, 'We are here on duty, Father Egan, and if
you dare to try to intimidate this tenant, I shall either put you out or
arrest you.'
"'Yes,' I interposed, looking at the sergeant, 'you are certainly here
on duty, and in the name of the law, and it is sad to see a clergyman
here in the interest of an illegal, criminal, and rebellious movement,
and of the immoral Plan of Campaign.'
"'Oh!' exclaimed Father Egan, 'the opinion of the agent of the Marquis
of Clanricarde is valuable, truly!'
"'I give you,' I said, 'not my opinion, but the opinion of Dr. Healy and
Dr. O'Dwyer, bishops of your Church, and men worthy of all respect and
reverence. And I am sorry to know that some ecclesiastics deserve no
respect, but that at their doors lies the main responsibility for the
misery and the crime which afflict our unhappy country. I feel sure a
just God will punish them in due time.'
"Father Egan made no reply, but paused a moment, and then walked out of
the house.
"At the next house, that of Dennis Fahey, we found a still better
dwelling. Here we had another mock certificate, but we received the rent
with the costs."
NOTE H2.
BOYCOTTING THE DEAD.
(Vol. ii. p. 151.)
The following official account sent to me (July 24) of an affair in
Donegal, the result of the gospel of "Boycotting" taught in that region,
needs and will bear no comment.
Patrick Cavanagh came to reside at Clonmany, County Donegal, about two
months ago, as caretaker on some evicted farms. He died on Wednesday
evening, June 20th, having received the full rites of the Roman Catholic
Church. The people had displayed no ill-will towards him during his
brief residence at Clonmany, and on the evening of his death his body
was washed and laid out by some women. On Thursday two townsmen dug his
grave, where pointed out by Father Doherty, P.P.
The first symptom of change of feeling was that on Thursday every
carpenter applied to had some excuse for not making a coffin for the
body of deceased. On Friday morning the grave was found to be filled
with stones, and a deputation waited on Father Doherty to protest
against Cavanagh's burial in the chapel graveyard. He told them to go
home and mind their business. About 10.30 A.M. on Friday the chapel bell
was rung--not tolled or rung as for service, but faster. The local
sergeant of police went to the cemetery; when he arrived there the
tolling ceased. He then went to Father Doherty, who told those present
that their conduct was such as to render them unfit for residence
anywhere but in a savage country. He told them to go to their homes, and
advised them to allow the corpse to be buried in the grave he had marked
out. After Father Doherty had left, the people condemned his
interference, and said they would not allow any stranger to be buried in
the graveyard. When Constable Brady put it to those present that their
real objection did not lie in the fact that Cavanagh had been a
stranger, he was not contradicted.
The body was ultimately buried at Carndonagh on Saturday, several people
remaining in the graveyard at Clonmany all through the night (Friday)
till the body was taken to Carndonagh for burial.
At Carndonagh Petty Sessions, on the 18th July 1888, Con. Doherty and
Owen Doherty, with five others, were prosecuted for unlawful assembly on
the occasion above referred to. The first two named, who were the
ringleaders, were convicted, and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment
each with hard labour; the charges against the remainder were dismissed.
NOTE I.
POST-OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
(Vol. i. p. 117; vol. ii. pp. 5, 12, 66, 95, 200, 248.)
As the Post-Office Savings Banks represent the smaller depositors, and
command special confidence among them even in the disturbed districts, I
print here an official statement showing the balances due to depositors
in the undermentioned offices, situated in certain of the most disturbed
regions I visited, on the 31st December of the years 1880 and 1887
respectively:--
+-----------------+-----------------+---------------+
| OFFICE. | 1880. | 1887. |
+-----------------+-----------------+---------------+
| | £ s. d. | £ s. d. |
| Bunbeg, | 1,270 6 7 | 1,206 18 2 |
| Falcarragh, | 62 15 10 | 494 10 8 |
| Gorey, | 3,690 14 4 | 5,099 5 7 |
| Inch, |[A] 8 11 0 | 209 7 5 |
| Killorglin, | 282 15 9 | 1,299 2 6 |
| Loughrea, | 5,500 19 9 | 6,311 4 11 |
| Mitchelstown, | 1,387 13 2 | 2,846 9 3 |
| Portumna, | 2,539 10 11 | 3,376 5 4 |
| Sixmilebridge, | 382 17 10 | 934 13 4 |
| Stradbally, | 1,812 14 8 | 2,178 18 2 |
| Woodford, | 259 14 6 | 1,350 17 11 |
| Youghal, | 3,031 0 7 | 7,038 7 2 |
+-----------------+-----------------+---------------+
[A] This Office was not opened for Savings Bank
business until the year 1881, the amount shown
being balance due on the 31st December 1882.
It appears from this table that the deposits in these Savings Banks
increased in the aggregate from £20,329, 15s. 11d. in 1880 to £32,347,
9s. 7d. in 1887, or almost 60 per cent, in seven years. They fell off in
only one case, at Bunbeg, and there only to a nominal amount. At Youghal
they much more than doubled, increasing about 133 per cent. Yet in all
these places the Plan of Campaign has been invoked "because the people
were penniless and could not pay their debts!"
NOTE K.
