THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4384, 15 June 1901, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT

SNAPSHOTS OF IRISH MEMBERS. It is significant of the extent to which the Irish Party has forced itself upon the attention of the British public during its first session at Westminster that, in reviewing the Parliamentary personnel after the Easter adjournment, the gallery scribe of “Reynolds's Weekly” should, with but a single exception, have selected Irish members as the subjects of his snapshot sketches. The following English depreciations are interesting : WILLIAM O’DOHERTY. Now (says the writer referred to) that we have a little breathing space at Westminster, when “silence, like a poultice, has come to heal the blows of sound,” it might b e well to examine some of the new recruits, and to attempt to describe what manner of men they are. I make no excuse for selecting ray specimens from the Irish benches, for I have more than once explained that I regard that part of the House as far more interesting than any other. I begin with Mr William O’Doherty. He is in every sense a coming man—keen, resourceful, and pushing. I have seldom seen a man who has so quickly learnt the art—and it is an art—of questioning Ministers, and of following up his original enquiries bv shrewd supplementaries. Mr O’Doherty is, so I am assured, a brand plucked,from the burning—that is to say, he was once a Unionist, but he has far too much brains for the stupid party. Nor is he the sort of man to stop in a back seat. He takes Tim Healy’s corner when the ’•cdoubtable Tim is away, and he has the knack of appearing like a leader. Another thing in his favour is that he is about thirty-two years of age. Moreover, he is highly educated, having obtained the Incorporated Law Society’s medal at his final examination before being admitted as a solicitor. Among his other claims to fam© is the fact that he, is the Coroner for Innishowen; and all I can say is. if he sits on the departed with anything like the success ho shows in sitting on Ministers and others in the House, he ought to be a remarkably good coroner. THE IRISH ORATOR. Of course, all Irishmen are. orators, more or less, but Mr J. O’Donnell, the member tor Kerrv is the only one who has given the House a touch of the truest Irish oratory, that is to say, oratory in the Irish language. I remember hearing his experiment—and, by the his remarks, which were cut all too short by Mr Speaker, are enshrined in “Hansard” printed in Irish characters. I am bound to say that there was a good deal of difference of opinion, even among the Irish members and the Irish journalists, as to what Mr O’Donnell really said. All I know is that it sounded very nice, rather melancholy and pathetic, and just a little like Welsh. Moreover, though I understood not one syllable, I am bound to say that I felt as if I agreed with every word. For Mr O'Donnell, like many of his race, has “such a way widhim. 5 ’ It is quite a mistake to suppose that the hon. member is a man who can only attract attention by eccentricity. He can talk English, and eloquent English, too, as well as his own language. Indeed Mr O’Donnell is a man of greater culture than most English members. That is not saying much, I know, so I mav add that he has been a national school teacher, and has taken his degrees in the Royal University. It is one of the most cheering facts connected with the re-organ-ised Irish Party that so many of its young members are men of brains and education, and Mr O’Donnell is one of its ornaments.

JOYCE, THE PILOT. Mr Joyce, member for Limerick, is what is known as a character. He has been a pilot, yet he comes straight to the House, and is by no moans unfit for that Assembly. He is one of Nature’s true humourists—and, like all real humourists, he is geniality personified. His voice is as resonant as that of John Burns, and after being in his company for five minutes you can see that here is a man true as steel and clear as crystal. Mr Joyce’s greatest effort was a speech delivered between three and four m the morning during an all-night sitting, and the simnle candour with which he appealed to the Speaker as the “grand pilot” to help him if he got stuck on the shoals and quicksands of Parliamentary procedure, captured all those who were present. After an appeal of that sort, of course, the Speaker let him say anything, and he had the whole House roaring in less than no time. Even Mr Balfour was doubled up with laughter—and he refrained from moving the closure.' Nay, while Mr Joyce was speaking, Mr Balfour rose to go out, but the member for Limerick implored him to stop in so wheedling a manner (I use the word “wheedling” in no offensive sense) that the leader promptly sat down again, and bqard the pilot to the end. WILLIAM LUNDON. Mr Lundon is another Limerick member, sitting for the eastern division of that fair city. All sorts of tales preceded him to Westminster. I was told that he talked such very Irish English that there was only one man in Ireland who understood him, and this one went about with him as an interpreter! Of course, that was all nonsense, out it is the fact that Mr London’s English is not much more easy for me to follow than is Mr O’Donnell’s Irish. Another tale is based upon Mr Lundon’s rugged appearance. It was alleged, with what truth X know not, that when the VicarGeneral (or some other ecclesiastical functionary—l often get their titles wrong) was asked why Mr Lundon had been sent to Parliament, he replied, “We’ve just sent him to frighten them!” I daresay this, too. is legendary. Yet this somewhat uncouth man is really a great scholar, and is as great an authority on Latin as the House contains. He has taught the priests of his country Latin for many a year. He has been in the movement for more than twenty years, and now at last has his rewart! in the shape of an unopposed return to the House. “THE VOICE OF \OUNG IRELAND.”

