more extensively adopted. He also promised, should the bill be negatived, to propose a general inquiry into the system of local government in Ireland. The division was a very close one, no less than 148 members supporting the second reading, against

176.

On March 28 a similar proposal with regard to the assimilation of the Borough Franchise in England and Ireland was moved (in the form of a resolution) by Mr. Meldon. In support of his motion, he explained minutely the complicated rating and assessment qualifications which restricted the attainment of the franchise in Ireland; and he quoted a mass of comparative statistics showing how much larger is the proportion of voters to population in the English and Scotch towns than in the Irish towns. The returns showed that this disparity did not arise from the smaller number of houses, but from the conditions of the rating, &c.

The debate was continued for a long time almost entirely by Irish speakers, the Law Officers and the Chief Secretary alone taking an adverse view, although their opposition was of a qualified character, based rather on the question of opportuneness. Sir M. H. Beach urged that the question could not be treated piecemeal, but in the shape of a Reform Bill for Ireland, and this not until some genuine demand for the change appeared. However, he admitted the future necessity of dealing with the franchise in Ireland, as well as with the distribution of seats.

The debate was wound up by a short but exceedingly effective speech by Mr. Bright, who showed that he had lost none of his power of commanding the attention of the House. Indeed, it was the general opinion that the short speeches which he delivered on the Burials Bill in the former session, and on this occasion, were among the completest of his oratorical successes. It is needless to say that he warmly advocated the resolution, and to his support was probably due the exceeding closeness of the division: the Government escaping defeat by the narrow majority of 13.

The result of this division was shown, two days later, by a significant article in the Times, which commenced with the words: "If the Government are wise, they will learn from this debate the propriety of bringing in, at the earliest opportunity next session, a large measure of Irish Reform. It is clear that the assimilation of the Borough Franchise in Ireland to that of England can be no longer delayed."

But the grand field day of Mr. Butt's forces was naturally the debate on his resolution in favour of Home Rule, or, as he preferred to call it, a demand for inquiry into the conditions and wants of Irish Government.

Mr. Butt's own task was only a repetition for the hundredth time of well-known pleas, such as the admitted block of Irish business, shared, however, equally by England and Scotland, and the equally admitted facts that certain measures affecting Irish interests had been rejected by English votes. He admitted that

the present Parliament and the present Government had shown great attention to Irish affairs; but Parliament had no longer time to discharge all the business brought before it. It had taken on itself the work of three Parliaments, and the necessities of the case would drive it to entrust some of its business to the local bodies. Some alteration in the present system was inevitable, and the Committee would investigate and discover, among other things, whether the arrangement called Home Rule was agreeable to the Irish people. He proposed that it should be composed of impartial men of both sides, such as Mr. Henley, and he felt convinced that the cause of Ireland would emerge victorious from the ordeal.

Mr. Butt was at once followed by a formidable opponent from his own camp, and the cause of Home Rule was for the next hour dissected, analysed and ridiculed by a champion not of imperialism, but of repeal. But that which excited the universal admiration of all parties in the House was the eloquence, recalling the traditions of days now gone by, with which Mr. P. J. Smyth expounded the longings of Repealers before an assembly of which not half a dozen members held his views. The Times next morning expressed only the general opinion in declaring that: "The speech of Mr. Smyth was on all sides recognised as the finest which has been delivered in the present Parliament." As we have above mentioned, the speech was in the main an attack on the theory of Federalism.

"Federalism," said Mr. Smyth, "is unsuited for Ireland, and it is not demanded by the people." And moreover, the version of Home Rule which had done so much on the hustings at Burnley and Manchester would hardly pass muster on the Tipperary Hills. Mr. Butt's demand was based, not on national right, but on grievances-which many men like Mr. Fortescue would have remedied, though they refused to swallow the Shibboleth of Home Rule. But Federalism would not cure Absenteeism, the greatest grievance of all-it would rather aggravate it. The right, however, of the Irish people to demand the repeal of the Union, Mr. Smyth argued, was clear and indisputable; and he concluded his speech, amid much cheering, by a warm eulogy of the blessings conferred on Ireland by its independent Legislature.

