There has been a great wrangle in the papers about
Mr. Dillwyn's turning Mr. Roebuck out of his accustomed seat, in the debate of Thursday week,—the debate in which Mr. Roebuck said so many venomous things of the Liberals. Mr. Dillwyn has, however, explained the facts of the case very clearly, in a letter to Thursday's Tines and Daily News. It seems that the Member for Swansea, who has now been one of the most hard- working of Members for twenty-three years, usually secures for the evening, and occupies, a seat on the front bench below the gangway, which used to be frequently occupied by Mr. Roebuck ; —that Mr. Dillwyn had voluntarily given it up to Mr. Roebuck, when he came down to the House, often at great inconvenience to himself, since in a great debate he was unable to get another seat in its place ;—and that he asked Mr. Roebuck to let him know when he intended to occupy it beforehand, that he might not be thus in- convenienced; that Mr. Roebuck agreed to the reasonableness of such a course, but had only once given him such notice, and did not give him any such notice on the night in question. As, therefore, Mr. Roebuck had on that afternoon used his place amongst the Liberals only to pour out a virulent denunciation of them and of their leaders, Mr. Dillwyn, who had secured the seat for the evening, as usual, and who found it empty after Mr. Roebuck's speech, declined to give it up when Mr. Roebuck returned to the House, late at night, in a crowded sitting,—whereby Mr. Roebuck was driven to make his home where he has long placed his affections, among the Tories. Mr. Dill wyn could hardly have done better. To claim the right both to turn you out without notice, and to denounce you and all your friends in unmeasured language after he has done so, is stretching the rights of man too far. No code of morality requires you to press upon a man special facilities for trying to kick you downstairs.
