The resolution underwent much discussion, but was ultimately rejected without a division. Mr. J. S. Mill, in commenting upon the principle of the Bill, observed, "there was some reason in the objection against turning the jurisdiction of the House over to a judge appointed by the Crown; but one way of getting over this would be to make the Act temporary."

Upon a further amendment being moved, which again raised the question of the removal of the trial of petitions from Parliament to a Court of Law, a division took place, when the principle of the Bill was affirmed by 178 to 158. Another proposition, modifying, to a large extent, the scheme proposed by the Bill, was started by Mr. Bouverie. He moved to substitute clauses providing that Election Committees should consist of five members; that three additional common law judges should be appointed, one of whom should sit as President of Election Committees, and decide all questions of law that might arise, and certify to the Speaker the decision of the Committee, who should, in fact, sit as a jury to hear the merits of the petition. He urged the impolicy of establishing a foreign tribunal to judge the conduct of members, and said the House should not part with its ancient jurisdiction.

This proposition did not meet with any considerable support, and was negatived by a large majority, on a division. The question being again raised as to the mode of constituting the new tribunal, Mr. Lowe recommended that three new judges should be added to the judicial staff in Westminster Hall to discharge precisely the same description of duties as their fellows now do in the different courts, the whole body of judges to arrange among themselves the rotation in which they should perform their functions.

Some further discussion ensued, in the course of which the propriety of appointing judges at all was canvassed with considerable animation.

Mr. Disraeli then proposed a new modification of his measure, to the effect that the trial of Election petitions should be conducted by a single judge to be selected from a rota which should be formed by arrangement among the judges of the three superior courts. The right honourable gentleman also announced that in order to make the new system experimental only, he should propose to limit the duration of the Bill to three years. The Committee agreed to these proposals, but they rejected, by a considerable majority, a clause originated by the Government, for authorizing an extra allowance of 500l. to the judges placed upon the rota for Election petitions. A variety of other amendments were proposed and discussed during the sittings of the Committee, which occupied many days during the last few weeks of the Session. Several of these amendments related to the expenses of the elections, and those attending the trials of the Election petitions, which it was proposed to throw in whole or in part upon the constituencies themselves, but they were ultimately negatived by the Committee. Mr. Clay renewed an attempt, often

made before without success, to prevent the commission of bribery by making the renunciation of corrupt practices obligatory on the consciences of the members elected. He moved a clause requiring every person returned to Parliament to make at the table a solemn declaration that he had not bribed, and would not directly or indirectly do so, and rendering him liable to a penalty of 5007. and parliamentary disability should it be proved that he had made a false declaration. His object, he said, was to make it impossible for the man who was corruptly returned to hold up his head again in society, that he might be black-balled at clubs, and that his acquaintances might lament the misfortune of having been intimate with him.

Sir Colman O'Loghlen opposed the clause. They had recently got rid of promissory oaths, so that if they were to sanction this clause they would be retrograding with regard to the principle of oaths and declarations. When men had to swear to a qualification they did not hesitate to do so.

The Solicitor-General also opposed the clause on the ground that such a declaration whenever tried had been always found to be useless.

The Committee rejected the clause by a majority of 85 to 45.

The provisions of the Bill, originally proposed for England only, having been made applicable to Ireland and Scotland, it was read a third time, and sent to the House of Lords just before the expiration of the Session. On the second reading being moved by the Earl of Malmesbury, Earl Russell regretted that the Bill had not come before the house at an earlier period, in order to introduce some material amendments. He believed investigation on the spot would not only be economical but would have a powerful effect in checking corrupt practices; he doubted, however, the policy of calling upon the judges to decide questions which must often be mixed up with political passions and party warfare. But, as the Bill was avowedly only an experiment for a limited period, their lordships would do well to agree to it.

A short discussion followed, in which the Lord Chancellor and Lords Romilly, Harrowby, and Stratford de Redcliffe took part, and the Bill was read a second time, and having passed through Committee without amendment, received the Royal Assent on the last day of the Session.

In consequence of the occurrence of circumstances having an important bearing on the relations of parties in the House of Commons, and which will be related hereafter, it was mutually agreed that arrangements should be made whereby the Elections under the new law might take place in the ensuing autumn, so that the new Parliament might be enabled to hold a short session before the expiration of the year. In order to give effect to this design it was necessary that the proceedings required to be taken for the revision of the Electoral Lists should be accelerated and brought to a close at an earlier period than was

practicable under the existing law. The Government accordingly undertook to bring in a measure for this purpose, and Mr. Hardy, the Home Secretary, fulfilled the pledge_by_introducing in the second week in June, a Bill to amend the Law of Registration so far as related to the year 1868. Describing the various stages of registration up to the time of completing the lists at the beginning of September, he stated that the Government had decided that none of the preliminary processes of making claims, objections, and the like could be advantageously or safely abbreviated. The process of shortening would be limited to the revision, and the Bill proposed that both for towns and counties the revision should commence in September. Three weeks would be allowed for it, and the Vacation Judge in chambers would be empowered to supply additional revising barristers as they might be required, to the amount of one-third more than the present number. To obviate the delay which might happen from the necessity of numbering the lists from one end to the other it was proposed that they should be numbered by parishes or polling districts, so that the printing might go on simultaneously, and might be finished within two or three days after the revisionabout the last day of October. He also proposed that the interval between the proclamation and the return of the writs should be shortened from thirty-five to twenty-eight days; the result of which would be to get the new Parliament together by the 8th or 9th of December. The House desired to come to a decision whether certain principles were to prevail in the government of the country; and by the arrangement he proposed this decision could be taken in time for members to get home again by Christmas. He pleaded, too, that the Ministers-whoever they might beought to have an interval of six or seven weeks to prepare their measures for the following Session. To the objection that no time would be allowed for the registration appeals, he replied that under the existing law, even when a vote was appealed against, the name was placed on the list, and the vote was valid at the election.

