REBELS IN PARLIAMENT

New Zealand Mail, 22 January 1902, Page 61

REBELS IN PARLIAMENT

(From Our Special Correspondent.) r LONDON, November 29. The interesting question of “rebels in Parliament,” which is likely to engage the attention of the House of Commons a few weeks lienee owiug to the election of “Colonel” Arthur Lynch by the patriots of Galway, recalls a famous phrase used by Sir Charles Gavan Duffy in his first speech on Australian soil. He refused to apologise in any way for his Irish career or ihe part he had played in promoting tlie ’4B insurrection. As regards Ireland, lie proclaimed himself to be still “a rebel to {lie backbone and spinal marrow.” The speech created a tremendous commotion at the time, but it did not prevent his election to the first Parliament of Victoria, or his attaining (lie Premiership, or his receiving knighthood from the Queen. The question was again raised in J ulv, 1880, when the Hon Peter Lalor succeeded Sir C. G. Duffy in the Speakership of the Victorian Parliament. A member of tho Government protested against tlie honour being bestowed on a man who had fought against tho soldiers of the Queen —ilie reference being to the part Mr Lalor had taken 34 years before, in tho affair ’twist miners and police ancl troopers at the Eureka stockade. The then Premier, the late Hon James Service, severely rebuked his subordinate, and said the incident referred to in no way reflected discredit on Mr Lalor. Hut will these Australian precedents afford safe cover for “Colonel” Lynch in his advance on St. Stephen’s? I trow not, and indeed am fairly persuaded that if the elect of Galway ever sets foot on English soil ho is more likely to find a cold °eat in the “Stone Jug” than in tlie House of Commons. As a self-confessed traitor to the Empire, Lynch’s fate should bo to hang at the end of a few yards of hempen corcl; hut in these days we aro very “swift to mercy,” and since the sight of the noosed rope gives us shudders, we give traitors and treason-mongers rope of another sort in great abundance. The fact of a man placing himself in opposition to the British army is not in itself, however, a disqualification for Parliament; a man might fight on the enemy’s side and still be able to sit in tho House of Commons so long as he was not

convicted of treason, and there is evidence—the case of Mr \V. S. O Biion i.i 1848—of a member convicted of treason still retaining liis-seat-tor some iime-en a technicality. But there are two uist net precedents against disloyal M.P.’s. x.pperary in 1869 elected -Air Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa to the House of Commons while' ho was in prison for treason,. and in 1875 the same constituency elected Mr John Mitchell, who was also in gaol for the same offence. The House of Commons, however, refused to receive them, and both elections were declared .vow. While Nationalist bodies all over Ireland are passing resolutions congratulating Galway on its splendid feat in returning “Colonel” Lynch to Parliament, it is interesting to notice that the “Colonel’s” • popularity is already . beginning to wane. “Major” McBride, who took part in tlie campaign with the first Irish Brigade, is attacking “Colonel” Lynch because ho has expressed a willingness to take the oath, and a Nationalist newspaper is girding at him because he is delaying to announce definitely whether he will come over and take the consequences of his election. “It remains now,” writes this newspaper unkindly, “for Colonel Lynch l tp state plainly what steps he iutends to take. He may reasonably enough ask | for some time to make up his mind on | this point, hut if he is not prepared to take the risks of the situation, he should not inflict disfranchisement on Galway by retaining the seat.” • The “Colonel” evidently desires to “take time” to consider whether he will take the risk of “doing time.”