dealt with in a conciliatory spirit. Mr. Disraeli was wrong in supposing that the paragraph recommending an inquiry into the mode of conducting elections inferred that there must be an inquiry in both Houses. It would be sufficient if there was an inquiry in one House or the other, and there was nothing contrary to precedent in mentioning such an inquiry in the Speech. Disclaiming all notion of disparaging Mr. Disraeli's Act of last Session, Mr. Gladstone pointed out that its guarantees of punishment were indirect, while the inquiry recommended contemplated the direct guarantee of prevention. As to the silence of the Speech respecting other measures, he thought that a new Government ought particularly to be on its guard against promising measures without calculating accurately the time at its disposal; and, so far from the programme in the Speech being meagre, he maintained that the Government would be fortunate if they fulfilled it successfully. They had felt that one question had a paramount claim, and that no secondary matter ought to interfere with it. The Irish Church would afford ample field for party controversy; and the Government, having no desire to widen that field, would endeavour to deal with other questions without reference to party conflicts.

"We hope," said the right hon. gentleman, " that the House will approve the principle by which we have been actuated, first of all in endeavouring to afford it abundance of occupation for the employment of its various energies and resources upon questions not likely to lead to strong party differences; and secondly, to keep the field clear, as far as we can, for the great question of the Irish Church. Sir, we are deeply sensible of the pressing and urgent nature of the question of national education; and permit me to say this one word more, that we do not think this Speech without practical indications of our convictions in that respect, because the settlement of popular education in Scotland, though a much easier and somewhat narrower measure than the settlement of the same question in England, is a matter much more material than may be supposed for facilitating the solution of the problem in this country. And as I have mentioned that question and deprecated the inference, I think somewhat precipitate, of the right hon. gentleman, that the question of national education is undervalued simply because it is not mentioned in the Speech, I may cover many other great subjects with the same declaration, and in like manner protest against the application in this case of the ancient proverb, that that which is out of sight is out of mind. There is one subject in particular which, perhaps, beyond all, after what has been named, occupies a very high place in the estimation of Her Majesty's Government as to its importance and necessity-I mean the question of the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland-a subject which would be totally impossible for us to justify our omission to deal with during the Session, or to mention in the Speech, upon any other ground than that we cannot overcome the physical limitations of time by which we are bound, and that it would not be in the fulfilment of our duty, but a breach of

our duty, if we were to hold out to the House expectations of legislation upon matters to which we do not think that a just reckoning of our resources would warrant us in applying our attention. On the Irish Church I will only say that I hail with satisfaction both the declarations of the right hon. gentleman. Our earnest desire is to act in the spirit of that portion of the Speech which expresses the conviction of Her Majesty that this question will be approached, and that this work will be prosecuted, with a desire to afford a just satisfaction to every legitimate interest; and that there will be upon our part every study to satisfy if we can the sympathies, and, if we can, not to provoke the antipathies and animosities by which this question is beset. Our hope is that the Parliament of this country will take a just and dispassionate view of the stage at which the question has now arrived, and of the prospect which the future offers, and will be inclined not so much to insist upon a rigid adherence to what has been formerly desired, as effectually to co-operate in the prosecution of a purpose which is esential to the welfare and the unity of the empire. The House, I feel satisfied, will not be wanting on its part in the endeavour thus to deal with a subject of as great consequence and as great difficulty as has ever been entrusted to its care. And, on our part, great would be our responsibility, and severe would be the censure which we should deserve, should we, either by the substance of our proposals or by the manner in which we endeavour to press them forward, fail to second and correspond to those good and wise dispositions on the part of the House."

