THE PARNELL COMMISSION.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 219, 17 September 1888, Page 2

THE PARNELL COMMISSION.

SENSATIONAL SCENES IN

PAELIAMENT.

SPECIAL ARTICLE DESCRIPTIVE OF THE PASSAGE OF MR PARHELL'S COMMISSION BILL THROUGH COMMITTEE.

(FROM OUR LONDON COBKESPONDBXT.)

Sensational scenes galore marked the progress of what Mr Parnell bitterly calls tb c :" Forgeries Bill" through committee. The conduct of the Irish leaders was just as ippzling and just as aggravating to believers in their innocence as it has been. Whilst professing earnestly to desire the inquiry, they yeC utilised ■every known Parliamentary weapon to obstruct It. Mr Parnell haa never since he eat in Parliament shown so much excityment as during the last three weeks. For twelve months he paid no attention to the "Times" charges, scarcely doing more than smile contemptuously when they were discussed; yet now, when their falseness is (as ho says) about to be proved, the more; mention of them turns him white with passion. Although a Liberal, I find myself^ lfke'a great many others, forced" to admire the Government's attitude in thia matter. Throughout a very trying time they kept firm and fairly impartial. All they showed themselves determined on was that, by hook or by crook, the Bill should go through. To bhits end Mr Smith allowed jusfc enough discussion over the puin amendments to convince the non-political public of their unreasonableness or impossibility, and then moved the closure. Mr Parnell uiudo an uncharacteristic blunder very early in tho dolmte. On no consideration ought he to have impeached the composition of the Commission. All threr- judges wero, bo far as the House! knew, non-political ; moreover, two of them were absolutely appointed to tha Bench by Mr Gladstone. Even the extremo Radical and Xvh'n journals had not up to then dared to attack the Lord Chancellor's selection. Now, however, Mr Parnoll protected against the appointment of Mr Justice Pay, uild was supported by Mr Morley, who read a lettor to the House in which the Judge was described as a otiicfc Catholic. Most of tho Parnellites being Catholics, it wits generally supposed they would welconio a Catholic judge, a red-hot old Tory, and a nightly iuvoigher against the Parnellites. This precious doeumonb came from a Mr Adams, who wan a eo|]s<ugue of Sir John Day's on the Bolfast Commission. No one seemed to kaovv anything about him t or to bo able to back up bin sbatements. The Government (very properly, I think) refuaad bo reflect on Mr -Day's impartiality by replacing him by another judge on the strength of such evidence. '■■" Ptirnoll and Morley," said an old Tory, " must have been vory hard driven to find grounds of objection to Day, or they would never have condescended to make use of euch a letter." THE CHARGES AGAINST ME CHAMBERLAIN. The attack on Chamberlain was another tactical blunder. The Iridh loader probably thought that by charging fcbe member for mid-Birmingham with a sufficiently hoinous political crime, be would divert, the unpleasantly closo attention of the House and the country from himeelf and hisafl'airs. Nodoubtpeoplewore startled fora momout, bub Ifc vim only for a moment. Tlia night after Chamberlain bad calmly analysed tlio alleged treachery, and his old colleague, Mr Gladstone, bad "pooh-poohed" it, public interest' fizzled our.. " The old game laying red horiinga across) tho trail," erivl tho Tories. Tho fiercest struggles in Committee were over tho amendmontsproposing (1) that the crimes to be inquired lntoehouldbocategorieaJSy rfcalcd in theßßus3 s and (2) that ihv inquiry should bo restricted to members of Parliament only. The acrimony displayed by Lho l'aruolliboa in discussing the lirar, of these amendments showed how passionately tsliey long for v Might of their opponents' cards, and gives colour to a popular theory amongßt tepid Liberals. Tliia is that tho published lettora, etc., avo forgeries, bub that Parnell has at sometime written a compromising epistle, and cannot bo certain whether It is in tho " Times'" possession. If ho could havo been sure feui.s genuine douuuiunt was nob the "document of extraordinary importance which wo shall produce «afc tho proper time," bo constantly referred to by tho "Thunderer," ho would hava merrily brought, hh action long1 ago, but he feared bias indiscretion turning tip end boin&j proved against him. In such sm evont or course the rostof hia case would bo wofuliy prejudiced, if nob completely ruined. 1 confess the theory has a taking appearance, it would expiuin much, including bhe anxiety shown i«y Mr Rueggr in tho O'Donnesf caao to discover tho enemy's hand bofore subinitting his oUeub fco cross-examination. The impossibility of confining tho examination to inoinbera of Parliament ouly {rm proposed by Miv other amendment) will t-ayi'y bo seen when J point, out that by Uiis means Messrs Davilt, Byrno, Egtrn, Showdau and Broiiuun would escape questioning. ATTITUDE OF THE GOVERNMENT. It was over this same amendment fcho Ccvernmentgob rather awkwardly cornered. Several Liberal and Irish members declared that whon the Bill was orginalty inferoducod it was described as ''ft Bill to inquire into certain charges and allegations against mombers of Parliament," and that tho two words "and others" were addod enbuequently. Tha (xovermnenfc admitted thie, bub declarati tho omission originally hud been a slip. Unfortunately* ib leaked out that Mr Waiter, accompanied by Mr Buckle, hail enlist on Mr Smith bhe morning afber bhe introduction of the "Bill into Parliament, and the Opposition chose to assume that it was ab their instigation " the omission " was remedied. "M r Gosehon vowed and declared, almost with tears in his eyes, this *na nob m, aad 'appealed to Mr Gladstone, for tho honour of Parliament, to accept his own and Mr Smith's word on tho point. But tho G.O.M. would only shake his head. On the third day of tbe discassion in Committee the Government felt it imperative to take some dooieive step. The Committee had then, after forty hours' debate, only reached the penultimate line of the firsb clause of the Bill, while there were on bhe notice paper no fewer than twilve other amendments to the »ms clause. As the Bill contained seven clauses, and there wero already five pnges of am&ndmcnl* to which the Irish members w*re daily making

