The Blandford and Wimbourne Telegram. — 1883-04-06 (Blandford, Dorset, England)

MONDAY. • In the House of Commons on Monday Sir Esrdley Wilmot and Mr. Terrines presented petitions against the 1 Affirmation Bill. On the motion of Lord Richard Grosvenor a new writ was iqiued for Southampton in the place of , Mr. Butt. The O'Donoghue call-el attention to a passage in the Pare cc:respondence of the Standard in which Mr. Parnell was represented as having stated to the editor of a French newspaper that the Government had come to him and his friends in prison, and asked them to intervene to put down disorder, which the G,vernment were powerless to deal with. The DDonogue asked whether that version of the Kilmainham transactions was correct, or whether it was correct that Luel Carlineford had stated on the s'h June, 1882, that an intimation woe first made to the Government by Mr. Peruell through a friend, and that the communication come uninvited. Mr. O'Kelly, rising to expetin something, was titled out of order by the Speaker. Subsequently Mr. Parnell explained that the report published in the French newspaper related to an interview with two members of Parliament, Mr. O'Kelly and himsslf, which had got a little mixed. It was Mr. O'Kelly who had made the statement alluded to. As Vs L ird C irlingford's etetement, Mr. Parnell denied that he took the initiative in communicating with the Government "on the occasion in question." Mr. Gladstone observed that so far as the statement in the French newspaper concerned the Government it was absolutely without foundation, aril that Lord Carlingford's account was perfectly accurate. As to what Mr. Parnell had stated, the Gov,rnment knew nothing of the communication between Mr. Parnell and the fri-nd to whom reference was made. But Lord Carlingford's representation was a perfectly accurate statement of the case as it was represented to the Government through that friend. L rd J. M ennev, amid cheers and laughter from the Conservative benchip. respectfully asked whether the Premier was still disporeid t refuse a committee to inquire into the Kilmainham tran.actions. Mr. Gladstone saw nothing in what had taken place in any way to alter the intentions of the Government. Toe Attorney-General moved the second reading of the Cnirt or Criminal Appeal Bill, which proposes to give the right of appeal againi4 sentences in cases of murder. Sir Hardinge Gitfard observed with dismay and sorrow the deserted condition of the House when a , measure of such importance was under d scussion. He moved the rejection of the Bill, believing that any eyissible injustice was met by the jurisdiction exercised by the Home Secretary. The discussion was continued in a very thin House. Mr. Parnell welcomed the Bill as being calculated to be of great use in Ireland. It might, he thought, be imprs.ved if it was made retrospective, so that men now suffering imprisonment in Ireland might have their cases re-heard, and that no executions should tike place in Ireland till the Bill had become law and the right of appeal was established. On a division the Bill was read a socond time by 132 votes against 78. After some conversation, the Bill was referred to the Standing C3mmittee on Law, and, the remaining orders gone through, the House was counted out at a quarter-past two o'clock.