Wichita eagle., 1890-02-12
THE TINES AND PARNELL.
Discussion of the Forged Letters Occupies
the House Of Commons.


the House of Commons.
LONDON, Feb 1L-Upon the re-assem-
bling of parliament today Sir William
Harcourt offered motion declaring that
the London Times in publishing the forged
(PigoUt) letters was guilty of breach OF
privilege.
Mr. Harcourt, speaking in support of his
motion, contended that a breach of privi-
lege committed during one session could
be punished during another session. he
said: Since the suit for libel has been de-
cided in favor of Mr.. Parnell and since it
has been admitted that the letters used as
&c over to assault him were forgeries,
the house is afforded an absolute, sure
basis whereon TO act 1t Is now obvious
that the object of the publication of the
forgeries on the day that the coercion bill
had its second reading was toinfiuence the
division in parliament. 1t was gross
and palpable outrage on the house. A
more fragrant breach of privilege could
not be conceived. Some of the reparation
had been made for this use of poisonous
weapons"
He urged that all should brand with the
stigma of parliamentary reprobation this
practice of the art of political forgery.
[Cheers.
Sir John Eldon Gorst, under secretary
for India, responded. He said the time
had passed for discussing the breach of
privilege He moved that the house de-
cline to consider the motion of the breach
Of privilege.
Mr. Gladstone, who was loudly cheered
rs he rose, spoke in support of the motion.
He said he could not consider that the
Times oifense to the house had been
purged by the apologies which had been
Bioon through Sir Richard Web
ster. which apologies grossly exaggerated
the original Offense. Hear hear."I He
WAS surprised that Sir Richard Webster
had showed himfelf to be made the vehicle
Of such an apology. This was the earliest
chance the honse had had and it was the
most opportupe moment for it to express
its Indignation over the publication of the
forgeries. Ii the conspiracy against Mr..
Parnell had been successful the result TO
him would have been absolute political
death, and the mortal blow struck at him
would have been felt throughout the Irish
nation. Cheers The Times had aimed to
affect the judgment of the house and it
really had in that direction a temporary
success. He did not wish TO dwell upon
the horrible and loathesome character of
the whole affair. He trusted the house
would vIndicate its right to deal with the
offense. The government owed it to itself
to deal fairly with Mr. Parnell and the
lrirh people for the injustice it had done
them. Surely the house should not hesi-
tate to express its full sense of the inluS-
tice [Cheersl.
Mr. Balfour accused Mr. Gladstone OF
dealing in fiimsy fiction. He declared that
the delay was the fault of the Gladstone
party alone, and said that the charge that
the Times had acted with view to infiu-
enciug the Judgment of the house was Il
calumny. If that had been their object
they would have had better prospect of
success by quoting freely from Mr.. Glad
stones and Sir William Harcourt'S de-
nunciations of Mr.. Parnell and the land
league. He objected to the ancient, cum
brouS and often misused machinery of the
breach OF privilege.
Mr.. Labouchere expressed his surprise at
the petty and paltry argument advanced
ly Mr. Baifour and Sir John Gorst It b al
been proved that the Times had supplied
Pigott with bank notes TO provide tor his
family within ten days of the time he had
absconded.
Mr. Bradlaugh said as the Times assisted
the government to pass its infamous
measure, the breach of privilege was
against the whole house rs well as against
Mr. Parnell.
Sir Edward Clark, the solicitor general,
advanced numerous precedents for the
course of the government IN this case.
MIR. Parnell, who was enthusiastically
Cheered as he took the floor, said Sir
Edward Clark had not dared tC
present the delay as rea-
breach OF privilege. for he we'll knew that
Hansard's Debates contained many pre-
Cedents of the house inquirinC at great
length and very carefully before intiIcring
the penalty for breach of privilege. ''Why
uld not the government appoint the COM
mittee of inquiry we asked for IN the be-
beginning? That would have made it
possible to prove thsU the letters were
torgeries in forty-eight hours. | never de-
gernined not to submit the facts 10 u jury
but always considered il absolutely neces-
sarY TO discover from whom the Times OBJ
tained its letters. | recognized, 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 | was justified therein. With
out knowing from whom the letters came.
| would not have been able to prove that
hey Were Torgeries, and l should have
been left with the opinion OF all the tram
sd experts in the country against me.
There would have been only my own word
to convince jury that certain letters adj
vanced and printed as mine upon the great
authority OF the Times were forged. /
think, therefore, l was wise in what | did.
asked for a select committee because to
hompel its agents to testify before such II
body was the only method of forcing the
Times to dlyulge that secret. As this was
refused, We are not TO blame for delay.
But who is to blame? Can you answer
that? You wanted 10 use these letters as
political engine, not caring whether
they We're or were not fOI geries You
saw that lt was impossible for
us TO prove that they were forSeries very
speedily and that meanwhile they would
be useful 10 you IN ELECTORS. You needed
them TO make capital against US as a suit
able engine for sustaining An inquiry into
n much wider question. which | could
never have obtained apart from the letters
that were forged for JhaJ purpose.
administering severe reproof to Sir
Richard Webster. Mr.. Parnell continUsd.