"Our London Letter." The Norfolk News, March 23, 1872

On the whole, I think the Norwich people may congratulate themselves that they managed some twelve years ago to get rid of Lord Bury. That he is not a wise lord is a conviction which grows upon me, and was never stronger than on the night of Sir Charles Dilke's motion. The House was excessively crowded, and eagerly expecting Sir Charles's appearance, when who should shoot up from one of the cross benches just against the bar but his lordship, who appealed to the Speaker to be heard on a question of privilege. He had got the form of oath in his hands, and having read it, he proceeded to quote from some newspaper reports of speeches which Sir Charles had delivered, and to inquire if his oath of allegiance was not thereby violated. The Tories, of course, cheered; but nevertheless his lordship had not only done a very stupid thing, but was made to look excessively stupid. The Speaker promptly replied that it was no part of his business to enquire whether the oath had been broken or not; and his lordship then disappeared amidst cheers which now came from the other side of the House. What could have possessed him to put himself in such a silly position? He must have known, or ought to have known, that it is the duty of the Speaker to decide points of order and precedence, but not matters of debate.

The Dilke debate at the outset was an exceedingly tame affair, and its dullness comically contrasted with the excitement and curiosity with which it was expected. A long line of strangers were waiting in the lobby for admission to the gallery, and the pressure on the police by people who wanted members was very severe. The House itself, too, was much thronged. But excepting a few groans by way of a greeting when Sir Charles rose, there was scarcely a single interruption to his able but exceedingly level and monotonous speech. Gradually, when members saw that there was not going to be an earthquake, and that Sir Charles was not going to sing the Marseillaise, or dance the carmagnole with a red cap of liberty on his head, they dropped asleep or went away, so that by the time he had half finished, a good many benches were nearly empty. I should think I saw six or seven members snoring soundly. Mr. Gladstone did something to stimulate attention, but still up to the time when he sat down there was not the smallest sign of a disturbance. I have been told since that the row which subsequently took place was premeditated and predetermined; but if this be true, the intentions of its promoters were well concealed. When however, Mr. Auberon Herbert rose to second the motion, and happened unluckily to observe that he was a Republican, the House obstinately refused to hear him. It then became a simple trial of physical strength between him and his enemies. Every conceivable noise that ever was growled, or crowed, or roared, was used against him, and yet he would not give way. Attempts were made to count the house out but they did not succeed ; and at last Lord Eustace Cecil, in a fit of wild, childish folly, noticed that strangers were present, and the galleries were cleared. Nevertheless, chaos still reigned. Mr. Auberon Herbert defying the House, and the House raging at him to such a degree that not a syllable could be heard. Mr. Dodson in vain appealed to the chair, but the chair might just as well have been a chair literally, for anything it could do. At last, Mr. Herbert was allowed to go on; and after a lecture from Mr. Mundella, order was restored. Now I have just three words to say upon this scene. First, that if it had not been for the Newcastle speech, Sir Charles Dilke would have taken a hundred members into the lobby with him ; secondly, that same wild childish folly of Lord Eustice[sic] Cecil had the entire approval of Mr. Disraeli, and was previously sanctioned by him; thirdly, that although the House was stupidly wrong in refusing to listen to Mr. Herbert, and has in a measure legalized disturbance all over the country, Mr Herbert was just as wrong in braving the House. When it comes to cock-crowing, a sensible man puts on his hat.

The debate on Mr. Dodson's long promised resolutions on the mode of conducting the private business of the House has been postponed, and I believe that nothing will come of them beyond a multitude of complements and a vague promise that something shall be done. Although the private business of the House is at present a scandal, and members are prepared for athoroughh revolution, the boldness of Mr. Dodson's proposals seemed to take the breath of the House away all together. He desires nothing less than a permanent tribunal which shall have not merely the right of enforcing the laws, but, of making them. In ordinary cases, no doubt the judges would be just as well able as the House of Commons to settle the terms of a private bill; but there are cases in which the house alone ought to have authority. A Court is bound by precedent, and is naturally conservative. It would therefore resist any improvement which was not in accordance with precedent. The promoters of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill had a hard struggle to make the House of Commons believe nearly fifty years ago that railways were possible; but they never would have persuaded Lord Eldon. It would appear, therefore, that some part of the private business - what part it is not easy to define - should remain with Parliament. Some alteration clearly ought to be made before long. A session or two ago there was a tremendous contest over a private Bill promoted by a trust in Edinburgh to supply the city with water. The fight cost thousands of pounds, and the issue was left to be decided by half-a-dozen country gentlemen who, if they knew even the barest outline of the topography of Edinburgh, knew it only by accident. Witnesses were brought up by the score all the way from Edinburgh to Westminster, and were lodged sumptuously at the Westminster Palace Hotel for weeks. Perhaps a satisfactory solution of the difficulty would be to have the tribunal which Mr. Dodson recommends, but that Parliament should decide what private Bills should be remitted to it.

