The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1889. THE PARNELL COMMISSION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1859, 28 February 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1889. THE PARNELL COMMISSION.

The wretched conspiracy to destroy the reputation of Mr Parnell and his followers has ignominously and completely collapsed, and now they stand before the world’s gaze as the victims of the foulest, the darkest, and the vilest treachery that incarnate villainy ever concocted. It is, perhaps, as well to recapitulate the incidents which have led up to the present investigation, ihe Conservative party came into power pledged to govern Ireland without the aid of coercion. They sent Sir Eedvers Buller to Ireland as a special commissioner, with authority to mediate in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant, and for some time this gentleman did his best to check the repacily of the landlords, and to give fair play to the tenants. Now the Conservative party in Ireland are the landlords, and they thought it very hard that with a Conservative Government in power they could not carry out evictions. They at once began to clamor against the Government for thus working against their interests, And gave out that as now both the Liberals and Conservatives were working against them they had no alternative but to accept Home Rule. This appears to have frightened the Government. They knew that if the landlords united with the remainder of Ireland Home Rule would have to be granted at once, and they then came to the conclusion that they must retain the friendship of the landlord party. Sir Eedvers Buller was recalled, Lord Randolph Churchill resigned, and the landlords were once more let loose upon their unfortunate prey. To counteract the rapacity of the landlords the Plan of Campaign was adopted, and a most effectual weapon it proved. The landlords again screamed out, and the Government came to their assistance with the most terrible and tyrannical Coercion Bill that ever disgraced the statute book of a civilised country. Ireland was at this time extremely free from crime. It was just about nine months or so after Mr Gladstone’s famous declaration in favor of Home Rule ; a sensation of joy and of hopejhad spread all orer the land; the people of Ireland saw their dark night breaking into the dawn of brighter day, and they resolved to do nothing which would in any way militate against the realisation of their fondest desires. The country was therefore extremely quiet, and in the face of this, and of the fact that the Conservatives had pledged themselves not to itesort to coercion, it became necessary for them to find some excuse for espousing the cause of the landlords. They brought in the Coercion Bill. There was a great outcry raised against it, but the London Times came to their assistance by publishing the articles on “ Parnellism and Crime,” and just immediately before the division was taken on the Bill out it came with a letter bearing the fac simile of Mr Parnell’s signature. This letter showed that Mr Parnell was cognisant of, and sympathised with, the murder of Lord Frederick Cavandish and Mr Burke. This of course created a fearful sensation, and Mr Parnell was at once branded as a party to the murder, but he treated the matter with supreme contempt, and declined to take any step to clear himself of the imputation. Then came the O’Donnell libel fiasco, when a whole string of culpatory letters were produced, Mr Parnell, next evening, got up in the House of Commons and moved for a select committee of the House to inquire into the authenticity of the letters. It has been a rule in the House of Commons from time immemorial when any charges are preferred against any of its members to appoint a select committee to inquire into them. Notwithstanding this fact, notwithstanding that there never has been an exception to this rule, the Conservative Government refused to allow the committee to be appointed, and brought in a bill to appoint the Commission of the three judges now sitting. In vain did Mr Gladstone, Mr Morley, Sir W. Harcourt, and all the Liberals protest against a course which had no precedent in the history of Parliament; in vain did they accuse the Government of conspiring with the Times to destroy the reputation of political opponents. The Commission was appointed, in spite of the Liberals, and powers given to it to inquire into everything connected with the land movement in Ireland for the past 10

years, and with anything else they liked to inquire into. Mr Parnell and the Liberals wanted to confine the functions of the commissioners within certain stated limits, so as not to take up too much time, but this was refused. Then objection was raised to Judge Day, who was known as a fearfully violent opponent of the Parnellites. Judge Day is a Boman Catholic, and a year or two before held an inquiry into the Orange riots in Belfast, and on that occasion gave vent to most terrible denunciations of the Parndllite policy. Now if it is known that a common juror has expressed an opinion on a case, he is not allowed to sit on the jury to try it, although he is only one in twelve, but here was an admittedly prejudiced judge placed on the Commission to try the Parnellites. Mr Gladstone made a vehement protest against it, and Mr Morley gave a fearful character to Judge Day in his speech in the House, but still the Tories, despite all this, kept his name on the Commission. Judge Smith was also objected to. He is an Irish landlord, the Land Court had previously reduced the rents he extracted from his tenants by nearly 50 per cent, and he had recently evicted some tenants. Now, Bis always recognised that no one shall sit in judgment in a case in which he is pecuniarily interested, but here was appointed a judge to try the Paruellites, whose rent roll had been greatly reduced through their influence. No objection was raised to Sir James Hannen. In the face of these facts c?n anyone deny that the British Government have been in the conspiracy to defame Mr Parnell’s character? First they refused to follow the timehonored course of appointing a select committee to investigate the matter; secondly, they appointed as judges men well known to be influenced by the most violent prejudices against Parnellites; and thirdly, they employed the police to collect evidence for the Times. Thus it can be seen that from beginning to end it has been a deep-laid diabolical scheme, worked out with consummate skill, and hatched with extraordinary patience and perseverance, to destroy the character of Mr Parnell and his followers. The mask has now been torn off, and the conspirators’ treachery stands before the world in all its loathsome nakedness; the most disgraceful espisode in modern history. And now, whoisPigott? and who is Houston? Pigott was the proprietor of a revolutionary paper called The Irishman. He was a great man with the Fenians, but was never admitted into the counsels of men like the late A. M. Sullivan or Mr Parnell. He says that he has been twice in gaol, That is true. Ee was once sent to gaol for publishing in The Irishman an article entitled “ The Holocaust.” The article was written by Dr Waters, and pronounced one of the finest things in the English language by the judge who tried the case. He subsequently got three months for some other articles, and was in gaol at the same time as A. M. Sullivan. But he never was trusted, and never was recognised, except by the lower and revolutionary classes, and doubtless a spirit of revenge, as well as love of gain, prompted him in his treacherous attempt to ruin Mr Parnell’s reputation. Lately he seems to have gone in altogether for making money by offering to perjure himself to whoever paid him best. Houston is the secretary of the Irish Land Protection Union, a society formed by the landowners to work in opposition to the Land League. Anyone can easily realise what the flunkey of such : a society may be. The business of this society chiefly consisted in publishing literature condemnatory of the Parnellites, and also in delivering lectures in England and Scotland. According to the accounts we have from time to time got of them they are the most unscrupulous liars in existence. Houston himself said in his evidence that he did not ask Pigott where he got the letters, because he preferred remaining ignorant of that. Is not this as much as to say he knew they were forgeries ? Then the Times made Pigott make a statutory declaration before paying for his evidence before the Commission. It is evident from this, too, that the Times had some idea that Pigott was not reliable, and before paying him thought it well to have him bound over on oath, so that he could be prosecuted. From these and other facts it is quite evident that the charges against Mr Parnell were the result of a deep-laid scheme, which has now miscarried and must recoil on the heads of the miscreants who aimed at the ruin of his character.