Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-07-25

The Commf.sion niif Dsssec;ed and
thc Enrontery OF the Govern
meut Described.

mons tonight Mr.. Laseucbere resumed tho
debate on the c,nmission bill He said he
had ~ low an opinion Of the TINES as most
people could have. but not so low as that OF
Mr. Mathews, who seemed TO think the
Times would plead the night OF privilege re.
specting certstn letter on the ground that
the letter had pes been published In the
Times. bat oaly read by Dir. Webster, the
attorney general, in court during toe recent
trial Of O'Donneil. The commission, he said.
was no. a. rood tribunal upon these matters
10 Parliament Nothree judges en the bench
could 80 well sdiudicate these questions as
The House OF Commons. The commission
had power to indemnify any rufhan who
would eriminate bimself, provided be was
accommodating enough to incriminfte some
one else. IL was fishing. The commission in
tended to evade the real issue TO be decided.
The circumstances showed, for instance,
that Egan and O'Bierne could not appear.
Yet IN their absence the com mission was TO
investigate their conduct and TO listen 10 the
charges while these gentlemen had not sut-
acient chance TO rebuff the Adverse testimony.
Mr. Matthess had said that .idoned scope
Of inquiry might reveal some undiscovered
murder. Did that mean that the members
OF Parliament against whom the Oil was d..
recisd were muTderers Hear! Hear j
w Quiz tue HOUSE kOfrEdff iufNt NdIut lNrtI-
uations? Could they suffer the commission
10 begin the inquiry without The usual SAFE
guards for the accusedf Never was the
efirontery OF the Government so somplete
as " ben they said the commission was granted
at the request OF the Parusliites, while IN the
meantime tho Government was arranging
with the Times what sort OF
commission should be proposed and what
ought 10 be the scope Of the inquiry.
The commission bin was actually framed by
tho Times and promoted by the Government
in order 10 divert attention from the mis-
chieyous proceedings In Ireland. The Op-
position wanted an tpquiry, but II was into
the conduct Of the Government Thew want
to know about the murders at hitchestown
and about the murder Of Vaudeville. Hear
Hear i He proposed moving that the com-
mission bill receive its second reading that
day six months hence, but Mr. Parnell was
anxious TO come before any tribunal and
urged him to withdraw the motion. lie
Lsbouchere) bad no hope Of getting the bill
altered in tie committee, but on the third
reading IL would be seriously considered
whether the Opposition ought TO allow Mr..
Parnell to walk into the trap which had
been get for him. [Cheers.l
Mr. Chamberlain ssld that Mr.. Labouchere
had developed his w0nied cynical VEN in
imputng TO bis political opponents mean
and unworthy motives. Many members
were now incredulous, sud the charges
Sgainst Mr. Paruell still deserved the fullest
inquiry. lie himself had sat beside and CO.
operated with Mr.. Parneli, and bad formed
an opinion Of blr. PsrnelPs character for
honesty, sincerity, and patriotism which
would make him slow TO accept the charges
against HIM. lie had been active IN securing
the release Of Mr.. Parnell from kilmenham
ial. The only thing that could shake his
confidence was Mr.. ParnelPsreluctlnco toface
the charges. [Cheers and shouts Of "NO'l
Mr.. PsrBel felt that he could not trust
an English Jury. That distrut was not
shared by any English or Scotch members.
An English Jury might be trusted to do JUS
uce. II not Mr.. Paruell could have gone be-
fore Dublin Jury, lllearl Herr IL was
surprising that he did not DO 50. II was
more sururisiug that the Parnelites sought
10 curtail aud hamper the Inquiry. THIS vas
an extraordinary judicial proceeding. II 1t
was restricted it might be used to shield the
gully parties. MIR. Parnell and his friends
were charged with completely with great
crimes. How were they going 10 show them
selves innocent unless the inquiry covered
tho relations between the members OF the
House Of Commons and persons outside
who we're accused OF crime! Regarding
the statement that it was necessary 10
formulate definite charges against the Par
uellites he said that specific charges would
be made. The Government being party To
the indictments aHd whatever the Parnelltes
might say IN the heat Of debate, he did not
believe that they thought the Government a
party 10 the accusations or the Iimes.
ICries OF ooh - "Oh :" and \ Oh too y
The Parnellites, Mr.. Chamberlain eontended,
! Ought not to grudge prolonged Inquiry to
bring out the truth. 1t would be an expen'
siye undertaking, but in the event OF conclus
siye judgment The Government ought 10 Al
low a reasonable part Of the expenses OF the
successful party 10 be paid by the nation.
(" Hear Ilearl"l
Sir William HarcouFt held that IN defence
OF the bin offered IN behalf OF the Govern.
ment there was the least possible reference
TO the letters which were the occasion for
demanding an inquiry. The Government
eYaaed the question in regard 10 these let
tcrs and tried under cover Of an inquiry to
make an attack upon thtir political oppO-
ncnts. II Judges were TO act on the judicial
principles in conducting the inquiry the
charges must be specific. II 1t wss judicial
tribunal who we're 10 be arragned and what
were the accusations they Werc required 10
meetS IL sir Richard Webster believed one
single charge that he had tried 70 tx upon
Mr.. Psrnell as counsel Of the Times, it was
his duty az attorney for the Crown 10 indict
Mr.. PsrneIi. [ilear! Hear j The proof that
be did not believe the charges was found In
the fact that he did not advise the Govern
ment TO risk the prosecution. Nobody In
Sir Richard Webster's position had ever
taken such an extraordinary and uuiusti-
l.. a sffrarr dow a
half In making statements 81 damuilFing
character Of men and p elgipg hImseIftO prove
statements and yet Afterwards eDtTeating the
Court TO allow them 10 issue without proof.
Hear Hear Il This course was entirely con.
Irary to the traditions OF the bar. The real
object was TO blast the reputation Of the
leaders u the Irish Natilnll party. [Pirnell-
tie cheersl Would Parliament assent to
an inquiry which implied simply an endeavor
to ascertain whether the hOcus.pOcuS speech
of Sir Richard Webster had the basis OF
truth! Was Mr.. smith prepared to answer
the charge that be had had a personal inter-
view with the proprietor OF the Times, and
had arranged the charges against the Par
nelites and agreed to the appointment OF
commission to be worked as subsidiary
agent TO the coercion act? [Ilear Hear J
The crimes alleged against The ParUelites
were chiefly committed during the Liberal
naturalization, yet throughout the close and
anxious inquiry the Liberal Ministers were
upable to discover any evidence linking the
league or Mr.. Parnell with those crimes.
(Checrs.l The opposition objected to the
present form OF the bill. As now framed
the bill was violation Of every form Of iu-
dlcial inquiry and thoroughly unfair to the
accused, and 1t must be amended in the COM
mittee.
MIR. T. ". Healey denounced SIR Richard
Webster for making the series Of infamous
charges and then decll1ng to prove them.
Patrick Ford was AZ honesta man As Sir Rich
ard Webster; be ought TO say an hOnester
man. ["Iear! Hear 81 The Irish members
must decline 10 submit TO this fishing in-
quiry. They wanted definite charges. The
commission might say 10 him, You were
born in 1855. What did YOU do next? q"
[Lsughter.l And 30 they might 70 on. In
euily 10 be effective must be definite.
Several other members having spoken, SIR
Richard Webster said as he had taken In
O'Donuell the action precluded bis taking
part In the debate. In regard 10 the charges
against him he was content 10 leave his con-
duet to the judgment OF those who had bad
experience OF him IN his profession. He
thought 1t right. however, 70 state that every
step In that action be had taken was after
consulfafion with and with the full con.