New-York tribune., 1880-06-28

bers. The Speaker said such motion as Mr. Glad-
stones had been made for 200 years. adding that
such occasion tho present had occurred 10 call
IL forth during that period. Mr.. Gladstone de-
Tended his motion with his usual ingenuity. In the
reports the motion has all the air of having been
made precipitatelS, upon one of thoss sudden Inn
pulses to which Mr. Gladstone sometimes gives way
But In fact it was not made. Mr.. Gladstone had
previously consulted Sir Erskine May, clerk of the
House. and perhaps the highest authority in mat
ters of Parliamentary precedent and privilege 1t
is presumptuous to differ from persons OF this
knowledge and experience. But the question after
all is not one of precedent nor of technical pro-
cedure. 1t is question of common sense; ques-
tion whether it was worth while In the circum-
stances to bring out pOnderous and long disused
weapon and lay 1t about Mr. ODonnelPs ears. MI.
O'Donnell was as wrong as a man well could be,
but what harm would have been the effect Of allow
ing him to vent his Clerical spleen to
the full on Mr.. Chaemel-Lacourf He would
have the House against him, aud public
opinion against him. He would have damaged him
self much moro than NJ. Challeme-Lacour. The
French Government would have had far too much
tact to take notice of the incident The Government
here would have been in no way responsible for Mr.
O'Donnell. 1t ia difficult to conceive of any body
of sober-minded persons being responsible for Mr.
O'Donnel, or wishing to hold anybody else respon-
sIble for him. He is young man of some ability,
energetic, sincere dare say, but sadly wanting in
good sense, and in just knowledge of what may be
done and what may not he done in political life
Moreover, Mr. Gladstone might have fOreseen that
no such motion as he proposed could possibly have
been carried if Mr.. ODonnell and his friends chose
to obstruct it. Long before the debate concluded,
it became clear that the motion must be withdrawn
The Liberal majority stood by its leader and, on
- tkrv IL I'm
ment. But the ObstructIonists never would havo
permitted a vote to be taken on the main question
whether Mr. O'Donnell should or should not be
heard. A compromise became necessary. Mr.
Gladstone found himself in the position Of being
obliged to bargain with the member lie had en-
deavored to silence. If his real object was, as must
be presumed to crush the attack on the French Am
bassador it failed If his object was to censure Mr
O'Donnel for making too free use of his technical
rights, the enginery put in motion was out OF oil
measure to the end. Nobody really cared greatly
whether the debate on NJ ChalemeLacours
case took place at upon notice and according
to the forms of the House. Yet all that Mr. Glad
stone gained was concession to that effect. MIR.
ODonnell is to ask another question on Thursday.
He may put down q motion at any time on which
debate may be raised. But Mr.. Gladstone, in return
for this purely formal capitulation, had 10 with
draw his motion for silencing Mr.. ODonnel, with
the further private and uncomfortable reflection
that he has given vast degree of additional pub
licty TO the scandal. Mr.. O'DOnnell. on the other
hand, hos probably done what NJ. Challemel-Lacour
of himself could never have done. He has made NJ.
Chalemel-Lacour popular. The English do not like
to see man attacked behind his back, or in place
where he can offer no defence. They don't wish TO
be made the tools of priestly vindictiveness. And
they will give NJ Chalemel-Lacour such welcome
as he would never have had but for the attack upon
him by Mr.. ODonnell. Society, as mentioned the
other day, was but coolly disposed to him. French
society has never been cordial to him. In no wide
circle of persons is he popular But he has now got
q start in English life which 1t rests with himself
to improve or to throw away. If, after what MI.
O,Donnell has done for him, NJ Challemel-LacOnr
does not become favOrite in England the fault
will be entirely his own G. W. g.