" PARNELL V. THE TIMES."

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVI, Issue 27, 26 October 1888, Page 29

" PARNELL V. THE TIMES. "

TO THK EDITOB N.Z. T ABLET.

Sir, — Considering the large space you devote every week to the presenting of a clear and a true account of each new stage of th* great Irish National movement before your readers, it seems, perhaps, somewhat unreasonable to make further encroachments on youf space, especially from this district, which is so well represented by your excellent Christchurch correspondent. However, as I have no means of attaining my object except through your columns, perhaps you will allow me to, this time, become an exception to my otherwise usual rule of not being unnecessarily troublesome.

In the Christchurch Star of last Saturday (the 13th) appeared a letter from what was termed a London correspondent, entirely devoted to the proceedings that had taken place between Mr. Parnell and the Times. The writer, with a very free hand, and with very few scruples, and with not the slightest regard for trath, besmirched the character of Mr. Parnell and all engaged in the National movement — not forgetting, of course, to give a few daubs to the priests and peasantry. I thought it a pity that the editor of the Star, who could be expected to know little about the movement, Bhould be deceived by thia Cockney slander-monger, and that in tarn the readers of the Star should be deceived by such brazen calumny. I went to the trouble of getting some correct information for Mr. Bditor aud his readers, and forwarded it to the editorial sanctum. Bat no — truth and facts, it appears do not suit — not payable qualities, I suppose, in the columns of tho Star— lies and fiction on the Irish question — misrepresenting the great movement in which millions of our countrymen have their hearts, and raising prejudices by such means ia the hearts of our fellow-colonists. This is the species of •' information " which the editorial liberality that sparkles in the Star admits to its columns, and allows to enlarge and spread itself amongst the people ; but it must never be contradicted. To ask you, sir, to publish the letter which he refused is not so much my object in writing as to draw the attention of my countrymen in this district to the fact that they should be very careful not to help to support, nor in any way keep in existence, a publication that takes such opportunities to slander their country and tbeir religion, and that stifles the principles of liberality that should regulate the actions of colonists one to the other.— l am, etc.,

Justice.

TO THE EDITOB, OP THE "STAB."

Sir, — A London correspondent is doubtless a necessary adjunct to a colonial paper, so much so, that I suppose he is considered as enjoying an immunity from criticism not accorded to ordinary mortals. Perhaps, sir , to a great extent this is necessary to his periodioal appearance in your columns. Like the rest of us, being mortal, hia inventive genius must be often sorely taxed to keep up the round of fresh and interesting gossip that is usually looked for as a relaxation from the worry and bustle of a day's work.

On this score this species of entertainer has, I suppose, become recognised as a useful member of the fourth estate, and on this account much allowance is made for his occasional excursions beyond the realms of truth, provided always that what he trifles with ia not too extensive for the scope of his understanding, nor yet so serious or important as to matter much whether he is relating facts or fiction. But it becomes lastly different when he comes to play on a subject so serious and capable of such weighty consequences as that which at present engages the attention cf the leading minds of Great Britain, aud has taken a hold on the public mind as no othar subject has done since the days of Warren Hasting?. Not alone is this interest confined to Great Britain, but it has spread to every part of the Englishspeaking world, where libaral-minded men have been found, who, rcc-iguising the shameful class tyranny that so long existed in Ireland, app'auded and Hupporced the men who had eet themselves to levelling to the ground this hoary-headed despotism that has made the name of Ireland a reproach to the British Empire.

Mr. Pnrnell and the Members who work under his leadership have had thj moral and material support of a great proportion of this Colony ; and now when they are charged by the London Times with being aiders and abettors of heinous crimes, and when the truth of theße charges is about being tested, it is due to us of this Colouy who have given our mite of assistance, that they bo not prejudged in the minds of our fellow-colonists through the clap-trap assertions of a manifestly prejudiced writer.

