Journalism and Litigation (1891)

Chapter XXVII

Journalism and Litigation (1891)

On the 7th March, 1891, the National Press appeared. Until then the Irish public was left at the mercy of the Freeman, with its raging propaganda for “the Chief.”

I was asked to write the opening article for the first number of the new organ. Having spent time over it, I was vain enough to think it good stuff. About 1 a.m., as the paper was going to press, the foreman-printer brought word that the “galley” containing half the article had fallen out of the printer’s hands and become “pie.” I ordered its resetting from my “copy” or its “proof,” but was told neither had been preserved. After this fairy-tale, I sat down to write a hurried and horrid substitute.

We suspected foul play, as the printer was brother to a writer on the Freeman; but I was assured that he was only nervous, though why both the “proof” and my manuscript should have disappeared was not explained. Sexton sat up all night to watch the first issue, and at dawn we walked home together blithe enough. To my brother I wrote:

Dublin,

7th March, 1891.

The staff being unorganized, and the foreman nervous, they could not get the “chases” locked up until 4.10 a.m., when the stereotyping began. In half an hour the last plate was finished, and sent to the machines. The stereotype staff did their work splendidly, as if they had been half a century in the place. At 4.50 a.m. the machines started, and our agony began again, as the first train left at six o’clock. The machines, though they had been tested for days and seen to, as far as Hoe’s men could do in the time, began to tear the paper, and they had to be stopped. The trains, except the Great Southern, were served at nine o’clock, but there were not enough papers for the south trains. This mishap is not cleared up yet, as we left at 6 a.m., and when we returned this morning the men were gone.

62,000 copies have been sold, and if we could get the printers back we could have sold 100,000. The printers, however, were exhausted. They only left at noon, utterly done up. The staff should have been under training for a week before the publication. The carpenters and plumbers were only got out of the composing-room on the day of publication.

The Dublin people got all they wanted of the paper, which they bought up eagerly. Eason, the publisher, was here from 4 a.m. this morning, so anxious was he about the distribution through his firm.”

The starting of the National Press began the downfall of the Freeman’s Journal, and heralded its ultimate extinction. The anti-Parnellites subscribed £37,000 to establish the new paper, and were determined that no longer should Ireland be dependent on the vagaries of Gray’s organ.

I wrote Maurice:

Dublin,

11th March, 1891.

“Sexton comes in every night and works stubbornly. Our meeting on Tuesday was encouraging. Dundalk is solid, and I had a great reception there. Cavan is equally sound, because Biggar taught them the story of Kitty.”

Our Press arrangements are not those of genius. After a glut of advertisements for the first two or three days they are falling off. We have no staff to get them in. I thought we’d only have 20,000 a day, but our circulation is 34,000.”

To my father I wrote:

Dublin,

12th March, 1891.

“The blurred print you refer to will be remedied after a bit, but at first the difficulties are extraordinary. We have to-day ordered new machines at a cost of £4,500, and will spare no expense, as we have plenty of capital. The Freeman special trains (one also to Belfast) will cost them £7,500 a year, or what would pay 10 per cent. on £75,500 capital. They cannot keep it up, and if they do, we will form a combine with the Irish Times and Express, to start a train of our own; but we cannot get to press in time for such a train until we get the new machines.

We shall in a few months, when we feel our way, give them some fun. But we came out before we were ready, and are really only experimenting.

My legal business is dead. But that spell will not take long to dissolve. No man or set of men ever put any man down, save himself. Our anxieties about the paper are, however, endless, and will be till we get the staff organized.

Our meetings last Sunday were splendid, and next Sunday’s Newry meeting will be five times bigger than Parnell’s. That man is gone politically, save for a small but active party, many of whom are honest, and all are determined. He will give a lot of trouble, but it will only last a year.

The Liberals are certain to come in and pass a Home Rule Bill, and although it won’t be a happy country for me to live in, I am satisfied we have done the only possible thing, and I would, if it had to he done over again, be more summary with Parnell.

It is a pity so many people are fools.”

