The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-08-11
His Talk in the House of Lords.
He Thinks that Parnell is Being
Shown Consideration.
That the Government is Good and
Kind and Liberal.
Baron Rochelle Meets the Prime
Minister In an Able Way.
He Clearly Shows the Great Injustice
Done the Parnellites in the Appoint
ment OF the judicial Commits
sion-Foreign Affairs.

LONDON, Aug. l0-In the House OF
Lords today Lord Salisbury moved the sec
ond reading OF the Parnell commission bill
In recent years, he said, the agitation in
Ireland had gone on two parallel lines.
One party protested to constitutionality
and to a certain extent so acted, so the
other party was connected with crime, vi
olence, intimidation. mutilation and muir
der, which means were used to inimidate
constitutional opponents and to force from
England the concession OF a change, which
England was prepared TO grant. The or
carnations were professedly apart, but
they worked for the same end they had
;. the same friends and enemies and injured
the same persons. An impression had
naturally arisen that they were really not
so far apart as they seemed TO be, and that
there was complicity or connection between
them. The 7im@ had published that
opinion and supported by an ar
ray Of apparent facts justiiying this,
excited a scandal as breach OF privilege
OF the House OF Commons, which body re-
fused TO treat with it as such or to enter
into conflict with the press. Still, 1t was
desirable that means be provided TO dissi-
pate the scandal. Ordinarily men accused
OF completely in murder tried 10 clear
themselves legally, but the gentlemen in
eliminated refused TO take that course, al
though the government offered them
every assistance in its power. Instead OF
taking the case into the courts, the gentle.
men accused proposed to refer the matter
20 committee OF the House OF Commons,
course which was not approved either
by the government or by the House.
The matter was allowed TO rest until the
0'Donnel trial, which changed the scan
dial from resting merely on a newspaper
statement made by responsible counsel in
court Of justice. Still the gentlemen in.
eliminated did not seek legal redress, al
leging that they distrusted the jurors II
they thought they could not obtain justice
in England they could have sued in Ire
land, but instead OF adopting that course
they reiterated their demand for a com
mittce Of the House Of Commons.
The government considered the House
incapable for furnishing an impartial
tribunal where so much personal and
IUllIlNNl
II better 10 again resort 10 an inquiry by a
commission, a course which had proved
successful in the case OF the board Of
works, the Sheffield outrages and the
q charges OF electoral corruption. lie be-
lieyed the commission would do good by
ending controversies Of the most danger
ous kind. The government had full con-
fdence that justice would be done, rs IL
had nominated three OF the ablest and
most patriotic Judges. Men who should
have known better had impugned the
imparliality Of the judges selected. These
charges had not left the slightest stain
on the characters Of the distinguished men
against whom they were directed, but
they had covered with dishonor the lips
which impugned them. The commission
would close these controversies. II was
not well that members OF the House OF
Commons should be accused in the most
solemn manner OF having tamperad with
murder. The truth should be known
whatever might be the issue. The govern
ment was convinced that Il had done good
service In driving from the arena Of po
litisal discussion this foul and scandaloui
controversy.
Baron Rochelle, Liberal, repudiatet
Lord Salisbury's insiuua,ions upon hii
(Rochelle'sl late colleagues for having
taken in the House OF Commons cours'
which, holding the views they did, they wer'
bound 10 take. lie maintained that hi
friends were In no way deserving OF cen
sure. The commission bill was uniortu
nate In liz organ, scope and object, and u
the incident connected with the passag
through the House Of Commons. Tn
measure formed n most novel precedent
and one that was iraught with danger ii
regretted that committee Of the Hous
of Commons had 10 be appointed. II
strongly protested against the doctrine
that Il newspapers brought charges again
public man. the accused person must l
guilty Il he did not Immediately sue e
libel II that doctrine was 10 be apple
Il should be applied impartially, and pro-
that II was not 10 applied was iurnishe
- by the fact that two members Of the 20
eminent had gone 10 support, before h
constituents, Conservative mcmb
against whom allegations had be,
made aud never ciuled, NJ
respecting which he had new
,ned for libel. lie said that the me
statement Of counsel Ia an action betwc'
two private parties was not suiliciei
foundation upon which 20 institute n ]
dicial commission Of inquiry. The go
eminent had offered Mr.. Parnoll the Ia
alternative Of either accepting such cot
mission or mourning cptoach Tot shrin
ing an inquiry. In justice the inqui
should have been confined 70 the charp
against the | rish members, but, contra
10 the understanding, when they accept
the commission, the inquiry had been
tended n others. involving every ono /,
gagged In the league agitation for the ]
nine years Even the justice Of specify
and defining the charges had been deni
the Irish members, and the commissi
was allowed 30 range through OIL the vac
allegations in a series Of anonymous mes
PAPER articles. Such an inquiry was irauI
with the most dangerous injustice.
composing the commission one mcmbcI
least should have been chosen who was
political sympathy with the accused.
The Dude. Know "a
orU they don't they should know y
panguu Root Eminent cured big head
HINT ~ AflalFaVlllo.