As for the Parnell Commission, it was the outcome of superb patriotism on the part of the Times.  That great organ, in the spirit of purest devotion to the best interests of England and Ireland, honestly attempted to expose treachery, and to denounce treason.  Hundreds of columns of the valuable space at their daily disposal, as well as thousands of pounds earned by the highest journalism of any country, were freely lavished in this tremendous denunciation, known as ‘Parnellism and Crime.’  The crime of Pigott eventually saved Parnell and his followers.  But the last word on that has not yet been spoken.  Another pen than mine may, perchance before long, tell the whole truth about that tragic episode, and explain what is still an unsolved riddle in all dispassionate minds.  Without challenging and exciting the strongest racial prejudices, it will be impossible to lift the veil, and I have no intention of affording even the slightest preliminary peep behind the scenes of that dramatic affair.  The wheels of God grind slowly, and they ground exceeding small almost before the absurd exultation of Nationalist relief over the Pigott episode had abated.  It is almost time to treat the whole affair from the historical point of view, and then the idol of Home Rule will be pulverised.  However, that is another story in which I have no chapter to write.

My own share in the Parnell Commission was on November 29, 1888, on the twenty-third day.  I was examined by the Attorney-General, the present Lord Chief Justice, and the most popular and most honourable of men.  At that very time, I have heard, he sang each Sunday in the surpliced choir of a Kensington church, and I suppose he is the very best chairman of a committee or of a public meeting of our own or any other time.  A Parnellite once said he had the unctuousness of a retired grocer, but was contradicted by a more reverent English Radical, who said, ’No, he has the unction of grace,’ whereas, the truth is, he has the platform manner with him always.

I told the Court I had been a Kerry magistrate for the previous thirty-seven years, and, after deposing to the earlier state of my property, I insisted that moonlighting and ‘land-grabbing’ were unknown terms before 1880.  My examination under the Attorney-General was, in fact, too practical and useful to provide amusement for latter day readers.

My cross-examination was begun by Sir Charles Russell, who led off with a sneer about my being the most popular man in the county, and, when I adhered to other statements, he added, ’Well, a very popular man.  I will not put you on too high a pinnacle.’ (Laughter.) Then for an hour and a half he plied me with the best balanced statistical questions I ever heard put in a hostile spirit, and without a note I could answer every one.  After considerable hesitation I admitted on consideration that there was in Kerry one farmer benefiting by the Act of 1870.  I have never heard since that he was caught and exhibited as the solitary outward and visible sign of the inward and legal benefit of the legislative force of Imperial Parliament.