New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-08-11
SALJSBURY'S ATTACK MET.
RaRoN HERsCHELLs PROMPT REPLY.


BARON HERSCHELl'S PEOAlfI hEfL1.
rur BRITISH PRIME MINISTER MAKES BITTER |
SPEECH ON THE PARNELL INQUIRY.
London. Aug lO.--In the House of Lords to-day |
fo,a Salisbury moved the second reading of the |
parnell Commission bill In recent years. he said,
Tho agitation in Ireland had gone on two parallel
limos One party profcssed to act constitutionally,
and 70 certain extent so ected; the other party
,,-.s connected with crime violence, intimidation,
rortilation and murder, which means were used to
,n,jmdatc constitutional opponents and to force
from England the conc csson of a change which
England was not prepared to grant. These Or
eanizations had been profcsscdly apart, but they
worked for the same ends; the hid the same
friends and enemies and injured the same persons.
An impression had naturally arisen that they
were really not far apart as they seemed TO DE-
and that there was completely or connection D.
tween them. The Times" had published that
opinion and supported it by an array oil apparent
facts in justification. This excited seaman @s
a breach Of privilege of the House OF commons
which body refused TO treat 1t as sucn OF "
enter into conflict with the press. o'il" ~
was desirable that means be provided 10 uiSSip"'c
the scandal Ordinarily men accused Oh coni-
nlcitv in murder tried to clear themselves legally
but the gentlemen incriminated refuse 10 take
that course. although the Government offered them
o,.orv assistance in its power. Instead OF taking
the cose into the courts the gentlemen accused
proposed TO refer the matter to committee Oh
the House of Commons course when WAS ho'
approyed either by the Government or py 'lc
uorsc The matter was allowed to rest untl
the O'Donncll trial. which changed the scahu"i
from resting merely on newspaper sta'emchV
Into statement made by responsible couiiSel III
a court of Justice Still the gentlemen hcrlnii-
rated did not seek legal redress alleging that they
II
could not obtain Justice in England they couu
have sued in Ireland but instead of adopting that
conrse they reiterated their demand for COM
mittec OF the House OF Commons
Tho Government considered the House lncapaDlc
Of furnishing an impartial tribunal where so
much personal ard political feeling was lhNoNV"'
and thought it better again to resort 10 an III
orirr nv commission. a course which had proved
successful in the cases of the Board of Works,
the Sheffield outragcs and the charges oil ciec'ora,
corruption lie bc!icNod the commission Wouiu
do GOOD by cvsCing co1 tIovcrsies OF the hoS'
dangerous kind. The Government had full con-
fdence that Justice would h. done, as IL had NOM
mated three e. the ablest and most Impartial
Judges. Men who should have known Detter
had impugned the mpartiality Of the Judges
selected These charges had not left the sllgh'cs'
stain on the character of the distinguished men
AGAINST whom they were directed, but they hau
covered with diShonor the lips which lmpusnco
them The commission would close these cohlro-
, yersics. It.sw not well that members VI 'io
Uouse Of Commons should he accused in the
most solemn manner of having tampered WIN
murder The truth should be known Whatever
might be the issue. The Government was con-
vinced that it had done good service in driving
from the arena of political discussion thls loui
and scandalous controversy; ~, l;
Raron Herschell Libcral Indignantly repudl'
ated Lord Salsburys lnslnuaton upon Ms ~, tho
schelrs) late colleagues for having taken III @ .ie
House of Commons course which, holdlhg Ine
views they did, they were bound to take ne
maintained that his friends were In no way ue-
serving of ccnsurc The Commission bill was uh-
fortunate in its origin, scope and object ana IN
the incidents connected win It's passage Ihro15n
the House of Commons The measure formed
most novel precedent and one that was irau2ht
with danger. lie regretted that a committee S 9l
the House Of Comomns had not oecn tbst
lie strongly protested against inc doctrIhe liz
IL newspapers brought charges against pupiS by
man the accused person must be guilty. II ne d Glu
NOT Immediately sue for libel II tllat doclrIhc
was TO be applied il should he applied lmparuaiH; ;
and proof that it was not so applied was lurllsnea
by the fact that two members OF the uo.VIn.nonc -
had gone to support, before his constituents Il
Conservative member against whom allegations
had been made and never rcfuted; ana respecting
The speaker defended Mr.. Parnclls course in
not suing for libel. He sad that the nero sUd'c- ~
ment Of counsel in an action between TWO prItSaTt
pcrsons was not sufficient foundation upon WnICh m
IN institute a judicial commission uf inquiry. Inc
Gowcrnment had offered Mr. Parnell the hard al
Tentative of either accepting such commission or or
incurring reproach for Sinking an inquiry III
justice. the inquiry should have been conhned 10
The charges against the Irish members, bnt, con,
trary TO their understanding when they accePtcu
the commission the inquiry had been eNtenleu 10
others involving every one engaged IN the league
agitation for the last nine years. Even the Jus
tjce of specifying and defining the charges hd pech
denied the Irish members and the commission
was allowed to range through all the vague aIIe-
cations in a series Of anonymous newspaper artl-
cles Such an inquiry was fraught with the most
dangerous injustice. In composing the commission,
one member at least, should have been chosen VINO
was in political sympathy with the accused persons
Lord Salisbury said that there we're TWO
fallacies in Baron Hcrschclls speech That gen
tleman had assumed what was untrue, namely
that the Government had any interest IN estaD-
fishing the guilt Of the Irish members. on me
contrary if il were shown that their pohtical
marty was not connected with crime the fact
would conduce to the restoration OF peace ana
nnietness in Ireland. Baron Ilerschcll had also
falsely assumed that the Government had orsl-
mated the inquiry, whereas, the IRISH members
themselves had originated it by asking for an
inoniry by committee of the House OF Commons.
The iTouiry could not be confined to the authen-
ficitv OF The Timess' letters or to the conduct
Of Of particular persons Ali the facts must be
taken together.