On the ground that what is worth knowing at all is worth know* ing tho truth about, I be^ permission to make a few remarks on the letters of your London correspondent, which appeared in last Saturday's Star. After relating what he calls a " further development in the Parnell case," and after telling us that several of his lieutenants have given notice of similar actions against the Times, your correspondent^ a vein of grim sarcasm, asks — " Why this sudden sensitiveness to clear their tarnished honour on the part of these gentlemen, whea for the past fifteen months they have refused to take any such steps, in the face of the taunts of foes aid the entreaties of friends ? " In case we , of Cnristchurch, should fail in the answer, he supplies it in these words :—": — " The answer seems to be that a full inquiry having become inevitable when the Parnell Commission Bill was passed, Mr. Paraell and his friends have brought their actions, which are stiictly limited (as they wished the Commission to be) to the question of the forged letters, hoping that the Times will be unable or unwilling to produce the witnesses with regard to these, or to declare how they came into

to hands, so that the main issues may be obscured, and the Time* punished for libel on this point." To those who have read the history of the cate, and the debates oc the subject in the Imperial Parliament, j£be biassed nature of such a version is at once evident, and smacks rank Toryism. It is untrue in so far as Mr. Parnell and his fellowmembers did not persistently refuse in the face of friends and foes to take steps to clear their •• tarnished honours." Instead of that, they took immediate steps. But somehow they omitted to make known to the Timst, to the Tory Government, or to London correspondents the steps they were quietly but determinedly taking to demonstrate to the world the absolute truth of these letters being forgeries of a teriibly vindictive and unscrupulous nature. At the time they, as prudent men knowing the nature of their task, contented themselves with a plain and emphatic denial from their places in I Parliament. They knew well the money power that was behind the Time* to bay for the witness-box any amount of false swearers. They knew well that it would take longer than a day or a week to get to the bottom of this vast conspiracy, aimed at a nation through its representatives, in order to alienate the sympathy which a great English democracy was giving to Ireland in its straggle for constitutional rights. When we consider the power of their opponents— the Times and Tory Government — fifteen months were not ill spent in laying the train which was to burst up the conspiracy and bring the gloating " Thunderer " to bis knees. Tour correspondent says :—": — " Mr. Parnell and bis friends did not bring thtir action till an enquiry became inevitable before the .Parnell Commission." This opinion may satisfy the prejudice of your correspondent, but it does not Batisfy truth and justice. Let us hear what Mr, Parnell says in the debate on the Commission Bill in the House of Commons on July 23 :—": — " It is well I should direct the attention of the House to the history of this question. I originally asked for a select committee to enquire into the statements affecting Members of this House, and into the genuineness and authenticity of the letters in which those statements were made." Let us remember that it was tbese letters which gave rise to the charges, that it was on their genuineness the Times 1 case depended. The substance of ithete letters, therefore, became the main charge. But the Government, in this Commission Bill, wiahing to shirt raising definite issues, Mr.Parnell goes on to say: "Now I will show you that this Bill proposes to enquire not into my conduct, and not into the conduct of any of my Parliamentary fiiends, but into the whole agitation of the Land League in America, Ireland, and Great Britain. If you want an enquiry into the Land League, say so. Bring in a Bill for the purpose; we shall know what to gay to it. It is very odd that although the Land League came into existence close on ten years ago, it never occurred to the right hon. gentleman to move for a commission of enquiry into its proceedings until these forgeries, these infamous forgeries came to light." Mr. Parnell then goes on to tell the House that this Commission Bill was not introduced for the purpose of allowing him to clear bis character, so much as for the purpose of casting discredit en a great Irish movement, and of allowing the Times to escape Irom the break down of the charges, which he says the Government and the Attorney- General know full well will break down. Hence Parnell, not to be baulked by such tactics, brings his action for libel before the High Court of Scotland. Your correspondent most ludicrously complains that Mr. Parnell limits bis action to the forged letters which are the main charges. He wants it, like the Commission Bill, to suit the Times. Of this Commission Bill, the Irish leader sa^s :—": — " The inquiry is to be into every conceivable thing, an inquiry which I 6ay wecinnot see the limits of within less than two years. lamto be put to the expense of finding counsel to attend the proceedings of this inquiry in this country, in Ireland, in America, in France, wherever the judges think it necessary to send commissioners, for the purpose of clearing myself from forgeries which, if the enquit y nent to tJte point, 1 know I could demonstrate to conviction within a week ; and this is the fairness of the right hon. gentleman " (the leader of the Government in the House). Sir Charles Russell, one of the foremost English lawyers, says on the same subject : " For hia own part, he would infinitely prefer an action for libel before the most bigoted and partisan jury in London to a tribunal constituted upon the unfair and disadvaitageons terms proposed by the Government. There was no precedent for What was proposed, and he wanted to know whether the enquiry was to be conducted according to the rules of legal evidence or whether the charges which the Times made against the Member for Cork were to be supported by mere gossip." Sir William Harcourt is rather more emphatic on the point. He says : " This Bill teems to be framed in the same spirit, to endeavour to confuse the issues — to endeavour, as counsel for the Titties had done, to bring before the Court matters which were not the matters to be tried — to endeavour, by a sidewind, to damage the character of men in a matter in which they have no defence. What we have asked is that the charges should be defined. They may be defined by the Member for Cork. He stating the charges which he considered te> be brought against him and which he desired to refute, or they may be stated by the Thnes as being the charges they are prepared to allege and to prove." " What we protest against is that any man, even an Irish Member, should be called upon to plead to a sort of a hotch-potch of miscellaneous slander. As I say the very essence of justice is to make it clear to the accused, and to everybody, what the accused is to be charged with. What is the use of saying you are unprecedentlygeaeroui when you offer men who have been personally libelled a form of enquiry which gives them no personal redress. It it quite plain that no* the main charges are put in tlte background. The Commission is not instituted for the purpose of inquiring into *^fc is understood as ' Pamellism and Crime,' but its main and &m \ry object is to rvage war -upon tlve National League, It is conceived in the spirit of a general political prosecution." Now, sir, this is by high authorities a description cf this Commission of three judges — some of them known to be men of strong anti Irish viewi — which Mr. Parnell has been diasatisfied with, from which he has tamed in seeming despair to the High Court cf Justice in Scotland, hoj.ing that vn neutral ground he will meet an impartial

