SOME EPISODES OF THE FRANCHISE DEBATE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XII, Issue 13, 18 July 1884, Page 22

SOME EPISODES OF THE FRANCHISE DEBATE.

(Dublin Freeman, May 24.) A defeat, a rout, an abject sauve qni pent, or any other terms to represent a disastrous and shameful retreat, are aloae appropriate to represent the break-down to-day of the Irish Orange opposition to the rights of Ireland. There have been indications, as I have noted, that the situation hud undergone a change for the worse. I wrote in terms of what I thought legitimate triumph of the wretched collapse of 'Mi. Chaplin's attack ou Ireland, and I thought then th^t we were done with this kind of thing for ever. The fact that Mr. Brodiiok renewed the attack where Mr. Chaplin had so egregiously failed, and the appearance of the Conservative party once more united iv holy brotDerbood— still mure, the fact that bir S. JSorthcote had given a qualified sanction to the amendment when the question was last under discussion— led me for a while to fear that my forecast had been too sanguine, and that the fruits of the reconciliation of the different sections of the Tory party would have been a joint Conservative attack upon Ireland. Tbe i eappearance of Lord U. Churchill in his place also suggested perhaps for a moment the unworthy suspicion that he had repented or! his former opinions ou the subject, and was ready to make a sacrifice of his opinions in favour of Ireland 00 tne altar of party puiity and pariy discipline. Lord K. Churchill took the earliest opportunity of disabusing the mind of anybody who imagined that he had changed his views, or that he was ready to shrink from their avowal. He spoke strongly in favour of the Irish claims, and not only that but with open and almost arrogant acorn of the members of his own party, who joined in the attack upon her. To Mr. W. H. Smith he was especially contemptuous. Your readers may perhaps have a faint recollection of

