Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-08-11
PARLIAMENT.
The ParnelI Commission Bill i'm
the Lords,

the Lords,
| LONDON, August, 1O.-In the Lords to.
day Salisbury moved the second reading
of the Parnell Commission bill. After re-
viewing the case at some length, he said
The gentleman incriminated did'not seek
legal redress in alleging that they dis
trusted British juries. If they thought
they could not obtain justice in England,
they could have sued in Ireland, but in
stead of adopting that course they reiter-
ated their demand for a committee of
the House of Commons. The Govern
ment considered the House incapable of
furnishing an impartial tribunal where
80 much personal and political feeling
was involved, and thought it better to
again resort to inquiry by commission.
The Government had full confidence
that Justice would be done, as it had nom-
mated three of the ablest and most i'm
partial judges. The charges against
these judges had not lfet the slightest
stain on the characters of
the distinguished men against
whom they were directed, but they had
covered with dishonoa, those who i'm
pugned them. The Commission would
close these controversies. 1t was not
well that members of the House of Com
mons should be accused in the most SOL
emn manner of having tampered with
murder. The truth should be known,
whatever might be the issue. The Gov
ernment was convinced it had done good
service in driving from the arena of po-
litical discussion this foul and scandalous
controversy.
Baron Herschell (LiberaD Indignantly
repudiated Lord Salisbury's insinuatiOn
on his (Herschell's) late colleagues for
having taken in the Commons the course
which they did. They were bound to
take it. He maintained that his friends
were in no way deserving of censure.
He regretted that committee of the
House had not been appointed.
He strongly protested against the doc
trine that if newspapers brought charges
against public man, the accused person
must be guilty of it if he did not imme-
diately sue for libel. If that doctrine
was to be applied it should be applied
impartially, and proof that it was not so
applied was furnished by the fact that
two members of the Government had
gone before the constituents of Con-
servative member against whom allega-
tions had been made and never refuted,
and respecting which he had never sued
for libel. The speaker defended Par
nell's course in not sueing for libel. Even
the justice of specifying and defining the
charges had been denied the Irish
members, and the Commission was
allowed to range through all the vague
allegations in series of anonymous
newspaper articles. Such an inquiry was
fraught with most dangerous injustice.
In composing the commission, one men,
ber at least should have been chosen who
was in political sympathy with the &C.
cused.
Salisbury said there were two fallacies
in Baron Herschell's speech. That gen.
tleman had assumed what was untrue,
namely, that the Government had any
interest in establishing the guilt of the
Irish members. On the contrary, if it
were shown that their political party
were not connected with crime, the fact
would conduce to the restoration of peace
and quietness in Ireland. Baron Her.
schell had also falsely assumed that the
Government was being treated as the
prosecutor. The duty it had endeavored
to discharge was to select a tribunal of
the highest perfect impartiality. He be-
lieved the Government had successfully
discharged that duty.
Lord Kimberly (LiberaD denounced
the course taken by the Government.
Earl Granville declared that Baron Her
schell's argument had not been answered.
Lord Derby liberal Unionist) supported
the bill. The bill then passed second
reading.
The Peers on the front opposition
bench not being content, on motion of
Baron Herschell second reading of the
Oath bill was postponed until the autumn
session.