whilst the Fenian conspiracy existed in Ireland, to sweep away a portion of the oath of supremacy. He appealed to the number of petitions which had been presented to the House against any relaxation of the Protestant securities. Mr. Chambers and Mr. Whalley also opposed the Bill; but on a division being taken on the motion of Mr. Newdegate, the second reading of the Bill was carried by a great majority, only five dissentients voting for its rejection. The bulk of the Conservative party, it thus appeared, were not disposed to resist the proposed alteration; only Mr. Disraeli gave notice of certain amendments which he should propose, in order to strengthen the guarantees which he considered necessary. With this view he moved that the following paragraph be added to the oath of allegiance proposed by the Bill:

"And I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend the succession to the Crown, as the same stands limited and settled by an Act passed in the reign of King William III., intituled 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better Securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject.""

Sir George Grey intimated that there would be no objection to the addition of these words, which were accordingly adopted.

Mr. Disraeli next proposed to add another paragraph in these words:" And I do further solemnly declare that Her Majesty, is, under God, the only supreme governor, of this realm, and that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate hath any jurisdiction or authority in any of the courts within the same."

The Attorney-General opposed the motion on two groundsfirst, that the words were incongruous with and unnecessary to the object of the oath; and secondly, that it would be obviously mischievous in itself. It was a mere abstract declaration, a truism, and a platitude, only of use as a test. But this was not all, for it could not be said that it was even harmless, inasmuch as it really limited the jurisdiction of the Queen.

Sir H. Cairns and Mr. Whiteside supported the amendment, which was opposed by Lord E. Howard and Mr. Synan.

On a division it was negatived by 236 to 222

The Bill, thus amended, was sent up to the House of Lords; where it met with a favourable reception, the Conservative leaders in that House not insisting on their objection to it. In the debate on the second reading, the Earl of Derby, although admitting that the present offensive oath ought not to be retained, said there was yet a further question, whether that portion of it which protected the Protestant Church in Ireland should be struck out. The oath, in whatever terms it was framed, should express allegiance to the reigning sovereign, recognize the Protestant succession, and maintain the supremacy of the Crown. A difficulty however arose as to the mode in which the supremacy of the Crown should be expressed, and whether it should be confined merely to the civil and temporal authority of the Crown, or extend to its supremacy also in matters ecclesiastical. He would not offer any opposition to

the Bill, but he thought it ought to be amended in committee, so as to render it more acceptable to all classes of the community, especially with reference to the question of supremacy.

Lord Ravensworth opposed the Bill.

Lord Chelmsford did not approve of the omission from the new oath of the declaration that no foreign prince, prelate, or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction within this realm, and the disclaimer of any intention to interfere with the Established Church. He gave notice therefore that he should move in committee the addition of an amendment to effect the objects which he had in view.

On the committal of the Bill, an amendment proposed by the Marquis of Bath with the professed object of excluding Jews from Parliament having been negatived, Lord Chelmsford moved a proviso declaring that the supremacy of the Crown should not be impaired by the repeal of any of the Acts contained in the schedule. Lord Camoys, as a Roman Catholic Peer, did not object to this amendment, though he thought it might lead to misunderstanding. Earl Grey saw no advantage in it. Lord Ellenborough was in its favour. Earl Russell thought its adoption would have no practical effect, and would not oppose it. It was therefore adopted.

The approaching marriage of the Princess Helena with Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, which had been announced by Her Majesty in the Speech from the Throne, gave occasion on an early day in the session to messages from the Crown to the two Houses, asking them to concur in making a provision for the Princess, and also for Prince Alfred on his coming of age. Propositions were made in the House of Commons for these objects by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in introducing the subject, observed, that with respect to the Princess Helena, her position was a peculiar one, as she was the eldest unmarried princess of the Royal Family when the most crushing calamity that could befall humanity descended upon Her Majesty; and that during that trial all the prominent qualities of the Princess's character-her strength, her wisdom, and her tenderness-were put to the test. Her Royal Highness was then, and had been since, the stay and solace of her illustrious mother. The proposition which he had to make to the House was, that Her Royal Highness should, on her approaching marriage with Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, have an annuity for life of 6,0007., in addition to a dower of 30,000%. With regard to Prince Alfred, the proposal was that he should be granted an annuity of 15,0001. during his life, to commence from the day last year on which he attained his majority, and to be settled on His Royal Highness in such manner as Her Majesty should think proper. With reference to His Royal Highness, there were certain contingencies which might render a further application to Parliament hereafter necessary. For example, in the event of His Royal Highness contracting marriage, it would be the duty of the

Government to call upon the House to make such further provision as the circumstances of the case might require.

Mr. Disraeli said that the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was well-considered and judicious. When occasions like the present arose, there was no embarrassment for the Crown, and no difficulty for the Minister; and Her Majesty might be sure that upon this, as on similar occasions, the claim made only elicited a fresh renewal of respectful affection from a grateful and devoted people. The resolution granting an annuity to the Princess Helena was then put and agreed to.

Mr. Bouverie, adverting to the reference made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to "contingencies" in the case of Prince Alfred, said that the impression left on his mind was, that one of those contingencies was the possible accession of His Royal Highness to the principality of Saxe-Coburg, of which he was the heir presumptive, and the question whether, in that event, Parliament would continue the annuity. If the public feeling were consulted, the cesser of the annuity would probably be acceptable, but for his own part he would rather see the annuity granted absolutely for life, than that Parliament should hereafter be placed in the invidious position of discussing the propriety of discontinuing it or not.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was not prepared to insert such a provision as the right hon. gentleman seemed to think would be popular, because it would be impossible to define absolutely the contingent circumstances under which a cesser ought to take place at all, while nothing could be more inconvenient than to refer to some one contingency, and thus by implication exclude every other.

