The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-21

House of Commons on Tuesday evening, as
telegraphed to the HERALD, will make a pro-
found aud interesting impression upon our
people. The scene in what the English are
fond OF calling ''ths most illustrious and
venerable legislative assembly in the world"
will recall to mind the good old times in Tam
many Hall, before committees of seventy and
Judge Bedfords grand juries had disturbed
our civilization. Ia the ''lllustrious and
Lord Bury was speaking ''there were cheers
and shouts and confusion on all Sides" and
that when Sir Charles Dixie arose there was
"a storm Of groans and Cheers" that there
was ''derisive laughter in all parts of the
house" and $50 much confusion that the
! Speakers voice was naudible" When Au-
beron Herbert arose his voice was drowned
with groans; there were many Interruptions,
and when at last the Speaker insisted upon
order all of the conservatives and many of the
! liberals left their seats. The rule Of the
House is that unless there are forty members
| present the Speaker shall declare 1t ad.
| journed. There must have been a small
House, as three efforts were made to count it
out during Mr.. Herbert's speech. When the
division came there were two hundred and
seventy six members present, two of whom
voted for the motion Of Sir Charles Dixie. All
of which, occurring in ''the most llustrous and
venerable legislative assembly in the world,
| quite recOnciles us to our Washington assem-
bly,, which sometimes performs queer antics,
but never so extraordinary as what was seen
in the House of Commons on Tuesday even
ing. .-H al.
We are even more surprised al this Demon
sration when we come to anayza the motion
of The honorable baronet He simply moved
for returns Of the money spent upon the
Crown and the various members Of the royal
family, and especially the revenues from the
Duches Of Cornwall and Lancaster and the
amounts paid to the Prince Of Wales. A more
innocent motion cannot be conceived for if
Englishmen who pay taxes are not to be in
| formed of the disposition Of their money they
have no more freedom than the Arabs or the
Chinese. The speech which explained and
| supported The motion was as mild as possible.
Sir Charles merely denounced snecures" and
wanted to know why princes VINO had allow
ances from the nation should live in royal
lod les, and limited that if the princes wanted
yachts they should pay for them like gentle
men in America, and not make them charge
upon the navy He furthermore thought that
St. James Palace was an unnec essary ex-
pense, that it cost thousands of pounds q
year and did not serve even royal purpose.
Considering that st. James Palace looks
like a hospital, and is really an aims
house for decayed nobility, and might be
put into the market as real estate for million
or two of pounds this seems to be a just crit-
cism. What surprises us in this speech is its
temperance; yet We find Mr.. Gladstone
''sharply" Gliding Sir Charles for his motion,
aud reproaching him for inaceuracy Of state
ment. If that were his real objection Mr..
GladstOnes proper course would have been
! to have agreed to the motion, for Sir Charles
Dixie, as we understand him, was seeking in
formation. The Premier, however, was swept
away by the temper of the House, and he urged
it upon every consideration to reject the mo-
ton. We are at loss to understand the po-
sition of men like P. A. Taylor, Henry Faw-
cett and others of the extreme liberals, whose
votes have always been radical but who
either remained away from the House or
walked into the lobby with Mr.. Gladstone.
These men voted with Sir Charles Dixie
against the allowance to Prince Alfred, and
the dowry to the Princess Louise, on the oc-
casion of her marriage to the Marquis of
Lorne-acts in themselves as unpopular as the
introduction of this resolution of inquiry.
Why they should have abandoned him on
Tuesday is mystery that further advices
must explain.
What, then, is the meaning Of this extraor-
binary demonstration? The clamors of the
House are nothing, for that venerable and
iIlustrious" assembly is rowdy body, gov
erued by parliamentary lynch law-volatile,
easily moved, especially after dinner, with q
good deal Of romp about 1t, and apt to make
a noise over Mr.. Whalley's denunciations of
the Pope or Mr.. Newdogate's invectives
against the Jesuits or some keen joke of the
Prime Minister. Sir Charles Dixie had been
making unwelcome speeches against the Crown
during the recess, and he might be sure oil
stormy reception when he came to the House.
But this was something worse than rowdyism
| and noise. If Sir Charles Dixie and Auberon
Herbert were mere agitators who denounced
| the Crown for a livelihood If they were rep
resentatives Of the laboring class, like Mr..
Bradlaugh and Mr.. Odger, anxious to speak
for labor in Parliament; If they were fanatics
on religion or divine right, or the pioneers Of
some reform in taxation, like Bright and Cob
den when they began the Corn Law movement,
there would have been opposition, and vio-
lence, perhaps, and stormy scene in the
Commons, but no such feeling as was shown