A vacancy in Co. Sligo came after the National Press had been running a week, and I wrote my brother:

Dublin,

14th March, 1891.

“If Davitt will help in Sligo as he did in Kilkenny, Parnell will be routed again, but we cannot expect Davitt to take the same course in what is our battle. Yet we shall win by a large majority.”

In the Sligo election, Parnell’s candidate, Alderman Dillon, was defeated. His supporters in the barony of Tirera made the welkin ring with shouts of “To hell with Home Rule!” Sexton came back from London, and in Sligo bravely faced mobs of stone-thrower, showing high courage.

I was then laid up in Cork, as my eyes were injured by a blow from a Parnellite. My brother went to Sligo, and afterwards told me of Sexton’s gallant bearing.

When I got back from Cork to Dublin, the editor of the National Press came to me with a letter blazing with denunciations of Parnell, signed “Frank Hugh O’Donnell, ex-M.P. for Dungarvan.” Knowing the writer, I said, “Wait a bit before printing, but pigeon-hole it.” Three weeks later, there appeared in the Freeman, from the same pen, a magnificent defence and vindication of Parnell. Then I told our editor to print O’Donnell’s letter without note or comment. It appeared in the National Press next day, and finished O’Donnell with both sides.

Afterwards a volume of reminiscences from O’Donnell appeared. Ireland’s friend, Lord Eversley, quotes a passage from it in his Gladstone and Ireland. This passage narrates how Parnell, having to reply to ex-Secretary Forster in 1883, was rescued by O’Donnell from relying on the notes of “Sexton and Healy,” by which he was cluttered up, and accepted instead the mintage of Frank Hugh although he was estranged from “the Chief.” An alibi as regards myself is incontestable, for I was then in a Dublin jail.

Parnell in March, 1891, addressed a meeting in Cork where he challenged my brother to resign his seat and declared he would do the same to test the opinion of the constituency. Maurice agreed, and Parnell with sublime impudence revoked his challenge, declaring that Maurice should resign first. Although all Ireland laughed at this, Parnell calmly declared that Maurice had flinched “at the first touch of the steel.”

In March, 1891, T. P. O’Connor returned from America, three months after the split. As I sat with Sexton in the House of Commons, he remarked, “Nothing surprised me more after my arrival, while I was making up my mind which side I would take, than the cheerfulness of you fellows!”

Sexton eyed me quizzically. For T.P. had been a signatory to the manifesto, signed by Dillon, O’Brien, T. D. Sullivan. and Gill, urging the Party to depose Parnell. He landed at Southampton instead of Liverpool, lest his constituents in Scotland Ward Division would look for a deliverance. In his Life of Parnell, published in 1891 (page 206), he asserts that “never for one moment” did he waver in the stand he had taken against Parnell.

The Freeman grew desperate after the Parnellite defeats in Kilkenny and Sligo. It alleged that I had accepted blood-money from the Crown at the Maryborough trial of the Donegal prisoners in 1888 and had induced Canon MacFadden, P.P., with his parishioners accused of the murder of Inspector Martin, to plead guilty

This was repeated several times. Parnell, at the Kilkenny election, had described me as a “scoundrel who betrayed prisoners to the Crown and deserted them when there was no more money in their purses to put in his filthy pockets.” He employed also a claque to shout “what about Maryborough?” wherever I appeared.

This and the persistency of the Freeman forced me to issue a writ for libel against that newspaper. As already stated, I was a junior of less than four years’ standing at the Maryborough trial. Two seniors of large experience led for the defence. They decided, despite my opposition, to accept a proffer from the Crown that if the accused pleaded guilty to minor counts, light sentences would be imposed. The Freeman staff was aware of this. One of its editors, F. H. Ennis, a barrister, knew all the gossip of the law courts. Yet he kept on asserting that the “surrender’, was my doing, and that I had been bribed by the Crown to betray the prisoners. I could not defend myself in the Press or on platforms at the expense of my seniors, who had sanctioned the compromise. They, not being attacked, remained silent. It would have been a delicate matter for them to divulge what went on at the consultation which the late Canon MacFadden attended.