additions, the slg) rf fcha ulfcuaMott wJii ba easily ftppfookted. j APPLICATION1 Off THH CLOSURE. W&8 Mi' Pui'aoll to bo allowed to kill Uio gfli by talk, u,nd stifle the inquiry he has co long boasted of demaudW? Tho Ufic vernmenfc deoided " no." Mr Smith therefore moved, ''That another night should,be, allowed, for the dlsoußaipn of the clause in Committee, but if, at Urn,, they were not oil passed, the balance should bo put to the vote ivithoiti discussion." The Opposition and ;tlie Irish pauty, of course, objected to the proposal strotiglyj but it was carried by a large majority. . At this crisis the " Times "lost its temper and publiahod an article which well' nigh got it into trouble. The following are tho portions to which the irrepressible Labbydrew attention in the Houho, solemnly asking the Government (with a twinkle of triumph, in his eye) if v breach of privileges had not been connected:—lt would be mere waste of time to attempt to treat the ■speeches of the Opposition yesterday as matter for serious argument. Mr Reid's like thoae which preceded^ it, was simply made the excuse for dragging one red herring after another across the scent, which is becoming much too keen for the Parnollitori and their hackers. The endeavour to convict the Government of a change of front because Mr W. H. Smith, in offering Mr ParneE the alternative of the Special Commission, omitted the words "and other persons," though ever since the notice of the introduction of the Bill was placed on thepaper those words have been before the' House and the Opposition allowed the second reading to pass unchallenged with full knowledge of them, conspicuously failed; but this and other groundless accusations have afforded Mr Parneli, Mr T. Healy, Mr Sexton, Mr T. P. O'Connor, and the xeafc the opportunity to pour out a flood of I blackguardism—we can call it by no other name—on " The Timea " and the porsons responsible for its conduct, which we venture to say is absolutely without parallel in Parliamentary history. We are completely indifferent to abuse, calumny, and merida^ cious charges from that quarter, and wear© quite suva that public opinion will take the just measure of the men who resort to these weapons. But, for the honour of public life in England, it w to be deplored that Mr Gladstone hh well as tin- William Harcourt entered into a competition!! with tho foul-mouthed oratory of their present allies below the gangway. Still moro scandalous is it that Mr Mbrley should dare to accuse this journal of the "deepest infamy," on the unfiupportod testimony. which he has taken no pains to siffc, of one of hia reckless Irish allies. Tho stuff which is held to be good enough to furnish forth the speeches of these statesmen with their facts, their argumentB s their fauuvbs, and their calumnies would not be listened to by ixuy decent people M it were bawled about the streets lr>: the sort of people who obtain a hearing because they are members of tho House of Commons. Sir William Harcourt'a indignation with tho Government for refusing to accept the word of Mr Parnell and his: associates without further inquiry ignores the whole character of the charges agbinsb them. If fchoae elmrgeu aie true, it ia tho most natural thingin the world that fchoy should ba denied and die public are gradually becoming convinced of the truth of what we have pledged ourselves to establish before aisy tribunal by the extraordinary reluctance ot thu incriminated parsons to face aa inquiry before throe able, impartial, and honourable men of high judicial rank and invested with the fullest powers for the discovery of the facts. Innoconce cannot shrink from scrutiny, or quibble over tho " uietly calculated less or moro" of charges and allegations which, however they may attect other people, umst, if disproved so far aa they arefer. i:> the PamoUitob,' greatly strongmen their influence ovor their Gladatonian allies. Mr Parucll'a frantic speech at the close of the sitting yesterday morning wan not- in the strain which is expected froio men eousciouH of their innocence Bub Mr Gladstone, at all events, is ready to accept this, or anything else, as proof of what ho wishes to believe. Borrowing from the vocabulary of Mr ParneU, he ventured yesterday, ill debate upon a Bill for instituting a judicial injury into that very question, tospeak of the " forged letter," and, whoa challenged fay Mr Balfour, to defend hia use of i&nguage that prejudges one of tho main matters in issue, on the ground that it has been "withdrawn from view." If Mr Gkdetono does not generally read "The Times," we are sorry for it, but ut least he ought to do so when he undertakes to describe our action in Parliament., Not only did we, when this statement was originally made some days ago, point out that those who made iti were never more mistaken in their lives than they were if they supposed wo did not intend to prove the authenticity of tbe letters, though we refused to isolate them from the rest oi" our evidence, but we objected yesterday to Mi Reid's amendment confining the inquiry to charges of complicity in actual crime because it would prevent us from offering poof of tbe *vry letter referred to by Mr Gladstone. This specimen of fairness incontroversy is hardly paralleled by Sir William Harcourt's achievement in founding tho whole of his argument in reply to the Home Secretary on the interpolation, which he was compelled to ad suit, of the word " political " in quoting from Mr Matthews's speech. Yet Mr Gladstoneand Sir William fiurcourt are eminent members of tho Houso of Commons, and no exception could ■bo taken to their n.amua if Patiiamout had consented to refer the charge's against the Parnollites, a 9 the Opposition demanded, k> a Select Committee. Mr Goschen (in Mr Smith's absence) admitted that the "Times" had technically put ila foot into it, bub pointed out that other newspapers such as tho "Pall Mall Gazette," the "Telegraph" and tho " World," had at various times fallen into the snme mistake of expressing thomselves too strongly about hon. members, and that it had not been thougho desirable to notice the ■ fuck Mi? Gladsfcojie agreed that this %*;« bo, sad added that the House ought so be very careful how ifc trammelled freedom of comment in the Sress. Mr Laboucheie consequently withrow hie motion, which was in reality nothing but «■ political dodgp. No one knows 'hehlw than the asfeiita member for MorLiianiptou ifr#b technical breach ot privilege- ia committed continually by all newspapers holding strong political views, and chat it would never do for the House to seriously notice legitimate comment such n» the • * Times " arbiole. The debate in Committee was wound np With a «peoch froiw Mr Parmell raarted by extraordinary moderation. Now the Commission was inevitable he obviously wished, U possible, to wipe out the impression created by the tactica of r.he previous days. So great was bho ohangoof tone fciiat credulous Unionists professed to wonder whether there, was truth in a cock-and-bull lobby Btory to tie effect bliat Parneli had all along wished fco bolt t,U v Commission Bill as it stood, but that Gladstone and Harcourt diasuaded him froai doing m. How maoh do the Govornmenfe know about the "Times" 0&8& ? people ask, A good deal, I fancy;. Of course they have not been at all disinterested in endeavouring to provide a perfectly impartial tribunal 8«>.l a full ana fmr Inquiry for fche ParnelHtoe. As they hoped and believed, perhaps knew, the Irishmen wore guilty, it v-or emphatically necessary th'ab the means adopted for showing shein wp should, ba above enspioion. Two views are now pretty common anent tha Commißßioo atadngsf} ladepeiideul people, by which I mean fehat portion of the publio which h not blinded by political partisanship. One is thai the "Times " will be .-iokr to prove nothing deilr.ite against the PernelUtea, and that at the end of tho inquiry wa Nbkll Know little, if. m^ . ■■■'~ ':■■■ ■ . ;■■,.■ ■!.■■■! -~.;■.■.;,■:. :■ . ■ ■:■'■■ ••• ■ •■' ': .