THE COOLGREANY EVICTIONS.
(Vol. ii. p. 216.)
Captain Hamilton sends me the following graphic account of this affair
at Coolgreany:--
In the _Freeman's Journal_ of the 16th December 1886, it is reported
that a meeting of the Brooke tenantry, the Rev. P. O'Neill in the chair,
was held at Coolgreany on the Sunday previous to the 15th December 1886,
the date on which the "Plan of Campaign" was adopted on the estate, at
which it was resolved that if I refused the terms offered they would
join the "Plan."
I had no conference at Freeman's house or anywhere else at any time with
two parish priests. On the 15th December 1886, when seated in Freeman's
house waiting to receive the rents, four priests, a reporter of the
_Freeman's Journal_, some local reporters, and four of the tenants
rushed into the room; and the priests in the rudest possible manner (the
Rev. P. Farrelly, one of them, calling me "Francy Hyne's hangman," and
other terms of abuse) informed me that unless I re-instated a former
Roman Catholic tenant in a farm which he had previously held, and which
was then let to a Protestant, and gave an abatement of 30 per cent., no
rent would be paid _me_ that day. Dr. Dillon, C.C., was not present on
this occasion, or, if so, I do not remember seeing him.
On my asking if I had no alternative but to concede to their demand, the
Rev. Mr. Dunphy, parish priest, replied, "None other; do not think, sir,
we have come here to-day to do honour to you."
The Rev. P. O'Neill spoke as he always does, in a more gentlemanly and
conciliatory manner, and I therefore, as the confusion in the room was
great, offered to discuss the matter with him, the Rev. O'Donel, C.C.,
and the tenants, if the other priests, who were strangers to me, and the
reporters would leave the room. This the Rev. Mr. Dunphy declared they
would not do, and I accordingly refused further to discuss the matter.
After they left the house, one of the tenants, Mick Darcy, stepped
forward and said, "Settle with us, Captain." I replied, "Certainly, if
you come back with me into the house." The Rev. Mr. Dunphy took him by
the collar of his coat and threw him against the wall of the house, then
turning to me with his hand raised said, "You shall not do so; we, who
claim the temporal as well as spiritual power over _you_ as well as
these poor creatures, will settle this matter with you."
The tenants were then taken down to the League rooms, where two M.P.s,
Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Mayne, were waiting to receive the rents,
which, one by one, they were ordered in to pay into the war-chest of the
"Plan of Campaign."
I have I fear written too much of this commencement of the war on the
estate which has since led to over seventy of the tenants and their
families being ejected, and has brought ruin on nearly all who joined
it. I have considerable experience as a land agent, but I know of no
estate where the tenants were more respectable, better housed, or, as a
body, in better circumstances than on the Brooke estate. They had a
kind, indulgent landlord, and they knew it; and nothing but the belief
that, led by their clergy, they were foremost in a battle fighting for
their country and religion, would have induced them to put up with the
great hardships and loss they have undoubtedly had to suffer.
NOTE L.
A DUCAL SUPPER IN IRELAND IN 1711.
(Vol. ii. p. 283.)
The following entry I take from the Expense-Book of the Duke of Ormond,
under date of August 23, 1711:--
His Grace came to Kilkenny, half an hour after 10 at night.
HIS GRACE'S TABLE.
Pottage. Sautee Veal.
5 Pullets, Bacon and Collyflowers.
Pottage Meagre.
Pikes with White Sauce.
A Turbot with Lobster Sauce.
Umbles.
A Hare Hasht.
Buttered Chickens, G.
Hasht Veal and New Laid Eggs.
Removes.
A Shoulder and Neck of Mutton.
Haunch of Venison.
_Second Course._
Lobsters.
Tarts, an Oval Dish.
Crabbs Buttered.
4 Pheasants, 4 Partridges, 4 Turkeys.
Ragoo Mushrooms.
Kidney Beans. Ragoo Oysters.
Fritters.
Two Sallets.
NOTE M.
LETTER FROM MR. O'LEARY.
(Vol. ii. p. 291.)
In the first edition of this book I credited Mr. O'Leary with making
this pungent remark about figs and grapes, because I found it jotted
down in my original memoranda as coming from him. In a private note he
assures me that he does not think it was made by him, and though this
does not agree with my own recollection, I defer, of course, to his
impression. And this I do the more readily that it affords me an
opportunity for printing the following very characteristic and
interesting letter sent to me by him for publication should I think fit
to use it.
As the most important support given by the Irish in America to the
Nationalists is solicited by their agents on the express ground that
they are really labouring to establish an Irish Republic, this outspoken
declaration of Mr. O'Leary, that he does not believe they "expect or
desire" the establishment of an Irish Republic, will be of interest on
my side of the water:--
"DUBLIN, _Sept._ 9, '88.
"My Dear Sir,--I am giving more bother about what you make me say
in your book than the thing is probably worth, especially seeing
that what you say about me and my present attitude towards men and
things here is almost entirely correct.
"It is proverbially hard to prove a negative, and my main reason
for believing I did not say the thing about figs and grapes is that
I never could remember the whole of any proverb in conversation;
but I am absolutely certain I never said that 'some of them (the
National Leaguers) expect to found an Irish republic on robbery,
and to administer it by falsehood. We don't.' Most certainly I do
not expect to found anything on robbery, or administer anything by
falsehood, but I do not in the least believe that the National
League either expects or desires to found an Irish republic at all!
