return. But this time there was a rival on the Conservative side, Captain Stephen Moore, who affirmed his claim to the seat as second on the poll, inasmuch as the votes given for Mitchel counted for nothing. Captain Moore's protest, involving as it did a legal question, was brought before the Irish Court of Common Pleas, which eventually decided against Mitchel and in favour of Moore; Mitchel meanwhile having declared his intention not to attempt any defence, but to repeat his tactics in one Irish county after another, so as to get all in turn "disfranchised," and to make the Irish people fully alive to the constitutional opposition they endured. His intentions, however, were frustrated by a foe even more invincible than the British Government. The excitement he had gone through proved too much for his already weakened health, and on March 21 he died at Drumlane near Newry. Curiously enough, his brother-in-law and staunch champion in the House of Commons, Mr. John Martin, a man, notwithstanding his extreme views, much esteemed by all parties, was taken ill while attending on his funeral, and died a few days afterwards.

That John Mitchel should have been the favourite of Irish Irreconcilables, and that his partisans in Tipperary should have shown themselves so strong in numbers, was scarcely surprising to those conversant with the impulsive temper of the sister isle; but the election of the notorious Dr. Kenealy for Stoke-uponTrent was a more unaccountable freak of popular sympathy. It hardly redounded to the credit of the lately introduced mode of vote by ballot, that six thousand inhabitants of an English manufacturing town should have resolved to choose as their representative, on the ground of his being a heroic redresser of wrongs, the unscrupulous advocate whose conduct in the Tichborne case had ruined him professionally, and led to his being disbenched, disbarred, and removed from the list of Queen's Counsel.

Being elected, however, Dr. Kenealy was forward to take his seat. The scene was a curious one. He walked up the floor of the House alone, for the two members who should have accompanied him, according to practice, were not forthcoming. The Speaker then said, "I have to point out that, according to the usual practice of this House, when an honourable member appears for the first time in this House, it is necessary that he should be introduced by two members. I now ask whether there are two members of the House present to introduce the honourable gentleman." After a short pause, Dr. Kenealy replied, "I am, Sir, aware of the practice, but I am not aware of any rule or law of the House to deprive a new member of the right of taking the oath and his place in this House. This practice of the House, I believe, has been established since 1830." The Speaker called him to order. "It is not for the honourable member to discuss the rules of the House. At present, all I have to do is to point out to the House that the practice now observed has been in existence since the year 1688." The point might have been insisted on, but the Premier

intervened, and, taking the more generous side of admitting the unacceptable new member since he had been duly elected, begged that the rule might be dispensed with. It had been framed, he said, ironically, in order to establish identity, but in the present case, the identity of the right honourable gentleman was indisputable. Dr. Kenealy, who had retired from the table, then came forward again, and shook hands with the Speaker in due form.

The Ministerial legislation of the session moved on the lines indicated in the Queen's Speech, and was mainly devoted to matters of sanitary and social improvement. Within a few days of the opening of Parliament measures had been introduced into the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Home Secretary respectively, concerning the regulation of Friendly Societies, the law affecting Merchant Shipping, and the better housing of artizans; while in the House of Lords the Chancellor reintroduced the Judicature Amendment Bill, which had been unexpectedly withdrawn at the end of the previous session, and the Land Transfer Bill, which was now to be permissive only. The commencement of the Session, therefore, seemed to indicate vigorous if not ambitious work on the part of the lately installed Conservative Government; but the vigour eventually degenerated into laxity of compromise, and the desire to make things easy prevailed over the wish to impart a character of stringency to the new Acts. There was scarcely ever perhaps a session so devoid of any display of Parliamentary eloquence. There was no exciting question to call it forth; no definite cause of war between Ministry and Opposition; no compact and well-organized Opposition party to carry on a contest either on general or on factious grounds. Not one speech was made on either side which deserved note for great force or eloquence. If dulness is a sign of happy times, the Session of 1875 may be well said to have guaranteed the wellbeing of England at that period. The Premier himself appeared to onlookers only half the Disraeli of old; torpid and indifferent, as though with the inertness of advancing age. Mr. Gladstone seldom spoke; the smartest encounter in which he waged battle was when arguing against Sir Stafford Northcote on the Budget question, when his antagonist, who played his part well, was adjudged to have had the best of the fight. The Marquis of Hartington performed his duties as Leader of the Opposition creditably, and gained in estimation as the Session advanced.

