Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/920

 measures and fresh coercive legislation. Mr Balfour became chief secretary, and early in the session of 1887 the new measure was introduced and carried. Parnell took no very prominent part in resisting it. In the course of the spring The Times had begun publishing a series of articles entitled “Parnellism and Crime,” on lines following Mr Forster's indictment of Parnell in 1883, though with much greater detail of circumstance and accusation. Some of the charges were undoubtedly well founded, some were exaggerated, some were merely the colourable fictions of political prepossession, pronounced to be not proven by the special commission which ultimately inquired into them. One of the articles, which appeared on the 18th of April, was accompanied by the facsimile of a letter purporting to be signed but not written by Parnell, in which he apologized for his attitude on the Phoenix Park murders, and specially excused the murder of Mr Burke. On the same evening, in the House of Commons, Parnell declared the letter to be a forgery, and denied that he had ever written any letter to that effect. He was not believed, and the second reading of the Crimes Act followed. Later in the session the attention of the house was again called to the subject, and it was invited by Sir Charles Lewis, an Ulster member and a bitter antagonist of the Nationalists, to declare the charges of The Times a breach of privilege. The government met this proposal by an offer to pay the expenses of a libel action against The Times to be brought on behalf of the Irish members incriminated. This offer was refused. Mr Gladstone then proposed that a select committee should inquire into the charges, including the letter attributed to Parnell, and to this Parnell assented. But the government rejected the proposal. For the rest, Parnell continued to maintain for the most part an attitude of moderation, reserve and retreat, though he more than once came forward to protest against the harshness of the Irish administration and to plead for further remedial legislation. In July 1888 he announced that Mr Cecil Rhodes had sent him a sum of £10,000 in support of the Home Rule movement, subject to the condition that the Irish representation should be retained in the House of Commons in any future measure dealing with the question. About the same time the question of “Parnellism and Crime” again became acute. Mr F. H. O'Donnell, an ex-M.P. and former member of the Irish party, brought an action against The Times for libel. His case was a weak one, and a verdict was obtained by the defendants. But in the course of the proceedings the attorney-general, counsel for The Times, affirmed the readiness of his clients to establish all the charges advanced, including the genuineness of the letter which Parnell had declared to be a forgery. Parnell once more invited the House of Commons to refer this particular issue—that of the letter—to a select committee. This was again refused; but after some hesitation the government resolved to appoint by act of parliament a special commission, composed of three judges of the High Court, to inquire into all the charges advanced by The Times. This led to what was in substance, though not perhaps in judicial form, the most remarkable state trial of the 19th century. The commission began to sit in September 1888, and issued its report in February 1890. It heard evidence of immense volume and variety, and the speech of Sir Charles Russell in defence was afterwards published in a bulky volume. Parnell gave evidence at great length, with much composure and some cynicism. On the whole he produced a not unfavourable impression, though some of his statements might seem to justify Mr Gladstone's opinion that he was not a man of exact veracity. The report of the commission was a very voluminous document, and was very variously interpreted by different parties to the controversy. Their conclusions may be left to speak for themselves:—

The specific charges brought against Parnell personally were thus dealt with by the commissioners:—

The case of the facsimile letter alleged to have been written by Parnell broke down altogether. It was proved to be a forgery. It had been purchased with other documents from one Richard Pigott, a needy and disreputable Irish journalist, who afterwards tried to blackmail Archbishop Walsh by offering, in a letter which was produced in court, to confess its forgery. Mercilessly cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell on this letter to the archbishop, Pigott broke down utterly. Before the commission sat again he fled to Madrid, and there blew his brains out. He had confessed the forgery to Mr Labouchere in the presence of Mr G. A. Sala, but did not stay to be cross-examined on his confession. The attorney-general withdrew the letter on behalf of The Times, and the commission pronounced it to be a forgery. Shortly after the letter had been withdrawn, Parnell filed an action against The Times for libel, claiming damages to the