The Story of the Parnell Commission. Rflssell (to whose imperious temper Lord Hannen had found it necessary to adminis ter repeated correction), and the other counsel for the Irish members, from the in quiry, which soon afterwards closed. The report was published on the 13th Feb., 1890. The findings, from which it is need less to say that Liberals and Conservatives draw very different inferences, were as follow : — I. We find that the respondent members of I'arliament collectively were not members of a conspiracy having for its object to establish the absolute independence of Ireland, but we find that some of them, together with Mr. Davitt, estab lished and joined in the Land League organiza tion with the intention by its means to bring about the absolute inde pendence of Ireland as a separate nation. The names of those respon dents are set out on a previous page. II. We find that the respondents did enter into a conspiracy by a' system of coercion and intimidation to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of THE RIGHT HON. agricultural rents, for the purpose of impoverishing and expelling from the country the Irish landlords who were styled the "English Garrison." III. We find that the charge that "when on certain occasions they thought it politic to denounce, and did denounce certain crimes in public they after wards led their supporters to believe such denuncia tions were not sincere " is not established. We entirely acquit Mr. Parnell and the other respondents of the charge of insincerity in their denunciation of the Phoenix Park murders, and find that the " fac simile" letter on which this charge was chiefly based as against Mr. Parnell is a forgery, IV. We find that the respondents did dissemin ate the "Irish World " and other newspapers tend-
369
ing to incite to sedition and the commission of other crime. V. We find that the respondents did not directly incite persons to the commission of crime other than intimidation, but that they did incite to intimidation, and that the consequence of that incitement was that crime and outrage were committed by the persons incited. We find that it has not been proved that the respondents made payments for the purpose of inciting persons to commit crime. VI. We find as to the allegation that the respon dents did nothing to pre vent crime and expressed no bona fide disapproval, that some of the respon dents, and in particular Mr. Davitt, did express bona fide disapproval of crime and outrage, but that the respondents did not denounce the system of intimidation which led to crime and outrage, but persisted in it with knowledge of its effect. VII. We find that the respondents did de fend persons charged with agrarian crime, and supported their families, but that it has not been proved that they sub scribed to testimonials for, or were intimately as sociated with, notorious criminals, or that they made payments to pro cure the escape of crimi nals from justice. a. j. balfour. VIII. We find, as to the allegation that the respondents made payments to compensate persons who had been injured in the commission of crime, that they did make such payments. v IX. As to the allegation that the respondents invited the assistance and co-operation of and ac cepted subscriptions of money from known advocates of crime and the use of dynamite, we find that the respondents did invite the assistance and co-operation of and accepted subscriptions of money from Patrick Ford, a known advocate of crime and the use of dynamite, but that it has not been proved that the respondents or any of them knew that the Clan-naGael controlled the League or was collecting money for the Parliamentary Fund. It has been proved that
