St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-12
Irish Nationalist Members of
Parliament Re-elect Their
Old Leader.
Portuguese Parade Lisbon
Streets Shouting "Down
With England"

t1ldulCIlldTy SGCIGldIN VI Liz IUIGiSu
ce, announced that at an early date
government would submit the cor
'p0ndence had with the Portuguese
vernment on South African affairs.
Michael Hicks-Beach gave notice
1t he would shortly introduce a
hes bill. Mr.. Balfour, chief secre-
~ for Ireland, gave notice that on Mon
" he would intro duce an Irish land
.lrchase bill which would include a
revision for the creation of land de-
artment. Sir William Vernon Har-
court introduced a motion that the
Times in publishing the forged Pigott
letters was guilty of breach
Df parliamentary privilege. Sir
William Vernon Harcourt contin-
ued speaking in support of
his motion, declaring that the breach of
privilege had been so tlagrant as to rem
der it impossible for him to conceive of
a worse offense in that direction. The
letters were admitted forgeries, and the
house, therefore, had a sure basis of
action. The publication of the forgerieS
had been timed SO as to affect the divis-
Ion on the coercion bill. He urged
upon all members that they brand the
act with the stigma of the
USE OF POISONED WEAPONS,
Sir John E. Gorst said that the time
for such action had passed. The pres
ent time was most inOpportune, and he
thereupon moved that the house refuse
to consider Harcourt's motion. MI.
Gladstone said the offense of the Times
against the house had not been purged
by the apologies of the paper before the
commission. The apologies only aggra-
waited the offense. He was surprised
that Attorney General Webster should
be made the vehicle of such an apology.
The forgerieS were conspiracy against
MIR. Parnell. They would have re-
suited in political death to him if they
had been successful, and also would
whole Irish nation. This, he said, was
the first chance the house had had to ex-
press its indignation, and this time
was therefore most Opportune. He did
not wish to dwell upon the horrible,
loathsome affair, but trusted that the
house would express its full sense of
the injustice done. Mr.. Balfour ac-
cused Mir. Gladstone of dealing in flimsy
fiction. He declared that the delay was
the fault Of the Gladstone party alone,
and the charge that the Times had acted
with a view to influencing the Judgment
of the house wasa calumny. If that had
been their object they would have had
better prospect of success by quoting
freely from Mr.. GladstOne's and Sir
William uarcourt'S denunciations of
MI Parnel and the land league. He
objected TO the ancient, cumbrouS and
often miSuSed machinery OF
TIE BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr.. Labouchere expressed his surprise
at the petty and paltry arguments ad-
vanced by MIR. Baffour and Sir John
Gorst. 1t had been proved that the
Times had supplied Piggott with bank
notes to provide for his family within
ten days of the time when he had alb
seconded. He could understand the ret
icence of Mr.. Smith on this subject.
He could not defend his old friend, Mr..
Walter. and was naturally not inclined
to attack him. He should remember,
however, that he is the leader of the
house of commons. Mr.. Bradlaugh
said that as the Times assisted the
government to pass its Infamous
measure, the breach of privilege was
against the whole house, as well as
against Mr.. Parnell. Sir Edward Clarke,
the solicitor general, advanced numer-
Gus presidents for the course of the
government in this case, and declared
that it was inconsistent with the princI-
plas of justice to prosecute the Times
again, for such proceeding would be a
corollaTy of the adoption of the motion.
MIR. Parnell, who was enthusiastically
cheered as he took the floor. said
Sir Edward Clarke had not ven
fnred to present the delay as
a reason against the vote OH a
bleach of privilege, for he well knew
that HanSard'S debates contained many
precedents OF the house. inquiring at
nm In nd III Ine
intiicting the penalty for breach of priv
ilege. Why did not the government ap-
point the committee of inquiry we asked
for in the beginning? They could have
made 1t possible to prove that
THE LETTERS WE'RE FoRGERTEs
in fOrty-eight hours. l never deter
mined not to submit the facts to Jury,
but always considered it absolutely
necessary to discover from whom the
Times obtained its letters. l recog-
nized, however, that it was impossible
to compel the Times to divulge this in
an ordinary court of justice. The case
of O'DOnnell VS.. Walter proved that l
was justified therein. Without know
ing from whom the letters came,
would not have been. able to prove that
they were forgerieS, and l should
have been left with the opinion of
all trained experts in the country
against me. There would have been
only my own word to convince jury
that certain letters, advanced and
printed as mine upon the great author
ity of the Times, were forged. l think,
therefore, was wise in what | did.
asked for select committee, because
to compel its agents to testify before
such body was the only method of
forcing m hot
secret. As this was refused, we are not
to blame for the delay. But who is to
blame? Can you answer that? You
wanted to use those letters as politi-
cal engine, not caring whether they
were or were not forgeries. You
saw that it was impossible for us to
prove that they were forgerles speed
lily, and that meanwhile they would be
useful to you in elections. You used
them to make capital against us, and as
a suitable engine for obtaining an in
quiry into a much wider question which
you would never have obtained apart
from letters that were forged for the
purpose" Administering a severe re-
proof to Sir Richard Webster. MIR. Par
nell continued: 81, the leader of a
party that must always be in the minor
ity here, should be sorry to treat my
most powerful opponents with the in
credible
MEANNEss AND CowARDIcE
with which l have been treated by
them. Even now L am further insulted
by the terms of the amendment, which
insinuates that the forged letters may
after all be genuine. If you believe
those letters were forged, have the
courage and frankness to declare it.
move to place the word forged before
the word letters in the amendment tC
the notion" Mr.. Smith, in behalf OF
the whole government and his party
expressed himself satisfied that Mr..
Parnell had proved the letters to be
forgeries. and consented that the WORD
forged should be inserted as Mr.
Parnell proposed. The motion offered
by Sir William Vernon Harcourt was
then rejected by 260 to. 2l2
and Sir John GOrst's amendment
was adopted. In the house OF
lords this evening Lord Ramsay moved
the adoption of the address in reply to
the speech from the throne. Earl Gran