Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1890-02-21
THE LATEST OUTRAGE UPON Mr..
PARAELL.


country who believes that an Irish
man can get fair treatment in Great
Britain, we advise him to read care
fully the debate in the House Of
Commons on the motion TO rebuke
the London Times for publishing
the forged PigOtt letters. 1t will
be noticed that in the execution of
a blin0 resolve not to do Mr.. Par
nell justice, the UnioDist majority
have not scrupled to abolish the
whole doctrine OF parliamentary
privilege and by assuring impunity
to calumny have practically licens.
ed the press to exert a dangerous
pressure upon legislation. No one
Can doubt that a very different
course would have been taken had
the victim of a mOnstrOus libel been
an English member.
To appreciate the conduct of the
Unionists we should remember that
three facts are universally admit.
ted. First, that the letters imputed
by the Times to Mr.. Parnell were
forged by lis stipendiary, Pigott.
Secondly, that the lmputation was
published on the day when the
Coercion bill was to come up for a
second reading. Thirdly, that a
hitherto unbrOken series of parlia.
mentaIy preoedents affirms the du.
ty of Furnishing the perpetrators of
an act which was an outrage not
only on an individual, but on the
House at large. These poi we're
brought out with clearness and en-
phasis by Mr.. Gladstone, Sir Will.
lam HascOurt, Mr.. Labouchere, and
Mr.. Bradlauch.
In the presnce of these facts the
UniOnists were unable to find any
solid or even plausible ground of
opposition to Mr.. Parnel's demand.
They shufflcd from one pretext to
another, and must have left upon
the minds of their most hidebound
supporters a painful impression of
diSingenuousness. First, they al.
legged that the time had passed for
discussing the breach of privilege,
which, having been committed in
the previous session, could not be
punished in this. Then il was said
that the discussion would be inop
perfume while the report of the
Parnell Commission was pending.
NeXo Mr.. BaltOur denied that the
Times had acted with a view of IN.
tiuencing the judgment of the
House; and finally, recognizing the
weakness of the objections thus far
put forward, he denounced the
machinery for Furnishing breach of
privilege as antiqated, cumbrous,
and often m Sused.
Nothing could we'll be more co.
gent than Mr. Parnell's reply. He
pointed out that neither he nor the
NatiOnalIstnOr the Gladstonian par.
ty vas responsible for the failure to
punish the breach of privilege at
the last session. He reminded the
House that in accordance with pre-.
cedent and as the proper step to-
ward immediate punishment, he
had asked for the appointment of
a select com mittee. This request
was refused by the UnloniSts ma.
lOrity, who instead in sisted on ere
ating a judicial commiSSi ion empow.
cred to enter upon much wider
inquiry than the simple question
of forgery which he lad raised.
With the delay incident to a wide
and vagraut investigation, not he
but the creators of the CONFUSION,
were cEargeable. Neither was it
premature to ask the House to
take cognizance of a breach of priv
lIege, because the report of the
Commission establishing such
breach had not yet been admitted.
So far as the breach was con.
cerned, the commission was defunc. |
tbs oNci0. The preparation of a
libel had been established by the
confession of the defendant and the
judgment of a court. To still put
off the yindicatiOn of his capacity |
of member of the House of Com.
mons, was an incredible exhibition |
OF cOwardice and meannesS. AS
for the pretence that the libel had |
no political motive, that scarcely |
calls for refutation. What other
purpose have a newspapers politl.
cal articles and attacks on public
men except to influence legislation
and elections7 Neither was it
necessary to lay bare the insIncer-
ty of Mr. BalfOur's reprobation of
-he custom of the House to protect
its members against ASPIRATION.
The last thing which COnse ryatives
would really wish to see accom-.
DlShed would be the extinction of