fed by exclusive privileges; and applying the experience of our colonial administration, he predicted that a policy of equal justice would develope the "British party" until it included every sane and intelligent man in Ireland. He criticized next, in terms of much severity, a recent speech of Lord Derby, declaring that he for one would not consent to take the word of command from the House of Lords, and concluded by urging the House, in an eloquent peroration, to accept the resolution, not as a panacea, but part of a policy which would add to the strength and glory of the empire.

Mr. Disraeli commenced his reply by stating that he objected to disestablishment-first, because it would be injurious to Ireland by reviving old animosities; and he remarked that hitherto no ground of objection had been taken to the Church but the abstract assertion that it was unjust to the people of Ireland. But he showed that it was not unjust to the whole people, and, being only a partial injustice, it was not susceptible of so easy a solution as total disendowment. Besides, its abolition might be equally unjust to other portions of her Majesty's subjects. He objected to it, too, because it interfered with the rights of property, and if this was to be done on the allegation that the Church did not fulfil the purposes for which it was created, the process could not stop there. The property of some of the great London companies, which certainly did not fulfil their original duties, would be in danger. It was impossible yet to predict what public opinion would pronounce upon the question; but the idea of the royal supremacy-our only security for religious liberty, and a great safeguard of our civil rights—was deeply rooted in the public mind of England, and it was upon such considerations as these, and not on a few local abuses, that the question of an Established Church must be judged. Mr. Disraeli concluded by explaining, in answer to some complaints made in the course of the debate, that he had not used the word "Romanist" in an offensive sense, and vindicated his statement as to the combination of Ritualists and Romanists.

The House then proceeded to a division, in which the numbers were as follows:

The result of the division was received with considerable excitement, the increase upon the former majority on the House going into Committee, notwithstanding some accessions to the Ministerial strength in the mean time, indicating a further progress of opinion on the side of disestablishment. Mr. Disraeli, on the numbers being announced, rose and said that as the division had altered the relations of the Government with the House, it became necessary for the former to consider their position, and he accordingly proposed

an adjournment until the following Monday, the division having been taken at an early hour on the Friday morning. Mr. Gladstone briefly expressed his acquiescence in this course.

On the 4th of May explanations were given by the Ministers in both Houses as to the course proposed to be taken on the part of the Government. The Earl of Malmesbury, as their spokesman in the House of Lords, stated that there were constitutional precedents in favour of their dissolving Parliament under such circumstances; but on the other hand the Ministers were ready to tender, and they had tendered, their resignation to her Majesty, that she might, if she thought fit, consult other servants of the Crown. Her Majesty said she would take the subject into consideration, and on the following day informed the Prime Minister that she declined to accept the resignation of the Cabinet, but was prepared to dissolve the present Parliament whenever the state of public business would permit it. In answer to a question from Earl Grey as to the nature of the advice tendered to her Majesty by the Cabinet, the Lord Chancellor said the advice given was based on considerations having reference to the principles on which the present Parliament was elected. A graver and more important question had never been submitted to Parliament than that of the Irish Church, and it was now submitted to their decision, though when the present House of Commons was elected such a question was never in view-in fact, it had been stated by Lord Palmerston that the Irish Church would not be interfered with. He thought it must be admitted that the Parliament of 1865 was not, under these circumstances, fitted to express the opinion of the country on an appeal of such a kind.

Lord Grey vindicated the competence of Parliament to deal with any questions which might be brought before it, and utterly repudiated the idea as unconstitutional, that because a Parliament was elected before certain questions had arisen, it was therefore not qualified to decide on them.

The Lord Chancellor explained that he did not intend to question the competency of Parliament.

In reply to the Duke of Somerset, the Duke of Richmond said that the Government had made up their minds as to the course they intended to pursue, and repeated the statement made by Lord Malmesbury as to their being ready to dissolve Parliament whenever the state of public affairs enabled them to do so.

In the House of Commons the expectation of the Ministerial explanations attracted a very full attendance, both of members and of strangers. Every access to the House was crowded with persons anxious to witness the proceedings. The discussion which took place was characterized by much excitement of feeling, and occasionally by considerable warmth of language.

Mr. Disraeli prefaced his statement by referring to the circumstances under which the Government had taken office, to the successful carrying of the Reform Bill, to the success of the

Abyssinian Expedition and of the Government administration at home and abroad. He then repeated the grounds on which he had opposed the resolutions respecting the Irish Church; and after some other prefatory remarks, he proceeded to state the details of his interview with the Queen. He said he had first of all, with the full concurrence of his colleagues, advised her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, but he at the same time placed the resignation of their offices at her Majesty's disposal. After taking time for consideration, the Queen, at a second interview, declined to accept his resignation, but signified her readiness to dissolve the present Parliament as soon as the state of public business permitted. Under these circumstances he advised the Queen that, if every effort were made to expedite public business, and the House of Commons would cordially co-operate with the Government, there might be a dissolution in the autumn of this year. The right hon. gentleman added that though he should emphatically negative the second and third resolutions, he would not enter into a protracted. debate or formal division upon them, as they were corollaries from the first, and he would give Mr. Gladstone the first Government night to go on with the debate.