Mr. Lowe is going to do an unprecedented thing. He is going to make his financial statement on Monday next - a week before the close of the financial year. I am told that this is a politic move on the part of the Government. The budget will be so satisfactory that it is thought advisable to produce it before Easter, so that it may send members home in a good temper.

Anything more complete than the discomfiture of Sir John Hay by Mr. Childers I never saw. My readers will recollect that last week I said that Mr. Eykyn had put a notice on the paper calling upon Sir John to produce his authority of the libellous insinuation contained in his question to Mr. Goschen about Mr. Baxter. Sir John wanted to know whether it was true, as reported, that a fine levied on Messrs. Baxter Brothers, near relatives of the Secretary of the Treasury, for the non-fulfilment of contract, had been remitted. Mr. Goschen having explicitly denied the remission of the fine, Mr Eykyn felt and everybody felt on our side of the House, that Sir John was bound not only to apologise, but to give the name of his informant. There are some questions which are as defamatory as an affidavit can be; and moreover, it was shrewdly suspected that Sir John had "reported" to himself. The House was excited beyond measure when Mr. Eykyn's hour arrived. At first, Sir John attempted the high hand. His inquiry related solely to a matter of fact. He had made no accusation, and had none to withdraw. The Tories cheered rapturously, and Sir James Elphinstone in particular shouted long and loud. In less than ten minutes, Sir John was beaten, humiliated, and heartily cursed for his stupidity by the very men who applauded him. Mr. Childers rose, and as the first Lord of the Admiralty at the time when Mr .Baxter was financial secretary, begged permission to make a personal explanation. He recalled to the recollection of the House exactly what Sir John's position was - that he had suggested something, to put it mildly, which, if proved, ought to damn Mr Baxter forever, that he had recalled nothing, and had refused to give the name of his informant, although the charge had been contradicted point blank. Nothing could have been better both in manner and matter than Mr. Childers' speech. There was not a word too much or too little, and every sentence told heavily. As he proceeded, Sir John evidently began to feel uncomfortable, and by the time Mr. Childers had read the telegram from Messrs. Baxter Brothers declaring that they had not even asked for the remission of the fine, he looked as if he would much rather have been at home. The House literally roared at him, and his voice, when he tried to explain, was so shaky that he could hardly make himself understood. Sir John Pakington was foolish enough to try a rescue, but he only made matters ten times worse. Mr. Childers had cleverly forborne to say all that he knew, feeling assured that Sir John would notice the omission, and would rush into the ambush which was set for him. In his most imposing style, he requested Mr. Childers to answer this one question: "Had the fine ever been paid?" The Tories were deceived by Sir John's apparent confidence, and sent up a cry of victory which made the roof ring again, but Mr. Childers was perfectly prepared. He had the date of the payment behind him, and he produced it promptly. Then Sir John collapsed utterly, and the scene closed amidst such excitement as we had not seen this session. Outside in the lobby, the opinions expressed upon Sir John, even by those who had just been supporting him to the full extent of their lungs, were by no means flattering. Next morning, the Tory newspapers were dumb. I wasted a penny on the standard - a crime of which I am not often guilty - in order to see what it would say, but it discreetly held its tongue. In the evening, the Globe said that Sir John's mistake was caused by some confusion about dates (!!!), and that it was a pity the error was not rectified before the discussion took place.

The house was much disturbed last evening by a very curious and irregular debate, which was commenced by Mr. Hunt, and continued by Mr. Corry. Nobody understood it, excepting that it concerned Mr. Reed, and Sir Spencer Robinson. So much was evident, because the names of these two gentlemen were frequently heard, but why they were mentioned or in what connection was altogether beyond the power of ordinary intellects to discover. One or two attempts were made to stop it, but they were unsuccessful, and it only ceased when Mr Childers had said a few words by way of reply. Mr Goschen then made an appeal to Sir James Elphinstone to allow him to proceed with the usual statement on the Navy estimates, but, of course, Sir James refused, and commenced his speech amidst an unusual efflux of members, who somehow considered him not extraordinarily interesting.

A SILENT MEMBER