Irish Affairs.

Evening Star, Issue 7247, 25 June 1887, Page 1 (Supplement)

Irish Affairs.

THE ALLEGED PAKNELLITE LETTER. The ‘ Argus’s ’ London correspondent says that Mr Parnell, in his speech on the Irish Crimes Bill, complained very bitterly that Mr Balfour (Irish Secretary) had not allowed him to address the House earlier, and he hinted that this had been done to prevent his denial of the “ villainous and barefaced forgery,” as he described ‘ The Times’s ’ facsimile letter, from reaching the outside world. In passionate tones he styled the letter an “ unblushing calumny,” charged ‘The Times’ with “ paying miserable creatures ” to produce such things, and suggested that the Government were approaching the passage of their Crimes Act with “loaded dice.” He protested that the signature to the fac-siraile was not even like his own, except in the case of two letters, and he confessed his inability to understand how the Conductors of “a responsible and what, used to be a respectable journal ” should have been so “ hoodwinked, hoaxed, and bamboozled.” He “never wrote the letter, never directed it t y be written, and never saw it until he saw it-in ‘The Times.’” Its “subject-matter was preposterous, its phraseology absurd, and in every part it bore absolute and irrefutable evidence of want of genuineness,” He never knew that there was any conspiracy on foot against the lives of Government officials in Ireland; knew no more than “ the unborn child” of the Invincible conspiracy; was “ thunderstruck when the bolt out of the blue” fell in Phoenix Park ; and he went on: "Itis no exaggeration to say that, had I been in the park that day, I would gladly have stood between Lord Frederick Cavendish and the daggers of the assassins.” Here Mr Parnell was interrupted by loud cries of “ What about Bourke?” He then added, “Or, for the matter of that, between their daggers and Mr Burke.” The similarity between the phrase in the letter and Mr Parnell’s exclamation is significant. Mr Parnell’s denial has quite satisfied his Gladstouian followers, who profess to be able to see that the signature in ‘ The Times ’ is a forgery. Lord Hartington made effective use of ‘ The Times ’ articles. Without adopting them as conveying his own opinions, he insisted that they demanded an answer, and that the only way of meeting them was to bring ‘ The Times ’ into Court. If the Parnellites refrained from this course the country would understand the reason of it. At which the House cheered significantly. Naturally there was frequent allusion to this subject in the course of the evening, but it was noticed that Mr Gladstone, who spoke for an hour and a-half, preserved complete silence in regard to it. Yet he could not have overlooked it, for the reason that he referred to the speech of Captain Colomb (who had immediately preceded him). ‘ The Times ’ refuses to accept Mr Parnell’s statement, and is endeavoring every day to incite either Mr Parnell himself or some of his followers to take legal proceedings against the paper for libel. It is stated that the editor of ‘ The Times ’ has in his possession eighteen incriminating documents signed by Mr Parnell, and that he intends to publish them at intervals. Next morning (Tuesday), ‘The Times ’ returned to the attack. Repeating that the letter was authentic, in its opinion, 'it declared its readiness to meet Mr Parnell or any of his colleagues who felt aggrieved in a Court of law. It also allowed us to understand that it had other incriminating documents at its command, which it would bring forward as circumstances dictated. The Irish Nationalist Press and the London correspondents who derive some of their inspiration from Irish quarters intimated on their side that Mr Parnell intended to take no further notice of ‘The Times.’ Upon the more general question of the charges made in the articles on “ Parnellism and Crime,” the political parties are, of course, widely at issue. Sir William Harcourt denounced them as rubbish days ago, and he has since, with Mr John Morley, adopted the dictum of Mr Gladstone, that the onus of proving the charges is upon the accuser. Mr Gladstone, indeed, expressed surprise that Lord Hartington should have had any other opinion on the subject, and went the length of saying that persons who ventured to make charges of this character without attempting to substantiate them “ ought to be shunned as pests of society.’ - Lord Salisbury, on the other hand, has publicly supported the view of Lord Hartingtou, that) the Parnellite members should bring ‘ The Times ’ into Court or bear the consequences. Lord Randolph Churchill suggests that the matter may be taken up by a committee of the House of Commons, to clear the honor of the House, but so far nothing has been done. ‘The Times’ is evidently very anxious to put Mr Parnell under cross-examination, but it hesitates to answer the queries as to the origin of the letter put by Mr John Morley and Sir William Harcourt among others. It is said, indeed, that it has cost ‘ The Times ’ as much as a couple of thousand pounds ; but this is, of course, au exaggeration. The whole body of Unionists refuse to believe Mr Parnell’s denial unless he takes steps against ‘ The Times,’ and their views were expressed by the Marquis of Salisbury, who, speaking at a Primrose League meeting on Wednesday, said : “Mr Parnell was bound to take advantage of the oppor- • tuuity of going into an English Court of Justice in order to disclaim in the most solemn manner the accusations that had been made, and to offer himself for crossexamination about them. ’ Mr Gladstone and his followers, however, see no reason why Mr Parnell should enter a Court of Justice to repeat his denials. In a speech at the Eighty Club, Mr Gladstone delivered his opinion that the charge need not be disproved, the denial which Mr Parnell had made dispensing him from the obligation of paying any further attention to his accusers. Mr Morley, Sir William Harcourt, and Mr Childers have all endorsed their leader’s expression of opinion, and the Radical Press is equally satisfied with Mr Parnell’s denial.