thing, more than we do noW< TJiiM eeofcioil, of oourße, oontetids,thab fche " TbnesI'opposed it* in\\ kb&A itt *" i'tt^ueliwsii und OAvAt), \ I s!oa(fe, Iwm with fci* oihsv pfttfcy, Who oplao the *' TJidss " lir.^ a buivtih* in stora Whab w»« ifc tho "thtimforw" ndd ihs othor day wlisa tho o^4'arnoHlfca p'Hlwa proteafea agalnßt itaputittg to Mi1 l*a«ieil actual oosiplioity in tho Phtonia: 3Pat« ; ] jnurdera? "Thai)/' Si doobfed, "is ft charge we, at ioasi, h»ve tjevor m&(k, Whub we have «aid, and iutoad to jprovo, among other bhinafl, to tho eatißfaotiion of the Special Commiseion, 1b that Mr Parnell set in motion for his own purposes W»fi machinery of crime, bub was unable to etop its workings when aho sl&suftlou changed, and dareii nofc break with tktma who had been hifi absotAuim or inMW'U'

mente." This inference haa, etrangoly ortoagh, already beeu partially coi'ioborated *-: y O'3bea, who declares that on tlio day after tiia J?hc3nis: Park murder« when ho called on Mr Parnell and iouud tbjit Keutlesnan drawing tip his taauifwteUi rc"pu<liaiing ail | connection with tha perpetrators c>; &wh criinoa and exprongiiig hid horror i>* th«ai, that he found tho Iritsh chief in a state of 1 deep. gloom. " Two liver,*' »wd lse to O'Sliea, " had already bttai eacririccd, i.nd a third (the "Times" contends t* uie-atit his own) would be in daiigCT1, 5'