LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
A PROTEST.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—In your note in the Spectator of March 9th on Sir George Trevelyan's speech at Cambridge, you suggest that Mr. Parnell is not entitled to sympathy for "the great and terrible wrong" which he has "nobly endured," because he did not earlier bring an action for libel against the Times ; and you further suggest that the reason for the delay has been his dislike to subject himself to cross-examination. Surely, surely this is not our old friend, the Spectator—always so fair, so courteous to his opponents—speaking thus !
Mr. Labouchere, who of all the English Members is most intimate with the Irish chief, has explained that it was not until the Special Commission Bill had been introduced that Mr. Parnell satisfied himself that he could prove who was the actual forger of the letter. Mr. Parnell was fully justified, it seems to me, in inferring from the incredulity evinced by the House of Commons, that a jury would not accept his bare denial of its authorship ; and he had been assured by Sir Richard Webster that he should have no opportunity of tracing the letter, for the Times would rest its defence upon the evidence of experts ; while his own evidence would have
been open to the remark that a man who could be guilty of writing such a letter, would be quite capable of repeating his false denial on oath. Under these circumstances, and. until he could lay his hand upon the forger, what assurance had he of success in an action for libel ? or what assurance of the concurrence of public opinion in the verdict of the jury based upon such scant materials ? To satisfy the public—as distinct from the jury—he must have proved a negative, and how could he do this without the materials to prove a con- tradictory affirmative?
I say nothing of your scarcely concealed imputations upon Sir George's honesty ; though, by-the-way, do you really believe that he is consciously acting in opposition to the dictates of his political conscience? This is what your note implies.
I rely upon the traditional fairness of the Spectator to allow this protest from a constant reader of many years' standing
to appear in your columns.—I am, Sir, &c., M. H. F.
[Our note implied nothing of the sort, but was much more courteous to Sir George Trevelyan than Sir George Trevelyan has been to the Spectator. What we said and believe was that Sir George Trevelyan's instincts,—we said nothing of his conscience,—revolted against the Home-rule policy. That he argued those instincts down we do not doubt at all, nor that he believes himself to have taken the right side now in spite of his prolonged reluctance to take it.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