Neither do I believe that the Leaguers will long retain the
administration of such small measure of Home Rule, as I now (since
the late utterances of Mr. Parnell and Mr. Gladstone) believe we
are going to get. My fault with the present people is not that they
are looking, or mean to look, for too much, but that they may be
induced, by pressure from their English Radical allies, to be
content with too little. It is only a large and liberal measure of
Home Rule which will ever satisfy the Irish people, and I fear
that, if the smaller fry of Radical M.P.'s are allowed to have a
strong voice in a matter of which they know next to nothing, the
settlement of the Irish question will be indefinitely postponed.--I
remain, faithfully yours,
"JOHN O'LEARY."
NOTE N
BOYCOTTING PRIVATE OPINION.
(Vol. ii. p. 293.)
This case of Mr. Taylor is worth preserving _in extenso_ as an
illustration of that spirit in the Irish journalism of the day, against
which Mr. Rolleston and his friends protest as fatal to independence,
manliness, and truth. I simply cite the original attack made upon Mr.
Taylor, the replies made by himself and his friends, and the comments
made upon those replies by the journal which assailed him. They all tell
their own story.
(_UNITED IRELAND_, JUNE 16.)
Mr. John F. Taylor owes everything he has or is to the Irish
National Party; nor is he slow to confess it where the
acknowledgment will serve his personal interests. His sneers are
all anonymous, and, like Mr. Fagg, the grateful and deferential
valet in _The Rivals_, "it hurts his conscience to be found out."
There is no honesty or sincerity in the man. His covert gibes are
the spiteful emanation of personal disappointment; his lofty
morality is a cloak for unscrupulous self-seeking. He has always
shown himself ready to say anything or do anything that may serve
his own interests. In the general election of 1885 he made frantic
efforts to get into Parliament as a member of the Irish Party. He
ghosted every member of the party whose influence he thought might
help him--notably the two men, Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien, at whom
he now sneers, as he fondly believes, in the safe seclusion of an
anonymous letter of an English newspaper. During the period of
probation his hand was incessant on Mr. Dillon's door-knocker. The
most earnest supplications were not spared. All in vain. Either his
character or his ability failed to satisfy the Irish leader, and
his claim was summarily rejected. Since then his wounded vanity has
found vent in spiteful calumny of almost every member of the Irish
Party--whenever he found malice a luxury that could be safely
indulged in.
"His next step was a startling one. We have absolute reason to
know, when the last Coercion Act was in full swing, this
pure-souled and disinterested patriot begged for, received, and
accepted a very petty Crown Prosecutorship under a Coercion
Government. As was wittily said at the time, he sold his
principles, not for a mess of pottage, but for the stick that
stirred the mess. Strong pressure was brought to bear on him, and
he was induced for his own sake, after many protests and with much
reluctance, to publicly refuse the office he had already privately
accepted. Mr. Taylor professes to model himself on Robert Emmet and
Thomas Davis; it is hard to realise Thomas Davis or Robert Emmet as
a Coercion Crown Prosecutor in the pay of Dublin Castle. Since then
there has been no more persistent caviller at the Irish policy and
the Irish Party in company where he believed such cavilling paid.
When Home Rule was proposed by Mr. Gladstone, he had a thousand
foolish sneers for the measure and its author. When the Bill was
defeated, he elected Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. T.W.
Russell as the gods of his idolatry. Such a nature needs a patron,
and Mr. Webb, Q.C., the Tory County Court Judge who doubled the
sentence on Father M'Fadden, was the patron to be selected. It is
shrewdly suspected that he supplied most of the misguiding
information for Dr. Webb's coercion pamphlet, and it is probable
that Dr. Webb gives him a lift with his weekly letter to the
_Manchester Guardian._
(_UNITED IRELAND_, JUNE 23.)
MR. JOHN F. TAYLOR.
_To the Editor of "United Ireland."_
Sir,--You would not, I am sure, allow intentional misstatements to
appear in your columns, and I ask you to allow me space to correct
three erroneous observations made about myself in your current
issue--
1. The first statement is to the effect that I owe everything I
have, or that I am, to the Irish National Party. I owe absolutely
nothing to the Irish Party, except an attempt to boycott me on my
circuit, which, fortunately for me, has failed.
2. The second is to the effect that I made "frantic efforts" (these
are the words, I think) to enter Parliament, and besieged Mr.
Dillon's house during the time when candidates were being chosen. I
saw Mr. Dillon exactly twice, both occasions at Mr. Davitt's
request. Mr. Davitt urged me to allow my name to go forward as a
candidate, and it was at his wish and solicitation that I saw Mr.
Dillon.
3. It is further said that I begged a Crown Prosecutorship.
Fortunately, Mr. Walker and The M'Dermot are living men, and they
know this to be absolutely untrue. I was offered such an
appointment, and, contrary to my own judgment, I allowed myself to
be guided by Mr. Davitt, who thought the matter would be
misunderstood in the state of things then existing. I believe I am
the only person that ever declined such an offer.
