TOPICS - OF THE DAY.
ME. PAENELL'S GRAITruDE.
RE is a story of an Irishman who had been IRE is some small official appointment by the late Lord Derby, and who, at the moment of the vacancy, was forgotten, another man being appointed in his place. He called upon the Prime Minister to complain. Lord Derby expressed his deep regret for his forgetfulness, and mentioned that there was another small office vacant if the candidate would. do him the favour to accept it in lieu of the one promised. The Irishman pondered for a while, and then replied, " Thank ye, my Lord ; I prefer the grievance." That is very like Mr. Parnell. It was a great grievance to him that he could not trust a London jury. He would certainly have had heavy damages out of the Times if he could have trusted a London jury. He had no objection to trust the gentlemen of the House of Commons ; even his own familiar foes he would have gladly trusted. But a London jury he could not trust. The Government offer to take away his grievance. They propose to give him a tribunal far more trustworthy than the members of the Government in whom he had expressed his confidence. But he is more angry than ever. If he does not say, with the Irishman's frank- ness, that he prefers his grievance, he suggests to all of us that he prefers it very much indeed,—that he is almost outraged at the prospect of its being taken from him. His feeling on the subject is so manifest that one of his own followers, Sir Joseph McKenna, came forward to move the rejection of the offer, as he saw that Mr. Parnell neither liked to accept nor to reject the proposal of the Govern- ment ; and though Sir Joseph McKenna has been angrily disclaimed by Mr. Parnell, who professes to be intent on not allowing the Government to " back out " from their offer (which, indeed, they have shown no intention of doing), the disgraceful badgering scene in the House of Commons on Thursday night sufficiently shows how angry Mr. Parnell and his Gladstonian allies are at having to choose between the inquiry and the grievance. Mr. Parnell himself tries to explain his ingratitude by declaring that the Government have made themselves parties to the accusations brought against him,—the fact being, we believe, that almost all public men had commented on his reluctance to bring the Times to book for its libels, even though the Government offered a year ago to leave the conduct of the prosecution in Mr. Parnell's hands, and to defray its cost. And this reluctance, of course, it was impossible for any politician not to notice, and not to regard as indicating that Mr. Parnell is far from .easy in his mind about his relations with the party of violence. But to comment on Mr. Parnell's reluctance to bring the Times to book, and to endorse the accusations made against him, are very different things indeed. So far as we know, there is not the least pretext for Mr. Parnell's last assertion. It would, indeed, have been quite as true last year as it is now. And last year Mr. Parnell professed that he could trust gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House to try and acquit him.
Little as Mr. Parnell valued his right to bring an action for libel, one would certainly gather from his conduct on Monday night that he is still less satisfied with the pros- pect of a thorough judicial investigation by a Commis- sion of Judges, in spite of the bluster about not allowing the Government to back out. When the Government said by the mouth of the First Lord of the Treasury that they had no desire to press their Judicial Commission on Parliament, that it was an offer made to Mr. Parnell which it was for him to accept or reject, and that they did not think much time should be spent in discussing the necessary Bill, though it was " reasonable that some discussion should take place on the second reading," Mr. Parnell flew into a rage, or what appeared to be a rage, endeavoured to move the adjournment of the House, came very near to being named by the Speaker for his pertinacity in ignoring the Speaker's ruling, and interjected the remark that if the introduction of the Bill was not to be debated, " we are to accept as sheep the judgment of a jury of butchers." Mr. Parnell afterwards explained in a letter to the Times that this remark was intended to indicate his objection " to allowing the Government, who, by the action of the Attorney-General, and of their supporters and organs in the Press, have made themselves partisans of the Times, to nominate the members of the proposed Commission, as well as to arrange the terms of the reference, without permitting any debate." But no one knows better than Mr. Parnell that this had never been even proposed. Mr. W. H. Smith had declared that though he could not provide time for a long debate, it would be only reasonable that the proposal should be discussed on the second reading if the House wished it, and had said this before any of Mr. Parnell's rather artificial indignation had been expressed. Later in the evening, Mr. Smith promised cheerfully enough to see whether he could not accept Mr. Sexton's suggestion that the members of the Com- mission should be named not only in Committee but before the second reading of the Bill was taken ; and not a Member who had really listened to Mr. W. H. Smith,—and we are sure that Mr. Parnell had listened carefully,—had the least excuse for saying that the Government wished to entrap Mr. Parnell into accepting without criticism a proposal which they had not the slightest interest in urging upoa him, and which was indeed a concession made to him because he had insisted so much on the supposed partiality of a British jury. Sir William Harcourt's remark that the Government appeared to have intended " that the Bill should not be debated " was contrary to the express terms of Mr. W. H. Smith's offer. He had, indeed, said, even in the early part of Monday's sitting, that on its introduc- tion it might be discussed between 12 and 1, but could