Another of the younger members of the Irish Partf is Mr O'Shaughnessy, who is only twenty-eight years of age. He is also a medallist, and is studviug for the legal profession. There are no end of learned members from Ireland. Mr O’Shaughnessy had a fine compliment paid him by Sir William Harcourt the other day,, when the old veteran said with what pleasure he had listened to the eloquent voice of young Ireland. The speech which elicited that encomium was a fervent appeal to the House to pass the Bill preventing cluldren from being served in public-houses. It was a toucning appeal, too. There is no more stupid slander than that which is still rife among the ignorant or the bigoted to the ettect that the Irish are a rowdy and drinking set of men. Some of the fiercest of its members—men who cause scenes and defy the whole rlouse like Ajax defying the lightning—are teetotallers, and have been all their lives-. TWO OLD ONES. I have been scribbling these notes, taking men merely at random, men who

have impressed me during the last few weeks. Let mo refer to two who ar« not now to the scene, who are as excitable as any, and who owe nothing to the flowing bowl. The first is Mr Flavin. He is on© of the stalwarts of the Temperance Brigade; and there was something quite fascinating about the manner in which he led two of the new members about the place at the beginning of the session. The two were, I believe, Mr Murphy, member, for East Kerry, a bit of a poet, and the happy husband of one of the most beautiful women m Ireland (that land of beauties), and Mr O’Donnell, already mentioned. The trio were called “the three musketeers,’' and they have done some effective sniping already. Indeed, “sniping” is an inadequate term in which to describe Mr Flavin’s methods. Hi opens like a Maxim composed of eightyton guns. He is more terrible than an army with banners. But I have spoken of him before, and I turn to mention another member, a much older Parliamentary hand than iir Flavin, one of the most gifted men in the House, and one of the most misunderstood. I mean my friend Mr Swift MaoNeill. He has not been in his place once this session, and I am sorry for it, but much mor 0 sorry because of the reason, which is that his health has broken down. I hope it may ho soon restored. Question time seems quite a tame affair without his delicious “asides,” his comments, his gestures, more eloquent than some men’s speeches, and his racy, irresistible interruptions. Everyone who knows him likes him. There is no credit in liking him, because you cannot help it. If it is any consolation to him in his sickness to know that he is missed, and to know tnat he will be warmly welcomed when he comes back, he can take it from me that this is so. I have heard him talked about_ in the by those who hate his views in a manner which would touch even a less emotional man. SOME ENGLISH ORATORS.

Mr Chamberlain is often spoken of as the greatest debater in the House of Commons. Ho is “slim-” He can fill the House. The words “Joe’s up,” are sufficient to empty the terrace on the finest afternoon, in th© full flush of the tea hour. _ Legislators dallying upon the bank of indolence will hasten to the overcrowded bar Chamber to listen. Mr Chamberlain is fully conscious of his power to draw. He uses it sparingly, and thus nurtures its influence. But he is not eloquent. Rhapsody seldom, ii ever, fires a speech of his. He keeps to “business.” His methods are striking. It might be said of him, as Duka Gloats;- was made to say of himself:' “I can smile, and murder while I smile.” I have known men to confess “changing their lobby” after a speech’ br Mr Gladstone. But Chamberlain does not appeal to the heart or to the emotions. H© is a master of political casuistry. His ideals are of the pattern of the Lowther Arcade. Yet in the doing of his work, the carrying out of his purpose, no man could use better language, no on© b© readier with retort, .no one be a mor© subtle exponent of exactly th© things which h© desires should penetrate the _ understanding of a slowthinking squire, or confus© the issue to a possible doubter opposite. In short, Mr Chamberlain, to use Lord Rosebery’s words, advertises himself. Mr Chamberlain pushes his policy much as a tradesman pushes his goods. He is special pleader for the Government. It was he that raised the Khaki Parliament. Mr Chamberlain has the art of saying exactly the right thing at the right moment. He uses the right word, except when h© interjects the wrong on© at a member sitting opposite. Still, h© is not an orator and he would probably be the first to reject the soft impeachment. i

CABINET RHETORICIANS. In the Cabinet, otherwise, the rhetoricians are few. Mr Chamberlain is the master in his own walk. But the Duke of Devonshire, solid, plain, earnest, sound without furv: Mr Ritchie tactful; Mr Hanbury, a hard worker, without great enthusiasm; Mr Brodrick rising slowly under the weight of too much to do; Mr George Wyndham oppressed by an unromantic department; Mr Walter Long typifying Local Go-! vernment, deficient water, and unsound health; Lord Lausdowne, Lord George Hamilton, Lord Selborne—all these will only attract, attention by what they have to communicate, not because of the manner of the communication. Even Sir M. Hicks-Beach, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, is attractive only because of his office and his grip on the taxpayers’ pockets. AN OLD PARLIAMENTARY HAND. The one survivor of th e old school of orators or declamatists is Sir William Haroourt. He is the John Kemble of anether stage. He is a bora debater of tne heroic mould. Nature has endowed its favourite with the equipment of a great declaimer, in the mood at once of tragedy and comedy. Figure, face, voice, the inspiration of lofty ideals, are' bis stock-in-trade. Latterly, however. Sir Willfam Harcourt has taken upland adopted a. gloomy mode of address. His accent is usually funereal. Hs approaches even so light a theme as the financial foibles of Mr Thomas Bowles with a majestic gravity. To a melancholy monotone he adds a note of expression so low that it reaches “the gallery”’ as the inarticulate moan of muffled despair. Why is this It i* not constitutional, like Lord Salisbury’* new style; it comes not from ill-health, or decay or exactly from intolerance, or the fading instincts of controversy. Sir William, as he proved on the War Bill at the cloSe of the session of 4900, can revive his old and fascinating style —the merciless jester, who kills with ridicule, and the powerful, eloquent exponent of a great policy. He gave us, after many months of his solemn mood, a variant of th e older and finer, and, for his party’s use, more serviceable style, which won cneers of delight trom a quarter where it could not but be recognised as a damaging attack. But, an occasional return to their better state in the past notwithstanding. Lord Salisbury and Sir William Harcourt must, sad as the admission is, he classed with the vanishing forces of Parliament.