The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1888. THE PARNELL COMMISSION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1831, 20 December 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1888. THE PARNELL COMMISSION.

According to a recent cablegram the evidence laken before the TimesParnell Commission occupies 600 pages of foolscap daily. Of this only about a dozen words or so reach this colony, and this is generally unfavorable to Mr Parnell. It would therefore be unfair to condemn Mr Parnell on the strength of information so scant and oae-sided as that naturally must be. It is impossible to give in a few words any idea of the contents of 600 pages of foolscap, and therefore it would be only fair to receive such items of news with a large grain of salt. Although the news to hand so far has been unfavorable to Mr Parnell, there is enough to show that things are not altogether as black as they are painted. Mr Gladstone and the Liberal party still persist in believing Mr Parnell guiltless, notwithstanding the revelations which have been made. That one fact shows that the reputation of Mr Parnell has not been very much damaged yet. Some of the evidence bears the stamp of falsehood. For instance, we are told by the police officers that the Land League offered £SOO reward for shooting a bailiff, and £3OO for shooting anyone who paid rent. This happened 6 years ago, and is it not remarkable that these police officers never took any steps in the matter since ? Surely no one can believe that any body of men would offer rewards for shooting people. If they wanted people shot it would not be to men who would take a bribe for doing it they would entrust Buch work. Then if the police officers knew all along that such a thing was going on, why is it they never took any action in the matter? They have arrested and sent to gaol the Mayor of the City of Cork for no greater crime than that he sold newspapers. Surely they could have arrested persons guilty of inciting to murder. They did not do so, and no one can now believe their, story. Another nice bit of evidence waß that which implicated Sir William Vernon Harconrt. A witness swore that Sir William ordered the Parnellites to destroy any doubtful documents in the hands of the league, so that they would not come out at the inquiry. Sir William has denied this, and it does not appear to us any one would ever believe it. Then another witness swore that Mr Parnell took part in some of the outrages against persons who paid rent. Will anyone believe that Mr Parnell ever did anything of the kind ? But the cat was literally let out of the bag by a cablegram published in our last issue. According to that cablegram a letter was produced which showed that witnesses were paid for swearing falsely. The letter was written by one of the witnesses to his brother " stating he would make a few pounds out of it, but not unless he was prepared to swear queer things." The brother became indignant evidently, and handed in the letter which exposed the perfidy of the witness. Then we find Sir James Hannen, the President of the Commission, protesting against the evidence the Times was producing, and Sir Charles Russell challenging the Attorney - General to produce evidence to show that his clients were connected with any outrages. Now if the evidence had any bearing on the question before the Court, why should the President protest against it, and if it has been as damagiag to Mr Parnell as the scraps of news which reach us would indicate, why should Sir Charles Russell throw down such a challenge ? Then the Attorney-General undertook to curtail the .evidence, and Sir

Charles Russell promisednot to crossexamine witnesses. Will anyone believe that Sir Charles Eussell, the counsel for the Parnellites, would forego his right to cross-examine witnesses, if their evidence was in any way damaging. He, certainly would not, and when all -the circumstances are put together and analysed only one conclusion can be arrived at, aad that is, that the Times has not a leg to stand on, and that it has no evidence to produce except what it Gan buy with money. It is certainly an awful thing that such a paper as the London Times Bhould go to the extent of paying witnesses for swearing falsely in order to damage the political reputation of Mr Parnell. It is scracely credible, but it is quite plain that that is what it is doing, and we sincerely trust that it will result in confusion and shame to itself. ;;