As to general statements, these are of no importance, and I shall
not trouble you about them.--Yours very truly,
JOHN F. TAYLOR.
_P.S._--The introduction of Dr. Webb's name was a gratuitous
outrage, Dr. Webb and I never assisted each other in anything
except in the defence of P.N. Fitzgerald. J.F.T.
_To the Editor of "United Ireland."_
Dear Sir,--As my name has been introduced into the controversy
between yourself and Mr. Taylor, I feel called upon to substantiate
the two statements wherein my name occurs in Mr. Taylor's letter of
last week. It was at my request that he called upon Mr. John
Dillon, M.P. I think I accompanied him on the occasion, and unless
my memory is very much at fault, Mr. Dillon was not unfriendly to
Mr. Taylor's proposed candidature. This visit occurred some three
months after Mr. Taylor had, on my advice, declined the Crown
Prosecutorship for King's County, a post afterwards applied for by
and granted to a near relative of one of the most prominent members
of the Irish Party. With Mr. Taylor's general views on the present
situation, or opinions upon parties or men, I have no concern. But,
in so far as the circumstances related above are dealt with in your
issue of last week, I think an unjust imputation has been made
against him, and in the interests of truth and fair play I feel
called upon to adduce the testimony of facts as they
occurred.--Yours truly,
MICHAEL DAVITT.
Ballybrack, Co. Dublin,
June 19, 1888.
_To the Editor of "United Ireland."_
Sir,--As this is, I believe, the first time I have sought to
intrude upon your columns, I hope you will allow me some slight
space in the interests of fair-play and freedom of speech. Those
interests seem to me to have been quite set at naught in the
attack, or rather series of attacks, upon Mr. Taylor in your last
issue. Mr. Taylor's views upon many matters are not mine. He is far
more democratic in his opinions than I see any sufficient reason
for being, and he is very much more of what is called a land
reformer than I am; but on an acquaintance of some years I have
ever found him an honourable and high-minded gentleman, and as good
a Nationalist, from my point of view, as most of the members of the
Irish Parliamentary Party whom I either know or know of. Of some of
the charges made against Mr. Taylor, such as the seeking for Crown
Prosecutorships and the like, I am in no position to speak, save
from my knowledge of his character, but I understand Mr. Davitt
knows all about these things, and I suppose he will tell what he
knows. But of the main matter, and I think the chief cause of your
ire, I am quite in a position to speak. I have read at least a
score of Mr. Taylor's letters to the _Manchester Guardian_, and I
have always found them very intelligently written, and invariably
characterised by a spirit of fairness and moderation; indeed, the
chief fault I found with them was that they took too favourable a
view of the motives, if not the acts, of many of our public men,
but notably of Messrs. Dillon and O'Brien. You may, of course,
fairly say that I am not the best judge of either the acts or the
motives of these gentlemen, and I freely grant you that I may not,
for my way of looking upon the Irish question is quite other than
theirs; but what I must be excused for holding is that both I and
Mr. Taylor have quite as good a right to our opinions as either of
these gentlemen, or as any other member of the Irish Parliamentary
Party. But this is the very last right that people are inclined to
grant to each other in Ireland just now. Personally I care very
little for this, but for Ireland's sake I care much. Some twenty
years ago or so I was sent into penal servitude with the almost
entire approval, expressed or implied, of the Irish Press. Some
short time after the same Press found out that I and my friends had
not sinned so grievously in striving to free Ireland. But men and
times and things may change again, and, though I am growing old, I
hope still to live long enough to be forgiven for my imperfect
appreciation of the blessings of Boycotting, and the Plan of
Campaign, and many similar blessings. It matters little indeed how
or when I die, so that Ireland lives, but her life can only be a
living death if Irishmen are not free to say what they believe, and
to act as they deem right.--Your obedient servant,
JOHN O'LEARY.
June 18, 1888.
_To the Editor of "United Ireland."_
Dear Sir,--I observe that in your last issue, amongst other things,
you state that Mr. Taylor accepted a Crown Prosecutorship in 1885.
I happen to know the precise facts. Mr. Taylor was offered the
Crown Prosecutorship of the King's County, and some of us strongly
advised him to accept it. There were no political prosecutions
impending at the time, and it seemed to me that a Nationalist who
would do his work honestly in prosecuting offenders against the
ordinary law might strike a blow against tyranny by refusing to
accept a brief, if offered, against men accused of political
offences or prosecuted under a Coercion Act. I know that a similar
view was entertained by the late Very Rev. Dr. Kavanagh of Kildare,
and many others. However, we failed to influence Mr. Taylor further
than to make him say that he would do nothing in the matter until
Mr. Davitt was consulted. I, for one, called on Mr. Davitt, and
pressed my views upon him; but he was decided that no Nationalist
could identify himself in the smallest way with Castle rule in
Ireland. This settled the question, and Mr. Taylor declined the
post, which was subsequently applied for by Mr. Luke Dillon, who
now holds it.--Faithfully yours,
JAMES A. POOLE.
29 Harcourt Street.
EDITORIAL NOTE.
