WHAT THE TIMES PROMISED.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVII, Issue 2, 3 May 1889, Page 7

WHAT THE TIMES PROMISED.

(The Nation, March 2.) Now that the attempt of the Times to establish the authenticity of the letters has so ignominiously failed, it is all-important to recall the promises and assertions it originally made concerning them. It will be seen that in face of their repeated and most confident statements, Messrs. Smith, Walter, and the rest cf the Pigottists will find themselves unabl« to wriggle out of what is for them a more than awkward position. Had the Times represented these alleged letters to be merely a trivial point in its case and of no moment whatever there might now be eooae loop-hole for escape. Bat as a matter cf fact it was not until the prospect of a strict judicial inquiry confronted it that it veitured to hint they were other than iha central and weightiest eviience. And even then, at the very moment when for ■ ita own ends it wished to obscure them, it 3'i'l asse^e-ated it s ability and readiness to establish their genuineness by overwhelming and incontestable proofs.

It was the morning of thi day fixed for the second reading of the Coercion Bill that the Time* selected for the publicatioa the first of thess letters. '' We do not think it right, ran the pref ice to the now f&moua fac-similr, " to withhold any longer the fact that we possess, and have had ia our custody for some time, documentary evidence which has a most serious bearing on the Paraellite conspiracy, and which, after a most careful and minute scrutiny, is, we are satisfied, quite authentic." And again, in a leadf rof the same issue, it styles this " a document, the grave importance of wh eh it would be difficult to over-estimate." "It is," it addei, " a facsimile of a letter from Mr. Parnell, written a week after the Phneux Park murders, excusing bis public condemnation of the crirn^, and distinctly condoning, if nut approving, the murder of Mr. Burke." On the following day it ridiculed Mr. Parnell for denouncing the letter as a villainous forgery, again declared its own firm belief in the letter's authenticity, and challeutfed him to test the point before a court of law. "Wd pay no attention whatever," it went on, "to Mr. ParneU's big words, and if he should proceed to apply the only test by which the tnth can be plaialy brought before the world, we are quite prepared to meet him." In the issue of the next day yet another article appeared to the satns effect, and Mr. Parnell's indignant disclaimers were pronounced " impudent assertions." On the 2lst of April, it expressed its disregard whether he attempted to vindicate his character or did not. If he did it " would substantiate the charges/ aud if he abstaiued •' thj world would see that the opportunity of doing ho in the only way which is beyoni the reach of interested cavil," was ihus withheld from it. And '• the world " continued the article, " will draw its conclusions, which, we venture to say, will nr>t be those of the gentlemen who, being tied to Mr. Parnell's chariot, na'urally dislike to have attention called to the blood on the wuielp."

Four days later the Times once more acknowledged the seriousness of the position it had taken up. " Often when great public interests were at siake we have faced very serious risks under a harsh libel law, in tie fulfilment: of our duty. But never have we acted under a graver sense of responsibility— under a stronger conviction of obligation— than in the present controversy." In, if possible, more explicit term 3 than ever ihe charge of criminal conspiracy and complicity in murder was urged against the Irish leader in the first week of July ; and the recognition of the na'ure and gravity sf the charge waß again clearly expressed, and the responsibility it entailed acknowledged :— " We nave declared our readiness to produce documents showing the close relations between Mr Parnell and Egan in regard to tne expenditure of the i and League funds, showing that Carey wai paid by Egan, and urged by him to get to work and give »s value for our money ; showing that Mr. Parnell, when in Kilinaiaham, was angry for the ' inexcusable inaction' of his friends out>ide, reminding Kgun that he had undertaken 'to maks it h.>t for old Forster and Co ' and calling on him to give some evidence of h s power to do so ; saowiDg that when Frank Byrne fled from the

kingdom to avoid trial on a charge of complicity in the Phoenix Park murders, it was Mr. Parnell who supplied the funds for his escape, and finally showing that Mr. Parnell has repeated more than once, in apologetic letters addressed to members of the extreme party, th* carious admissions contained in the document we published in facsimile on the 18th of April, 1887, These charge*, wa acknowledge, are 'grave' and 'terrible,' as Lord Coleridge calls them. Wa hava brought them forward, however, under the fullest sense of responsibility, and with perfect readiness that they should be sifted to the bottom." When the debate was going on in the House relative to tha appointment of an inquiry into the charges aod allegations, the Tlmtt used the followins words — "As for the letters which Mr. Paras! 1 apparently wishes to makj the exclusive subject cf inquiry, we mean to prove i hem " , aad subsequently, oa the day of the second reading of the Bill which constituted the present CjmroHsion — " Wo intend to prove that the letters were penuine to the satisfaction of any tribunal whatever "'

From these quotations it mu9t be clear to even the dullest of comprehension what value the Times placed on these letters and how confidently they relied on Mr Parnell's being unable to discredit them. And when the evidence giveo by Messrs Soames. and MacDonald ia remembered, there can be very little douot that this con* fUence was not based on a know, edge of their unassailable character. The Times manager instituted no inquiries as to the source fro a which the letters were got ; according to his owi account he was a* easily satisfied in their regard as the Lord Lieutenant is of the legal attainments of the ''Removable" magistrates. But one opinion would seem tenable, and it is that the Times must hava counted either on the charges being allowed to go unrebutted by the accused, or that, in the event ot their taking up the challenge, the case would have gone gone before a jury who would aave accepted the evidence of the " expert," Mr. Ing Us, as sufficient, thus precluding any necessity for the production of Pigott, It ha°, however, in this reckoned without its boat. And now ita assertions hare proved to be the foulest of calumnies and its promises the basest of lies.