Wednesday's sitting led first to a violent attack upon the
Times by Mr. J. Redmond for not publishing a letter in 1882 explaining why he had not condemned the assassination of Mr. Burke in his Manchester speech of/Sunday, May 7th,—namely, because he had not then heard of it, but only of Lord Frederick Cavendish's,—and for not reporting the same explanation sub- sequently given by him in a speech in the House of Commons, —a circumstance clearly needing explanation, but on which, as the Times points out, it is now, at the end of six years, im- possible to give an explanation. Nevertheless, Mr. Redmond's remonstrances appear to have been treated with exceptional and unjustifiable scorn at a more recent period, when the articles on " Parnellism and Crime " appeared. Next came a furious and discreditable squabble about Mr. W. H. Smith's omission to include the words "and other persons" in the description he gave of his Bill in the House of Com- mons on Thursday, July 12th. That he did omit to read the words seems certain, and that they had been decided on both in the committee of the Cabinet and in the Cabinet is also clear ; but it really made no sort of difference. The words "and other persons" were in the notice of motion given on Friday, July 13th, and published on the Saturday, July 14th, and were in ample time for discussion. Mr. Smith could have gained nothing by the omission, and the virulent
insinuations brought against him on the subject were foolish as well as unjust.
Previous page