_"United Ireland," June 23._
We devote a large portion of our space to-day to the apparently
organised defence of Mr. J.F. Taylor and his friends, and we are
quite content to rest upon their letters the justification for our
comments. When a gentleman who avows himself a disappointed
aspirant for Parliamentary honours, and who owns his regret that he
did not become a petty Castle placeman, is discovered writing in an
important English Liberal paper, venomous little innuendos at the
expense of sorely attacked Irish leaders which excite the
enthusiasm of the _Liarish Times_, it was high time to intimate to
the _Manchester Guardian_ the source from which its Irish
information is derived. The case against Mr. Taylor as a
criticaster is clinched by the fact that his cause is espoused by
Mr. John O'Leary. The Irish public are a little weary of Mr.
O'Leary's querulous complaints as an _homme incompris_. So far as
we are aware, the only ground he himself has for complaining of
want of toleration is that he possibly considers the good-humoured
toleration for years invariably extended to his opinions on men and
things savours of neglect. His idea of toleration with respect to
others seems to be toleration for everybody except the unhappy
wretches who may happen to be for the moment doing any practicable
service in the Irish cause.
NOTE O.
BOYCOTTING BY "CROWNER'S QUEST LAW."
(Vol. ii. p. 312.)
The following circumstantial account of this deplorable case of Ellen
Gaffney preserved here, as I find it printed in the _Irish Times_ of
February 27, 1888.
"In the Court of Queen's Bench, on Saturday, the Lord Chief-Justice (Sir
Michael Morris, Bart.), Mr. Justice O'Brien, Mr. Justice Murphy, and Mr.
Justice Gibson presiding, judgment was delivered in the case of Ellen
Gaffney. The original motion was to quash the verdict of a coroner's
jury held at Philipstown on August 27th and September 1st last, on the
body of a child named Mary Anne Gaffney.
"The Lord Chief-Justice said it appeared that Mary Anne Gaffney, the
child on whose body the inquest was held, was born on the 23d July, and
that she died on the 25th August, 1887. A Dr. Clarke, who had been very
much referred to in the course of the proceedings, called upon the local
sergeant of the police, and directed his attention to the body, but the
sergeant having inspected the body, came to the conclusion that there
was no need for an inquest. The doctor considered differently, and the
sergeant communicated with the Coroner on the 26th August, and on the
next day that gentleman arrived in Philipstown. He had a conference
there with Dr. Clarke and with a reverend gentleman named Father Bergin,
and subsequently proceeded to hold an inquest upon the child in a
public-house--a most appropriate place apparently for the transactions
which afterwards occurred there. The investigation, if it might be so
called, was proceeded with upon that 27th of August. Very strong
affidavits had been made on the part of Mrs. Gaffney--who applied to
have the inquisition quashed--her husband, and some of the constabulary
authorities as to the line of conduct pursued upon that occasion. Ellen
Gaffney and her husband were taken into custody on the day the inquest
opened by the verbal direction of the Coroner, who refused to complete
the depositions given by the former on the ground that she was not
sworn. That did not take him out of the difficulty, for if she was not
sworn she had a right to be sworn, and the Coroner had no right to
prevent her. The inquest was resumed on the 1st September in the
court-house at Philipstown--the proper place--and a curious letter was
read from the Coroner, the effect of which was that he did not consider
that there was any ground for detaining the man Gaffney in custody, but
the woman was brought before a justice of the peace and committed for
trial. She was in prison from August 27th until the month of December,
when the lucky accident of a winter assize occurred, else she might be
there still. At the adjourned inquest the Coroner proceeded to read over
the depositions taken on the former day, and it was sworn by four
witnesses, whom he (the Lord Chief-Justice) entirely credited, that the
Coroner read these depositions as if they were originals, whereas an
unprecedented transaction had occurred. The Coroner had given the
original depositions out of his own custody, and given them to a
reverend gentleman who was rather careless of them, as was shown by the
evidence of a witness named Greene, who deposed that he saw a car on the
road upon which sat two clergymen, and he found on the road the original
depositions which, presumably, one of the clergymen had dropped. The
depositions were handed to a magistrate and afterwards returned to the
police at Philipstown, who had possession of them on the resumption of
the inquest. If the case stood alone there it was difficult to
understand how a Coroner could come into court and appear by counsel to
resist the quashing of an inquisition in regard to which at the very
door such gross personal misconduct was demonstrated. No doubt, he said,
he did not read them as originals but as copies, and it was strange,
that being so, that he did not inform the jury of what had become of
them, and he complained now of not being told by the police of their
recovery--not told of his own misconduct. On the 1st September, Ellen
Gaffney applied by a solicitor--Mr. Disdall, and as a set-off the
Coroner permitted a gentleman named O'Kearney Whyte to appear--for whom?
