The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-08-11
THE PARNELL COMMISSION
An Interesting Debate in the House of
Lords on the Pending Measure.
Premier Salisbury Defends the Bill and Baron
Herschell Warmly Espouses the Cause Of
the N~atiOnalistS - Cable Notes.


Of the Parnell commission bill. In recent years.
he said. the agitation in Ireland had gone on
two parallel lines. One party profsssed to act
constitutionally, and. to q certain extent, so
acted; the other party was connected with crime.
violence, intimidation. mutilation and murder.
which means were used to intimidate ~constitu-
tional opponents and to force from England the
concession of q change which England was not
prepared to grant. These organizations had
been professedly apart, but they worked for the
same ends; they had the same frienes and
eDemies, and injured the sam persons.
An impression had naturally arisen
that they were not so far apart as they seemed
to be, and that there was completely or connec-
ton between them. The Times had published
that opinion and supported it by an array Of ap-
parent facts in justification. This excited scan
dal as a breach Of privilege Of the House Of
Commons. which body refused to treat it as
such, or to enter into q conflict with the press.
Still, it was desirable that means be provided to
dissipate the scandal. Ordinarily, men who
were accused Of completely in murder tried to
clear themselves legally, but the gentlemen in
eliminated refused to take that course. although
the government offered them every assistance
in its power. Instead of taking the case into
the courts, tho gentlemen accused proposed
to refer the matter to o committee Of the
approved either by the government or by the
House. The matter was allowed to rest until
the ODonnel tpial, which changed tho scandal
from resting merely on a newspaper statement
INTO statement made by re-
s%2onsible counsel in a court Of justice.
Still, the gentlemen i~ncriminatee did not seek
legal redress, alleging that they distrustad
British jurles. If they thought they could not
obtain justice in England they could have sued
in Ireland. but instead OF adopting that course
they reiterated their demand for q committee Of
the House eff Commons. The government con-
sidered the House incapable of furnishing an i'm
partial tribunal where SO much personal and po-
htlcal feeling was involved, and thought
1t better to again resort to an inquiry by q COM
mission, a course which had proved successful
In the cases Of the board OF works. the Sheffield
outrages, and the changes of electoral corrup-
ton. He believed the commission would do
good by ending controversies OF the most dan
gerous kind. Tie government had full conf
dence that justice would be done, as it had
nominated three of the ablest and most i'm
partial judges. Men who should have known
better had impugned the impartiality Of the
judges selected. These charges had
not left the slightest stain on the charac-
ters of the distinguished men against whom
they were directed, but they had
covered with dishonor the lips which inpugned
them. The commission would close these
the House of Commons should be accused IN the
most solemn manner of having tempered with
murder. The truth should be known. whatever
might be the issue. The government was con-
WINGED that 1t hac done good service in driving
from the arena Of political discussion this foul
and scandalous controversy.
Baron Herschell (Liberal) Indignantly repudi-
sted Lord Salisbury's insinuations upon his
Herschelrs-late colleagues for having tekenin
the House of Common a course which, holding
the views they did. they were bound to take. He
maintained that his friends were IN no way de-
serving of censure. The commission bill was
unfortunate in its origin, scope and object,
and in the incidents connected with its passage
through the House Of COMMONS The measure
formed q most novel precedent. and one that was
fraugnt with danger. He regretted that a COM
mittee of the House Of Commons had not been
appointed. He strongly protested agaiuet the
doctrine that if newspapers brought charges
against a public man the accused person must
be guilty il he did not Immediately spe for libel.
IL that doctrine was to be applied, it should be
applied impartially, and proof that it was not SO
applied was furnished by the fact thatrwo MEM
bers Of the government had gone to support be-
fore his constituents a Conservative member
against whom allegations had been made and
never refutN, and respecting which he had
never sued for libel. The speaker defended Mr..
Parnells course in not suing for libel. The
government had offered Mr.. Parnell the hard al
tentative OF either accepting such q commission
or mourning reproach for Sinking an inquiry.
In justice the inquiry should have been confined
ts the charges against the Irish members, but.
contrary to their understanding, when they &C.
copied the commission, the inquiry had been ex-
tended to others. involving every one engaged
in the league agitation for the last nine years.
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 q series of
anonymous newspaper articles. Such an
inquiry was fraught with the most
dangerous injustice. In composing the COM
mission one member at least should have been
chosen who was IA political sympathy with the
accused; or. it shyuld have been ascertained that
no objection could be taken to any of the judges
appointed.
Lord CarnarvOO~ spoke In support OF the sec
ond reading of the bill.
Lord Salisbury said that there were two falla-
cies in Baron Berschelfs speech. That gentle
man had assumed what was untrue, namely,
that the government had any interest in estab-
lishine the guilt of tho Irish members. On the
contrary, if il were shown that their political
party was not connected with crime, the fact
would conduce to the restoration Of
peace and quietness in Ireland. Baron
that the government had originated the inquiry,
whereas the Irish members themselves had
originated il by asking for an inquiry by q COM
mittee of the HOUSE Of Commons. The inquiry
would not be confined to the authenticity of the
Times's letters. or to the conduct of particular
persons. AL the facts must be taken together.
He protested against the government being
treated as a prosecutor. The duty it had en-
deavored TO discharge was to select a tribunal
of the highest competence and the most perfect
impartiality, whose decision would carry
weight and ommand the respect OF the country.
He believed the government had successfully
discharged that duty.
Lord Kimberly (Liberal) denounced the course
doubt that the judges would discharge their
duties in an impartial and upright manner, he
bad heard remarks from eminent men which
convinced him that q great error had been COM
mitted in the composition of the commission.
The consequences would be to ag-
eravate evil passions, revive the
memory of many things that might
we'll be forgotten. increase the bitterness
between the English and Irish, and retard the
establishment of improved relations between the
two countries.
Earl Granville declared that Baron Herschelfs
had not been answered. Nothing
had been said to show that the inquiry would
not be fraught With injustice 10 the ac-
cused and with mischief to the public. As for
himself, he could not separate his action from
that Of his friends in the House of Commons.
He would not oppose q second reading or the
bill, but he would oppose its rapid progress
through the subsequent stages.
Lord Derby Liberal Unionistl supported the
bill.
The bill then passed its second reading. the
peers on tRo front opposition bench saying mot
| content"
On motion of Baron Hsrschell. the second