These libels were devised to prejudice me with the anti-Parnellite. Minor officials in Government service were also behind them. When my writ issued I was warned that my signature acknowledging the ” bribe” lay in the archives of Dublin Castle. The only ground for this was that, under the Crimes Act of 1887, prisoners removed from a local venue for trial were entitled to call on the Crown to defray their expenses. The solicitor for the accused, J. E. O’Doherty, M.P., vouched the costs of the trials (which listed 10 days) by producing to the Taxing Master the briefs of the three counsel, with their fees receipted under the Act of 1887. These had been paid us by O’Doherty four months before the trial. In addition there were some small refreshers.

I wrote Maurice:

Dublin,

26th April, 1891.

“I laid my venue against the Freeman in Limerick. On looking up the cheque they hint at, I find it was paid me by our solicitor four months before the trial I Yet this is what I am supposed to have received “from the Crown” for getting the prisoners to plead guilty! Every one on our side is pleased at the lawsuit except myself!

I had a letter from Gladstone to-day about Harold Frederic’s novel, in which he said that your late action in the House of Commons was “the cleanest piece of work he had ever known.""

In June I wrote my father:

“Lockwood came to me last week and said if I came to the English Bar he would get me a special Call without any bother, and every man on his side would work to get me business and that I would be certain of success. I told him I would not think of such a thing just now, and until my country turns her back on me, I won’t turn my back on Ireland. Still, I thought it good of Lockwood, and it’s always a comfort to think there are two strings to one’s bow. The “boys,” however, will hear of my string twanging at home for some time to come.

I would not be on the other side of this controversy for all Kitty’s fortune! On that side I don’t see much comfort, and the Liberal victories in England will make them sicker than strychnine. Parnell is a monomaniac. I pity the poor man often enough. I let him down so easy in the House on the grazing exclusion to the Land Bill on Thursday that he whispered to Sexton, “What have you done to Tim to-night that he’s so polite to me?”

Sometimes he looks awfully haggard, but other times he looks like cast-iron. He scarcely ever sits in the House, and is utterly unfit for parliamentary work, except its intrigue and bargaining. His gang are all away, and the only visible sign of the “86” is some score men of ours.

The National Press is doing well. I am afraid the Freeman will come round - we are cutting in on it so.

Maurice will beat Parnell in Cork. I have not seen the fire-escape “toy,” and don’t know what it is.

We find William Murphy a true man - most serviceable, level-headed and able.”

A third parliamentary vacancy befell in Co. Carlow in 1891. There Parnell started his strongest candidate, A. J. Kettle, a signatory of the “No Rent” manifesto in 1881.

Against him a local merchant, John Hammond, appeared. Parnell had now “married” Mrs. O’Shea in a registry office in London, though her husband was alive. This had no validity in Catholic eyes. Religion and not “law” is decisive for us as to the bond between woman and man. A hustings-tag from the divorce evidence became current in Carlow as to “Mr. Fox.” For Parnell, to disguise. his olden meetings with Mrs. O’Shea, passed under that name. This helped to defeat his candidate.”

I wrote my brother:

Carlow,

30th June, 1891.

“We are going to give Parnell a whaling; and I shall be surprised if he is not beaten by a bigger majority than in Kilkenny

He has no following among the voters, who are with us, keen and intelligent. It is a luxury to fight here, after Kilkenny. You should hear John Roche, M.P., and MacDermott, M.P., on the contrast with Tirera. The only place Parnell could prevent us being heard is Hacketstown, a small village. In other towns the men are on our side.

I shall be here until Sunday, when you should turn up, as I shall have to leave for the Limerick trial. My voice is husky, and we want spouting power.

It is like “Sherman’s march through Georgia,” going through territory that we were told was “solid for the Chief.” Despite Canon O’Neill’s influence in Bagenalstown we had a tremendous meeting There yesterday.

Parnell can get no meeting without importations. He is looking white, and makes me feel sorry for him.”

My action against the Freeman was to be heard in Limerick, whither I now betook myself.