not be opposed by the rules of the House, as well as that on its. second reading a certain amount of discussion would be only reasonable ; adding that in Committee the names of the Commissioners might be discussed. And, as we have already pointed out, he went further after the Bill had been introduced, and, on Mr. Sexton's appeal, expressed his hope that he might be able to accede to the suggestion that the names of the Commission should be assigned on the second reading itself. Nothing could be more straight- forward and conciliatory. Mr. Parnell's wrath appears, indeed, to us singularly inappropriate to an occasion on which a greater offer had been made to him than was ever made to any one in a like position, or if appropriate to that occasion, appropriate only because he " preferred the grievance," because he wished to have his objection to a British jury to fall back upon. " Why," he said, " in the case of an ordinary jury we should at any rate have the chances of the ballot "—as if any one grudged him an ordinary jury, and as if he had not himself rejected it,—" in the case of the jury he proposes, we have nothing except the vague terms of his reference, and a jury of Judges nominated by himself. Why should I trust the right honourable gentleman—I knowing that he and his party, and his Attorney-General, and his organs in the Press, have made themselves accomplices in these foul, scandalous, and disgraceful libels." It is very easy for Mr. Parnell to call every one who thinks it unaccountable that he does not wish to try his cause before a British jury, " accomplices " in the libel. But that is only another way of saying that whenever a politician iu a very ambiguous position declines to use the accepted modes of clearing his character, those who as public men are bound to comment on this reluctance, and to point out that it indicates, though not necessarily the truth of the accusations, at least so much basis of moral suspicion in the circumstances that he would find it difficult to establish triumphantly his own innocence, are accomplices in the libel, and make themselves responsible for it. Nothing can be imagined more grossly unfounded than the melodramatically angry imputation that the Government wish to keep in the background the question of the authenticity of the letters, "and to investigate among other questions what Tom did, and Dick did, and Pat did, and Harry did, all over the country—before they come to the investigation of the question of what I did." Mr. Parnell, of course, ignores the true issue. If he had brought an action for libel against the Times, he would have had to prove the libel, and then the Times would have had tojustify the libel, and that justification would have consisted. in showing that they had so much solid evidence for believing what they said, that it was for the benefit of the country and the public advantage that they should publicly bring the charge. They were not bound to prove their accusation as it would have to be proved if Mr. Parnell were under prosecution for complicity in a criminal conspiracy. The most impartial jury might have found for the defendants,--i.e., the Times,—in the one case, and yet on the very same evidence have acquitted. Mr. Parnell on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify a verdict of " Guilty " in the other case. As we under- stand the offer of this Judicial Commission, it is to be asked to give a verdict on the conduct of the Times towards Mr. Parnell, just as an ordinary Court of Justice would have given a verdict on it had an action for libel been brought. It is, therefore, utterly absurd to pin down the Commission to investigate the authenticity of the letters first. The Commission ought to have the libel proved, and then hear the case which the Times can make out in justification of its conduct in publishing it, and to pass judgment on that justification. It would be monstrous to require the Commission to pro- ceed in a certain order. Its duty would be to hear the Times' justification,—ruling out, of course, any irrelevant matter,—just as an ordinary Court of Justice would have heard it. To exclude anything essential to that justification, whether it bore immediately on the genuine- ness of the letters imputed to Mr. Parnell, or only on the reasons which appeared to justify the Times in accepting them as genuine, would be most improper and unjust. No one knows this better than. Mr. Parnell. But one would gather from the language which he used in the House on Monday night, that he objected to the ordinary tribunals of this country not so much because the decision would lie with a London jury, as because before such a tribunal the Times would be per- mitted to show that it had sufficiently weighty evidence to justify the publication of its accusations in the interests of the nation, whether that evidence were or were not sufficient to have sustained a criminal charge. The Govern- ment have not,—as yet at least,—shown the slightest desire to introduce irrelevant matter into the investigation. All that they insist upon, and rightly insist upon, is, that by accepting this tribunal, the defendants,—for that must still be virtually the position of the Times,—shall lose no right which they would have had if Mr. Parnell had not been so obstinately indisposed to accept the remedy for his grievances which the ordinary law assigned him. His ingratitude to the Government cannot but suggest that he had no wish at all to lose his excuse for the singular for- bearance with which he had treated the Times. And his followers and allies, among whom we observe, with extreme regret, that Mr. Summers, virtually a semi-official Opposi- tion Whip, is to be included, are now evidently intent on raising so much resistance to the Bill as may render it difficult to proceed with it, while Mr. Parnell protests simultaneously, in blustering language, that the Govern- ment shall in no case be permitted to " back out."
Previous page