judge and jury. So you see by a closer knowledge of the affair we can learn that instead of Parnell and his *' lieutenants " wishing to obscure the issues, that it is the Times and the Government that want to fight ahy of the main issues. Knowing so much, sir, we cannot but look upon the remaining portion of your correspondent's letter as being unworthy of respectable journalism. His reference to Captain O'Sbea and bis wife are contemptible, in the absence of clear proof to bear out such gossip. His allusion to the Galway election presents that affair in a distorted shape. If Mr. Parnell bad shown a preference for Captain O'Shea at that time, it was because the latter was largely instrumental in arranging what it called the " Eilmainham Treaty," by which the Irish leader was released from prison. Bat admitting, for the sake of argument, that the Tunes proves all in respect to Parnell's gallantry to which your correspondent hints, that will not save the Times from the consequence of its libel nor take from the merit of Mr. Parnell as a great political leader ; for allow me, an Irishman, to tell your correspondent that, though much we prise Charles Stewart Parnell as a politician and an Irish patriot, yet the Irish people are sufficiently discriminating, and not so childish, that they need make a microscopic examination of any public man's inner life for the purpose of discovering a model by which to mould their private virtues. If we will not take our politics from Rome, neither will we take our religion from our politicians. They may be of any religion, or of none. One would imagine, by the way your correspondent has written, that every great English statesman's private character was spotless and immaculata. His reference to the Irish priesthood and peasantry are worthy of the worst days of Exeter Hall.— l am, etc., Justicdi.