quoting a verse from a Secularist hymn book, in which the doctrine of immortality was repudiated, and asking how they could provide against such hymns being sung in the churchyard, if they once permitted each sect to perform its own service. But while the greater part of Lord Salisbury's speech reminded his hearers of the Lord Robert Cecil of former days, the conclusion, if not very logical, was more like the Lord Salisbury of 1869. After declaring that there was no grievance, and that the change desired would be fraught with incalculable danger, still it was wise to allay bitterness, and it was the duty of the Government to attempt the task.

The debate was concluded by a speech from Lord Selborne, who remarked with satisfaction the almost general consensus in favour of a speedy settlement. Addressing himself mainly to the two prominent arguments of possible disorders in the churchyard, and the consequences to the question of Establishment, as to the former plea, he believed that there would be no more danger then than there was now, of possible riot and misdemeanour. "If people choose to break the law now, they can break it; and if you say the services in the churchyards are to be Christian and orderly, the law will be strong enough in all unambiguous cases to enforce itself." As to the other argument, he believed it was invented by self-constituted defenders of the Church, and had been accepted at their hands, possibly by some of its opponents. But Lord Selborne denied the logical sequence asserted. anyone," he asked, "seriously believe, that in a Conservative House of Commons there would be found a majority of 33 only against a proposition, which was really supposed to involve, naturally or probably, the disestablishment of the Church?

"I am not one of those who say-Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum: for I think the heavens are more likely to fall upon our heads, if we do not do justice, than if we do it."

One of the largest divisions that the House of Lords had witnessed for a long time resulted in the defeat of Lord Granville's resolutions, by 148 to 92, the two Archbishops not voting, sixteen Bishops declaring themselves Not Content, and the Bishop of Exeter alone appearing in the other list.

On the 24th of May, Lord Grey moved the second reading of his Churchyards Bill, which proposed to sanction the establishment of Burial-Boards in every parish. A very brief debate took place, most of the speakers being satisfied by the tone of the recent debate, and the implicit promise of the leading members of the Government to attempt a solution of the question next session. The second reading was postponed for six months, and so the campaign ended for the year 1876.

A curious episode took place in connection with the Royal Titles Bill. During the Easter recess Mr. Lowe made a speech at East Retford, in which he said, speaking of the Queen's change of title, "I strongly suspect that this is not now brought forward

for the first time. I violate no confidence, because I have received none; but I am under a conviction that, at least two previous Ministers have entirely refused to have anything to do with such a change. More pliant persons have now been found, and I have no doubt the thing will be done."

This statement excited great attention, and Mr. Gladstone wrote to one of the papers, "I think it my duty to state, so far as I am myself concerned, that neither this nor any other suggestion was mentioned by me to Her Majesty during the time when I had the honour to be in her service." On the reassembling of Parliament, Mr. Charles Lewis drew attention to the subject in the House of Commons, and moved for returns of the form of the oath taken by Privy Councillors; and, showing the respective dates when the late Lords Derby and Palmerston, Earl Russell, and Messrs. Disraeli, Gladstone, and Lowe were sworn in as members; his purpose being to ascertain whether, if Mr. Lowe's statement was true, this solemn oath had not been broken by at least two of the above-mentioned Ministers. Mr. Lowe, in reply, congratulated Mr. Lewis on having a vocation in life,—that of asking questions, and regretted that the hon. and learned gentleman lived in an age when the office of Inquisitor, for which he was so admirably fitted, had fallen into disuse. He ridiculed the idea of asking the House to order the return of an oath, which being now part of an Act of Parliament, anyone could find out for himself, and dates which an old almanac would supply; and he earnestly hoped that they should not be obliged to take notice of everything said at convivial meetings which might displease some hon. member. He concluded his speech by saying that he denied the right of anyone to call him to account for what he might say out of doors, unless he infringed the privileges of the House, or made a personal attack upon a member. Mr. Disraeli then rose, and commencing his speech with the admission that every expression, made use of at a political meeting, however deficient in taste, and even in truth, ought not to be made the subject of a Parliamentary discussion, went on to contend that Mr. Lowe had taken advantage of the East Retford meeting, to make disrespectful comments on the conduct of the Sovereign, and to hold up the Prime Minister to public infamy, as a man servile enough to accede to a wish on the part of the Queen, which had been refused by two former Ministers. To prevent these calumnies from again cropping up, and being believed, he had the authority of Her Majesty to make a statement on her behalf, if he was allowed by the House. Permission having been given to introduce the Queen's name into the debate, as it was not intended to influence the decision of the House, Mr. Disraeli said, "I have to make this statement on the part of Her Majesty— that there is not the slightest foundation for the statement that was made that proposals, such as were described in the Retford speech, were ever made to any Minister at any time. Sir, the