The remainder of the debate consisted of a variety of desultory remarks upon a number of topics. Mr. Newdegate connected the silence of the Royal Speech on the affairs of Spain, where the temporal power of the Pope had received a blow, with the design against the Irish Protestant Church, which would advance his power. Mr. Corrance drew attention to the subject of the Cattle Plague, and warned the Government not to neglect the agricultural interest. Mr. McMahon regretted the omission to mention a Reform Bill for Ireland. Sir P. O'Brien advocated an amnesty to the Fenian Convicts; and Mr. Hadfield declared that "religious equality" could not be attained unless the Bishops were removed from the House of Lords. Mr. Ormsby Gore put questions as to the intentions of the Government respecting Irish railways. Ultimately the Address was agreed to nem, con.

On the Report of the Committee being brought up, a motion was made by Mr. Gladstone that the Address should be presented to the Queen by the whole House. He said it was a matter of serious concern to Her Majesty that she was precluded from meeting the two Houses, and particularly the House of Commons, chosen under circumstances of such peculiar and special interest, by the ancient method of opening Parliament in state. But Her Majesty had been more than usually suffering from severe headache, and to a degree which precluded her from making that exertion at the

period when the opening of Parliament occurred in the present year. "There is another circumstance that I may take leave to add, which it is desirable, I think, that the House should be aware of, and that is, that at all periods of the life of Her Majesty, the period of its unclouded happiness, and its unimpaired strength, this particular effort, with the lengthened ceremony it entailed, did always tax the powers of Her Majesty to the very utmost, although it is a ceremonial which she was and is always desirous to perform when she can venture to undertake it. But there is another mode in which a great portion of Her Majesty's desire may be obtained, that is to say, she may have the satisfaction of meeting Parliament, and of meeting the House of Commons, by receiving the Address of Parliament in person, should the House enter into her views. My belief is that the House will receive this intimation as another gratifying proof, if indeed proof were wanted, of Her Majesty's great sympathy with her people in all matters that concern their interest, and especially upon the occasion when a great and important measure of reform in the representation of the people by so largely extending the franchise has for the first time come into operation. I am therefore to state that Her Majesty will be pleased to come to London for the purpose of receiving the Address of both Houses of Parliament in case the motion I am about to make shall be agreed to both in this House and in the other House of Parliament." The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to mention several precedents for the course now proposed by him, and concluded by a formal motion to the effect proposed.

Mr. Disraeli expressed his concurrence in the proposition of the Government, as being a course well suited to the peculiar circumstances under which the House had met, though not applicable to ordinary occasions.

The motion was agreed to, but, unfortunately, the serious illness of one of Her Majesty's sons, the Prince Leopold, made it necessary to abandon the design; the Address was consequently presented in the ordinary manner, and was answered by Her Majesty in the usual terms.

An attempt was made at the commencement of this Session to improve the machinery of legislation, and economize the public time by an alteration of the mode of proceeding with Bills by the two Houses. A measure for this purpose was laid on the table of the House of Lords by the Marquis of Salisbury, who moved the second reading on March 4. The noble Marquis observed that Parliament had now but five months in each year for the discussion of measures, and owing to the rule that a Bill which had passed through many stages was wholly lost if not carried before the close of the Session, it had to be reintroduced in the following one. This Bill would provide for resuming a Bill in the ensuing Session at the stage at which it had arrived in the previous Session, the permission of the Crown being, however, required for that purpose,

order not to take away the existing power of the Crown to

prevent the progress of a measure by a prorogation. This Bill ought not to be applied to measures such as a Reform Bill, but it would facilitate legislation of the second order, such as Bankruptcy Bills and the like.

Earl Granville said it was true that the present Bill had nothing of a party character; but a Bill of a similar character had once before been introduced, and the principle of it been rejected after due consideration. This Bill would certainly meet the same fate if simply sent down as it was to the other House. The best plan would, he suggested, be to give the Bill a second reading, and then to recommend the appointment of a joint Committee of the two Houses, and refer to it this Bill, together with a suggestion made on a former evening of a change in the time of the termination of the financial year. It might be referred to the same Committee to consider the means of remedying the mischief of the slip-shod phraseology of Government Bills, and the House of Commons might also be induced to forego some of its privileges as to the initiation of money Bills.