The chief enlivenment of the Session arose from an unusual number of personal questions, "incidents," as our French neighbours call them, in which the Premier's tact and good temper were advantageously shewn, though on some matters of " privilege" he wanted firmness. We have mentioned his consent to Dr. Kenealy's introduction into the House, though without "godfathers." He had to bear with a noticeable amount of worry from the new member before that redoubtable personage got finally extinguished by the collapse of his various motions, in spite of the support of his one faithful ally, Mr. Whalley. Dr. Kenealy first tried to bring Mr. Evelyn Ashley to account for certain remarks made out of Parliament on his, Dr. Kenealy's, use of the witness Luie in the Tichborne case; but it was ruled that the House of Commons could notice nothing said of any of its members unless said of them in their Parliamentary capacity. Then he brought forward a number of notices, questions, and petitions having reference to the Tichborne trial. One of these, known as the Prittlewell petition, not only prayed for a free pardon for "that unhappy nobleman now languishing in prison," but contained direct charges of unfairness against the three Judges, and abuse of the Speaker. Mr. Disraeli moved the dismissal of the petition; but several members, deeming it beneath notice, argued against taking any step to prevent its lying on the table. Sir Wilfred Lawson asked for advice from his natural leader-the front Opposition bench being full and silent-but the Marquis of Hartington replied that this could be in no sense considered a party question. At length the working man's candidate, Mr. Macdonald, plainly told Dr. Kenealy that he was bound to rise if there was any truth in the statements he was making in the country; and in response the member for Stoke delivered himself of a speech which brought down the severest censures of Mr. Bright. Dr. Kenealy had said that having given the notice he was only waiting to be supported by more petitions from the country before bringing forward a definite motion against the Judges. Mr. Bright said this was not to be tolerated.

"The honourable gentleman," he declared, "has no right to come down to the House and give a notice of this character, to remove it to some other day, then to some other day, and after that to let it remain on the paper without any day being fixed, and then to leave London to visit towns and other parts of the country, and there to make his statement of the question-I will not say to inflame the minds of the people of this country, I will not say to make charges which are false I will say rather to make statements which he believes it his duty to make. It is not right to make such statements, I will not say to defame, but to charge eminent judges, and to create in the mind of the people a belief that men upon their trial before the judges and a jury of this country cannot hope for fair, open, and complete justice. I say he has no right to do that, and leave a notice of that kind on the paper week after week and month after month; and I think the House ought to insist that a question of this nature, upon which so much hangs-a question as to the judgment of the House upon the character of eminent Judges-that this question ought not to be left undecided. The House ought to take some steps by which it shall either be adjudged or got rid of for ever. I think the honourable member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) made a manly declaration. He made an appeal to the honourable member for

Stoke which he cannot disregard. I protest against this question being left over. If the honourable member had given notice that he was about to bring a vote of censure against a member of the Government, the first minister would say, This cannot be allowed to remain week after week. It must be decided. The Government enjoys the confidence of the House, or it does not.' But it seems to me even more important if you have three of the most eminent Judges of the land, and heap upon them charges of the most grave character. I say that the man who makes those charges, and who hesitates to come forward and, to the best of his power, to substantiate them, at any rate will have no right to say anything against the Judges, for however evil may be their character, I suspect his will not bear examination. I conclude by saying, and I say it with no unfriendliness to the honourable member for Stoke, I think I have a fair right to appeal to him to answer my question, and to state to the House whether it is his intention immediately, or on the first convenient day, and I hope the House will be ready to make any way for him, -to bring this matter before the House, so that it may be fairly discussed, for I am at least as anxious as he is that justice should be done, and that the great mass of the people of this country, whether they take his view or the view of the majority of this House, should have another opportunity of correcting their opinion, and of coming, it may be, to a just decision upon a question which has excited so many of them."

