PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2056, 7 December 1869, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE.

It. is pretty generally expected that the forthcoming meeting of the Provincial Council will be a somewhat stormy one. Sould this prove to be the case, the question of what Id or what is not “ Parliamentary Language,” will, no doubt, often crop up during the heat of debate. We therefore invite the attention of “ all whom it may concern” to the subjoined paragraph, as being entirely conclusive on this often very difficult question. It will also afford some members an opportunity of making a timely selection of “ elegant extracts,” with which to enrich their oratorical performances ; a service which we trust they will not be slow to acknowledge : In the United States House of Representatives, on the 2nd instant, Mr Waslmrnc, of IlliiiCiis, qemplainod of certain treasury jobbing tricks by Mr Donnelly of Minne ota. A scene ensued. Donnelly replied to the charges in a tone of the most virulent abuse. And, finally, Mr Donn dly wound up his speech by this flightlf there be in our midst one low, sordid, vulgar soul; one barren. mediocre intelligence ; one heart that is callous to every kindly sentiment and every generous emotion ; one tongue leprous with slander ; one mouth which is like unto a den of wild hats giving forth deadly odours ; if there he here one character which, while blotched and spotted, yet raves and rants and blackguards like a prostitute ; if there be one bold, bad, empty 7 , bellowing demagogue, it is the gentleman from Illinois.” It next was Wjishhurnc’s turn He said only a

few words and began Winder any operation of circumstance, if I were ever called upon to make a personal explanation in reply to a member, it would not be to a member who bad committed a crime, it would not he to a member who had run away, it would not be to a member whose whole record in this House i- covered with venality, corruption, and crime.” This was considered as entirely in order, but Mr Washburne having accompanied his mst remark with a vigorous shaking of the fist under Donelly’s nose, that was declared out of order, and after a slight uproar, the Hous being evidently anxious to hear more, Washburne went on and concluded thus:— “l repeat, if I were ca.led upon to make a personal explanation, I should not make it with a member who is covered over with crime and infamy ; whose record is stained with every fraud, whisky and other frauds ; with a man who has proved false alike to bis friends, bis country, his constituents, his politics, his religion, and his God.” Here the matter ended by a summary adjournment of the House.