Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1891-10-08

fnKe action against Ine l1mes ne snould nave
lhe assistance OF the law officers Of tho crown,
proposal which was treated with ridcue by
the Irish members and their friends. Mr.. Par
aell refused 10 bring an action for libel on ac-
sount OF tho alleged furgeries and the charges
af completely with assassins brought against
aim and his associates in the series OF articles
published BY The Times under the title OF
"parnellism aud Crime" because he had no
confidence In a Middlesex jury.
Exposure af the Torgerles.
After the collapse Of the action brought
against The Times In May. 1883 by Mr.. Frank
Hugh O'Donnell, former colleague, at which
,ther damaging letters were put In by the at.
lorney general MIR, parneli again demanded q
parliamentary inquiry aud alleged that these
other letters were also forgeries.
The government refused 10 grant commit
tee Of the house on question OF privilege, but
decided that the whole OF the charges against
Mr. parnell and the Irish party should be in
vesttgated by commission Of judges, consist
ing OF Sir james Hannen, Nir Justice Smith
and Mr. Justice Day. Mr.. Parnell was repre-
sented at the commission by Sir Charles Rus.
sell, Q. G., NJ r., who delivered most eloquent
pration and by ~ II II. Asquith. NJ. p.
Up 20 the exposure Of the Pigutt forgerics he
was a regular attendant at the court. On April
sl, 1880 he entered the witness box, and with
remarkable GOODNESS went through the ordeal
| II several days examination and crossexami-
nation
Subsequently he attended great meetings at
! the Memorial hall and St. James hall and was
received with enthusiasm. He sought 10 bring
an action for damages against The Times in
Edinburgh, but Lord Kinnear held there was
no jurisdiction. He was presented with the
/ freedom Of Edinburgh July ~, 1850 and was
present at a large meeting IN the Corn Ex-
change whom an address by lac Iliberal associa-
lions was presented 20 him. He was entertained
/ by his colleagues at banquet 10 celebrate his
/ forty y-seventh birthday on July q, 1880. On
/ Nov II he was condemned in costs a. core
spondent in the case OF oshea versus O'shea
and Parnell The effect OF the 0'Shea divorce
was not at once perceived by Mr. Gladstone
and the political leaders Of the Liberal party.
The first sign that Mr. parnell's action had
| rendered him objectionable 70 the great body
| Of Nonconformists ia England came from Rev,
Hugh Price Hughes.
Then Mr.. Gladstone suddenly discovered that
| n MI Paruel was 10 continue 20 lead the Irish
party, he could no longer lead the English Lib
pra party, The Irish bishops added their
weight TO the objections OF tho NonconforInists
10 MIR. Parnell as a leader. The famous confer
ance IN committee room No, IS followed, in
which Mr., Parnell, though outnumbered and
4 outvoted, fought 70 retain bis place as leader
! with marvellous persistence.
After Captain oSheas petition for divorc,
had been granted Mr. Parnell and Mrs O'she,
retired 70 Brighton. On June a5 Mr. parnei
aud Mrs OShea were driven to Steyning
where they were married ia tho presence q
two servants from Mr.. Parneils lodgings II
Brighton Since then, except for Mr. Parnell'
flying visits 10 ireland 70 retrieve his falloi
fortunes, they have lived quietly together Il
| Brighton.