enabled the citizens of Cork to proceed immediately to the ection of another Mayor.

The proposition of the Attorney-General gave occasion to a rather warm debate. Some of the Irish members, without at all justifying the Mayor's conduct, deprecated the mode of action about to be adopted, or urged the Government not to proceed with undue haste, or without giving the fullest opportunity to the accused to make explanation or defence.

Mr. Maguire and Mr. Murphy, the Members for Cork, urged various considerations in extenuation of the Mayor. They both agreed that he did not express himself with much fluency or precision; and Mr. Maguire protested his earnest belief that in Cork no one had attributed to his language the meaning it was supposed to bear, and that his squabbles with the magistrates were but the expression of a general feeling of indignation at the severity with which they had treated every offence bearing on Fenianism.

Other members, on constitutional grounds, demurred to the form of proceeding which was proposed. Among these was Mr. Bouverie, who, while sharing in the general indignation excited by the Mayor's language, entertained grave doubts as to the wisdom of dealing in this exceptional mode with a particular offender, and thought it would have been better to proceed against him in the ordinary legal manner. The precedents for these Bills of Pains and Penalties were taken, he said, from evil times.

Mr. Disraeli also thought that the Government were taking a wrong course. He observed that under the late Administration O'Sullivan had been dismissed from the county magistracy for seditious talk, but since that time a "revolution" had been commenced in Ireland-the gaols had been thrown open, assassins and traitors had been let loose over the land, and the Mayor, therefore, might have some reason for believing that his profligate folly would not be reprobated. But he had commenced his misconduct some months ago, and if the Attorney-General for Ireland had done his duty by prosecuting him, the House of Commons would not have been called on to consider this extraordinary proposal of the Government, the only justification of which was the delay incurred in resorting to the ordinary process of law. But treating this as a question of more importance to the reputation of the House than to the Mayor of Cork, Mr. Disraeli asserted that no Bills of Pains and Penalties had ever been passed for spoken words, and that Parliament had never been asked to pass such an unconstitutional measure" on the ipse dixit of an Irish Attorney-General." Mr. Bouverie, he maintained, had indicated the correct course-the Bill should have been introduced in the other House, where evidence for and against O'Sullivan could have been heard on oath. He urged the Government seriously to reconsider their course.

The language thus held by Mr. Disraeli, however, did not appear to give general satisfaction on his own side of the House. Several Conservative members declared their approval of the proposed mea

sure, and their intention to support the Government in their action in the matter.

Mr. Beresford-Hope, for the independent Conservatives below the gangway, thanked the Government for their manly straightforward course in this matter, without reference to quibbles or musty precedent, and expressed, by anticipation, the regret they would feel if the front Opposition bench should seem to tamper with treason for the sake of a party triumph.

Mr. Gathorne Hardy admitted that there was no complete remedy in law for the necessities of the case, and condemned O'Sullivan as unfit to be continued in the magistracy for a day. For the sake of steadying the witnesses it would, no doubt, have been better that the Bill should have been introduced in the Lords, where they could be sworn; but the Commons did not lose their initiative by their inability to administer an oath.

Mr. C. Fortescue thought that in the difficult task of vindicating the law the Government had a right to expect more support from the leader of the Opposition. He admitted that this was an exceptional measure, but the ordinary course of law would not have permanently disqualified the Mayor, and he assured the House that there would be no undue haste, and that all the recitals in the preamble would be proved at the bar. Mr. Fortescue defended the action of the Government in releasing the Fenians, which, he maintained, had increased the moral strength of the law in Ireland.

Colonel W. Patten agreed with the Government that some exceptional action was necessary, but impressed on them the necessity of the greatest caution. The Mayor's language, he believed, would be very generally reprobated in Ireland.