The Chief Secretary naturally dealt with Mr. Butt's resolution in his reply (for Mr. Smyth's proposed amendment, owing to the forms of the House, could not be put), and discussed firstly the principle of Federalism, and next the alleged practical grievances. He had no difficulty in showing the irrelevancy of the references to Austria and Hungary, or to our Colonies; and he pointed to their own admission that Home Rule would not involve an amnesty to political prisoners. In dealing with this topic the mention of "the Manchester murderers" produced a great hubbub. Many Irish members cried "No!" and Sir Michael expressed his regret that any member should apologise for murder, on which Mr.

Parnell jumped up and declared that nothing would convince him that a murder had been committed on that occasion.

Sir Michael concluded by declaring his conviction that the seventy-six years of the Union had brought with them a great advance in prosperity, and some day those who supported this motion would be glad that the Government had rejected a motion to reduce Ireland to the rank of a province from that of a component and governing part of the freest Empire in the world.

Mr. Butt's resolution was negatived by 291 to 61 votes.

The question of Temperance in Ireland occupied the attention of the House of Commons on three occasions, one of the debates resulting in an unexpected defeat of the Government. This was the resolution moved by Mr. R. Smyth, proposing to stop the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday in Ireland. He quoted an array of statistics showing the increase of drunkenness in that country, and that total closing was universally desired. This desire was practically admitted throughout the debate, except on behalf of the sellers of drink, and the discussion mainly turned on the consequences, including possible inconvenience, to bonâ fide travellers. Sir M. Hicks Beach, speaking on behalf of the Government, doubted the soundness of dealing with the question on Home Rule principles, even if the alleged unanimity of feeling prevailed in Ireland. He thought that if the measure was worthy of adoption, it should be applied to England also.. But he believed that such a law would be evaded, would lead to an increase of private drinking, and would interfere with the moderate enjoyments of the many, for the sake of curbing the excess of a few. Nevertheless if Mr. Smyth would withdraw his motion, he (Sir M. H. Beach) was prepared to recommend the further restriction of the hours of opening on Sundays to two to five in the country, and two to seven in towns. The debate was continued mainly by the Irish members, Mr. Callan and Mr. Murphy alone declaring opposition, while Mr. Sullivan made an eloquent appeal to English members not to slay a reform which Irish votes alone would secure for Ireland. But a still more efficient auxiliary now appeared in the person of Mr. Bright, who in a short speech expressed his warm adhesion to the resolution. He thought that the unanimity in all classes was unparalleled; and that the proposed compromise was a mere nibbling at a great evil, and a falling back from the offer of last year. "Those who resisted the bill were the publicans of England, and the Government must choose whether they would serve the conspiracy of the vendors of drink, or obey the unanimous vote of the Irish people."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that the compromise proposed by Government was in no way hostile to the spirit of the resolution, but would serve as a gradual approach to the same end, and he reminded the House that three years ago Lord Hartington had opposed a similar bill on the ground of class legislation. Mr. Gladstone explained that Lord Hartington on

that occasion had not maintained that England and Ireland must be treated on the same principles. He earnestly pressed the House not to neglect the unanimous desire of the Irish people.

Major O'Gorman opposed the resolution in a characteristic speech, which provoked much laughter. He ridiculed the idea that drunkenness could be cured by shutting up public-houses for a few hours on Sundays, and asserted the right of every man to drink " as much as he could carry away." The proposal was the work of a few "Praise God Barebones" Irishmen, and he implored the English members to throw it out, for if it was carried there would be a revolution in Ireland to morrow-or at least there ought to be.

On a division, the resolution was carried by a majority of 57 -224 to 167. The announcement of the numbers was hailed with enthusiastic and prolonged cheers from the Opposition Benches.

