New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-08-17
BRITISH TOPICS.

| THE IRISH FILIBUSTERs SILL UNDER PUBLIC Dis
CUssIOS-MR. ODONSELL DEFIANT-MR. BIGGAR
~ COLLISION WITH HE O'DoNoGHUE-TURKIsn
NKws GAEBLED-IITTRAEY NOTES.
tFRoM TUE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE rRrBUSE.l
LoNDoY Aug. 3.-Discussion upon the riot in the
House of Commons continues; even the great events
of the war do not quite ovcrshadow il, nor extn-
guish interest in it; a riot on the banks of the
Thames being more to the Engshman than n battle
on the banks of the Danube Mr.. Fawcett is so i'll
satisfied with his share in the proceedings that he
publishes an explanation Of what he really meant
and wished. He did not. he now says, desire to give
any countenance to the Irish seven. He objected
only to the tactics employed by Sir Stafford North
! cote for their overthrow, and declares that it
was the clear duty of the leader of the House
to take direct action against the offenders
rather than sanction course which (in Mr.
Fawcetts opiniOn) deprived other members of
their legitimate rights. No fault can be found
with this it is only to be regretted that Mr.
Fawcett did not make his opinions clearly under
stood at the time. Those who heard him seem to
have been convinced that he was then, as / said in
my letter OH the subject opposed TO any interference
with the obsructives on the ground of the peril
involved TO mInorities of the future Such also, |
| think was the impression of the Irish themselves
At any rate, the net result of Mr. Fawcetts speeches
the House in general. Mr.. Courtney and the other
Radicals might well explain whether they also were
misunderstood. Mr. Courtney. indeed, did say
early Wednesday morning that the
sembly had ceased to be dehberatIve, and
that when great constitutional principles
were at stake, as he believed they were
in this South African BILL he would not take part in
a debate for which members evidently untitled
by fatigue and excitement. But can find no evil
dence that either he or those who left the House
with him. then put themselves on the platform which
Mr.. Fawcett has since occupied. They certainly
might have recollected that whatever principles
might be at stake in that particular measure, the
principle of legislation ITSELF the rights of MAORI
ties, and the possibility Of Parliamentary govern
ment were all challenged by the Irish obstructiyes
1t was of more consequence to maintain these than
to maintain oroyerthrow any principle that could be
involved in the provisions of act relating to South
Africa.
Mr.. ODonnell, too has appealed from the House
to the public through the newspapers. He desires
to explain that he was not cowed by the intmation
OF SIR Stafford Northcoe that he might shortly ask
the House to deal with Mr.. ODonnell and his
| friends He declares for himself and them, that
they are perfectly ready to meet the censures COM
mitments suspensions aud other pains and penalties
which stand at the good pleasure of a "mere
! majority But he considers that the Government,
having undertaken to beat them within the forms
of the House" had found itself unable to do this,
and that tine proposal Of Sir Stafford NOrthcOte was,
in fact throwing up of the sponge. As if the CEN
sure or commitment Of an offending member were
not within the forms Of the House! However, it
must be admitted that the point, as against Sir stat
ford is a good one. As a defence of Mr. ODonnelFs
courage, or proof of his readiness to undergo the
/ g.fx hfaih a oil iii il
| less satisfactory.
4 specimen Of the tone which would prevail in the
House if Mr. ODonnell and his confederatcs were to
establish a code Of manners, is supplied 10y their
speeches mt dinner on Wednesday night. Mr..
ODonnelrs admirers do not compel him to wait long
for their recognition Of his merits. This dinner, you
perceive. given the very evening after the adj
oumment following upon the twenty-slX hours SIT
ting; proof, perhaps that he was not SO nueh eX-
hausted as he complained of being. The Irish peo-
pie" said his lrshman, had been the dupes OF par
ty leaders Parliamentary trimmers and masked po-
tical impostors of whom as an instance he need not
name the member for 1rraleew-Th ODonoghue, that
is. Mr. Biggar Imay stop TO say, had lately opposed
the O'DOnOghue's appointment on a committee;
and when asked for his reasons said they We're
weghty, but said that he did not wish to attack HIM
in his absence. Next day The O'Donoghue appeared
|
uation the day before. and profesed himself ready
TO meet any charge Mr. Biggar had to bring. Thus
challenged. Mr.. Biggar, after much hesitation, de-
clared that he would explain himself the next time
The O'Donoghue was proposed for committee! ms
would not do evidently, and upon further pressure
Mr. Biggar said he conld not state all the varied
| reasons in his mind, but that Some speech OF Inc
ODonoghue In the House three years before had left
an adverseimpresslon on his mind! You can imagine
the shout Of derslon which this provoked, and the
| cheers which greeted Sir William Harcourts ener-
eetic protest against such reckless indulgence III
charges which attempt was made to suDstantlate
Mr. ODOnnell is only following in Mr.. Biggars
wake and earning his own share of an equally hearty
contempt. But what is to be made of man who
talks about the cause of the Irish people being desc
Grated by the feon touch of frothy politicians =
frotly being apparently favOrite word with Mr.
ODonnell. Both he and Mr. Biggar denied once
more that they were endeavoring to obstruct the
business of Parliament a denial which is of itself
sufficient measure of the courage and honesty OF the
men who make It.
Meanwhile. Irlshmen who care for their own rep
utation and that of their country are dong what
they can 10 dsproye the assertion of the obstruc-
tiyes that Irish opinion is with them Mr. Butt has
called a meeting of IIome-Rulc members on Monday
and will then demand that some steps shall be taken
by the party with reference to the conduct oi eSs'S
Parnell, O'DOnnel Bggar, OConnor POWER
Nolan, Kirk, aud Gray; or that his resignation as
leader of the party shall be accepted.
1t is long since any statement has appeared more
discreditable to journalism than that published by
| The Times of Wednesday from its correspondent at
Constantinople respecting what nc cals the nian-
ufacture of atrocities. He SAYS
lam told on perfectly Trustworthy testimony OF one
CORRESPONDENT who offered To send whatever e authot