whole thing is utterly unfounded-merely that sort of calumnious gossip which, unfortunately, I suppose, must always prevail, but which one certainly did not suppose would come from the mouth of a Privy Councillor, and one of Her Majesty's late Cabinet Ministers."

Two days later, Mr. Lowe took a step by which he completely retrieved the mistake of his Retford speech. Asking the indulgence of the House for a personal statement, he made a full frank apology and retractation of his words. The loud cheers which followed from all parts of the House, marked the sense of Mr. Lowe's good feeling, and drowned Mr. Lewis's somewhat unnecessary self-congratulations.

Another question of "Privilege" came before the House of Commons in the month of June. It appeared that Mr. Ripley, member for Bradford, had received from the Political Secretary of the Reform Club a letter of warning in reference to his past votes, and the action which the Club might take about them. This was denounced to the House as a flagrant breach of privilege. However, Mr. Disraeli, in agreeing with Lord Hartington, deprecated any action on the part of the House of Commons, and believed that a sufficient remedy would be found in the publicity which the affair had received. Accordingly the motion made by Sir W. Fraser was withdrawn.

When Lord Selborne went out of office in 1874, he left behind him, as a legacy to his successor, a great scheme of legal reform, having among its provisions one which proposed to relieve the House of Lords of its duties as the Final Court of Appeal. This proposal was received with so much dislike by a large body of Peers and eminent lawyers, that Lord Cairns withdrew his bill in 1875, and contented himself with creating a Court of Intermediate Appeal. Early this session he brought forward a new measure which retained unchanged all the privileges of the House of Lords. In introducing it, the Lord Chancellor said that the bill proposed that there should be a number of Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords, consisting of Peers who had filled high judicial offices. In addition thereto, the bill would enact that there should be constituted, in the first instance, two other Lords of Appeal selected on account of their high qualifications at the Bar or on the Bench. The Government proposed that these two Lords of Appeal should sit in the House of Lords with the rank of Barons, holding that rank for life, and that, while they filled the office of Lords of Appeal, they should receive a writ of summons to sit and vote in the House as other Peers. The salary of each would be 6,000l. a year.

The bill was received with general approval by the Peers, but in the House of Commons it was subjected to some rather severe criticism by the law officers of Mr. Gladstone's Administration, who pointed out that while the name of the House of Lords was retained the Court would be an entirely separate institution. Sir

E

H. James also complained that nothing had been done to abolish the custom which requires three or more Common Law judges to decide a case which a Judge in Chancery settles at once. The Attorney-General admitted the delay caused by the custom, and introduced a clause into the bill to enable a single judge to hear and determine any action in the High Court of Justice. In consequence of the saving thus effected, a clause was inserted to transfer three judges from the Common Law Division to the Intermediate Court, with a proviso that when not engaged in hearing appeals they might be sent on circuit.

