MR. O'DONNELL AND THE SPEAKER. [TO THR EDITOR or THE
" SPROTATOR."1
80,-1 have not hitherto taken notice of the wholesale mis- :statements which appear in your columns in reference to the Irish Members. If I depart from this rule at present, it is 'merely to deprive you of any pretext for assuming that silence gives consent to your tissue of misrepresentations.
You have published. an article, entitled, "The Disorder of Monday," in which you assert, or assume, that Mr. Gladstone Only erred on the side of weakness or gentleness,. in not " vin- cheating the dignity of the House and the Speaker" against our
irrelevant insolence." In support of your contention, you 'This that "the subject of debate was a mere matter of form." This is untrue, as you are, perhaps, unaware. Some most im- portant debates have taken place on the motion for appropriat- ing by Government the days of private Members. The opposi- tion to the Government proposal was exceptionally justified this year, in consequence of the previous appropriation of the days of Private Members during the whole Session by Government, under rules of urgency, &c. Furthermore, Mr. J. A. Blake had raised a special question, inasmuch as his motion for "a committee to inquire into the .condition of the Indian agricultural population especially in the distressed provinces of Bahar and Oudh," occupied the ,first place, on the very first Tuesday sought to be appropriated.
Blake pleaded that, considering the absence of discussion on Indian affairs, and considering the promises of Lord Har- tington with respect to Daher two years ago, at least that
opportunity for discussing Indian grievances should be left un- confiscated. Nothing could be more relevant, or more necessary.
I followed Mr. Blake, and supported his plea, in language every word of which was relevant and becoming. I reminded the House that, in reality, Mr. Blake's motion was not, properly speaking, a private Member's motion, but one which concerned our entire government in India. I said that now, especially when India was asked to contribute men and money towards the piractical expedition in Egypt, at least Indian grievances should be met with attention in that House ; that the papers—I might have quoted the Standard—reported that prayers for Arabi were being offered in the mosques of Calcutta ; and that if they wanted to confirm the loyalty of the Indians, they should redress Indian wrongs. Lord George Hamilton, if it pleased him, could have uttered every one of these words, and he would have been thoroughly, entirely, and absolutely in order. It was a plea, and a just plea, for leaving Tuesday free for the discus- sion of Indian grievances of the greatest seriousness. Just when I was most relevant, I was informed by Mr. Speaker that I was irrelevant. This is the habitual practice of Mr. Speaker, for which he is highly applauded by the Ministerial majority. Again, when I was actually replying to a statement made to me by Mr. Gladstone with reference to the Marquis of Har- tington, I was told by Mr. Speaker that I "was about to enter" upon a discussion fixed for another day. I was "about to enter" upon nothing of the kind.
I presume some Scotch genius presided over the compilation of your sentence about the enormity of my "statement that the new vote for military and naval expenditure mounted up by extraordinary amounts every two hours." I can assure you that the House knew very well what was meant by my jesting reference to Mr. Childers' mistake of Saturday. You are hard pushed indeed for a pretext for misrepresentation. The brutal unfairness with which we are treated in Parliament is fully equalled by the brutal unfairness of such journals as
[We publish this letter very willingly. It entirely sustains our criticism on Mr. O'Donnell's tone towards the Speaker, whom he here very plainly admits that he intended to insult, though he declared in the House of Commons that he intended nothing of the kind—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