Was it for the constituted authorities or for the next-of-kin? No, but
for the Rev. Father Bergin, who was described as president of the local
branch of the National League, and the Coroner (Mr. Gowing) alleged as
the reason why he allowed him to appear and cross-examine the witnesses
and address the jury and give him the right of reply like Crown counsel
was, that Ellen Gaffney stated that she had been so much annoyed by
Father Bergin that she attributed the loss of her child to him--that it
was he who had murdered the child. It was asserted that Father Bergin
sat on the bench with the Coroner and interfered during the conduct of
the inquest, and having to give some explanation of that Mr. Gowing's
version was certainly a most amusing one. He said it was the habit to
invite to a seat on the bench people of a respectable position in
life--which, of course, a clergyman should be in--and that he asked
Father Bergin to sit beside him in that capacity. But see the dilemma
the Coroner put himself in. According to his own statement he had
previously allowed this reverend gentleman to interfere, and to be
represented by a solicitor because he was incriminated, inculpated, or
accused, and it certainly was not customary to invite any one so
situated to occupy a seat on the bench. He (the Lord Chief Baron) did
not believe that Father Bergin was incriminated in any way, but that was
the Coroner's allegation, and such was his peculiar action thereafter.
The Coroner further stated that no matter whether he read the originals
or the copies of the first day's depositions, it was on the evidence of
September 1st that the jury acted. If that was so he placed himself in a
further dilemma, for there was no evidence before the jury at all on the
second day upon which they could bring a verdict against Ellen Gaffney.
In regard to the recording and announcing of the verdict it appeared
that the jury were 19 in number, and after their deliberations the
foreman declared that 13 were for finding a verdict one way and 6 for
another; that Mr. Whyte dictated the verdict to the Coroner, and the
Coroner asked the 13 men if that was what they agreed to. Mr. Whyte's
statement was that the jury, through the foreman, stated what their
verdict was; that he wrote it down, and that the Coroner asked him for
what he had written, and used it himself. But in addition to that, when
the jury came in the Coroner and Mr. Whyte divided them--placed them
apart while the verdict was being written--and then said to the 13 men,
"Is that what you agree to?" Such apparent misconduct it was hardly
possible to conceive in anybody occupying a judicial position as did the
Coroner, and especially a Coroner who had an inquisition quashed before.
What he had mentioned was sufficient to call forth the emphatic decision
of the court quashing the proceedings, which, however, were also
impeached on the grounds of its insufficiency and irregularity, and of
the character of the finding itself. It was not until the Coroner had
been threatened with the consequences of his contempt that he made a
return to the visit of _certiorari_, and it was then found that out of
ten so-called depositions only one contained any signature--that of Dr.
Clarke's, which was one of those lost by the clergyman, and not before
the jury on the 1st September. He (the Lord Chief-Justice) had tried to
read the documents, but in vain--they were of such a scrawling and
scribbling character, but, as he had said, all were incomplete and
utterly worthless except the one which was not properly before the jury.
Then, what was the finding on this inquisition, which should have been
substantially as perfect as an indictment? "That Mary Anne Gaffney came
by her death, and that the mother of this child, Ellen Gaffney, is
guilty of wilful neglect by not supplying the necessary food and care to
sustain the life of this child." Upon what charge could the woman have
been implicated on that vague finding? He (his Lordship) could
understand its being contended that that amounted argumentatively to a
verdict of manslaughter; but the Coroner issued his warrant and sent
this woman to prison as being guilty of murder, and she remained in
custody, as he had already remarked, until discharged by the learned
judge who went the Winter Assizes in December. Upon all of these grounds
they were clearly of opinion that this inquisition should be quashed,
and Mr. Coroner Gowing having had the self-possession to come there to
show cause against the conditional order, under such circumstances, must
bear the costs of that argument.
Mr. Fred. Moorhead, who, instructed by Mr. O'Kearney Whyte, appeared for
the Coroner, asked whether the Court would require, as was usual when
costs were awarded against a magistrate, an undertaking from the other
side--
The Lord Chief-Justice.--That is not to bring an action against the
Coroner, you mean?
Mr. Moorhead.--Yes, my Lord. I think it is a usual undertaking when
costs are awarded in such a case. I think you ought--
The Lord Chief-Justice.--Well, I don't know that we ought, but we most
certainly will not. (Laughter.)
Mr. David Sherlock, who (instructed by Mr. Archibald W. Disdall)
appeared for Ellen Gaffney.--Rest assured, we certainly will bring an
action.
THE END.
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[1] I have the authority of Mr. Hennessey, "the best living
Irish scholar, and a Kerryman to boot," for this spelling. I am quite
right, he says, in stating that the people there pronounce the names of
Glenbeigh and Rossbeigh as Glenbéhy and Rossbéhy in three syllables.
"Bethe," pronounced "behy," is the genitive of "beith," the birch, of
which there were formerly large woods in Ireland. Glenbehy and Rossbehy
mean the "Glen," and the "Ross" or "wooded point" of the birch.
[2] A letter received by me from a Protestant Irish gentleman,
long an ardent Nationalist, seems to confirm this. He writes to me (June
15),
"There is a noble river here, with a convenient line of quays for
unloading merchandise. But every sack that is landed must be carried
out of the ship on men's backs. The quay labourers won't allow a
steam crane to be set up. If it is tried there is a riot and a
tumult, and no Limerick tradesman can purchase anything from a
vessel that uses it, on pain of being boycotted. The result is that
the labourers are masters of the situation, and when they catch a
vessel with a cargo which it is imperative to land quickly, they
wait till the work is half done, and then strike for 8s. a day! If
other labourers are imported, they are boycotted for 'grabbing
work,' and any one who sells provisions to them is boycotted."
