Powers, and that the difficulty might even now be amicably arranged if England would but make an earnest endeavour to restore the European concert. He gently vindicated Lord Derby from an imputation of lunacy which the Premier had thrown out, and intimated that a great blunder had been made in not leaving the conditions for the Congress in the hands of Austria, who invited it to meet, and had received from Russia satisfactory assurances as to the terms on which it would meet; and he criticised the needless position of isolation in which the policy of the Government had from the first tended to place us. The chief interest of the debate attached to the speech of Lord Derby, who with calm self-possession, however much he might be lacking in the fire which is considered one of the highest qualities of an orator, vindicated his conduct and position against his opponents in the House. He commenced by observing, in order to correct a general misapprehension, that calling out the Reserves was not the sole reason of his difference with his late colleagues, and when it was said that England could not remain unarmed when the whole of Europe was arming, it must not be forgotten that England was in possession of the British fleet. The present state of affairs was described as one of great emergency, but he should like to know what was the emergency and what had created it, for he did not admit that it was a fact that all diplomatic influence had been exhausted in reference to this matter. He regarded a Congress as a convenient instrument for recording decisions which might be agreed to. But he thought it just as easy to ascertain the opinions and probable conduct of the Powers by negotiation outside the Congress, and therefore he did not regret that that body was not likely to meet. He did not think that there was any solid foundation for irritation against Russia, and even in contemplation of war there was no reason for haste on the English side. Discussing, in the event of war, what probable allies England would have on her side, he came to the conclusion that though Austria might be a possible ally, he still much doubted whether it would be safe to rely greatly on that quarter. In these circumstances, if England were to rush into war it was right to know clearly what were the definite objects in view.

When Lords Selborne and Carnarvon and the Duke of Argyll had strongly censured the conduct of the Government, and the Lord Chancellor had intimated his hope of the Congress yet taking place, Lord Salisbury attacked Lord Derby bitterly for his disclosures, and Lord Kimberley effectively closed the debate by criticising what he described as the false appearance of unanimity in the Cabinet, conveyed by the Premier's speeches at the opening of the session.

Certainly the speech of Lord Derby, especially by the intimation of the "something behind" which had lost time to the Cabinet, justified much of the alarm which it caused in the country; but his position was generally defended. "Lord Derby,"

said the Guardian, "certainly went to the very edge of propriety in his disclosures-both personal, as to what had passed in the Cabinet, and political, as to the state of our prospects. The first disclosures were not without provocation. Our readers may remember that in the first instance he declined to state the reasons of his withdrawal from the Cabinet. But Lord Beaconsfield declared that there was no mystery in the matter-that it was due to the resolution of his colleagues to call out the Reserves. And further, in his speech on Monday, Lord Beaconsfield stated and argued from the fact that Lord Derby added the sanction of his authority to the meeting of Parliament, and to the appeal which we made to Parliament immediately for funds adequate to the occasion of peril (peril!) which we believed to exist. Well, it seems that these statements of the Premier did not correspond with the fact so closely as they ought to have done. First, the decision to call out the Reserves was not the sole or even the principal reason' for Lord Derby's retirement. It was principally caused by various other decisions which have not yet been made public. Secondly the measures for which-on the strength of his Ministerial acquiescence-his sanction is claimed by Lord Beaconsfield were in fact so strongly disapproved by him that in consequence of his disagreement he temporarily retired from the Cabinet.' Lord Salisbury complains of this disclosure as an unheard-of breach of loyalty to his colleagues; and so it certainly would be, if it were a question of holding together against an external attack. For such a purpose a man who has consented to waive an objection must forget its existence, and stand shoulder to shoulder as if it did not exist. But when his friends themselves turn round upon him and attempt to bind him to the consequences of conclusions-from which they know him to have really dissented, and in which he only adopted the responsibility from a desire to stand by them-it is altogether too much to expect that out of scrupulous loyalty to men who so treat him, he shall rest quiet under a disadvantage to which they are gratuitously and unfairly subjecting him."

