TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE LIBEL CASE.
TO a great many readers of the O'Donnell libel case, the chief interest will appear to be not political, but psychological. What can have been the motive which actually induced Mr. O'Donnell to place his allies,—as he insists on Calling them,—the leaders of the Parnellite Party, in so very false a position as that into which he forced them by the action for libel which he brought? He declares that it was his indignation- at the charges which the Times had openly levelled at Mr. Parnell and the other chiefs of the Irish Land League which induced him to compel the Times to prove its libels. Well, that would have been a very intelligible motive indeed, had Mr. O'Donnell actually incurred any responsibility for the action of the Irish Land League, had he accepted that responsibility, and had he gone into the witness-box to testify to the policy of which he had been one of the authors and apologists. But so far was this from being the case, that Mr. O'Donnell disclaims publicly any connection with the Irish Land League, and even explains his aversion to many features in the policy of the Pamellite Party. He was not responsible for the Irish Land League, and he denies all responsibility for it ; no such responsibility was imputed to him by the Times, and the Times warmly repudiates ever having imputed to him such responsibility ; and how far even he may have approved Mr. Parnell's policy, and may have been anxious to identify himself with it, Mr. O'Donnell took no pains to explain. Indeed, he declined to go into the witness-box and give his reasons for identi- fying himself in any degree with the Irish Land ff or for regarding himself as one of the objects of the accusations levelled by the Times at those who did actually control the Irish Land League. It is, therefore, about as easy to understand on what grounds he thought himself a fit person to vindicate the Irish Land League from the attacks of the Times, as it would be to under- stand Mr. Jesse Collings's conduct if he had chosen to bring an action against the Times for libelling Sir 'William Harcourt and his allies, and had instructed his counsel to represent him as one of those allies. The real effect of Mr. O'Donnell's libel action has been just this,—that the Attorney-General has repeated and justified, in a very brilliant speech, all the allegations brought originally against the chiefs of the Irish Land League, while those chiefs have had no opportunity at all of rebutting these charges, or of giving their own reply to them. Indeed, the greatest injustice was done to both the accusers and the accused, because neither has the Times had any opportunity of bringing forward the evidence upon which it grounded the damning judgments to which it has given such powerful expression, nor have Mr. Parnell and his associates in responsibility had the smallest opportunity of criticising and refuting the evidence on which those judgments were based. Mr. O'Donnell forced both the great antagonists into a blind alley, from which there was no exit for either of them ; but of the two, the Parnellites seem to us to have been exposed to the more cruel pains and. penalties. The Times, though it could not prove its grave allegations, had at least the chance of restating them, and restating them in a form in which at least they constitute a most formidable accusation. But the persons accused were utterly out of the suit, and could not utter a word. Of course, Mr. Parnell will take the oppor- tunity of stating in Parliament his own hew of these accusa- tions—in all probability will have done so before this journal is in our readers' hands—but he can only give a blank denial to the charges, and declare the letters on which the Times founds some of its most serious accusations, forgeries ; he cannot without an action for libel brought on his own account, seriously shake the conviction of those who think that the Times has made out a strong prim,d-facie case. Indeed, -unless such an action is brought, and even if it should be brought, until it is brought, the total result of Mr. O'Donnell's procedure will be to prejudice afresh the public mind. of England against Mr. Parnell. And that certainly does not seem to have been the object at which he aimed.
We must, however, express our very strong conviction that if the Parnellite Party really wish to rehabilitate themselves with the constituencies of Great Britain, ;tad to win the hearty support of English Home-rulers at the next Election, they ought to raise the issue which Mr. O'Donnell did not raise and could not raise, before the country is asked to vote on the .Irish Home- rule Question. Of course, there may be reasons of more kinds than one,—Leven reasons quite consistent with Mr. Parnell's innocence of the charges alleged against him, —which would render him very unwilling to institute the' action for libel which alone could fully exonerate him from suspicion. It is, for instance, quite possible that the violent dynamite party in the United States would be'. stimulated to new assassinations and outrages of a very serious character, not only against English statesmen, but against the Irish leaders who denounced and disclaimed them, by such a course. And apart from that, it does not always happen that men who are really guilt- less of complicity in crime have been careful to keep themselves quite free from any appearance of com- plicity such as might render an effective public defence of themselves impossible. It is perfectly true, as any candid man will admit, that it is one thing to be without any substantial responsibility for crime, and another thing to be able to show this, so as to vindicate effectually a tainted reputation. We do not, therefore, maintain for a moment that if Mr. Parnell and his coadjutors decide not to bring the action which would enable the whole issue to be canvassed in a Court of Justice, that refusal would be adequate evidence of the truth of the Times' charges. It would not be so. Those charges may be wholly false, or may be false in so large a degree that their partial truth would make very little differ- ence in the public judgment of the conduct of the Irish Land League, and yet they may think it best for their own reputation not to open their case in a Court of Justice. But then they must face the natural consequences, and those natural consequences must be, we think, very un- favourable to Mr. Gladstone's hopes. What is the right attitude of mind for a plain man who is himself a Home- ruler, and who wants to give an honest vote on the great question of Irish Home-rule at the General Election ? He cannot but say to himself,—' If Mr. Gladstone succeeds, he will succeed by his alliance with Mr. Parnell and his colleagues, and he will practically hand over Ireland to the control of Mr. Parnell and those colleagues. Now, these very serious criminal charges are brought against Mr. Parnell and his colleagues by a paper which no reasonable man for a moment suspects of accusing men whom it believes to be innocent. Its accusations are supported by a great mass of alleged facts, some of them, of course, very doubtful, but others unquestionable, as, for example, those showing the Irish Land League's perfect willingness to accept aid from the American advocates of crime. And when the leaders might have challenged the worst accusations brought against them and disproved them, they declined to do so. Is it not, then, my duty as a patriot to take all this into consideration, and vote against a measure which would transfer power in Ireland into hands of which we know so little, and have so little reason to like what we do know ?' That seems to us to be the train of reflection and, the conclusion which would rightly pass through the mind of even the strongest Liberal, when asked by Mr Gladstone to support his policy of Home-rule for Ireland, and it seems to us to be a very legitimate train of reflection and conclusion. All things in politics depend on probable evidence. The evidence against Mr. Parnell and the Land Leaguers may be very untrustworthy; but till it is challenged and refuted in a Court of Justice, it must rank as evidence which ought to affect, and to affect gravely, an upright politician's judgment. For even from the strongest Home-ruler's point of view, it ought t6 be a far greater sin to throw Ireland into the hands of such politicians as the Times believes Mr. Parnell and his colleagues to be, than it would be to refuse to throw Ireland into their hands while their character remains in doubt, even though that doubt should eventually be resolved in their favour. It is a very serious matter to revolutionise the government of a country without knowing the character of the men to whom you are going to entrust it at least as well as you know that of the men from whom you are going to take it. Mr. O'Donnell's very unintelligible law- suit may do good,—curiously as it seems to have been adapted to put every one in a false position,—if it brings home once more to the honest Home-rulers' minds, how wrong it would be to trust Ireland to Mr. Parnell till the imputations cast upon him have been cleared away.
Previous page
