Brighouse & Rastrick Gazette. — 1888-08-18 (Brighouse, West Yorkshire, England)

SHEA. This scheme, says Mr. Chamberlain, "was the sub. sect of conversation with Mr. O'Shea from the end of November, 1884, and was brought to me in writing by hini on the 18th of January, 1885." He continues : "The letters of Mr. Parnell to which I have referred in confirmation of my statement shew that Mr. O'Shea was the confidential exponent of Mr. Parnell's views at the time, and also prove Mr. Parnell's authorship of this s:ffieme ; but these points are not disputed in Mr. Parnell's letter to You. The correspondence at the sometime corroborates Mr. Parnell's statement that he did not put forward this proposal as a substitute for an Irish Parliament. It is true that when it was first mentioned to ins I understood that it was offered as a settlement of the Irish queslion which would be satisfactory to the Irish people; but I always felt that no statement to this effect, men if it were made by Mr. Parnell himself, could bind the Irish people in the future; though I believed then, as I do now, that the adoption of any f large yet safe proposal or the extension of local government would remove all practical grievances, istid leave only a sentimental question which would not evoke serious agitation. The whole subject was fully discussed with my colleagues from time to time; and it was not till May 9,18850 that the scheme was finally rejected by the Government, which shortly afterwards resigned office after a defeat on the Budget. When the new Government was formed I endeavoured to learn whether Mr. Parnell still adhered to his proposal, and about the middle of July Mr. O'Shea informed me that, in view of the altered state of affairs, and having regard to a recent- speech of Lord Carnarvon's, Mr. Parnell considered it doubtful whether it would be worth while to encumber the. Irish question with any larger extension of local government to Ireland than to England. I do not think,., therefore, that upon this point there is now any conflict of testimony between Mr. Parnell and myself." The question of the renewal ot the Crimes Act was the subject of lengthened discussion simultaneously with that of the local government scheme. Some time in the spring of 1885 Mr. O'Shea brought to Mr. Chamberlain a copy of the Prevention of Crimes Act (1882), on which the clauses to which Mr. Parnell objected had been struck out by his own hand. Mr. Chamberlain finds that the following clauses remain as constituting the bill to which at that time Mr. Parnell had no serious objection. Clauses 4 am) 5 (the first being altered by the transfer ft-urn Clause 1 of the definition of offences, excluding, however, treason and treasonfelony). These are the special jury clauses: 6 (change of venue), 15 (alien claim), 16 and 17 (private inquiries), 19 and 20 (compensation for murder and injuries to be levied on the district), 24 (omitting the first subsection), 29, 30 (omitting the first three subsections), 31, 35 (with consequential omissions), 36, 37 (with amendment limiting duration to one year), and schedules 2 and 3. In the course of subsequent conversations Mr. Chamberlain stated to Mr. O'Shea that, in his opinion, no Government could dispense with some provision directed against boycotting and intimidation, .and this point formed the subject of much-discussion. He understood that if the Act were limited to one year Mr. Parnell would consent to more stringent provisions than he  Ilepareo oiseet'pt in tile =age or an ctror three years or a longer perioo, and accordingly Mr. Chamberlain pressed this limitation strenuously on other members of the Government. "In conclusion," says Mr. Chamberlain, "I may be allowed to say that neither at this time nor subsequently has it appeared to me that there was anything in these communications of which Mr. l'arnell had cause to be ashamed."  -