Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-07-25
Labouchere' $ HotShot.
He rours a Voiley Into the
 Ranks of the Tories.
NO FISHING INQUIRY WANTED.

nHr. Parnell ana Mis Friends Must Not Be Led Into . Trap-A Heated Debate. Participated in by 3sssrs. Chamberlain.
 Harcourt, Hsaly. Webster aud PArnen. mons Mir. Labouchers resumed the debate on the Parnen commission bill He had, he said, a very low opinion of The Times, but 1t was not as low as the opinion apparently en- tertained by MT. Matthews, who seemed to think that The Times would plead privilege respecting certain letters on the ground that they had not been published in The Times, but had only been read by Sir R. K. Webster in court.
 Parliament, Mr. Labouchere contendsd, was the proper tribunal to pass upon the matter in question. The commission pro posed was merely Q fishing commission, in tended to evade the real issue. Mir. Egan and Mir. O'Brien could not appear before the commission, yet that body was to investigate them.
 The opposition demanded an inquiry, 1t was true but the inquiry they demanded was concerning murder at Mitchellstown and regarding the treatment of Mir. Mandev,lle (Parnellite and Liberal cries of "Hear, hear.m
 Mir. Labouchere said that he had proposed moving the second reading of the bill this day six months, but that Mr. Parnell, anxious to bring about the investigation, had urged him not to do so. Though he had no hope that the bill would be revised in committee, the question would be seriously considered at Its third reading whether MT. Parnell and his friends ought to be allowed to walk into a trap
 Mir. Chamberlain stated that MT. Labou- chere was, as usual, cynical in imputing to bis political opponents mean and unworthy. motives He (Chamberlain) had e high opinion of MT. Parneli's character, had aided in securing his release from Kilmainham jail, and would be slow to accept the charges made against him. The only thing that could shake his confidence was MT. Parnell's reluctance to face them. Cheers and shouts of "No.'D
 "Why," MT. Chamberlain asked, "should Mir. Parnel not trust an English juryf Surely such a jury could be trusted to do justice"
 Regarding the idea of definite charges being necessary, Mir. Chamberlain said that to formulate specific charges would make the government @ party to the indictment, and, whatever the Parnellite members might say in the heat of debate, he did not believe they thought the government party to The Times accusations
 Sir William Harcourt said that the gov ernment had evaded the question of the let ters, and tried to render the inquiry 90 as to make it an attack upon its political oppon- ents. He denounced the bill as now framed as violation of every form of judicial in quiry.
 MT. T. M. Healy said that the Irish mem bers must not allow fishing inquiry
 Sir R. k. Webster said that the part he had taken in the O'Donnell- Times action pre- cluded his taking part in this debate He would leave his conduct in the case to the judgment of those who had had experience with him in his profession, but would say in every step of that action he had acted after consultation with Sir Henry James (derisive cheers) and was not ashamed of having taken his advice. He considered Sir William Har- courts attack upon him unjust He would have been an unworthy member of the bar had he used the information obtained as counsel for The Times to institute an official prosecution.
 Mir. Parnell asked: "Are we to understand the information was put into the hands oi the learned gentleman, as counsel for The Times, which was not available to public justiceF'
 Mir. Webster-That observation Is irrele- want Cries of "Oh, answer"
 Mir. Webster said he had abstained from using the knowledge he obtalned in that %. tion, directly or indirectly.
 The house was not divided upon the second reading. The consideration of the bill by tho committee was fixed for Monday next