Smith were submitted seriatim. No objections were taken to the first or the last named of these judges, except that none of them sympathised with the Nationalists. But over the name of Justice Day the fight was fierce and rancorous. He was described as a hater of the Irish, a catholic, as strong as Torquemada, a tory of the old highflier, nou-juror, kind, who nightly railed against Parnell and his friends. This character of Justice Day was given by a barrister named Adams, who had served with him on the Belfast Riots Commission, in a Jetter which Mr. John Morley read to the House. It followed as a matter of course and with the naturalness which makes one set of politicians see everything and everyone black in this Irish question while the other set sees the same things in the whitest and purest light, that another Belfast Riots Commissioner wrote to the Times a few days afterwards, saying that while he sat on the Commission the Justice imessed him "both by his words and his charitable acts as an ardent admirer of the Irish people." The appointment, was approved by a majority of 89. Later in the evening Mr. Parnell said that his recollection of Mr. Chamberlain was that before he became a Minister he was always most anxious to put. the Nationalists forward to do the work he was afraid to do himself, and that after he became a Minister he was always most anxious to betray to them the secrets and counsels of the Cabinet of which he was a member. Subsequently Mr. 'T'. P. O'Connor was brought to order for having called Mr. Chamberlain Judas Chamberlain. Mr. Parnell on this oc~ casion interposed to save his colleague, by pleading that as Mr. Chamberlain had not himself heard the expression used he had no right to complain of it; a specious ent which the Speaker at one set aside, but Mr. Parnell persisted for a short time with what he called his "point of On the following evening Mr. Chamberlain denied the imputations which Mr. Pamel! had brought against him, and said that he had informed Mr. Gladstone of all that had passed between him: and Mr. Parnell in regard to the latter's release from Kilmainham. bill The second time he had had communication with Mr. Parnell was with regard to a scheme for providing a National Council in Ireland. Mr. Parnell had at that time, 1885, not only denied that this scheme was his, but put up two of his colleagues to declare that the scheme was Mr. Chamberlain's. Mr. Parnell while Mr. Chamberlain was speaking denied having constructed the scheme in question, on which his opponent said that he had proof that the scheme was the Nationalist leader's, that the proof was in letters which are wholly in his handwriting and not in the handwriting of his secretary. Mr. Parnell's reply was very violent, and in the course of it, he controverted what Mr. Chamberlain had said about the proposals for establishing Councils un Treland. On the following day Captain O'Shea, who will be remem as the intermediary in the negotiations about the Kil-main ham treaty, wrote to the Times saying that the Irish Council scheme was Mr. Parnell's "very own, the original claim to its creation and construction exists not only above his signature, but in his own hand writing." Yet this is the scheme which Mr. Parnell not only denied that he had constructed but put up his colleagues in the House to declare that the scheme was Mr. Chamberlain's. Mr. Parnell had no doubt found that the scheme would not be accepted by the majority of his party, and hiad craftily caused it to be attributed to the man whom Captain O'Shea says the Nationalist leader then fed as: his benefacfor. This was double dealing with a vengeance.
he Gladstonians and Parnellites sought to make capital out of the addition to the Bill of "and other persons" as well as Members of Parliament, who should be examined by the Commission. It was admitted by Mr. Goschen that Mr. Smith might have omitted to state these words when giving notice of the Bill. The probability seems to be that he did omit them. The Nationalists and their allies made the most of this, and the Times in commenting on their ings said that a flood of black-Times and those responsible for its wardism had been poured out on the proceedings, which was absolutely without parallel in Parliamentary history. Following this were equally strong phrases, such as, its indifference to abuse, calumny, mendacious phrases and foul-mouthed oratory. These Mr. La-boucher proposed to make a matter of privilege, but, Mr. Gladstone discouraged the motion and it was withdrawn. Blackguardism is not a nice word to be used in political warfare, but it should be noted that Mr. Gladstone used it not long ago as descriptive of the acts or policy of Pitt in procuring the Trish union, Several amendments were proposed, all designed to limit the scope of the enquiry clare the Commission, but they were all defeated and the i through committee without change. Some of the es of the Gladstonians and the Irish members were very violent, all- moderation of language was abandoned and the "ironical laughter" of the Nationalists at almost every statement made by the Government, and their "loud cheering" of their colleagues and allies enable us to form an idea of the scene. An attempt was made by the Irish members to show that the Government had acted in conjunction with the proprietor and Editor of the Times in framing the measure, but it failed. Mr. Redmond told how the Times had stated that at a meeting at Manchester on the day after the assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish avd Mr. Burke, he had approved the killing of the latter by not expressing any regret for it, and had not published a part of a speech of in the house in which he explained his he addressed to it at the time to the same effect. On hearing this Mr. John Morley said that if the Times had acted in this, way it had been guilty of the deepest infamy, On the following night Mr. Redmond made an explanation of his treatment by the Times, after hearing which Mr. Morley withdrew the strictly conditional judgment he had passed on the Zimes. and said it had been guilty of the deepest infamy. Such language as that from a leading member of the Opposition, the outrageous and unscrupulous conduct of Sir William Harcourt, and Mr. Gladstone having pronounced the letter of Mr. Parnell, which the Zimes has published, a forgery, show that the enquiry could not have been made by a Committee of the House of Commons. These gentlemen are, the Times says, eminent members of the House, and no exception could be taken to their names if Parliament had consented to refer the charges against the Parnellites, to a Select Committee. Ihe week's debate ing shows how completely the Gladstouians have thrown in their fortunes with Mr, Parnell, how unscrupulous the conduct of that gentleman has been, and how he had been brought to bay and was fighting for life. And no one who reads these debates will be surprised that grent dissatisfaction with their leaders and their Parellite allies was felt by many Gladstonians.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.