dence, is as unfair as it was untrue when written and spoken. He quotes Byrne by saying:--

66

'Byrne laid bare the pith and marrow of the League doctrine in a few trenchant words. "I am not," he said, fastidious as to the methods by which the cause of liberty may be advocated. I do not say you should alone use dynamite, or the knife, or the rifle, or Parliamentary agitation. But I hold no Irishman true who will not use all and each method as the opportunity presents itself."

These insane words were spoken by Byrne, not at a League meeting, and not while the speaker had any connection with the League; but at a gathering in New York in 1883 or 1884, which had no relation whatever to the League in America, or of Great Britain, and at a time when Byrne's self-glorified part in the Invincible conspiracy had been made public, and long after he had ceased to have any intercourse whatever with the men whom he had deceived in London. Surely if an employé leaves an establishment where he was never suspected of dishonesty, and turns out afterwards to be, on his own confession, a professional forger; his previous employers are not to be held legally or morally guilty for having employed such a person, or for his after acts and sentiments. If Byrne, after going to America, and after openly avowing such opinions as those quoted, continued to have direct connection with the League, or to hold intercourse with the persons here charged; there would be some appearance of criminal relationship with him. But what proof has been brought forward to establish this continued connection? None, except his casual presence as a spectator, along with the general public, at the Philadelphia Convention in April 1883, and before he had given utterance to the views which the Attorney-General has quoted.

Beach has been unable to prove that either Byrne, Sheridan, Walsh, Tynan, or Hamilton Williams became members of the American Land League, after leaving these countries; and the efforts that the 'Times' has made to prove Tynan or Williams members of the League before leaving for America, have signally failed.

But, even had it been established that Tynan and Williams, like Byrne, Sheridan, and Walsh, had been members of the

League in Ireland or Great Britain, or even paid officials like Walsh, Sheridan, and Byrne; I fail to see how that would incriminate me, in the absence of all proof that I had criminal knowledge of their ulterior purposes or designs.

When these men engaged in this Invincible conspiracy, all the responsible leaders of the League, or nearly all, were in prison. The League itself was suppressed, at least in Ireland; and by no means which the wit of man could devise could I, for instance, from my cell in Portland Convict Prison, prevent the League in London from being made a cloak by Byrne and others for plans which in their carrying out must inevitably shatter the League to pieces.

It has not been proved here by any evidence worthy of a moment's notice, that Mr. Patrick Egan sent Sheridan, as alleged in ‘Parnellism and Crime,' to carry out a policy of violence in Ireland. The only attempt made to incriminate Mr. Egan was Pigott's detected forgeries, and these have recoiled upon the heads of his accusers.

In a word, my Lords, my contention is, that whether it be the self-accused acts of Byrne or Sheridan, or the criminal charge made against Walsh, on the one hand; or whether it be the convictions recorded in Courts in Ireland against men who may have been members of the Land League when found guilty of the offences brought home to them by process of law; these facts do not establish either criminal knowledge of or guilty participation in such acts or such offences by the persons charged before your Lordships.

And pardon my again reminding the Court that the Times,' from the first appearance of 'Parnellism and Crime,' has charged the Land League chiefs, that is the persons sought to be incriminated here, not with constructive moral or legal responsibility for the acts alleged or proved against certain men; but, with the deliberate selection by Mr. Parnell, myself, and others, of agents for the commission of outrage and murder, as a means by which political aims were to be attained.

There has not been one word of proof brought here against myself, Mr. Parnell, or others, to sustain such a charge.

So much has been said in the evidence for the defence with reference to the deplorable crime in Phoenix Park, and so many

proofs of genuine indignation at the perpetration of the deed have been given in speeches, manifestoes, and interviews, that there is, I hope, no necessity for me to again reproduce for your Lordships' consideration these spoken and written testimonies of Land League and Irish regret at the sad fate of the victims of the memorable May 6.

The 'Times' has called in question the sincerity of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and myself in issuing the manifesto of May 7, 1882. This was a part of the Pigott-Houston conspiracy. The men who conspired to prove Mr. Parnell to be the author of Pigott's forged letters, were bound to affirm that the issuing of the manifesto was an insincere act. It was part of the game which the I. L. P. U. had to play in order to carry out its antiLand League policy; and the Times' has only allowed itself to become the puppet of this forgers' and perjurers' employment organisation in voicing its calumnies.

But against the suspicion and accusations resulting from the 'Times' forgeries of 1887, we place the acts, and the language of May 7, 1882, and of dates immediately following the tragedy itself, and fearlessly ask this Court to judge between us.