The Commons' debate lasted two nights, but was quite eclipsed by the one night's speaking in "another place." Mr. Bright's contribution was a series of very numerously signed petitions praying for the preservation of peace, and more than ordinary attention was drawn to them by the fact that his clear voice gave effect to the petitions. The drift of Sir Stafford Northcote's guarded speech was that calling out the Reserves was essentially a pacific step; but it contained a singular and prophetic reference, not unremarked at the time, to the necessity of protecting our communications with India "with our own right hand." He was answered by Mr. Gladstone, who said that if the speech had stood alone he might have voted silently, but it must be read by the light of the refusal to enter Congress, or to agree to that German proposal of a preliminary Congress which was a reasonable way

out of the difficulty which had arisen. In refusing that proposal and sending Lord Salisbury's despatch, we "have set ourselves up as the organs of and the substitutes for Europe.". Mr. Gladstone. then traced the slow gliding of the Government towards war, and finally discussed Lord Salisbury's Circular, which he denounced as full of misrepresentations. All the stipulations which were the bases of Lord Salisbury's inflammatory circular had previously been made known to her Majesty's Government, and the Russians had adhered to their first terms, after a great war, which had brought them within a few miles of Constantinople. He objected in the strongest manner to the retrocession of Roumanian Bessarabia, and to some other terms of the Treaty; but he saw no ground for war, and could not conceive how Lord Salisbury's charges, made after a reticence of six months, were compatible with national honour. He held that Government should accept the Congress, which Russia had accepted in calling the Treaty of San Stefano a preliminary treaty. Mr. Gladstone, who declined to move any amendment, was answered by Mr. Hardy, who maintained that Russia had not agreed to discuss all clauses of the Treaty, declared that England, on a vital question, would never consent to quit Congress and leave others to settle it in her absence, admitted that the fleet was kept in the Sea of Marmora as a manifestation of England's power, and asserted that in its warlike preparations the Government, so far from drifting, was bringing itself to anchor. He maintained that the Treaty made Russia dominant in the Black Sea, and gave her the right of interfering in every province of Turkey, declared that Roumania was "first a road and then an ally for Russia," asserted that all South-Eastern Europe was darkened by Russia, and then, though denying that a British Minister could wish for war, declared nevertheless that there were worse evils. Sir Wilfrid Lawson boldly moved an amendment to the effect that there was no need for calling out the Reserves; but met with no support from Lord Hartington, who asked him to withdraw it, and offered the Government instead a little mild apologetic criticism in his usual manner. The bulk of his party following his example, and declining to vote on the amendment, which Sir Wilfrid declined to withdraw, it was negatived by 310 votes to 64, and the address agreed to, as it was in the Lords, without a division.

An adjournment of Parliament for an unusually long holiday was the next step in the Eastern Question. They had spoken much, though they had done little; but the legislators felt, no doubt, that the gravity of the crisis justified them in claiming a substantial period of rest when it had become so critical as now. Sir Wilfrid Lawson again ventured to protest against a three weeks' holiday at such a time; the adjournment being from April 16 to May 6 for the Commons-to May 13 for the Lords; but was borne down by an indignant majority of 168 to 10. Nothing was said in the Lords, and nothing asked, about the

position of negotiations; but in the Commons Mr. Forster asked for information, and drew from Sir Stafford a re-assuring answer.

"I am not in a position," he said, "without inconvenience, to enter into any details upon the present aspect of affairs; but I can say generally, in answer to the right hon. gentleman's question, that nothing whatever has occurred which should give occasion for increased anxiety on this question, nor in any way diminish the hope we entertain of a satisfactory arrangement being arrived at of the difficulties in which we undoubtedly are placed. The matter bas been under discussion in this House within the last week or two, and nobody can doubt that the situation is one of an anxious character, and the steps which have been taken have not failed to show that such is the opinion of her Majesty's Government. Nothing, however, has occurred since which in any way increases the gravity of the position, or which tends to diminish the hopes of a satisfactory arrangement being arrived at. I may say with reference to the particular point in which interest has been expressed, that, as regards the condition of Thessaly and the Piræus, great hopes are entertained that a satisfactory arrangement will be arrived at, through the good offices of her Majesty's Government, between the Porte and the Greek Government, which may put a stop to further fighting in those districts. I may also mention that the circular which was published some time ago in the newspapers has been received from Russia and presented to her Majesty's Government; and we have reason to believe that another circular is about to be issued by the Porte."

