The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-07-25
BAD FOR Mr.. PARNELL.
THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN THE IN
vEsTIGATIoN COMMISSION BILL.
Mr.. Labouchere and Sir William Har-
court Denounce the Government
aad Mr.. Webster on Account OF the
"Trap" to Catch Parnell.

the debate on the commission. He said
he had as low an opinion Of the Times as
most people could have, but not so low
as that Of Mr.. Matthews, who seemed to
think that the Times would plead the right
OF privilege respecting certain letter, on
the ground that the letter had not been
published in the Times, but only read by
Mr. Webster, the Encouragement, in
court during the recent trial OF Mr..
O'Donnel.
The commission, he said, was not rs good
tribunal upon these matters rs Parlia-
ment. No three judges on the bench
could 80 well adiudicate these questions us
the House OF Commons. The commission
had the power TO indemnify any ruffian
who would criminate himself, providing he
was accommodating enough to criminate
some one else. Ii was fishing commits
sion intended TO evade the real issue TO be
divided. The circumstances showed, for
instance, that Mr. Egan and Mr.. 0'Byrne
could not appear Yet in their absence
the commission was 10 investigate their
conduct, and TO listen TO charges while
those gentlemen had no sufficient chance TO
ttDut uuNcfSt W.T..
had said that the widened scope OF the
inquiry might reveal some undiscovered
murder. Did that mean that members of
Parliament against whom the bill was
directed were murderers? ["IIear heart"
Would the House tolerate these vague in.
situations? Could they suffer the COM
mission TO begin the inquiry without the
charges being strictly specified and
without the usual safeguards OF the nc.
cused2 Never was the cflrontery OF the
government 30 complete as when they said
the commission granted all the requests of
the Parnellites, while in the mean
time the government was arranging with
the 7im0 what sort OF commission
should be proposed and what ought to be
the scope Of the inquiry. The commits.
sion hill was actually framed by the Times
aud promoted by the government in order
to divert attention from the mischievous
proceedings in Ireland. The opposition
wanted an inquiry, but ii was into the
conduct OF the government. They wanted
10 know about the murders at Mitchells-
town and also the murder OF Mr.. Mandc-
vile. l"lIcar, hear" He had proposed
moving that the commission bill receive
the second reading that day six months
hence, but Mr.. Parnell was anxious To
come before any tribunal, and urged him
10 Withdraw the motion. lie Uabouch-
ere) had no hope ofgetting the bill altered
IN the committee, but on the third read.
ing II would be seriously considered
whether the opposition ought TO allow Mr..
farnell to walk into the trap which had
been set for him. Cheers
Mr.. Chamberlain said that Mr.. La
bouchere had developed his wonted
cynical vein in imputing to his political
opponents mean and unworthy motives.
Many members were now incredulous aud
the charges against Mr.. Parnell still de.
serve the fullest inquiry. lie himself had
sat by and co-operated with Mr.. Parnell,
and had formed an opinion OF Mr.. Par
mel, + character for honesty, sincerity and
patriotism which would make him slow 10
accept the charges against him. lie had
been active in securing the release OF Mr..
Parnell from kilmainhan Jail. The only
thing that could shake his confidence was
Mr.. Parnclrs reluctance 10 face the
charges. tCheeB and shouts Of "No."l
MIR. Parnell felt that he could not
trust in an English jury. That distrust
was not shared in by English or Scotch.
members. An English jury might be-
trusted to do justice. II not, Mr.. Parnell
could have gone before a Dublin Jury.
Hear, hear. II was surprising that he
did not do 50. II was more surprising
that the Parnclliics sought TO cur,ail and
hamper the inquiry. This was an cx.
traardinary judicial proceeding. II il was
restricted Il might be used 10 shield guilty
parties. Mr.. Parncll and his friends were
charged with completely with great crimes.
How were they going to show themselves
innocent unless the inquiry covered the
relations between memoen Of the House
OF Commons aud persons outside who
were accused Of crime. Regarding the
statement that IL was necessary
10 formulate charges against the
Parnellitcs, he said that specific
charges would be made, the government
being a party TO the Indictment, and what.
ever Parnellitics might say in the heat OF
debate he did not believe they thought the
government party 10 the accusations OF
the 7imo lcrics Of "oh, Oh" and "you,
to-. The Parncllitics, Mr.. Chamberlain
continued, ought not TO grudge n pro.
longcd inquiry In bring ont the truth II
would he an expensive undertaking but in
the event OF conclusive judgment the
government ought 10 allows reasonable
part Of the expenses OF the successful
party 70 be paid by the nation ("hcar,
hcarl"
Sir William Harcourt held that in the
defense Of the bill offered In behalf OF the
Government there was the least possible
reference TO the letters which were the &C.
casion for demanding an inquiry. The
Government oyadcd the question In regard
10 these letters, and tried under the cover
OF an inquiry TO make an attack upon their
political opponents. II the judges were TO
act on judicial principles In conducting the
inquiry, the charges must be specific. II
Il was u judicial tribunal, who wcp 10 be
arraigned and what were the accusations
they wcr required 10 mcctY II Sir Richard
Webster believed one single charge that
he had tried 10 fix upon Mr.. Parncll rs
counsel for the Tmo, Il was his duty
~ attorney for the crown 90 In.
dict MIR. pamell. f'IIcar. hcar"l Proof
that he did not believe the charges were
found In the fact that he had not advised
the government 10 risk n prosecution. No
body In sir Richard Wcbstcr's position
had ever taken such an extraordinary and
unjustifablc course ~ he had In cxpcnd-
ing day and half In making statements
indamniiying the character Of men and
plcdging himself 10 prove tho statement,
and vet aitcrward cnlreaiing the court 10
allow them 10 issue without proof ["lIcar,
hear This course was entirely contrary
90 the traditions Of the bar. The real oh.
jcct was 10 blast the reputation Of the
leaders OF the Irish National party. (Par.
nellitc cheers Would Parliament assent
20 an inquiry which implied simply an en-.
dcayor 10 ascertain whether the hocus
pocus speech OF Sir Richard Webster
had basis Of TRUTH Was Mr.. Smith pre-.
pared To answer the charge that he had
personal interview with the proprietor Of