Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/398

 The Story of the Parnell Commission.

36:

published the facsimile of a letter bearing date, the 15th of May, 1882, alleged to have been written by the authority of Mr. Parnell and signed by him, in which he appeared to apologize for having as a matter of expedi ency openly condemned the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke, though in fact he thought that Mr. Burke had de served his fate. The house of Walter were fully alive to the im portance of the step they were taking in giving this document to the world, and it is said that on the night of its publication the gates of Printing House Square were closed and no one was permitted to cross the threshold till the fateful sheets had been issued. Mr. Parnell on the same day, in his place in the House of Commons, declared that this let ter was a forgery, but he did not then take any proceedings • against the "Times," for its publication. . The gauntlet thrown downbythe-Times," sir james

Sir Richard Webster, then Attorney-Gen eral, and Sir Henry James appeared for the defendants. It may well be open to question whether Sir Richard Webster, as first law officer of the Crown, acted with su preme prudence in undertaking the cause of the " Times " in a matter which it was evi dent from the outset would provoke the bitter est political feeling. But the attacks which were made on his professional conduct in this stormy epi sode of contempor ary history are now conceded on all hands to have been unfounded. We shall have something more to say on this subject as the story proceeds. But the first of the points that have been made against the exAttorney -Gen e r a 1 arose in the O'Don nell case, and it ma)' as well be dealt with now. The " Times" in effect answered Mr. O'Donn ell's claim by two alternative pleas. 1 . That the alleged libels HANNENdid not refer to the

was, however, picked up by Mr. Frank Hugh O'Donnell, formerly M.P. for Dungarvan, who conceived himself to be included in the accusations brought against the members of the Home Rule party, and he sued Messrs. Walter and Wright (the publishers of the "Times") for libel. The defendants denied that the statements in question related to the plaintiff, and alleged that they were true in substance and in fact. The case was tried before Lord Coleridge and a special jury on the 2d of July, 1888. Mr. Ruegg was counsel for the plaintiff,

plaintiff; and 2. That if they did they were true. In opening their case, the AttorneyGeneral stated the facts which he pro posed to give in evidence in the event of the issue of the truth or falsehood of the alleged libels having to be determined by the jury, and repeated and enlarged upon the charges in the "Times" articles. At the close of his address, the plaintiff withdrew from the jury all the alleged libels except two in which he had been specifically named, and on these a verdict was found for the defendants. There was