an Orange demonstration in the Rotundo, at which this English luminary appeared, and amid the approving and enthusiastic cheers of men calling themselves Irishmen, proceeded to deliver an insolent attack upou the masses of the Irish people. Lord E. Churchill has never attempted to conceal the supreme contempt he has for Mr. W. H. Smith and one or two other contemptible mediocrities whom the caprice of Lord Beaconsfield raised to a fictitious prominence. The reminiscences of Lord Ronald Gower, which have been recently published, give an amusing account of the feelings of scorn with which Lord Beaconsfield regarded the same class. He used to a9k with an amusing affectation of ignorance whether his late colleague in the Cabinet was « H. W." or «• W. H." Smith, and mourn over his forgetfulneas to call Sir R. Cross by his right name. Lord R. Churchill regards " Marshall and Snelgrove " in exactly the same way, and today eagerly seized a favourable opportunity of doing so. He was dealing with the "mud-cabin "argument by Mr. W. H. Smith, and declaring that this could be no more an argument against the occupiers obtaining a vote than an argument drawn from a contrast •between the palace in which Mr. Smith dwelt and ihe humble and lowly dwelling which sheltered himself. This bit fiom a sou of a duke at the pretentiousness and ostentation of apayvemt told immensely, and was loudly cheered by the Liberals and the Irish members. Oa the alleged illiteracy of the Irish people Lord Randolph spoke not only with good feeling but with a true and sage apprecia. tion of the facts of the case. He pointed out the large disadvantages under which Ireland had so long laboured in the absence of the principle of compulsion which reigns in England, and on the fact that illiteracy belonged to the older and not to the newer generation of Irishmen. Finally, he protested amid Liberal cheers against antiquated Toryism, and called upon Mr. Brodrick to withdraw his amendment. A pronouncement so outspoken spread anger and dismay among the ranks of the Irish Orangemen, and a considerable portion of the remainder of the Bitting was,devcted to their yells, and howls, and impotent protests against the abandonment of the odious policy of ascendancy by the most vigorous and promising representative of modern English Toryism. Lord Claud Hamilton was the first to give expression to this feeling, and launched forth into an attack — often coarsely personal — on Lord R. Churchill and Mr. Parnell, and set forth the gospel of Irish Orangeism in all its naked and brutal deformity. A few of the most ignorant and narrow Tories of the bucolic class gave an occasional cheer to this exposition of a creed outworn ; but the House generally received it in contemptuous and languid silence, and the greater part even of the Conservative benches maintained a silence that denoted pain and uncertainty. The rise of Lord Edward Cavendish was a visible relief, aad the house gave evidence of renewed and respectful attention. The tragic episode which associatesjthe bouse of Cavendish with one of the darkest pages of Irish history naturally gives importance to anything which one of the family may say upon the Irish question, and everybody was both gratified and lelieved to find that Lord Edward Cavendish gave in his adhesion to the claims of Ireland in the heartiest and most cordiai manner. Once more Ihe debate sank to a low and vulgar level, wheu Mr. Tottenham rose to present the view of the incorrigible class to which he belongs. The service which the member for Leitrim does to the Irish cause is incalculable. The look of brutal arrogance, the pompous walk, the silly siipereiliousnfss, all explain, to even an Englishmen, theloathlngin whichmen of this class are held in Ireland. There is a current story about Mr. Tottenham which was told me by" an Englishman . and illustrates the general feeling towards him. He was walking — so the talegoes— down Portland place, one of the finest streets in London, when a wag went up to him and asked him who was the owner of such a house. " How do I know," asked Mr. Tottenham, with a haughty frown. " Who owns the next house ? " Mr. Tottenham declared his ignorance with a frown that was even still haughtier, and when the importunate stranger asked him as to the ownership of yet a third dwelling, his small stock of patience gave way, and he asked why the he was annoyed with those questions ? '• Because," paid the straDger with a winning smile, " I thought from your walk that you ©wned the whole stieet and would therefore be able of course to tell who lived in each house." To-day Mr. Tottenham laboured away at the old Orange arguments, and everybody was so slightly impressed that scarcely a word was listened to, and even his own side had not an encouraging cheer, not even the faintest of " hear, hears," with which to cheer his lonely and desolate way. Even Mr. Kingliarn:an, though he looked daggers, and was arrayed as to his forehead in tempestuous thunderclouds, was sombre and 6ilent, and in the donbif ul contingency of Mr. Tottenham haviDg any powers of historic reflection, he must have felt how abject, forlorn, morally and politically bankrupt, was the cause he championeJ. This disappearance of the broken-down advocate of ascendancy bad its tragic side. Sir Patrick O'Brien supplied the correlative quality of farce. He wandered wildly over every topic but the amendment, and when someone called him to order he paused, and in solemn tones declared, •' Sir, I am not in order "—a statement with which members showed their concurrence by laughing for full three minutes. The honourable baronet exceeded his usual powers of metaphor by describing Mr. Kenny as " the young sea-serpent from Clare." Sir Arthur Otway, trie Chairman, could not stand this, and admonished Sir Patrick who thereupon replied, " Sir, I withdraw the young sea-serpent." Then he announced that he " heard a twinkler " on the opposite benches, which proves how acute are Sir Patrick's powers of healing, and, tvhen the whole house was convulsed with delight at these and other gems of speech, he withered his opponents by remarking that nothing was easier than to try to stifle a disagreeable speech by sickly smiles. On the whole, Sir Patrick's was the speech of the debate. Mr. Gladstone's face while it was being delivered was a study. If, as the hon. baronet said was possible, it is to be his last speecn in the House, he may at least console himself with the knowledge that it will not be forgotten by those whose privilege it was to hear him. Then, Mr. Brodrick, in his perky and chirrupy way, announced that he intended to fulfil bis promise of going to a division, and at once there was a notable exodus of members from his own side. Sir

Stafford Northcote was the first to clear out, then Sir H. Wolff disappeared. Mr. Ashmead Bartlett became suddenly invisible, and so on with several others of the most prominent among the Tories, while Lord Randolph Churchill, Mr. Gorst, Captain Price, young Mr. Lowther, Mr. Dalrymple, and one or two other Tories boldly walked into the same lobby with the Liberals and the Parnellites. Disastrous as the defeat of the champions of Orangeism was expected to be, there waa a pause of bewildered astonishment when the numbers came to be fcnnounced. For Ireland 332, against 137 ; majority, 195 The Irish members burst into a hearty cheer, and well they mi»ht The Franchise Bill may be accepted or thrown out, but this division proved one thing, beyond all further yea or nay— asoendancy is dead, buried, unlamentcd, irrevocable.