The leading counsel for the Freeman was William McLoughlin, a lawyer with the gift of being able at will to shed tears. He proclaimed himself, when he took silk, the son of a Derry “brogue-maker,” and filled up the Crown form as to his father’s occupation accordingly.

His speech against me in Limerick I had heard in Dublin in “breach of promise” cases a dozen times. Its burden was that a mother, hearing of an accident to her son, sobbed that the doctor told her “his Latin parts are coming out.”

The jury found the libels false, but disagreed as to damages. The Munster Bar entertained McLoughlin after the trial, and he replied brilliantly to the toast of his health, which I proposed. His brother, under the pen-name of “Black Northern,” wrote powerful verse. As a clerk to a Cork attorney, his gibes offended a Southerner, who challenged him to a duel. The Ulsterman accepted, but insisted on the right to choose weapons, and selected cavalry swords. So there was no encounter!

When I got home I wrote Maurice:

Dublin,

9th July, 1891.

“Like the fellow who had a fine dinner of potatoes and beef, “barring the beef” we had a triumph in Limerick. The Freeman felt utterly smashed and humiliated. As long as I have means, I will pursue this case until there is a decision one way or the other. It was three o’clock in Limerick before we got the news from Carlow. I don’t believe the jury knew it, for one of them asked the sheriff the result when he was giving them lunch, who told them as a joke that Kettle was in by two! We had a bad jury, and one of them declared the previous night that in no circumstances would he give me a penny. The wonder, therefore, is that they found against “fair comment,” and held the publication was a libel.

A friend who met Harrington to-day says he is crushed, and does not conceal his depression, and thinks I am the only obstacle to peace, and that if Dillon was recognized as leader he could possibly “restrain” me, and let Parnell occupy an influential position as a private member. This is a wholesome frame of mind. They are still, however, getting up their Convention for the 23rd, which will be fun.

I am going to Wexford to-morrow for a meeting. I shall go to London on Sunday night, as I should like to try to improve the Long-Leaseholders Bill, which is very defective.”

One of the counsel retained by the Freeman against me, Seymour Bushe, was famed for oratory and wit. But for a domestic tragedy, he would have become M.P. for T.C.D., and would have shone in the House of Commons, second only to Sheridan. Rivals nicknamed him “Say more bosh.” He died unsunned and undeveloped.

One day in Dublin, at the Recorder’s Court, I found Bushe labouring a case in front of mine. To fill in the vacuum, I took up the Bible on which witnesses were sworn, and got engrossed in the Book of Kings. When Bushe called his next witness, the “swearing-book” was missing. The Recorder (Falkiner) got cross, until Bushe, seeing me deep in the Old Testament, shouted, “Oh, my Lord, Mr. Healy has discovered a new work!”

Bushe, cycling in Surrey, came to an inn, and asked for a bottle of Guinness’s ” double X.” “We don’t keep it,” said the barmaid. “Oh! ” he laughed, “there are a hundred bottles behind you.” She looked round surprised, and said, “Do you mean ‘Guyness twenty’? ” Bushe, in his Oxford accent, corrected, “In Ireland we call it ‘Guinness’s double X.’” Her disdain was overpowering, and uncorking a bottle, she sighed, “‘Ow Hirish!”

He used to tell that when seeing off his stepson from Southampton for the Boer War, encumbered with golf clubs and polo kit, he asked why the boy burthened himself with such gear. “Oh, you know,” said he, “there’s nothing to do out there.” Such was Army intelligence in 1899.

The only witness I knew to get the better of Bushe was a lunatic! Bushe was engaged to prove the insanity of John Doyle, a wealthy Dublin publican, who had been certified a lunatic for nourishing the delusion that a piece of wire disturbed his ear. I was retained to get Doyle pronounced sane. Before going into court, l saw my client and asked him, “Have you wire in your ear?”

He replied, “I have.”

“Well,” I said, “if so, you’ll remain in the asylum.”

This startled Doyle, and he muttered, “No, I have no wire in my ear.”’

I then warned him, “You’ll be cross-examined by Seymour Bushe, who will first ask you about the wire. What will you answer? ” The poor man reluctantly promised, “I’ll swear there’s no wire in my ear.”