Mr. Gladstone maintained that the general rule had been to introduce these Bills on an ex parte statement, and that opportunity was afterwards given to the Government to substantiate their case, and for the parties to be heard before the second reading. This rule would be followed now, and when the Bill had been read a first time resolutions would be moved that a copy of it be served on the Mayor, and that the Attorney-General for Ireland take care on the second reading to produce evidence in support of the preamble. Mr. Gladstone resented with some warmth the sneer he conceived to be conveyed in Mr. Disraeli's expression, "the ipse dixit of an Irish Attorney-General;" and while he admitted that the power of the Lords to take evidence on oath was an advantage, he maintained that Disability Bills had been constantly introduced in the House of Commons. He argued, further, that it was a constitutional proceeding that the Mayor of Cork, "being one of Her Majesty's Commons," and deriving his functions from the people, should be dealt with first by the Commons' House.

Dr. Ball denied that the Opposition wished to obstruct the Bill; they merely desired to inculcate the necessity of caution. The preamble accused Mr. O'Sullivan of an offence against the law— seditious language--and it was an alarming doctrine to convict

He

and punish a man for a legal offence on unsworn testimony. repeated that there was no precedent for such a Bill being introduced in the Commons for a crime, for the precedents mentioned by Mr. Gladstone had not been sanctioned by any legal authority.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill, and the Attorney-General then moved, first, that a copy of the Bill be forthwith served on the Mayor of Cork; secondly, that the Attorney-General for Ireland do take care that evidence be produced in support of the Bill on the second reading. These resolutions were agreed to. On the 11th May, when the second stage of the Bill was to be proceeded with, and the Mayor of Cork was expected to appear at the bar, unusual excitement was manifested at the meeting of the House of Commons. The attendance of members was more numerous than the limited dimensions of the House sufficed to accommodate. The galleries, lobbies, and all the approaches were filled with persons eager to gratify their curiosity by seeing or hearing something of the expected proceedings. They were doomed to disappointment. On the order of the day being read for the second reading of O'Sullivan's Disabilities Bill, the Attorney-General for Ireland informed the House that, in obedience to its order, he had caused witnesses to be summoned from Cork, and had appointed counsel to examine them, viz. the Solicitor-General for Ireland, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, and Mr. Barry. He moved that the counsel be called in, on which Mr. Maguire read a letter from Mr. O'Sullivan in which he placed the resignation of the office of mayor in his and the O'Donoghue's hands. In this letter the Mayor protested that the language attributed to him did not convey his real meaning, and that he looked solely to parliamentary measures, such as that now before the House, for the regeneration of Ireland.

The O'Donoghue added that the Mayor undertook to write by that night's post to the Town-clerk of Cork, resigning his office.

Mr. Gladstone said that, assuming Mr. O'Sullivan to have resigned unconditionally, the Government was not disposed to press the Bill, which they had introduced with great pain, and only in discharge of their paramount duty to vindicate law and order. But as the re-election of the Mayor would put matters back exactly into their previous position, the Government would keep within their own hands the power of proceeding with the Bill if future events required it. He therefore moved that its farther progress be adjourned for four weeks.

Mr. Bouverie expressed his opinion that the Government had taken a wise and prudent course, and that Mr. O'Sullivan had saved them and the House much difficulty and trouble by the step he had taken.

Mr. Maguire assured the House that Mr. O'Sullivan had no design of offering himself for re-election.

The further consideration of the Bill was then adjourned for three weeks. At the expiration of that time, Mr. O'Sullivan having vacated his office and a new mayor having been elected, the matter came

naturally to an end, and, the object of the Bill being attained, it was allowed to drop. It may be observed that Mr. O'Sullivan saved himself from one consequence which would have followed had the Bill been carried out, namely, his future disqualification for office.

