The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1880-06-19 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

DONNELL'S ESCAPADE.  The House of Commons was, on Monday evening, the theatre of an extraordinary scene. That master of obstruction, and maker of absurd and virulent speeches, Mr. O'Donnell, asked a question bearing on the recently appointed French Ambassador. He coupled with the question a most offensive harangue, hinting that the object of his remarks had been guilty of murder and other offences. He was replied to by Sir Charles Dilke, who, in temperate words, indicated that there was not the slightest ground for the slanderous allegations which had been made. Here, if Mr. O'Donnell had observed the rules of Parliamentary debate the matter would for the time being have dropped, to be revived again if the author of it saw fit to give notice of. motion. But Ur. O'Donnell, ignoring the rules of Parliamentary debate, again rose to his feet, and, with acrimony, proceeded to declare that the reply of the Under Secretary for State was unsatisfactory. At the same time he went on to make farther charges against the French ambassador. Such a coarse as this was intolerable, and, as he disregarded the ruling of the Speaker, and set the laws of the House at defiance in that offensive way which is so peculiarly his own, Mr. Gladstone, after consultation with Sir Erskine May, rose and moved that the hon. member be not heard. Such a thing was in accordance with Parliamentary precedent, but it had not been done for two hundred years. It was, however, amply justified by the exceptional circumstances of the case. One would have thought that Mr. Gladstone would have received the hearty support of Sir Stafford Northcote and the Conservative party generally, but, strange to say, they ostentatiously threw the shield of their protection over Mr. O'Donnell. The result was a protected and acrimonious debate, during which the Home Secretary stood at the table for ten minutes while the Tories howled at him and one hon. member moved that he be not heard, a motion which evoked tremendous cheering from the Opposition benches. However, Mr. Gladstone had his way, and the blatant Mr. O'Donnell was not permitted to make his speech. He contended that he was merely preserving the rights and dignity of the House. On the other hand, his opponents raised the utterly untenable assumption that he was endeavouring to interfere with the freedom of debate. His majority was 106. Some of his supporters, however, considered that he was making a mistake. Against this may be placed the tact that many Conservatives grumbled bitterly because they were obliged to follow their leader, Sir Stafford Northcote, into the lobby on behalf of such a person as Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. Gladstone has been generally censured by the Metropolitan press ; but the last election showed that the Metropolitan press in no way represented the feeling of the country but simply that of club coteries, and we venture to affirm that in this matter the nation is with the Premier. Mr. O'Donnell has been universally condemned for his indefens his conduct. Mr. Parnell, Sir Stafford Northcote, and others who supported his claims to be r allowed to speak indicated that they had I no sympathy with his slanderous charges. Indeed, up to the time that Mr. Gladstone moved that he be not heard he did not appear to have any backers in the House. What has happened is, of courses to be regretted, but it should be clearly understood that obstruction and calumny such as Mr. O'Donnell devotes himself to cannot be any longer tolerated.