t, is valuable
as illustrating the change effected in parliamentary procedure by the
New Rules. On that particular June night the paper was loaded with
questions in a fashion unfamiliar in the last Parliament, though there
are not lacking signs of renewed activity since political parties
changed places. Question No. 23 stood in the name of Mr. O'Donnell, and
contained in his best literary style a serious indictment of M.
Challemel-Lacour, just nominated by the French Government as their
representative at the Court of St. James.

[Illustration: MR. A. C. MORTON.]

Sir Charles Dilke, then Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, made
categorical reply, directly traversing all the points in the indictment.
When he resumed his seat Mr. O'Donnell rose in his usual deliberate
manner, captured his eye-glass, and having fixed it to his satisfaction,
remarked in his drawling voice that it was "perfectly impossible to
accept the explanation of the Government." Being interrupted with cries
of "Order! Order!" he quietly played his trump card: "If I am not
allowed to explain," he said, "I will conclude with a motion."

[Illustration: SIR CHARLES DILKE.]

The House howled again, but it was a cry of despair. Mr. O'Donnell, they
knew, had the whip hand. In those good old days he, or any other member
desiring to obstruct ordinary procedure, might, in the middle of
questions, start a debate on any subject under the sun. This and other
outrages were doubtless recalled by the House of Commons when revising
its Rules. It then ordered that no member might, during the progress of
questions, interpose with a motion on which to found debate. If, in this
current month of March, Mr. O'Donnell, being a member of the House of
Commons, had wanted to attack M. Challemel-Lacour, he must needs have
waited till the last question on the paper was disposed of, and could
then have moved the adjournment only if his description of the
question--as one of urgent public importance--was approved by the
Speaker, and if, thereafter, forty members rose to support the request
for a hearing.

In June, 1880, all that was left for the crowded House to do was to roar
with resentment. Mr. O'Donnell was used to this incentive, and had it
been withheld would probably have shown signs of failing vigour. As it
was, he produced a pocket-handkerchief, took down his eye-glass and
carefully polished it, whilst members yelled and tossed about on their
seats with impotent fury.