8. The same penalties shall be attached to personation that now attach to bribery and treating. The candidate shall lose his seat for procuring or attempting to procure personation.

9. Any candidate who does not include all his expenses in his election return, or who with his own hands has paid expenses which ought to have passed through the hands of his agent, shall lose his

seat.

10. The use of public-houses as committee-rooms during the progress of elections is prohibited.

11. The old plan of nominating candidates and making the final declaration of the poll is abolished.

12. The expenses of the returning officer shall be paid out of the local rates.

In consequence of the prolonged debates on the Army Bill, it was found impossible to proceed with the Ballot Bill until late in June, when it was accepted by the Commons, but thrown out by the Lords. In February, also, Mr. Bruce brought in his Trades' Unions Bill. Prefacing the exposition of its provisions by a careful survey of legislation on this subject from the Statute of Labourers down to the present time, he showed how the doctrine of combination in restraint of trade had been gradually turned to the disadvantage of workmen and their societies; and, while censuring some of the objects of Trades' Unions, he maintained that their main object, the protection of the legitimate interests of the workmen, was deserving of consideration. The Bill, therefore, would proceed on the principle of putting employers and workmen on a footing of perfect equality. In the first place it would sweep away all the civil disabilities imposed on Trades' Unions, with certain exceptions. For instance, it would establish a system of optional registration (with publication of accounts, &c.), but those societies which registered would have the same privileges as friendly societies of summarily prosecuting defaulters, &c., while those who declined registration would be left to the more circuitous procedure of Gurney's Act. The penal enactments of the Statute of George IV. would be repealed, but certain offences would be retained, defined more precisely, and punished more summarily. Threats and intimidation, for instance, would be limited to personal violence and punished summarily, but only in cases where a man might now be bound over to keep the peace. Molestation and obstruction would also be punishable, and, among other things, would be defined to include acts of personal violence, dogging a man from place to place, hiding his tools, besetting his house or workshop, and the like.

Though at an early period of the session, Mr. Grant Duff failed to procure a large attendance of members to listen to his lucid and exhaustive exposition of the Indian Budget. He drew it from two sources the actual accounts of the year ending March 31, 1870, and a telegraphic summary of the approximate accounts of the year just ended. In the year 1869-70 India had a deficit of 20,0007.,

but for the year 1870-71 there was a surplus of a million, chiefly arising from opium, the income being 51,000,000., and the expenditure 50,000,0007. But the receipts of the year 1869-70 were better than those of the preceding year by 1,638,3957., the great increase being in the land revenue, while the Customs had fallen off, and the opium revenue had decreased by half a million. On the other side of the account there was a comparative reduction in expenditure of 1,254,5097., the chief reduction being in ordinary public works. Passing to the year just begun, Mr. Grant Duff held out the hope that, unless some unexpected calamity occurred, the income-tax would be reduced, and explained the details of the experiment about to be tried of decentralizing Indian finance. As usual, there would be a difficulty in making both ends meet; and Mr. Grant Duff went on to discuss the alternative modes of facilitating this process. A sweeping reduction of expenditure was impossible; but, on the other hand, he pointed out that India has had peace for two years, and no calamities like the Orissa Famine; that successful efforts are being made to foster trade, and to develope the cultivation of cotton, &c. He drew attention, too, to such hopeful signs as the more frequent resort of natives to this country for education, and to the improvements in the administration of justice-an employment in which intelligent young natives specially distinguished themselves.

The House was more interested in a discussion on the Princess Louise's dowry. The Queen's message relative to her marriage having been read, Mr. Gladstone rose to move a resolution granting an annuity of 60007. to her Royal Highness, which, he explained, would be supplemented in Committee of Supply by the grant of a dowry of 30,0007. He combated the objections which might be raised to it. In marrying her daughter to a subject, the Queen had not proceeded without the advice of her responsible Ministers, and she had acted in accordance with the womanly and motherly character which had always led her to choose for her daughters husbands on whose principles she could rely. The practice, too, was not a new one in our history; and it was quite agreeable to the usages and social spirit of the country. The provision was not immoderate, compared with analogous grants to the daughters of George III., for instance. Replying to the suggestion that the Crown ought to save out of its income for these purposes, he pointed out that, though the Queen's income was large, its application was to a great extent predetermined; and that during the whole of the present reign, its economical management had been an example to every household in the country. The Civil List, he argued, when settled at the commencement of the reign, did not contemplate provisions of this nature, nor would it be convenient that it should. He pointed out that, though the Crown lands now produced an income only about equal to the Civil List, if they were managed in the same manner as a private estate, they would put the Sovereign in possession of the largest income in the country. What, for

instance, if Hyde Park and the other metropolitan parks were cut up into building plots? But Mr. Gladstone put the proposition on higher grounds, dilating on the political importance of supporting the dignity of the Crown in a becoming manner, on the value of a stable dynasty, and on the unwisdom of entering into too minute pecuniary calculations on such an occasion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Disraeli, and was carried by acclamation. The marriage portion of 30,000l. to Princess Louise was carried by 350 against 1.

In the country, however, it must be confessed that the feeling on this subject was not quite so unanimous. At Nottingham the proposed grant had been condemned by a mass meeting, which separated with shouts for the English Republic; and at Birmingham Messrs. Dixon and Muntz could hardly obtain a hearing for their defence of it.

The feeling against the grant among the working classes probably arose chiefly from the Queen's persistent retirement, and the subsequent discovery of the really critical state of her health must have gone far to dispel that feeling.

CHAPTER II.