The debates in Parliament on Foreign Policy or on Colonial Questions during the present session were unusually few and unimportant. The point in respect to our foreign relations which most interested the public mind was the "Alabama" controversy with the United States. But this being a matter which, during the greater part of the session was actually the subject of diplomatic negotiation, there were cogent reasons for keeping it out of the range of parliamentary discussion, and the Government exerted their influence to preclude it from becoming a subject of debate. After the Treaty which had been negotiated by the American Minister, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, with Her Majesty's Government had been rejected by the Senate of the United States, the subject was touched upon, but briefly and cautiously, by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe in the House of Lords, on the 4th of June, and in answer to him by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but discussion upon the merits of the controversy was studiously avoided by both. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who had a motion on the paper for a copy of any Treaty concluded between the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of the United States, respecting the "Alabama" claims, explained that he had no desire to initiate at present a discussion on the subject, which would, indeed, be premature, considering that the official papers had been delivered to himself only a few hours before. When the time came he had no fear but that the negotiations which had already occurred would be criticised by Parliament in no carping spirit. He believed also that when negotiations were resumed, the effect of the calmer sentiment which had succeeded to the passions excited by Mr. Sumner's extravagant and absurd speech would make itself felt, under the conduct, as they would be, of a man of Mr. Motley's great and deserved reputation.

The Earl of Clarendon bore testimony to Mr. Reverdy Johnson's earnest desire to settle the differences between the two countries on a basis which ought to be, and which, Lord Clarendon was convinced, must sooner or later be, adopted. He sketched the negotiations between Mr. Reverdy Johnson on the one side, and Lord Stanley and the present Government on the other, with a view to amending the naturalization laws of the two States, and on the subject of the "Alabama" claims. Her Majesty's Government had felt so great a desire to bring the latter question to a conclusion, that they had gone to the very utmost in the way of concession. The failure of the Convention was to be lamented; but it was not to be supposed that the majority of the Senate, which supported Mr. Sumner's proposal for its rejection, concurred also in the extravagant tone of that gentleman's speech. Both that speech, however, and Mr. Reverdy Johnson's mission had not been fruitless, the latter having elicited an expression of the peculiar warmth of

affection felt by the British nation towards the United States, and the former having made it entirely manifest, as was clear from the tone of the American Press itself, that whatever concessions this country might grant, it could not be expected to make any injurious to its national honour.

A few weeks later, Sir Henry Bulwer having given notice of a motion to call attention to our relations with the United States, Mr. Gladstone appealed earnestly to him to relinquish altogether the idea of raising a discussion on the subject this session. By this course he assured Sir Henry he would be best serving the public interest, for the United States' Government, though the recent treaty had been negatived, did not consider the subject definitely dropped, but thought it would be wiser that some interval should elapse before it was taken up again. He pointed out, too, that there had been no discussion in the United States' Legislature.

Sir H. Bulwer reluctantly yielded to the appeal, though he was convinced that we should have cause to repent it, if we left the question in its present state. He did not lay much stress on the rejection of the treaty nor on Mr. Sumner's speech, but he dreaded the effect of leaving an impression on the minds of the two nations that exaggerated claims had been made, which it would be equally dishonourable and perhaps more dangerous for us to grant at a future period. But if it was desired, he would not persevere in his design, though he threw on the Government the responsibility of what might happen in consequence of the subject not being ventilated.

The troubles of the colony of New Zealand, where the rebellion still lingered on, and, though not formidable to British authority in regard to the number or resources of the insurgents, was yet extremely harrassing to the settlers, who were kept by it in continual anxiety and alarm, became the subject of notice in both Houses of Parliament before the session closed. In the House of Lords the Earl of Carnarvon brought on a discussion upon the system of non-intervention which had been adopted towards the colony by the Imperial Government. The noble earl thought that the policy on which the existing relations between England and that colony were based might have been adopted somewhat prematurely, but that it must be accepted now as a fact, and that in time it would be so accepted even by New Zealand. The present complication, he believed, had originated in a misconception on the part, not of this country, but of the colony, which could not take sufficient account of the multitudinous subjects by which the attention of England was necessarily occupied. For himself, he approved generally the present colonial policy, which did not differ in principle from his own when in office, but he suggested that, as the difficulty arose in a great measure from the distance of the two countries, it might be alleviated by accrediting a Commissioner to New Zealand.

Earl Granville insisted on the expediency of making the colony feel that it must adopt for itself a decided course, whether that