[3] An interesting account of this gentleman, and of his
connection with the earlier developments of the Irish agitation, given
to me by Mr. Colomb of the R.I.C., will be found at p.38, and in the
Appendix, Note F.
[4] See Appendix, Note F.
[5] The name of this blacksmith's son learned in the Law of the
League is given in Lord Cowper's Report (2. 18,370) as Michael Healy.
While these pages are in the printer's hands the London papers chronicle
(May 25, 1888) the arrest of a person described to me as this
magistrate's brother, Jeremiah Healy, on a charge of robbing and setting
fire to the Protestant church at Killarney!
[6] Mr. Colomb sends me, June 30, the following interesting
note:--The letter of which I gave you a copy was produced in evidence at
Kerry Summer Assizes, 1867. J. D. Sheehan, Esq., M.P., is the same man
who was arrested on the 12th February 1867, and to whom the foregoing
letter, ordering the rising in Killarney, is addressed. He was kept in
custody for some time, and eventually released, it is believed, on the
understanding that he was to keep out of Ireland. He came back in 1873
or 1874 and married the proprietress of a Hotel at Killarney. His
connection with the Glenbehy evictions is referred to on page 10, and in
Note F of the Appendix I give an interesting account, furnished me by
Mr. Colomb, of his activity in connection with the case of the Misses
Curtin at Firies.
[7] In the time of Henry VIII. these cities waged actual war
with each other, like Florence and Pisa, by sea and land. Limerick was
then called "Little London."
[8] It was on the 17th October 1886 that Mr. Dillon first
promulgated the Plan of Campaign at all at Portumna.
[9] Mr. Ponsonby's account of this affair will be found in the
Appendix, Note G. The Post-Office Savings Bank deposits at Youghal,
which were £3031, 0s. 7d. in 1880, rose to £7038, 7s. 2d. in 1887.
[10] As to the ability of these tenants to pay their way, one
fact which I have since ascertained sufficiently supports Mr. Tener's
contention. The deposits in the Postal Savings Banks of the three purely
agricultural towns of Portumna, Woodford, and Loughrea, which in 1880,
throwing off the shillings and pence, were respectively, £2539, £259,
and £5500, rose in 1887 to £3376, £1350, and £6311, an increase of
nearly £3000.
[11] Mr. Tener, to whom I sent proofs of these pages, writes to
me (July 18): "I shall soon execute the decree of the County-Court Judge
Henn against Father Coen for £5, 5s., being two and a half year's
rent."
[12] At a hearing of cases before Judge Henn some time after I
left Portumna, the Judge was reported in the papers as "severely"
commenting upon the carelessness with which the estate-books were kept,
tenants who were proceeded against for arrears producing "receipts" in
court. I wrote to Mr. Tener on this subject. Under date of June 5th he
replied to me: "Judge Henn did not use the severe language reported.
There was no reporter present but a local man, and I have reason to
believe the report in the _Freeman's Journal_ came from the lawyer of
the tenants, who is on the staff of that journal. But the tenants are
drilled not to show the receipts they hold, and to take advantage of
every little error which they might at once get corrected by calling at
the estate office. In no case, however, did any wrong occur to any
tenant."
[13] The town and estate proper of Woodford belong to Sir Henry
Burke, Bart. The nearest point to Woodford of Lord Clamicarde's property
is distant one mile from the town. And on the so-called Woodford estate
there are not "316 tenants," as stated in publications I have seen, but
260.
[14] Martin Kenny, the "victim" of this eviction, is the tenant
to whom the Rev. Mr. Crawford (_vide_ page 118) gave £50 for certain
cattle, in order that he (Kenny) might pay his rent But, although he got
the £50, he nevertheless suffered himself to be evicted; no doubt
fearing the vengeance of the League should he pay.
[15] The valuation for taxes of this holding is £7, 15s. for
the land, and £5 for the presbytery house. The church is exempt.
[16] Of "Dr." Tully Mr. Tener wrote to me (July 18):
"Tully has the holding at £2, 10s. a year, being 50 per cent, under
the valuation of the land for taxes, which is £3, 15s. As the total
valuation with the house (built by him) is only £4, he pays no
poor-rates. He was in arrears May 1, 1887, of three years for £7,
10s. Lord Clanricarde offered him, with others, 20 per cent,
abatement, making for him 70 per cent, under the valuation--and he
refused!"
Since then (on Saturday Sept. 1), Tully has been evicted after a
dramatic "resistance," of which, with instructive incidents attending
it, Mr. Tener sends me an account, to be found in the Appendix, Note H.
[17] Note H2.
[18] Mr. Tener writes to me (July 18):
"At Allendarragh, near the scene of Finlay's murder, Thomas Noonan,
who lately was brave enough to accept the post of process-server
vacated by that murder, was shot at on the 13th instant. It was on
the highway. He heard a heavy stone fall from a wall on the road and
turned to see what caused it. He distinctly saw two men behind the
wall with guns, and saw them fire. One shot struck a stone in the
road very near him--the other went wide. His idea is that one gun
dislodged the stone on which it had been laid for an aim, and that
its fall disturbed the aim and saved him. He fully identifies one of
the men as Henry Bowles, a nephew of 'Dr.' Tully, who lives with
Tully, and Bowles, after being arrested and examined at Woodford,
has been remanded, bail being refused, to Galway Jail. Before this
shooting Noonan had served a notice from me upon Tully, against whom
I have Judge Henn's decree for three years' rent, and whose equity
of redemption expired July 9th."
