Since our last issue, Mr. Parnell and Lord Carnarvon have
both furnished to the papers supplementary statements con- cerning their interview in July last, each, of course, supporting the general view which he had given to Parliament. Mr. Justin M`Carthy, through whom the meeting was brought about, has also furnished his own account of the preliminaries. The upshot of the whole is an impressive lesson on the danger of under- standings not formally committed to writing and subscribed by the parties to such transactions as these. Mr. Parnell denies all recollection of two out of three of Lord Carnarvon's " con- ditions," and can recall only that Lord Carnarvon began by saying that he hoped Mr. Parnell would understand that "we were not engaged in making any treaty or bargain whatever." To this, Mr. Justin M'Carthy adds that unquestionably Lord Carnarvon, when arranging for the interview, explained that " he spoke for himself, and only for himself," which seems to bear external testimony to a second of the three conditions. For the rest, Mr. Parnell declares that Lord Carnarvon spoke much more at length than he himself did, and appeared to care much more about explaining his views to Mr. Parnell, than about hearing Mr. Parnell state his ; while Lord Carnarvon declares,—" I proposed nothing ; but as Mr. Parnell talked, I put questions, suggested difficulties for him to answer or ex- plain." It seems clear that Mr. Parnell did express a wish for protection for Irish industries, and that Lord Carnarvon did not object, except so far as to remark that there would be "a great row about it in England."