Lord Redesdale thought that a better remedy for the evil Lord Salisbury complained of in respect of Bills, such as a Bankruptcy Bill, would be to have such Bills introduced simultaneously into both Houses. For himself he had a great objection to settling matters of this kind by statute. Any change of the sort could be brought about equally well by alterations in the Standing Orders.

Lord Derby admitted there was much in Lord Granville's recommendation to refer the Bill to a joint Committee of the two Houses; but it would be useless to look for any result if all the other matters alluded to by him were also referred to the same Committee. He cordially agreed as to the principle of the Bill, but some of the details were open to criticism-e. g. the necessity of obtaining the Sovereign's consent to the resumption of a Bill in a subsequent Session.

Lord Russell believed the Bill would improve legislation. Perhaps it might be desirable to submit the Bill to a joint Committee, but his consent to that course would depend on the question whether any other matters besides this were referred to that Committee.

Lord Cairns appreciated the very great general merits of the Bill. On the details he thought the condition that the consent of the Crown must be obtained to the resumption of a Bill was inexpedient. He objected also to the provision which appeared to limit the right of the House in which a Bill originated to amend it in detail when brought back from the other House.

Lord Grey perceived difficulties in the proposed reference to a joint Committee, but he was of opinion that something must be done in view of the common and, he intimated, not unjust reproach that Parliament was becoming incompetent to deal with the mass of legislation before it.

The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that a joint Committee might provide a remedy for some of the evils of the present system.

He dissented altogether from Lord Redesdale's recommendation. It would be far from an economy of time to adopt the plan of considering the same Bill contemporaneously in both Houses; the amendments of the one House would often make the debate in the other so much waste of time.

Lord Salisbury in the main agreed with the amendments proposed by Lords Derby and Cairns. He had a prejudice against referring Bills to a Committee. But he would accept the proposal of a reference to a joint Committee for the sake of avoiding jealousy, and securing the co-operation of the other House. If, however, the Bill were referred to such a Committee, and an unreasonable delay occurred before the Committee decided upon it, he should propose the recall of the Bill, and would proceed with it in the regular

course.

The Bill was then referred to a Select Committee, and the co-operation of the House of Commons having been invited and acceded to, a joint Committee, composed of an equal number of members of each, was formed, and held several meetings in the early part of the Session. The Committee was, however, unable to agree upon any plan for carrying into effect the object of Lord Salisbury's Bill so far as concerned public legislation. With regard to Private Bills they drew up a scheme for the joint action of the two Houses with a view to saving time and expense, and the Report embodying this recommendation was presented shortly before the prorogation. No action, however, was taken upon it this year.

About the same time a Committee on a very important question was appointed by the House of Commons on the motion of Mr. H. A. Bruce, the newly-appointed Secretary of State for the Home Department. In the Speech from the Throne Her Majesty had recommended that a Parliamentary inquiry should be made into the mode of conducting Parliamentary and municipal elections, with a view of providing further guarantees for their tranquillity, purity, and freedom. The recent general election had brought prominently before the public mind the scandalous corruption and iniquities prevailing in the elections for boroughs, and facts had transpired in the course of judicial inquiries which led to the conclusion that there was a close connexion between the Parliamentary and municipal elections, the same agencies being employed for both. Mr. Bruce now moved for an inquiry into the practices pursued in conducting these elections. In support of his motion the right hon. gentleman descanted at length on the evils of the present system, the immense expense of elections, the demoralizing effects of bribery-which, however, he admitted to be limited in area-intimidation, which had been largely practised at the recent election, and rioting, which he believed might be greatly checked by the abolition of nomination days and declaration of the polls. Finally, Mr. Bruce drew loud cheers from the Ministerial benches by stating that his experience at the last election had converted him to the Ballot. Admitting all the moral evils of