Mr. Gladstone acknowledged that the plan had been conceived with an earnest desire not unduly to contract the preliminary stages of registration (which would be dangerous) and to secure an early Dissolution. He agreed, too, that to select the stages of revision for the shortening process was wise, and he promised to assist in facilitating the progress of the Bill.

Having been read a second time, the measure underwent the revision of a Select Committee, and being found well adapted to carry out the object in view, it was passed with general concurrence in both Houses.

CHAPTER III.

AFFAIRS OF IRELAND-The state of that part of the kingdom forms the most prominent topic of the Session-The great question of disestablishing the Irish Church-Important interests dependent on that controversy-Attempts by Mr. Pim and the Marquis of Clanricarde to legislate on the subject of Land TenureAbortive result of these measures-The Ecclesiastical Titles Act-Earl Stanhope moves for a Select Committee upon the operation of this measure-Discussion thereon in the House of Lords-A Committee is appointed-In the House of Commons Mr. Maguire raises a general discussion upon the condition of Ireland by a formal motion-His speech-The Earl of Mayo in answer reviews at great length the circumstances of the country, and explains the remedial measures, both ecclesiastical and civil, intended to be proposed by the Government-Prolonged and important debate on the programme of the Ministers-Speeches of leading members on either side of the House-Mr. Gladstone announces in emphatic terms his policy of disestablishing the Protestant Church-Sensation excited by this statementReply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Maguire, in consequence of the declaration made by the leader of the Opposition, withdraws his motion-Mr. Gladstone lays on the table three Resolutions relative to the disconnexion of the Established Church of Ireland from the State-Lord Stanley gives notice of an Amendment, asserting that the question ought to be reserved for the New Parliament-The debate commences on March 30th, and is continued for several nightsSpeeches of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Stanley, and of the leading members on both sides-Mr. Gathorne Hardy in an emphatic speech pledges himself to the conservation of the Protestant Church-Upon a division Lord Stanley's Amendment is negatived by a majority of sixty-Great excitement in the House at the announce. ment of this majority-Upon a second division the motion to go into Committee on the Resolutions is carried by 328 against 272-Parliament adjourns for the Easter Recess-Great interest manifested by the public in the Irish Church question-Public meetings on both sides-Earl Russell addresses a large gathering of the supporters of Disestablishment at St. James's Hall-Rival meeting of the Conservatives at the same place, and speech of the chairman-After the Easter. Recess the subject is resumed in Parliament-The Earl of Derby originates a debate in the House of Lords on the proposed policy of Mr. Gladstone-Answer of Earl Russell, and speeches of other Peers.

THE great conflict of the political campaign of 1868 revolved, as it had done in some preceding Sessions within the memory of the present generation, upon the affairs of Ireland. From the meeting of Parliament to its prorogation, the condition of the sister kingdom and its institutions were made the point of contention between opposing parties, and the pivot on which turned the fate of Cabinets. The present year, however, was distinguished by even keener and more excited conflicts upon the principles of Irish administration, and a deeper commotion of the elements of religious and political warfare than had been evoked since the crisis of the Papal aggression, or the more distant date of the famous Appropriation Clause. It may, indeed, almost be said that the entire political interest of the present Session was concentrated on the question of the Irish Church, and as soon as the existence of the Parliament came to an end, the scene of the controversy was merely shifted, and the issue transferred from the benches of the House of Commons to the hustings of the three

kingdoms. The question whether the Established Church of Ireland should be maintained in connexion with the State, or should be "disestablished," was the test by which candidates in all parts of the United Kingdom were judged by the constituencies. Other measures for the improvement of Ireland were for the present postponed, in order to give free scope for the decision of this great controversy. The question of land tenure, which for so many years past had formed the subject of legislative experiments, was not indeed entirely neglected, two attempts having been made, though with but faint efforts or prospects of success, to re-adjust the relations of landlord and tenant. In the first week of the Session Mr. Pim, one of the members for Dublin, obtained leave to bring in a Bill which he described as substantially the same as that introduced in 1866 by Mr. C. Fortescue. Its first object was to give to limited owners who wished to improve their property the power of charging a portion of the expense on their successors. Its second object was to give to the limited owner power within certain limits to make contracts as to time. The third object was, in the absence of any specific contract, that the tenant should be secured compensation for the improvements he had effected; and the fourth to abolish the power of distress.

The measure thus introduced, however, was not further proceeded with, and the same fate befell a Bill brought in shortly afterwards by the Marquis of Clanricarde, the object of which the noble lord stated to be to secure to tenants a fair remuneration for their improvements. This Bill, after some further discussion, was referred to a Select Committee, Lord St. Leonards having first expressed a strong opinion that there was no necessity for it. He thought that fair leases ought to be granted to occupiers in order to give them an interest in the improvement of their holdings.

Another movement was made in regard to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act passed in 1850, for the purpose of protesting against and repelling what was then designated as the "Papal aggression." This Act had in fact never been put in force, but it was alleged that the enactment of it had occasioned great irritation in the minds of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and that its retention in the Statute-book was felt as a standing grievance by members of that communion.

With the view of inquiring as to the existence of this feeling, and removing, if possible, any just cause of offence, Earl Stanhope moved for the appointment of a Select Committee "to inquire into the operation of any law as to the assumption of ecclesiastical titles in Great Britain and Ireland, and whether any and what alteration should be made therein." He reminded the House that in 1850 the Pope had thought proper to alter the system by which he had up to that time regulated his spiritual authority in this kingdom, by conferring territorial titles on the dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church in England. This created much excitement throughout the country, and the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which imposed heavy penalties on the illegal assumption of