New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-03-26
MR.. BALFOUR'S VIEW.
WHY HE AND HIS PARTY DECLINE TO CON
SIDER THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
AS AN ACQUITTAL OF Mr.. PARNELL.

Mr.. BalfOur, / was often told last month In
Washington and New-Yorl, is now the English
man in whom next after Mr. Gladstone Americans
at home take the most lively interest. They may
well follow curousy career so remarkable as
! his Much might be said OF him, but to-day il
! is about his last speech in the House of Commons
rather than about the that have TO say
| word The speech is very able ore, look at II
how you will, but what makes it of value to an
American audience is the fact that it contains a
very complete account of a matter which much
perpexcs a portion of the American public. II
has been said before to-day that the first step 10
n good understanding is clear understanding.
Now il is pretty evident that Americans who he
lieve themselves to be in favor of what is called
Home Rule for Ireland have but dim perception
of the feelings, and but doubtful view Of the
opinions, of the opponents OF Irish Home Rule in
this country Still more imperfect, perhaps l.
their comprehension of the attitude which a great
body of Engshmen,-the majority in Parliament
and probably still, spite Of those siraws called
byc-clections the majority throughout the United
| Kingdom-maintan toward Mr. Parnell and his
| followers.
| Their misconception this point has been LII
creased rather than lessened by what mas occuiic"
before the Parncll Commission, ana especially ny
the episode of the Forged Letters. lhey say anu
very naturally say THE most injurious cn"'re
against Mr. Parncll was based on the Phoenix
Park letter. That letter has been proVcu aho
admitted 70 he n forgery The charge was
caumny which has been completely exposed, and
the exposure must have gained for Mr. Parneli
not only the sympathes but the confidence OF
the English people, including even those VINO
think his policy dangerous one" 1t is, say,
natural that Americans should take this view,
bnt il is n mistaken view, nevertheless, and IL IL
desirable that it should be known to be a mis-
taken view. and that the reasons why the OPP
posite view is still held in England should be
| known That IS why Mr.. Balfour's last speech
is Of such value. lie has stated the case lie has
given the reasons: he has set forth the opinions
81 bis Marty and he has done it all with greater
precision and force than anybody else. You Wild
ind in tbis sneech a complete account Of the state
of English opinion about Mr.. Parnel ana 'hc
Irish question and whoever cares for these things
or any Of them, no matter what his own we"
may be would do well 10 read what Mr. Balfour
has to say about them. The speech is, however,
long one; not likely TO be reprinted IN papers
which have TO deal at such length with all xmas
of domestic news. / therefore summarize IL
hreav or. rather | will try to set before you the
polnts OF the speech; entreating the reader ID
hear in mind that it is Mr. Balfour who is speak
American should have opportunity OF Know
i,e, IL he cares 10 know, the true nature OF the
convictions held by that powerful section OF the
Frolsh Nation who look 10 the present Chlei
Secretary for Ireland as their leader and mouth
piece.
Neither Mr. Balfour nor anybody else tnao
| tro,y of defends or disguises or pallates the
forgery Mr. Parnel he says. was attacked py
the foul weapon of forged letters; the means
used were Infamous. There is no dispute on ,ha'
noir, Some Irish members affect 70 believe
that .The Times used the forged letters know
in, ,bem 70 be forged know Of nobody who
really believes that But says Mr.. Baliour' the
| ,ybole blame for these gross calumnies does noo
rest on that journal. Part of it rests on Mr.
| Parneu himself. L say those letters coulu
never have been believed, even by the culpapie
crcduIitv Of The Times, If it were not for the
culnoble carelessness and worse than carelessness
If Mfr Parnell and the friends Of Mr.. farnei'
r.. ovnloirs what he means by Mr. Parnells
culnahle carclessness. He holds him responsible
for the language Of United Ireland the official
orran Of the Land League. owned, moreover, IN
part by Mr. rarnen.
Mr. Parnen condemned the Phoenix Park
murders. but his paper held up the murderers
~ the admiration Of their countrymen ms hohor-
| ahlc courageous. and dsintereSted When the
assassin Curley was on trial Mr. Parnells paper
| said il was not the life Of a man. but the HE OF
| n nation that was concerned; II was wres'l'
| between the Crown and the great BODY OF the
neopc of Ireland Mr. Parnells chosen associ-
| atcs were, men who fled the country under Sis
ncion: Brennan, who was secretary OF the Hlsh
! Land League: Egan. its treasurer Nrne, secie-
,arv Of the English Land League; Sheridan ana
Walsh. paid organizers of the Irish Land League
! They all fed when the revelations ABOUT 'ne
| pboenix Park murders came out. and have never
returned And since Mr. Parnel allowed such
thinrs 10 be said in paper he controlled. ana
acts 70 be done by his own friends, whom he
| still unholds. of a kind which drove them from
rbc country lie is held guilty of such carelessness
~ mcht well excuse those who believed HIM
| copable Of iustifying the murders.
Then as to calumny. he who complains OF cal
umnv should not himself be- a calumniator Nr.
Parneu in 1855, in Mayo, declared his neher
that Patrick Nally was victim OF the con-
spiracy between Lord Spencer and the ln'ormers
for the purpose Of obtaining victims 10 wha'
they call law and Justice by any and every MEANS
whether innocent or not. Mr.. Balfours COM
ucut on this is a passage of singular power, nut
too long 10 quote. He points ont mat MI
| Parncu spoke as a party leader that when nc
uttered this libel on Lord Spencer NE knew II TO
| he uutruc-thc COMMISSIONERS H'NV J'"''''S
declared that he knew II To he untrue ;-tha' 70
accuse a man. as Mr.. Parnell was accused, OF
sympathy with political assassination, or ANYTHING
IN the nature Of political assassination, bad as IL
* is insignificant compared with the charge
against Lord Spencer of INDUCING in Judicial
unrdcr Who were the victims? The victim
If Mr.. Parnclrs calumny was Lord Spencer T.
whom Mr. Balfour offers Il deserved tribute as
a man of unstaincd honor. against whom 70 man
would believe a calnmny, hc the evidence what
IL might The victim of The Times calumny
was Nh Parncll.
But the right honorable member for Midlothian
cnmpcls us to rccoect and unwilhnclv 10 re-
] mind The House That the mcmber for Cork was