Dr. Connolly Norman, whose views carried weight, was the lunacy expert against him. Bushe got his name wrong, and asked Doyle in cross-examination, “what did Dr. Norman Connolly say about you?” The quiet reply came, “Do you mean Dr. Connolly Norman? ” This captured the jury.

Doyle denied there was a wire in his ear, and a verdict certifying his sanity was found. Yet so incurable are delusions that years later I was retained to resist a demand against Doyle by the late Dr. Keyes for £50 for removing wire from his ear.

When the case came before the Recorder, Sir F. Falkiner, the doctor produced a tiny phial from which he brought forth (swathed in cotton wool) a bit of spiral wire. No man’s ear could have held it. However, the Recorder ordered me peremptorily, “Put your client in the box.”

Doyle was thrust forward. The Recorder thundered, “Did that skilful surgeon take that wire out of your ear?” Falteringly Doyle confessed, “He did.”

Quivering with indignation, the Recorder asked, “Then why do you refuse to pay for that splendid operation? ” In a lucid interval the poor man stammered, “Because it wasn’t there at all!”

Every one in court laughed, but the Recorder adjudged: “My jurisdiction only enables me to give the plaintiff a decree for £50, though I regret I cannot award a larger sum.”

I wrote my brother:

House of Commons,

21st July, 1891.

“Knox, Flynn, Webb, Tanner, Jordan and myself were the only effectives out of the once great “Irish Party.” Such a thing as to get the votes for the Lord-Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary and the Local Government Board in a sitting was never heard of before. However, it is something to have pledged Balfour to the introduction of a Local Government Bill for next year. He has included Section I of the Leaseholders Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and also the Labourers Act.

He is very conciliatory, and anxious to stand well with us Madden [A. G.] promised me yesterday he would yield about the “fifth” in the new Land Bill, and I enclose you the amendments I have put down, some of which he is certain to accept.

We are giving a dinner to-morrow night to Hammond at the Holborn Restaurant to celebrate the Carlow victory.”

Howth,

September, 1891.

“Justin McCarthy has met Parnell again, and signed cheques for all the solicitors who did the Ulster Revision of voters, except you. He is no match for Parnell when releasing Paris moneys.

He is to be here on Sunday, and I can’t put it out of my head (although I nave no grounds for saying so) that he is coming to see if terms can he patched up with Gray and the Freeman.

He is “close,” and Sexton in the Boulogne business mentioned this peculiarity. Gray would have no objection to having men like Sexton on the board, and probably would welcome them if there was an amalgamation, but I will agree to nothing, unless to step aboard the piratical craft with a prise crew.

There is not room for two National daily papers, and one must kill the other ultimately. If they are both going to advocate the same policy the wiser thing would be, in the interest of the National Cause, as well as in financial interests, to come together.

If either paper beats the other, without amalgamation, a journalistic tyranny worse than before would be established, because then everyone would say that no rival could ever live, while meanwhile two papers open the door to all kinds of intrigues in connection with the Party. We have damned the Freeman as a force, and though we could ultimately smash it, it would take years to do so, and that would require the expenditure of twice our capital.

It is harder for a Limited Company, which is open to criticism and discussion by shareholders, to succeed than for a paper worked by a single capitalist or a small syndicate, which has to account to nobody.

We have made a distinct hit. Everybody reads us now, and we have reduced the Freeman to pulp. Still, I am not averse from terms of accommodation, for the sake of saving and making money for the shareholders.

I cannot say anything has been proposed directly, except that Gray said to Dickson that we must amalgamate.

I have had an interesting correspondence with Isaac Pitman, which I will send you.

I have written a great deal for the National Press. Wednesday’s number had five columns from me - all of which I dictated. The paper is better than the Freeman, which is little more interesting than a grocer’s circular.

The Grays have qualified Phil Callan to attend their meeting on Monday, and Parnell paid £600 to qualify recently, so he may attend also.”

Parnell’s premature death a few months later placed his opponents at a great disadvantage with the sentimental part of the electorate.

Healy Index. Home.