John Morley

English visitors trooped over to Ireland, and brought back stories of rapacious landlords, violent police, and famishing folk cast out homeless upon the wintry roadside.

Irishmen became the most welcome speakers on British platforms, and for the first time in all our history they got a hearing for their lamentable tale.

If three men had been killed by the police in connection with a public meeting in England or Scotland, no home secretary would have dreamed for five minutes of resisting such a demand.

The slaughter of the three men was finally left just as if it had been the slaughter of three dogs.

No other incident of Irish administration stirred deeper feelings of disgust in Ireland, or of misgiving and indignation in England.

But then the Irish tenant thought himself a far better judge of a fair rent, than all the cardinals that ever wore red hats.

They told the Pope, that while recognising unreservedly as catholics the spiritual jurisdiction of the Holy See, they were bound solemnly to affirm that Irish catholics recognise no rights in Rome to interfere in their political affairs.

My Lords, it appears to me that the measure is unfortunate in its origin, unfortunate in its scope and object, and unfortunate in the circumstances which accompanied its passage through the other House.

Transactions are to be found in our annals where wrong was done by government to individuals on a greater scale, where a powerful majority devised engines for the proscription of a weak minority with deadlier aim, and where the omnipotence…

The allegations of crime were almost all indefinite; the method was by allusion, suggestion, innuendo, and the combination of ingeniously selected pieces, to form a crude and hideous mosaic.

Even people with whom politics were a minor interest were shocked by such an exposure of the grievous depravity of man.

Neglect of any possible precaution against fraud and forgery in a document to be used for the purpose of blasting a great political opponent would be culpable in no common degree.

Of this neglect people can hardly be blamed for thinking that the men of business, men of the world, and men of honour who were masters of the Times, must be held absolutely incapable.

The issues were too great to be exposed to the hazards of a cast of the die.

It was true that a favourable verdict might just as reasonably be expected from the prepossessions of Dublin, as an unfavourable one from the prepossessions of London.

But the moral effect of an Irish verdict upon English opinion would be exactly as worthless, as the effect of an English verdict in a political or international case would be upon the judgment and feeling of Ireland.

He insisted, on the other side, that he was not afraid of cross-examination; that they might cross-examine as much as ever they pleased, either about the doings of the land league or the letters; that his hands would be found to be clean…

The government would pretty certainly refuse a select committee, and what would be the advantage to him in the minds of persons inclined to think him guilty, of making a demand which he knew beforehand would be declined?

Parnell was ready to assent to any course, however unconstitutional that course might be, if only it led to the exposure of an insufferable wrong.

The credit of parliament and the sanctity of constitutional right were no supreme concern of his.

He was burning to get at any expedient, committee or commission, which should enable him to unmask and smite his hidden foes.

For the first time in England since the Great Rebellion, men were practically put upon their trial on a political charge, without giving them the protection of a jury.

But to call a combination a conspiracy does not make it a conspiracy or a guilty combination, unless the verdict of a jury pronounces it to be one.

In words of vital importance, they said, “We must leave it for politicians to discuss, and for statesmen to determine, in what respects the present laws affecting land in Ireland are capable of improvement.

The object of the accusers was to show the complicity of the accused with crime by tracing crime to the league, and making every member of the league constructively liable for every act of which the league was constructively guilty.