In Committee Mr. Beresford Hope made an attempt to strike out that part of the bill which enacts that when the Judicial Committee of Privy Council is engaged in hearing any ecclesiastical case, certain episcopal assessors shall be summoned to advise the judges, but the clause was affirmed by the casting vote of the chairman. The other clauses having been agreed to, the Appel· late Jurisdiction Bill was read a third time, and became law. Lord Cairns has thus been enabled to carry out the scheme of law reform devised by his predecessor in office; though, to accomplish his purpose, he has been obliged to humour prejudices by attaching an ancient name to a new institution.

The Lord Chancellor was not so successful with two other measures of legal reform which he introduced into the House of Lords. The first of these was the Irish Judicature Bill, which proposed a thorough rearrangement of the courts, and a certain reduction in the number of judges, who at present amount to twenty-three. The bill proceeded in many respects on the same plan as the English Judicature Act, especially in those changes which related to practice and procedure in the courts. Lord Cairns hoped, that by the abolition of some offices and the consolidation of others, all the work might be managed by seventeen judges, with salaries varying from 3,000l. to 5,000l. The bill passed the House of Lords, but it received so much opposition in the other House from Irish members, headed by Mr. Butt, that it was withdrawn, with other Government measures, when the session was drawing to an end, and it became necessary to make a selection.

The second legal measure introduced by Lord Cairns was for the reform of the law of Bankruptcy. A Committee of lawyers and others well acquainted with the subject had reported that the Act of 1869 had failed in several respects, as it afforded great facilities for a debtor to relieve himself of his liabilities, while it did not prevent great extravagance in administering, and long delay in winding-up estates. To remedy these defects, the bill provided for "a Committee of Inspection to be appointed by the creditors, which committee should have the power of nominating the trustee, and if it should appear that the trustee had made use of proxies for his own interest, the Court should have the power to deprive him of his remuneration. It was also proposed that

all the accounts of the trustee should be audited, and that at the end of two years from the commencement of the liquidation the whole of the property remaining in the hands of the trustee should be paid over to the Court. There were other minor provisions in the bill, which, by repealing the Act of 1869, and re-enacting such parts as were not objected to, would contain in itself the whole of the law on the subject." This bill, like the Irish Judicature Bill, was withdrawn from want of time. No doubt, both of them will be again brought before Parliament.

Just before the end of the session a short Act, called the Winter Assize Act, was passed to enable the assizes for several adjoining counties to be held at the same place, which was to be selected for its convenience, and might be changed each year. A great saving of judicial time will thus be effected, and the possibility of persons accused of crime being kept in prison without trial, from August till March, will be done away.

CHAPTER III.

Miscellaneous Bills: the Merchant Shipping Amendment; the Inclosure of Commons; Women's Suffrage, Speech of Mr. Bright; The Vivisection Bill, Rivers Pollution, etc.--Introduction and abandonment of the Prisons Bill--Resignation of Lord Henry Lennox-Debates on Extradition with the United States-Indian affairs-The University Bills: debates in both Houses-The Government Education Bill-The Eastern Question: debates on the Bulgarian atrocities. Mr. Disraeli's last speech in the House of Commons.

Two Acts relating to bankers, which received the Royal assent just before the Prorogation of Parliament, may be mentioned here. The Bankers' Books Evidence Act facilitates the production of entries in ledgers and other account books as evidence in a court of justice, provided that they are supported by an affidavit. from a responsible person connected with the bank; and copies will be accepted, instead of the originals, on the same authority. Due notice must be given to the opposite party that such entries will be used as evidence, and a judge may grant an order for such party to inspect the entries, and to take copies. The Crossed Cheques Act is of more importance to the general public. The immediate cause of its being passed was a case in which a crossed cheque was stolen, and immediately paid away by the thief; and the person who eventually received it had an action brought against him for the amount. The Court of Common Pleas decided against the person from whom the cheque was stolen, on the ground that the cross on the cheque did not restrain its negotiability, and that the person who eventually received it was the lawful owner. To prevent this state of things from continuing, the Act lays down that the writing of the words "not negotiable on a crossed cheque prevents any person, even a bonâ fide payee for