The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-03-23
SPAIN THE COMMONS
Aarc0urt Attacks AttOrney-Gen
eral Brewster.
PARNELL HAS HIS LITTLE SAY,
The Attorney General Feels Insulted, and Wig
orOusly Resents the implications Of
His Assailants.

LONDON, March 22.-In the commons to
day Harcourt, resuming the discussion re-
carding the Parnell commission, declared
that Attorn ey-.. eneral Webster's identif-
cation with the commission had destroyed
the impression that the government would
be impartial and had added weight to the
Times charges. If the encouragement
had not advised the government, parlia-
ment should not vote salary for the ser
vices he had not performed. He condemned
the attorney generals apology for Pigott's
forgeries as mean, contemplate and dis
graceful, and expressed the hope that he
would make better apology.
THE ATToRNEY-GENERAL REPLIED
but for the duty he owed those who trusted
him, he would not have noticed the charges
made by Harcourt. If he were capable of
the conduct imputed him, he would be a
disgrace to the English bar. He was pri-
Vate counsel for the Times. 1t was imma-
terial whether he had been right or wrong
in assuming the position, although ii was
doubtful whether he had been prudent.
Redmond's motion to reduce the attorney
generals salary was rejected
Sir William Vernon HarcOurt wanted to
know whether the attorney general had the
letter in which PigOtt admitted his inabil-
ity to stand the croSs-eXamination, or if
Soames had that letter and had keptit from
the knowledge of the attorney general. He
(HarcOurt) had no hesitation in saying that
SOameS ought to be struck off the rolls.
In the course Of the attorney-generaPs
reply, the chairman called upon Xavier
O'Brieu to retire for interrupting O'Brien
denied that he had opened his mouth. The
chairman repeated the order to retire.
Pinkerton corroborated O'Brien, declaring
ne had been silent. T. p. Conner, thereupon,
protested against the chairman's
PUTTING THK LIE
10 the honorable member without making
any inquiry The chairman accepted the
disclaimer. adding that O'Brien could not
deny having repeatedly interrupted loudly
ami warning MIN not to repeat such con
duct.
The Encouragement, continuing, de-
declined absolutely 10 say whether he had
advised the government on any pOiut. Har-
courts argument that the counsel ought to
satisfy himself of the accuracy of the state
ments a witness would make was prepOSter-
Gus. He accused HarcOurt of asking ques-
lions in this manner because he knew a GER
tain section of the press was only too ready
TO turn such suggestions into accusations.
Regarding Pigott, the attorney general ar
gued that he had no right to keep him from
line witness box, because he said he could
Not stand cross examination. He had In
formed the commission and had put Piggot' s
letter in Sir Charles Russells hands five
days before PigOtt went into the box.
Loud ministerial cheers) Would the COM
IRittee believe that Sir Charles Russell had
aSsed that the letter should not be read till
Fgott went into the box! Uaughter)
He protested strongly against Sir William S
reference to SOames, who was not there to
answer the charges. In regard to Sir
Williams statement that the Times apology
could only have been written by petit
foging cozening knave; that knave stood
before them at the present moment. (COn
sentative cheers).
O'Connor and La Bouchere having
spoken,
PARSRLL SAID
he should not have interviewed, but that in
the language of Acknowledgement Webster
and in the shouts of his Supporters, there
had been some faint encho of Lord Sails
bury's equiVOcal languages in respect to the
forged letters. If Lord Salisbury still
chose to pin the relic of his father to the
letters, the consequence would be upon his
own head. In the witness box, he CPar
nelD had testified under oath that he
had neither signed, written, authorized mol
known of any of the letters, anC
Attorney General Webster had not ven
tured TO put to him a single question. Was
there any member who would venture tC
express any doubt now that the letters
were forgeries!
Morley asserted that Sir Charles Russell
had authorized him to state that he was en-
tirely in accord with the opposition in the
action they were taking. He maintained
that Attorney General Webster had failed
JD answer the charges,