And so the House adjourned, after a brief scene, which is worth recording as the latest episode in the story of the Irish members. Our Chronicle records the account of a savage murder, of the kind called agrarian, upon the Earl of Leitrim in his Irish home: an old peer, just and generous it was said, but a determined landlord of the old school, and an active enemy to Land Acts. Mr. O'Donnell, from his place in the House, made, on the night of April 12, an outrageous attack upon the character of the murdered Earl, which a few other of the Home Rulers backed, and at half-past nine the House was cleared of strangers at the instigation of Mr. King-Harman, who thought thereby to bury some of the scandalous things his brother Home Rulers were saying. The House pronounced for a secret sitting by a large majority-everyone's ears tingling at the assertions which Mr. O'Donnell persisted in making. The Chancellor of the Exchequer regretted afterwards that the speeches of Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Parnell had not been reported, but at the time the Marquis of Hartington, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Lowe were hooted for going with a few Irish members into the division lobby against the proposal to exclude the reporters. After their dismissal, Mr. O'Donnell quoted from a number of Irish newspapers charges against the late Earl which, he said, showed abundant motive for the recent crime, apart from any agrarian conspiracy. Mr. Parnell, in the same manner, condemned the

conduct of the late Earl, and declared that it was such capricious behaviour that led the wilder spirits to think that the only way in which Irish public opinion could ever influence the British Legislature was when it winged the bullet of the assassin. Mr. KingHarman warmly condemned the attack upon the moral character of the late Earl; Dr. Ward, another Irish member, termed the speeches of Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Parnell an unconstitutional and indecent attack upon the dead. It was a sad spectacle, he said, to find members of Parliament endeavouring to found a reputation on apologies for assassination. Up to this point the proceedings had gone on in comparative quiet. The attacks upon the late Earl were listened to in disdainful silence, but this thrust of Dr. Ward's brought up both Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Donnell to a point of order. Dr. Ward reiterated the suggestion. Mr. O'Donnell sprang to his feet again, and said the charge brought against him by Dr. Ward "was an infamous lie," a statement which raised a babel of voices. Mr. Parnell also protested against Dr. Ward, but the Speaker, who seemed resolved, in the absence of the reporters, to allow the Irish members to deal with one another according to their own rather than Parliamentary law, ruled that he was not justified in interfering. Sir Stafford Northcote interposed with an opinion that the charge of telling "an infamous lie" ought to be withdrawn, and at length, after much. uproar, it was withdrawn. Dr. Ward went on ruthlessly to lash his countrymen. He was again interrupted by Mr. Parnell, and again the Speaker ruled that Dr. Ward might say all he was saying; and he concluded, under indignant protests, by saying "things had come to a pass when men, calling themselves Irish patriots, dragged the cause of Ireland through blood and mire in order to build up their own reputation." Mr. Downing, as an Irish member, was "pained and humiliated by the scene of that evening." He regretted that any Irishman could interfere just as Government were trying to detect the perpetrators of the abominable triple murder. He did not think, however, that the murder of Lord Leitrim was an agrarian crime.

The Marquis of Hartington, Mr. Gladstone, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer all regarded the speeches of the members for Dungarvan and Meath with reprobation, the leaders of the Opposition being, however, particularly indignant at the unparliamentary treatment they had received in giving their votes for publicity. The Marquis of Hartington complained of the hooting as something unparalleled in the annals of Parliament. Later, Mr. O'Connor Power explained his views of the Government, and Dr. Kenealy stepped in wholly to defend the action and language of the two Irishmen who had brought about this singular exhibition. Sir William Harcourt thereupon pointed the moral that it was left to Dr. Kenealy to defend the extravagant language of the two hon. gentlemen, and in general terms rejoiced in the confusion among those who considered themselves alone entitled to speak on