The provision proposed for Prince Alfred was also agreed to, nem. The House of Lords having cordially concurred in these votes, the Bills for giving effect to them passed speedily into law.

con.

Another proposition was made to the House at the same time as the above votes were proposed, for the purpose of testifying the estimation in which the late Prime Minister was held by his countrymen.

It

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an address praying that the Queen would give directions for erecting a monument in the abbey church of Westminster to the memory of Lord Palmerston, observing that he desired to make the proposal not as the tribute of a party, but of Parliament and the nation. There were two incidents in the career of Lord Palmerston which were truly national. was, first, his happy lot, as Foreign Minister and subsequently as Prime Minister, to be associated with the extension of constitutional freedom in Europe. Secondly, it was his fortunate mission to have brought to an honourable conclusion a war that had taxed severely the energies of his country, but which had been undertaken to prevent the breach of a principle necessary for the peace, the safety, and well-being of Europe. Moreover, Lord Palmerston had the reward of his untiring zeal, immense energy, and long

continued labours in an amount of public admiration and trust such as, upon the whole, surpassed that which had fallen to the lot of any other statesman of our times. This feeling pervaded every class of the community, from the aristocracy from which he sprang, down to the ranks of humble and honest labour. All who knew him were acquainted with his genial temper, the courage with which he entered into the debates of the House, his perfect command of "fence," and his genuine old English delight in a fair stand-up fight. Yet notwithstanding his possession of these powers, there was no man whose inclination or habit was more fixed in avoiding whatever could tend to exasperate. Another remarkable characteristic of the noble lord was, that he invariably said precisely the thing that he meant to say. It was his force of will, combined with a sense of duty and the determination not to give in, that enabled him at such an advanced age to make himself a model for all his contemporaries in the discharge of duty, and not only to struggle with, but actually to repel, the infirmities of age and decay of physical power. He had a nature, too, that was utterly incapable of bearing anger or a sentiment of animosity. This was a noble gift of nature, delightful to remember of him who had passed away.

Mr. Disraeli, although not enjoying the private friendship or sharing the political sentiments of Lord Palmerston, was anxious to express, on the part of the Opposition, their cordial approval of the proposition of the Government. Whatever differences of opinion might exist upon political questions, sixty years of political services, always distinguished and sometimes illustrious, could not be permitted only to be cherished by the admiring and, perhaps, grateful feeling of the country. Most fitting was it, then, that an outward and visible sign should be set up in the chief sanctuary of the realm to preserve the memory of a statesman who had combined in the highest degree two qualities that were seldom met together-energy and experience. He trusted the time might never come when the love of fame would cease to be the sovereign passion of our public men; but he still thought that that statesman was to be peculiarly envied, who, when he left us, left not merely the memory of great achievements, but also the tender traditions of personal affection and social charms.

Mr. Beresford Hope cautioned the House against another reproduction of the monumental horrors which now studded our cathedrals, and expressed a hope that the memorial to Lord Palmerston would be alike worthy of the man and the country.

Sir J. Pakington hoped that there would be no such delay in this case as in the Wellington monument, sanctioned thirteen years ago.

The address was agreed to amidst loud cheers.

CHAPTER II.

Disturbed state of Ireland-Progress of the Fenian conspiracy-Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act-Rapid proceedings of Parliament on this emergency-Debates in both Houses-Immediate effects of the suspending Act-Temporary subsidence of the insurrectionary spirit-Discussions in Parliament on the condition of IrelandMotions of Lord Lifford and of Earl Grey-Motion on the subject of the Irish Church Establishment by Sir John Gray-The debate is adjourned and not resumed -The Landlord and Tenant question-Bill introduced by the Secretary for Ireland -Debates on the Bill in the House of Commons; conflicting arguments of Mr. Lowe and of Mr. Stuart Mill-The Bill is ultimately dropped in consequence of the change of Ministry-Attempt of the Marquis of Clanricarde to carry a Bill on the same subject in the House of Lords-The measure is opposed and withdrawnRenewal of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act proposed by the Earl of Derby's Government-The late Lord Lieutenant (Lord Kimberley) and other members of the late Ministry support the measure, which is passed-Revival of the Fenian conspiracy in the autumn-Menaces of the insurgent leaders in the United StatesAlarm of the loyal and well-disposed classes in Ireland-Vigorous defensive measures of the Government-Arrests of suspected persons, and seizures of arms-The year ends without any outbreak or overt act on the part of the conspirators.

THE Condition of Ireland at the commencement of the year was such as to give it an unhappy prominence in the proceedings of the early part of this Session. The Fenian conspiracy, of the origin and nature of which a full account was given in the preceding volume of this work, still occupied the full attention of the Executive in that part of the kingdom. Numerous arrests and seizures of arms were made in various places, the military were held in constant preparation against an outbreak, and much alarm was felt in certain districts by the owners of property and the loyal part of the community. The Special Commission was engaged in disposing of the long list of prisoners arraigned before it; yet neither the penalties of the law nor the demonstration of force in the hands of the Executive appeared sufficient to control the insurrectionary tendencies which threatened the peace of the country. Under these circumstances the Government were driven to the necessity of asking for extraordinary powers to enable them to cope with the emergency, and little surprise was occasioned when, on the 16th of February, Earl Russell announced that Her Majesty's Government proposed to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, and that measures would be taken to carry a Bill with that object through all its stages, in both Houses, on the next day (Saturday) and to obtain the Royal assent at once, so that the measure would be in operation in Ireland on Monday morning, the 19th.

Both Houses accordingly met on the 16th; and at twelve o'clock Sir George Grey rose in the House of Commons, which was un