Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1890-02-15 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

CONCLUSIONS.  The specidc replies of the Judges to the various c.argee are worded as follows : ill We find that the respondent members of Parliament collectively were not members of a conspiracy having for its object the intention to establish the absolute independence of Ireland,but we find that some of them, together with Mr Devitt, established and joined in the Land League organisation with the intention by its mians to bring about the absolute independence of Ireland as a separate nation. The names are as follows : Mr Devitt, Mr M. Harris, Mr Dillon, Mr W. O'Brien, Mr W. Redmond, Mr J. O'Connor, Mr Joseph t'.indon, and Mr J. J. O'Kelly. i 2) We Bad that the respondents aid enter into conspiracy by a system of coercion and intimidat on to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of agricultural rents, for the purpose of impoverishing and expelling from the country the Irish landlords, who were styled the "English garrison."  (3) We find that the charge that "when oni certain oocasions they thought it politic to denounce and did denounce certain crimes in public they afterwards led their supporters to believe iamb denuneiations 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 fae-simile letter on which this c_herge wee chiefly based against Mr Parnell is a 'Argtry. 4) We find that the respondents did dissemi*ate the Irish World and other newspapers tending to incite to sedition and the commission of other crime.  f 5) We find that the respondents did not directly incite persons to the commission of crime Maier tha.a 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 corn. mit crime.  (6) We find as to the allegation that the respondents did nothing to prevent crime, and expressed no bona-fide disapproval, that some of the responiddents, and in particular Mr Devitt, did express bonafide disapproval of crime and outrage, but that the rempoh kW did not denounce the system of in which led to crime and outrage, but reran it with knowledge of its effect. ('flWe find that the respondents did defend persons charged with agrarian crime and supported their families, but that it had not been proved that they subscribed to testimonials for or were intimately sesocisted with notorious criminals, or that they snide payments to procure the escape of 11116Millaill from justice. (8) We find as to the allegation that the respondents made payments to compensate persona who abed been injured in the commission of crime, that 'filmy did make inch payments. ' (9) As to the allegations that the respondents Ibvited the assistance and co-operation of and acnepted stibeeriptions of money from the known I advocates of mime and the use of dynamite, we find that the respondents did invite the essistance and co-oporation of and seert..-1 enbacriptiona of money front Patrick Ford, a known advocate of crime, and the use of dynamite ; bnt that it has I not been proved that the respondents, or any of  them, knew that the Clan-n.-Gael controlled the League, or was collecting money for the Parliamentary Fund. Tk hes been proved that the revondente ii.ted and obtained the assistance and co-operation of the physical force party in America, ineluding the Clan-na-Gael, and, in order to obtain that assistance, abstained from repudiation or condemning the setion of that party.