The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-08-11
The aouss OF Lords.

LONDON, August 10.-In the House OF
Lords to-day, Salisbury moved a SEC
ond reading of the ParnelI CO omission
bill, after reviewing tbs case at some
length, he said the gentiem ea incrimi-
mated did not seek legal redress, al,eg-
ing that they distrus ted British juries.
II they thought they could not obtain
jls:i-e in England ttey could have
sued in Ireland, bu: i4stead OF adopting
that course they reiterated their
demand tor committee of the House
of Go mmOns. The government consjd-
cred the House il capable OF furnishing
an impartial tribunal where SO much
personal aud political feeling was in
YolVed, and thought it bett-r to again
resort to inquiry by commission. The
government had ful, conf 1ence that
justice would be done as it had nomin-
led three of the ablest and most i'm
partial judges. The charges against
these judges had not ft the Sigh test
stain on the chara tiers of the distin-
gulshed men against whom they were
directed, but they had covered with
dishonor the ship which impugned them.
The commission would close these con-
troversies. 1t was not we'll
that members of the House of Com
mons should be accused in the most
solemn manner of having tempered
with the matter. The Truth should
be known whatever might te the issue.
rhe government was convinced it had
done good service in driving rom the
arena of political discussion this foul
and soandalous controversy.
Baron Herschell Q:bera) ,dignantiy
repudiated Lord Salisburv's insinua
tons of his (Herschell's) colleagues for
having taken in the Commons course
which, holding views they did, they
were bound to take, He main tanned
that his friends were in no way deserv-
ing of censure. He regretted that the
committee of fhe House had not been
against the doctrine that il
the newspapers bring charges
against the public men,
the accused person must be guilty if
he did no; Immediately 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 to support
before his constituents, a Conservative
member against whom allegations had
been made and never refuted, and re-
specting which he had never sued for
lioel. The speaker defended Parneli's
course in not suing for libel. Even the
justice of specifying and defining the
charges had been denied Irish mem
bers, and the commission was allowed
to range through all the vague allega-
tons in the series of anonymous
newspaper articles such an inquiry was
fraught with most dangerous injustice
In composing the commission one
member at least should have been
chosen who was in political sympathy
with the accused.
Salisbury said thsre were two falicies
in Baron Herochem Herschell's speech.
That gentleman had assumed what was
untre, namely that of gov eminent
had any interest in establishing the
guilt of Irish members. On the con-
trary, if it we're shown that their politi-
cal party was not connected with the
crime. the fact would conduce to res
toration OF peace and quietness in Irer
land Baron Herschell had also falsely
assumed that the government had
| originated the inquiry. Ee protested
rg4lnst the government being treated
is prosecutor. The duty it mad en-.
deavored 10 discharge was one to select
tribunal of the highest perfect impair
ially He believed the government
had successfully discharged that duty.