The petition was allowed to be read; but it was discharged on the ground that it contained unbecoming comments on the Speaker and the proceedings of the House of Commons, thereby bringing it within the conditions of breach of privilege. The member for Stoke continued to inflame the public mind out of doors till, on the 23rd of April, forced by the pressure of the House to bring forward his motion against the Judges without further delay, he suffered the defeat of a most ignominious exposure. His motion was for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the conduct of the trial at bar of the Tichborne case. Without going minutely into the details of the case, he maintained, first, that the late Government had acted in an unjustifiable and unprecedented manner in instituting a criminal prosecution against the Claimant; secondly, that Lord Coleridge and the late Government had encouraged the presentation to the jury in the first case of forged evidence; and, thirdly, that the conduct of the Judges who conducted the trial at bar, and especially of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, had been characterised by gross misbehaviour such as to render the inquiry now asked for absolutely necessary in the interests of truth and justice. The Lord Chief Justice, he contended, had before and during the trial expressed his determination to convict the prisoner; had given evidence himself in the trial by making statements of fact on his own authority to the jury; and had been guilty of even

worse conduct by palliating falsehood in the open court. The Attorney-General, in replying to Dr. Kenealy, said that his speech was nothing less than an appeal from the judgment of a criminal court. But there had been already two appeals, in which all the reasons for granting a new trial had been carefully scrutinised, and he had now entirely failed to make out a case for a Royal Commission. Sir Henry James maintained that the House had no right to arraign the Judges unless it was prepared to petition the Crown for their removal. To pass this motion would be criticising the Judges without taking away from them the power which they were said to have misused. To weaken the independence of the judicial bench was more to be dreaded than all the dark disasters which had been prophesied. Mr. Disraeli was of opinion that Dr. Kenealy had entirely failed to establish a case which justified the interference of the House of Commons. Applications, he pointed out, had been made for a new trial and for a petition of right, but none of the charges now made were then brought forward. Dr. Kenealy had not appealed to the Secretary of State against the conviction, nor had he complained to the Lord Chancellor of the conduct of the Judges. Analysing the charges, Mr. Disraeli pointed out that the late Government had merely performed its duty in prosecuting the Claimant, and would have been liable to serious blame if it had acted otherwise. As to the subsequent evidence, litigation would never be at an end if cases were to be judged by facts which came out after the trial. As to the Judges, the whole charge, of course, was against the Lord Chief Justice alone, on whom Mr. Disraeli pronounced a brilliant eulogium; and he ridiculed and denounced the idea that the social gossip and genial utterances of private life should be distorted into grave charges. Altogether, it was an absurd, preposterous, and most flimsy business, and he regretted that Dr. Kenealy, under the influence of hallucination, should waste his talents and destroy his position and reputation. The terrible consequences which Dr. Kenealy had predicted he regarded as ridiculous, and expressed his conviction that after this discussion the people would see that there was no foundation for these charges, that there had been no miscarriage of justice, and that England might still have confidence in its judicial administration. Mr. Bright entered, as none of the previous speakers had done, into the merits of the case on which the Claimant was convicted, and by a plain, straightforward, and pitiless logic, showed how weak was the defence and how irresistible the conclusion that the Claimant was a rank impostor. Dr. Kenealy, in reply, said that oratory and not arguments had been employed in the debate, and that the jury who tried the Claimant were not free agents, as they had surrendered their judgment under the pressure of the Lord Chief Justice. On a division the motion was rejected by a majority of 432-namely, 433 against Major O'Gorman alone. This gentleman and the two tellers, Dr.