These remarks of the Gladstonian leaders led ‘ The Times ’ to write as follows :—“ No one has ever suggested that Mr Parnell should disprove the charges we have made against him. . . . We have proved our assertions as fully and conclusively as possible outside a Court of justice, and those who ask more proof, and at the same time deprecate an appeal to the Court, are, consciously or not, insincere. No one asks Mr Parnell to prove a negative. His task is the much simpler one of forcing us to prove a positive or undergo the appropriate punishment of failure. ” Mr Labouchere received from Mr Patrick Egan an emphatic denial of the statement that any letter such as the one produced in ‘ The Times ’ had ever been received by him. Mr Egan’s denial, however, is discounted by the fact that he also denies a statement that he presided at a supper in celebration of the Phcenix Park murders. ‘ The Times,' immediately after Mr Egan’s denial appeared, reprinted from the ‘lrish World,’ of May 16, 1885, an account of a dinner held on the anniversary, and in commemoration of the assassinations of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr Burke. At this banquet Mr Egan was present, and though he did not preside, he was on the committee of arrangements, and was one of .the after-dinner speakers. THE LEADERS ON THE STUMP.

There have been numerous important speeches outside Parliament. Mr Chamberlain spoke at Edinburgh, and he has since made frequent addresses to the crofters, among whom he is travelling. The Gladstonians have done what they could to prejudice the minds of the crofters against the right hon. gentleman, but, as it seems, with little effect. Mr Chamberlain is everywhere well received, and his tour promises great increase of his personal authority in the far North. Sis speeches show an increasing gulf between himself and the Gladstonian party. At Edinburgh he asked if Scotland was prepared to hand over the government of Ireland to a gang of “ ruffians,” meaning, of course, the Parnellites, and he did not hesitate to give the impression that Mr Gladstone would have agreed to a reunion of the Liberal party but for the influence of Mr Parnell. Lord Hartington and Mr Goschen were in Edinburgh to attend a banquet offered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by his old constituents. Lord Hartington again gave it as his opinion that we must have a final conflict with Irish'disaffection before any settlement of the Irish question could be attempted. When Mr Gladstone spoke to

the members of the Eighty Club he dealt with these points. They now saw, he said, the full object of the Crimes Bill. It was to put down a political party, and he argued that in supporting such a policy Lord Hartington and his allies would DO carried on until they would have to suspend all constitutional rights and privileges in Ireland. As to Mr Chamberlain’s suggestion that he bad interposed his authority to prevent the success of the Bound Table Conference because Mr Parnell would not moderate hb demands, Mr Gladstone declared that it was absolutely false, and then, turning the tables upon Mr Chamberlain, he said that the member for Birmingham and his allies had declined toco operate with the majority of the Liberal party on other than Irish questions. Speaking the next night, Mr Morley, at Wolverhampton, and Sir William Harcourt, in London, stated that the Round Table Conference broke down because Mr Chamberlain, whilst exhibiting the most conciliatory attitude in the private preliminary negotiations for the settlement of general principles, persisted in making public declaration that he would never surrender any of the matters for which he had contended, and that, therefore, there was not the slightest hope of arranging details. Mr Chamberlain has already declared, in regard to Mr Gladstone, that he never heard of any proposals for a general co-operation of Liberals on other than Irish questions, and that Mr Gladstone has always said that “ Ireland blocks the way,” I need not go farther in my narrative. It will be seen that matters are growing uncommonly hot between the Liberal factions. Mr Chamberlain does not hesitate to accuse the Home Rule leaders of obstruction, and of promoting a factitious agitation against the Government, and Mr Morley replies to the phrase about “ the ruffians ” of the Irish party by showing from an article which Mr Chamberlain published in the ‘ Fortnightly Review ’ a few months ago, that the member for Birmingham was at that time demanding the inclusion of Mr Parnell and his leading , colleagues In the Government of the country. IN IRELAND. In Ireland crime and outrage continue. Mr Hegarty, a Magistrate of Mill street. County Cork, was shot at and wounded the other night whilst returning to his house in a dogcart from the railway station; and Miss Lucy Thompson, a brave woman, who, lihe Mr Hegarty, has all along defied the Laud League to do its worst, has been thrown out of her conveyance through her horse falling over a telegraph wire which had been placed knee-high across the road. The horse was killed, but Miss Thompson escaped with a shaking, and was able to go home with her police escort. The Liberal Unionists of Ulster have had before them the Government Bills. They demand that the extension of summary jurisdiction conferred by the Crimes Bill shall only be exercised by a special class of Magistrates of high legal attainments, and that the change of venue to England shall be abandoned. As to the Land Bill, they declare the bankruptcy clauses to be exceedingly unsatisfactory, and that the Government should take up the whole of the recommendations of the Cowper commission. This was the line' of criticism adopted by Earl Spencer and other peers in the House of Lords last night, when the Bill came up for second reading, but the Conservatives, whilst expressing objection to the bankruptcy clauses, resisted alj suggestion to revise the judicial rents. The Government promise to introduce amendments in Committee.