XXVII. TWO INCIDENTS OF THE PHOENIX PARK TRAGEDY

There are two incidents intimately associated with this historic crime, which I desire to bring to the cognisance of this Court. They are full of dramatic interest. On the morning of May 7, 1882, when the news of the tragedy of the evening previous had spread over London, hundreds of sympathising callers left their cards at the house of Lady Frederick Cavendish. She, of all those afflicted over the dark deed of blood, had most reason to sorrow, and stood most in need of consolation. A Government had been struck in its representatives. England's pride and power were rudely shocked in the assassination of two such men; but, by no party, or cabinet, or society, could pangs so terrible or sorrow so overwhelming be felt as by the loving and

devoted wife to whom the news of the crime brought a burden of measureless grief.

Among the many who went with offerings of sincerest sympathy in this dark hour, was the late Mr. A. M. Sullivan; a gentleman who, as member of the London Bar, may have been known to some of your Lordships. He was a widely respected Irishman, a patriotic upholder of his own country's cause, and a gifted advocate of everything which had for object the bettering of his fellow-men. He, with many other Irishmen resident here in London, left his card where hundreds had already been before him, on the same mission of condolence and sympathy. He never expected that his name would attract attention among so many that had better claims to recognition. But on the following morning, on May 8, he received a note from a brother of Lady Cavendish's, Mr. W. G. Lyttelton, who was present when Mr. Sullivan's card was left at the house, thanking him for his sympathy and assuring him that she did not lay the murder of her husband at the door of the Irish nation; she did not believe that the Irish people sought his life, or would be implicated in the tragedy of his death.

This, my Lords, was a noble act, realising our highest conception of womanhood, and speaking a lesson of God-like charity at a moment when poor humanity's weaknesses would naturally claim an ascendency over the promptings of Christian virtue. It was action kindred to that which spoke from amidst the agonies of death on the Cross of Calvary the words, 'Father, forgive them! They know not what they do.'

The story of this incident has been told at many thousands of Irish firesides in Ireland and America, and I know the effect which the recital has had on many a heart that had been steeled in hatred against everything English before.

It is a pleasing duty to me to give it from here a wider publicity, so that its beneficent influence may work a still greater good. And I believe I am right in saying that, never once since the fatal 6th of May, 1882, has this truly noble woman spoken one word of accusation or of anger against either the country or the cause in connection with which her husband's untimely fate will be for ever associated.

I venture to say, my Lords, that conduct, nobler, better or

more exalted than this, modern England cannot boast of. But I am proud, as an Irishman, to be able to say that there is a parallel to it, and arising out of the same deed of blood too, in the case of Ireland. It is this, and forms the second of the incidents which I asked your Lordships' permission to relate. When the Invincibles, who had been sentenced for the Park crime were awaiting execution in Kilmainham, a Sister of Mercy, with face of unusual sadness, visited the prison almost every day; eagerly desirous of ministering religious consolation to the condemned men. She appeared to pay most attention to Joe Brady, to make his few short hours of life as bright with hope of divine forgiveness as words of Christian comfort could render them. She had learned that Brady had been a good son to his afflicted mother ; that he had borne a good character, and that he had not of his own free action undertaken the carrying out of the deed for which he was about to forfeit his young life for that which he had taken. On the morning of the execution she was with the mother of Brady. She came with some message from the ill. fated son, and to assuage with consoling words the grief of a sorrowstricken home. She fulfilled her angelic mission of charity and went her way. My Lords, she was the cousin and most intimate and dear friend of the man Brady had killed with his own hand in Phoenix Park-Mr. Burke, the Under-Secretary of the Castle.1

Human conduct like inanimate nature is full of contrasts. There are in the acts and motives of mankind differences as marked as the features which distinguish a landscape, rich in scenic beauty, from the parched and repellent aspect of a desert. We speak of the philanthropy of a Howard and an Oberlin, and rightly glory in the altitude of moral greatness in which they and their like stand out in towering eminence above the hard and selfish meanness of the age. Men of moral mould like this raise up our souls when we contemplate their lives, just as mountains lift our bodies above the level of the swamps below.

And, my Lords, among the virtues with which the Christian religion has reinforced the moral weakness of humanity, there are none so God-like in its character, as forgiveness. Philanthropy may get the world's recognition and be to some extent rewarded by honours or by praise; but to forgive is an act of the soul; it Appendix M.

1