THE PARLIAMENT CLOCK CASE.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2730, 16 November 1871, Page 3

THE PARLIAMENT CLOCK CASE.

The Wellington papers are now re-argumg this case The Pod in a long article repeats statements first made by the Nel*ton Examiner that the clock was ‘•openly” put back by Sir David Munro at the “ request of members and for their supposed convenience,” which the Independent shows is totally wrong on the face of it, as if the House had wished to sit after the hour, there was no need for put ting back the time piece. The Pod at the same time says it was an “ unadvised and

thoughtles proceeding and further that : back the clock. At first he refused, but on a further request assented.” On this the Independent observes “Who suggested to the Speaker this flagrant impasition upon the House which with Ilovnau sternness he at first refused to perpetrate ? Who made the ‘ further request’ which overpowered his virtue? Answer these questions as our contemporary may, he cannot thereby clear Sir David. In Sir David Munro’s affidavit there is not one word about any suggestion being made to hi u or any ‘further suggestion.”’ . Regarding the assertions made in oir David Munro’s affidavit as to the Speaker s watch and the clock not agreeing, and that Mr Fox never moved his motion ; the Independent quotes largely from the affidavit of ,vlr OVorke, and refers to the concurrent sestimony of four newspaper reports, each independent of the other, and the recoids in the Journals of the House of Representatives, which incontestibly prove that Sir David Munro’s affidavit was wrong as to these facts. The extracts made from Mr O’Rorke’a affidavit are too long to reprint here. In sooth there has been a surfeit of the clock story. These extracts simply hear out in every particular the original assertions of fact, long since made public, and as the Independent clearly shows, “triumphantly vindicates ” Mr Fox from the imputation of making erroneous statements in his affidavit.