The Times, on the morrow, read the usual lesson (after the event) to the Government upon its unwisdom in not foreseeing the same. "Such a division," it remarked, "in the present state of parties in the House, represents an overwhelming balance of conviction, and it is evident the Government have entirely miscalculated the force as well as the current of feeling on the subject. The result is, we believe, in every way a matter for congratulation; but in order to estimate its significance it is necessary to look beyond the specific merits of the particular proposal before the House. The defeat of the Government is due to their failure to look at the question from this wider point of view, and it is of the utmost consequence for the future that the true lesson should be drawn from so unexpected an occurrence."

The result of the debate on the abstract resolution naturally caused a bill to be introduced, founded upon it, and also entrusted to the hands of Mr. Smyth. Its second reading came, however, on the 12th of July, a dangerously late period of the session for such a stage in a private measure, especially as the day was a Wednesday, when, according to the rules of the House, moderate powers of "talking-out" a measure can ensure its failure.

However, the fates were propitious in this case, owing probably to the strong feeling in favour of the bill already expressed, and after a lively debate, in which only Mr. Roebuck made a serious attack on the measure (since the utterances of Major O'Gorman and Dr. O'Leary were too amusing to be very seriously meant), and Mr. Gladstone repeated his former advocacy, the second reading passed without a division.

The next stage was not reached until the 2nd of August, when the opposition appeared to have increased, or at least the tactics of opposition were more successful. The bill was talked out at six o'clock, by the copious eloquence of Mr. Callan, specially qualified for this important duty, but there can be no doubt that, whether taken up by Government or not, a Sunday-Closing Bill

for Ireland will, next session, be one of the few measures the success of which may be confidently predicted.

Our account of the various bills and motions relative to Ireland may be supplemented by a brief enumeration of a few others of minor importance. On the 23rd of March, Dr. Ward moved the second reading of his Irish Fisheries Bill, which proposed the appointment of a Board of Commissioners, and an annual grant of £20,000 for the repair of piers and harbours, &c. The supporters of the measure mainly relied on Scotland already possessing some of the privileges desired, but the Chief Secretary, while making some promise of further assistance, found so much. fault with the bill as a whole that he felt bound to move its rejection, and it was negatived by 215 votes to 131.

On the 4th of April, what one of the speakers called a "whisky war" between Scotch and Irish members, was originated by Mr. O'Sullivan, who called attention to the practice, which he alleged was sanctioned by the Government, of blending and thereby adulterating Irish whisky in bond with inferior Scotch spirit, and he moved for a Select Committee to inquire whether the practice is injurious to the public health, and whether the Government ought not to be empowered to detain all spirits in bond for the space of a twelvemonth. A debate rather amusing than productive of argument resulted in the rejection of the motion by 145 to 69.

The same night Sir J. M'Kenna drew attention to the operation of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, attempting to prove that the present condition of Ireland does not justify the retention of the powers of that Act over so large a portion of the country as still remains subject to its provisions. After a conciliatory reply from the Irish Secretary, expressing the desire of the Government that the operation of the Act should be gradually restricted and withdrawn, but that recent agrarian crime demanded great caution in this course, the motion was disposed of by the "Previous Question."

On the 16th of May Mr. Butt obtained the first reading of an Irish University Bill, almost as elaborate in its machinery as the ill-fated measure which caused the first fall of Mr. Gladstone's Government in 1873. Considering the part which Irish members played in the history of that bill, it was, perhaps, not to be wondered at that all the members of the front Opposition bench were conspicuous for their absence. The Chief Secretary made no opposition to the first reading of the bill but could not be prevailed on to give a day for the next stage. Accordingly it remains a possible legacy for the session of 1877.

Finally, on May 25th, Mr. Mitchell Henry brought up the question of Irish taxation, maintaining that Ireland was unequally treated, and had to bear more than her fair share, in proportion to her wealth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a remarkably lucid and exhaustive speech, proved that the figures of propor