Further Proceedings in Parliament-The Westmeath Committee-Speeches of Lord Hartington-Mr. Disraeli-Mr. Gladstone-Sir R. Peel-Mr. Osborne and others -Verdicts in Ireland-Debates on the Army Bill-Speeches of Colonel LoydLindsay, Lord Elcho, Sir H. Storks, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Trevelyan, Lord Bury, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, and others-Motion of Mr. Mundella-Abortive Measures-The Licensing Bill and the successful opposition to it-The Local Taxation Bill-The Budget-The Match Tax-Its Withdrawal-Increased Income Tax-General Opinion of the Measure-Admiralty Changes-Mr. Goschen-The Dismissal of Sir Spencer Robinson.

THE introduction of a Bill for the suppression of Ribandism in Westmeath and the neighbouring districts was a terrible tribute to the necessities of the moment. The law in Westmeath had been almost entirely superseded by an agrarian conspiracy. The very diminution in the number of reported crimes only proved that terror had superseded the necessity of murder. The Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese, notwithstanding transparent evasions in his evidence, obviously desired the protection which he was afraid to demand or to justify, and more candid witnesses disclosed to a Select Committee the existence of a state of

anarchy and misrule which required the most urgent and vigorous remedies. The duty of the Government was plain, but Mr. Gladstone could not discharge it plainly. Lord Hartington gave notice of a motion for a Secret Committee, but when the day arrived the Government had been frightened into making the secrecy optional.

Confessing the feelings of painful dismay with which he rose to move for a committee to inquire into "a certain unlawful combination and confederacy" existing in Westmeath and adjoining parts of Meath and King's County, Lord Hartington hastened to explain that the state of things in this quarter was no criterion of the general condition of Ireland. The prevalence of crime in Ireland during the last winter and spring had subsided, and the records of the assizes as well as the constabulary reports showed a marked improvement. He did not ask that this result should be credited to the remedial legislation of the Government, nor did he ignore the unusually large powers for dealing with crime bestowed on the Government by the Peace Preservation Act. The Government had used both the ordinary and extraordinary powers of the law with vigour, firmness, and decision; but while their efforts had been generally successful, Westmeath and the parts immediately adjacent offered a melancholy exception; and of this region he drew a terrible picture :-"In 1869 there were two murders and two attempts to murder in Westmeath; in 1870 there were four murders and seven attempts; there were during the past winter three murders and two attempts; and in January of this year there occurred one further attempt to murder. In King's County there were in 1869 one murder and one attempt to murder, in 1870 two attempts, and in January 1871 one attempt. In Meath, I am happy to say, there have been no serious crimes. But I have reason to suppose that part of Meath is as much subject to the Riband conspiracy as any part of Westmeath or King's County. All these acts of violence are, we have reason to believe, the work of the Riband Society. The reports which we receive show that such a state of terrorism prevails that the society has only to issue its edict to secure obedience; nor has it even to issue its edict; its laws are so well known, and an infringement of them is followed so regularly by murderous outrage, that few indeed can treat them with defiance. Riband law and not the law of the land appears to be that which is obeyed. It exerts such power that no landlord dare exercise the commonest rights of property; no farmer or other employer dare exercise his own judgment or discretion as to whom he shall employ; in fact, so far does the influence of the society extend that a man scarcely dare enter into open competition in the fairs or markets with any one known to belong to the society." This reign of terror was not due to any remissness on the part of the Government. They had exercised the extreme powers of the law. The police force had been strengthened at the expense of the district, patrols established, detectives employed, and numerous arrests made. Some of

the worst characters had been almost constantly watched, but so perfect was the organization of the conspiracy that the Riband leaders could concert measures and project a scheme of retaliation by the meeting of two or three men in the road or in the middle of a fair. Loud Opposition cheers emphasized the marquis's declaration that this state of things was altogether intolerable, and that it must not be dealt with in haste and panic, for there had been "quite enough of hasty legislation." They did not ask for a committee to provide them with a remedy; it was their own duty to do that. A committee was wanted only in order to secure a thorough investigation of the case, and to satisfy the House that when the Government asked for any further powers, their demand was justified by necessity. He held that the House would be evading the responsibility which properly fell to it, if they were to accept the word of any Minister on such a matter without inquiry. It had in the first instance been thought desirable that the committee should have the power of giving gentlemen who might be willing to be examined the protection of secrecy; but he confessed that the precedents of such years as 1812 and 1818 were not derived from the best periods of our history, and the Government were quite willing to leave the question of secrecy to be determined in the event of the committee applying for it. As to the general propriety of such an inquiry, he referred to the precedent of 1852, when Attorney-General Napier obtained a similar committee in regard to Armagh, Monaghan, and Louth. That the recent legislation of the Government had not put a stop to Ribandism was no argument against such legislation. He certainly did not appear in the white sheet of a penitent, or admit that his proposal involved any confession of failure on the part of the Government.

Contrasting the opening and the closing sentences of the marquis's speech, Mr. Disraeli remarked that his "dismay," however natural when viewing the result of two years of constant legislation, was not consistent with the assurance that there was nothing in the present state of Ireland which was not to be expected. If that were the case, why should the noble lord be dismayed? He should have plucked up his courage. He should have come forward not as a daunted, but rather as a triumphant Minister. He should have said, "It is true that murder is perpetrated with impunity; it is true that life is not secure, and that property has no enjoyment and scarcely any existence; but this is nothing when in the enjoyment of abstract political justice-and by the labours of two years we have achieved that for Ireland; massacres, incendiarism, and assassinations are things scarcely to be noticed by a Minister, and are rather to be referred to the inquiry of a committee." But this committee, it was now announced, was not to be secret, and was not to devise means for remedying these evils. Under the Act of last year the Government had already much greater powers than any parliamentary committee possessed, and the House would support