[19] I have since learned that my jarvey was well informed. Sir
Henry Burke actually paid Mr. Dillon £160 for the maintenance of his
tenants while out of their farms. This, two other landlords, Lords
Dunsandle and Westmeath, refused to do, but, like Sir Henry, they both
paid all the costs, and accepted a "League" reduction of 5s. 6d. and 6s.
in the pound (June 9, 1888).
[20] Down to the date at which I write this note (June 9), Mr.
Seigne has kindly, but without results, endeavoured to get for me some
authentic return made by a small tenant-farmer of his incomings and
outgoings.
[21] Note I.
[22] Note K.
[23] While these pages are going through the press a Scottish
friend sends me the following extract from a letter published in the
_Scotsman_ of July 25:--
"In the same way I, in August last, when in Wicklow, ascertained as
carefully as I could the facts as to the Bodyke evictions; and being
desirous to learn now if that estate was still out of cultivation,
as I had found it in August, I wrote the gentleman I have referred
to above. His reply is as follows:--
"'I can answer your question as far as the Brooke estate is
concerned. None of the tenants are back in their farms, nor
are they likely to be. The landlord has the land partly
stocked with cattle; but I may say the land is nearly waste;
the gates, fences, and farmsteads partly destroyed. I was at
the fair of Coolgreany about three weeks ago, and the country
looked quite changed; the weeds predominating in the land
that the tenantry had under cultivation when they were
evicted from their farms. The landlord has done nothing to
lay the land down with grass seed, consequently the land is
waste. The village of Coolgreany is on the property, and
there was a good monthly fair held there, but it is very much
gone down since the disagreement between the landlord and
tenant. The tenants, speaking generally, in allowing
themselves to be evicted and not redeeming before six months,
are giving up all their improvements to the landlord, no
matter what they may be worth. I have got quite tired of the
vexed question, and may say I have given up reading about
evictions, and pity the tenant who is foolish enough to allow
any party to advise him so badly as to allow himself to be
evicted.'
"Those who read this testimony of a candid witness, and remember the
cordial footing on which Mr. Brooke stood with his tenantry in
Bodyke before Mr. Billon appeared amongst them, may well ask what
good his interference did to the now impoverished tenantry of
Bodyke, or to the district now deserted or laid waste.--I am, etc.,
A RADICAL UNIONIST."
[24] In curious confirmation of this opinion expressed to me by
a man of the country in March, I find in the _Dublin Express_ of July
19th this official news from the Athy Vice-Guardians:
"At the meeting of the Vice-Guardians of the Athy Union yesterday, a
letter was read from Mr. G. Finlay, Auditor, in which he stated that
the two sureties of Collector Kealy, of the Luggacurren district,
had been evicted from their holdings by Lord Lansdowne, and were not
now in possession of any lands there. They were allowed outdoor
relief to the extent of £1 a week each on the ground of destitution.
The Auditor continued: 'The Collector tells me that they both
possess other lands, and have money in bank. The Collector is
satisfied that they are as good, if not better, securities for the
amount of his bond now than at the time they became sureties for
him. The Clerk of the Union concurs in this opinion.'
"It was ordered to bring the matter under the notice of the Board."
[25] _Explanatory Note attached to First Edition._--After this
chapter had actually gone to press, I received a letter from the friend
who had put me into communication with the labourers referred to in it,
begging me to strike out all direct indications of their whereabouts, on
the ground that these might lead to grave annoyance and trouble for
these poor men from the local tyrants.
I do not know that I ought to regret the annoyance thus caused to my
publisher and to me, as no words of mine could emphasise so clearly the
nature and the scope of the odious, illegal, or anti-legal "coercion"
established in certain parts of Ireland as the asterisks which mark my
compliance with my friend's request. What can be said for the freedom of
a country in which a man of character and position honestly believes it
to be "dangerous" for poor men to say the things recorded in the text of
this chapter about their own feelings, wishes, opinions, and interests?
[26] It may be well to say here that whatever prominence Mr.
O'Donovan Rossa has had among the Irish in America has been largely, if
not chiefly, due to the curious persistency of Sir William Harcourt,
when a Minister, in making him the ideal Irish-American leader. In and
out of Parliament, Sir William Harcourt continually spoke of Mr. Rossa
as of a kind of Irish Jupiter Tonans, wielding all the terrors of
dynamite from beyond the Atlantic. This was a source of equal amusement
to the Irish-American organisers in America and satisfaction to Mr.
Rossa himself. I remember that when a question arose of excluding Mr.
Rossa from an important Irish-American convention at Philadelphia, as
not being the delegate of any recognised Irish-American body, Mr.
Sullivan told me that he should recommend the admission of Mr. Rossa to
the floor without a right to deliberative action, expressly because his
presence, when reported, would be a cause of terror to Sir William
Harcourt.
[27] See Appendix, Note M.
[28] Note N.
[29] Note O.