Mr. Gladstone, after briefly protesting against some of Mr. Disraeli's prefatory remarks, proceeded to protest emphatically against Mr. Disraeli's unconstitutional doctrine that every Minister carried in his pocket a right to dissolve a Parliament not elected under his influence. There were no precedents for inflicting such a penal dissolution except those set by the Governments of Lord Derby in 1852 and 1859; and to obtain such a right he maintained that two conditions were necessary-there should be an adequate necessity of public policy, and a reasonable prospect that the country would reverse the vote of the House of Commons. But in this case, as in 1852 and 1859, the Conservative Government had advised dissolution, not so much on any public interest. as to determine the question of its own existence, and there was no precedent, he repeated, in which a Government had resorted to a dissolution against such overwhelming majorities. He pointed out, too, that though Mr. Disraeli had advised an immediate dissolution, he had not long ago denied the moral competence of the present constituencies to decide this question. The fate of the Government, in the first instance, was in its own hands, but the duty of the Opposition was clear-not to recede from the course on which it had entered, but to push on the resolutions, and to pass the Suspensory Act, which would not only declare the mind of the present Parliament, but prepare the way for the action of On that point no compromise would be made with the Government; but, accepting Mr. Disraeli's offer to give him the earliest possible night for resuming the debate, he should not move to postpone other business until the resolutions had been disposed of.

Mr. Lowe inferred from Mr. Disraeli's statement that the Queen had rejected both the alternatives he had laid before her-imme

diate dissolution or resignation, and pointed out that no concession had really been made to the two great divisions. There was

to be a dissolution next year just as there would have really been had the Irish Church question never been raised, and Parliament was asked to give a ten months' lease of office to a Government which neither trusted it nor was trusted by it.

Mr. Childers and other members pressed the Government with inquiries as to the mode in which they proposed to get over the difficulties arising from the process of registration of voters, so as to hold an election in the autumn.

Mr. Newdegate warmly approved of the decision of the Government, and protested against the attitude assumed by Mr. Gladstone.

Mr. Ayrton contended that Mr. Disraeli had, in an unconstitutional manner, attempted to shift the responsibility from the shoulders of the Cabinet upon the Crown.

Mr. Bouverie enforced Mr. Gladstone's protest against the doctrine that a Government could dissolve on the bare question of its own existence, and warned Mr. Disraeli that the unconstitutional course on which he was entering would lead to a renewal of the old conflicts between the Crown and the House of Commons. The dilemma into which the House was being driven was an inevitable result of government by a minority.

Mr. D. Griffiths cited the famous instance of Mr. Pitt, who, although in a minority in that House, appealed ultimately with complete success to the country upon the question of the existence of his government.

Mr. Bright, with much severity of tone and warmth of language, commented upon the humiliating attitude in which the Government was placed, and maintained that it was merely for the sake of prolonging his own term of office that Mr. Disraeli had made this outrageous demand on the indulgence of Parliament. But the Government had no right, he asserted, to a dissolution; and they had, therefore, no claim to remain in office where they could carry nothing of their own but a sixpenny income tax. decent pretence had been offered for departing from the constitutional course of resigning after such signally adverse votes, for the Irish and Scotch Bills could be more easily passed by Governments really friendly to Reform, and the only result would be that the Irish Church could not be disestablished until 1870.

No

Mr. Disraeli, in reply to Mr. Lowe, said her Majesty had given her unqualified assent to a dissolution without any reference to old or new constituencies. He assured the House that the best legal authorities were clear that arrangements might be made for a dissolution in November, and if the Boundary Bill were passed early in June, he would bring in a short Bill which would facilitate the dissolution. To another remark of Mr. Lowe that the late division showed the House to have no confidence in the Government, he replied that many gentlemen who had voted in the majority had assured him that they did not regard it in that light, and he

challenged those who agreed with Mr. Lowe to propose a direct vote of want of confidence, which could be argued and decided on that plain issue.

The discussion here terminated for the present, but the Opposition party in the House, who were by no means satisfied with the position in which the House of Commons appeared to be placed in virtue of the discretion alleged to be given by the Crown to the Ministry of terminating the existence of the Parliament, recurred with increased warmth to the subject on the following evening, and endeavoured to extort from the Prime Minister a distinct explanation of the exact tenure on which both the House and the Cabinet actually stood in consequence of the recent communications with the Sovereign. Mr. Gladstone adverted to a speech made the evening before in the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond, and said that from the Premier's first speech he (Mr. Gladstone) had gathered that the Queen had been the suggester, and not merely the accepter or rejecter of the advice tendered by Ministers as to dissolution or resignation. But in his second speech the Premier, in his peculiar enigmatical manner, signified that the Queen had given her unqualified assent to a dissolution without reference to the old or new constituencies. This statement, Mr. Gladstone said, struck him at the time as most remarkable, and intended to cover some ulterior proceedings, and it had since received a significant illustration from the speech of the Duke of Richmond. In the first place he represented that the Premier had commenced his audience with the Queen by tendering his resignation, while Mr. Disraeli had told the House that resignation was only mentioned after the advice to dissolve. But the passages in the Duke of Richmond's speech to which Mr. Gladstone drew particular attention, and on which he animadverted with great force, were those in which he stated that in the case of any difficulties being thrown in the way of the Government the Queen would make no objection to a dissolution, and that whether the appeal were made to the old or new constituencies would depend upon the course of events, but that the consent of the Queen had been obtained to either. He asked the Premier whether he adopted this language, and whether it correctly described the position in which the House of Commons stood, condemned by anticipation if any of its votes should be displeasing to the Government?

Mr. Disraeli replied that there was not the smallest intentional difference between his first and second speeches, and repeated that at his audience with the Queen he had recommended a dissolution of Parliament, and that afterwards he had placed his resignation at her Majesty's disposal if she should be of opinion that it would conduce to a more satisfactory settlement of the Irish Church question. Answering a question which Mr. Bright here interposed, Mr. Disraeli said he had advised a dissolution without any reference to the consideration of old or new constituencies, and that the Queen ultimately expressed her readiness to dissolve