May 17th 1916: Parliament Continues To Discuss the Easter Rising |
Monday, May 8th: - It was a relief to pass from the sombre theme of judgment passed on Irish rebels to the quiet humours of Daylight-Saving. Sir HENRY NORMAN was perhaps a little over-anxious to be playful; and some of his rather ancient jokes gave obvious pain to Mr. PEARCE, who once carried a Daylight-Saving Bill through its second reading without any such frivolous words. There was little opposition. Sir FREDERICK BANBURY once more appeared in his favourite character of the conscientious objector. He was not on this occasion “the champion of the suffering rich,” as Mr. DUKE called him the other day, but the defender of the humble milkman, who already had to rise before dawn for the greater part of the year, and might, I gathered, be subject to unworthy suspicions if he performed his functions before the dew was off the grass. Lord HUGH CECIL, who thought the proposal to put on the clock smacked of “the tricks of the lowest class of journalism,” is understood to have been referring to those remarkable examples of advanced literature, the “6.30 News” and “7.0 Star.” The INFANT SAMUEL, as my esteemed predecessor used to call him, disclaimed the idea that he had become “a presumptuous JOSHUA.” The Government only supported the proposal because it would help us during the War by saving coal. Sir HENRY DALZIEL is the proprietor of a newspaper, one of whose most piquant features is a column entitled “Secret History of To-day,” in which one may read dark hints of Society scandals and political intrigues. Naturally enough he objects to the new regulation forbidding reference to the proceedings of the Cabinet. He had effective backing on this occasion from Mr. WALTER ROCH, who in a speech admirable alike in tone and substance appealed to the Government in their own interests to withdraw a ukase, under which, if strictly applied, Ministers themselves would be the first to suffer. The Government lived too much in a balloon (have they not just appointed a quartette of lawyers to overhaul the Royal Flying Corps?), and would be the better for anything that brought them into closer touch with their fellow citizens. After
an excited protest by Mr.
O’BRIEN against the executions in Wednesday, May 10th: - Among the Distinguished Strangers in the Gallery was a deputation from the Russian Duma, led by its Vice-President. Unfortunately M. PROTOPOPOFF and his colleagues did not see our Parliament at its best. In the Commons the Nationalist factions were noisily assailing the PRIME MINISTER with protests against the executions of the rebel leaders, and ultimately succeeded in inducing him to give them a day for what must in the circumstances be a premature discussion. Then
our Russian friends went to
the Lords, where they found a discussion on Happily the Russian visitors had left before Lord CREWE rose to make the Government’s defence, for I am afraid that they would not have carried away a high impression of Ministerial eloquence or Ministerial Statesmanship. Thursday, May 11th:- To
Mr REDMOND’S obvious annoyance
Mr. DILLON developed a savage attack on the military authorities. They,
one
gathered, were brutal murderers; the Sinn Feiners, on the contrary,
were
gallant if misguided patriots of whom he was proud. The PRIME MINISTER,
mildly
observing that Mr. DILLON had forgotten some of the elementary rules of
justice, brought the debate back to the level of common sense by
contrasting
the small number of executions with the heavy toll of military and
civilian
life that the rebels had taken. Repeating his coup
of two years ago, when he went to the War Office after the
Curragh incident, he now announced his immediate intention to go to
Ireland, in
the hope of discovering some arrangement for the future which would
commend
itself to all parties. Some of the difficulties that Mr. ASQUITH will
encounter
in his laudable enterprise were indicated by Mr. HEALY, who hoped that
he would
put an end to In
the Lords the Government’s
Irish policy was again assailed from all sides; but more damaging even
than the
attacks was Lord LANSDOWNE’S defence. He actually blamed Lord
MIDLETON for
having contented himself with warning the CHIEF SECRETARY and the PRIME
MINISTER of the dangers happenings in |