Fenian convicts who had recently been discharged before the expiration of their sentences by the clemency of the Government, and who were about to take their departure for America. At this banquet the Mayor of Cork presided, and proposed the health of their guests. The language used on this occasion, both by the chairman and other speakers, was described as far exceeding in violence any thing previously uttered, even on a Cork platform. But the expressions which called forth the greatest indignation and abhorrence were those in which the Mayor alluded to the recent attempt made at Melbourne to assassinate the young Duke of Edinburgh, for which crime the Fenian O'Farrell had deservedly suffered death. Of this occurrence the Mayor was reported to have spoken as follows:-" When that noble Irishman O'Farrell fired at the Prince in Australia, he was imbued with as noble and patriotic feelings as Larkin, Allen, and O'Brien were. He believed that O'Farrell would be as highly thought of as any of the men who had sacrificed their lives for Ireland. They all saw how a noble Pole had fired at the Emperor of Russia, because he thought that the Emperor was trampling upon the liberties of the people. Well, O'Farrell, probably, was actuated by the same noble impulses when he fired at the Prince. O'Farrell was as noble an Irishman as the Pole, and as true to his country, for each was impelled by the same sentiment to do what they did. The Press of England had so calumniated them, and the Orange Press of Ireland had so misrepresented them and their cause, that he would trample on them if he could. He believed that England would be able to crush them now ten times over. That was his idea; but still he believed that England, if she had fifty times the power at her back, must give way. He could tell them why, too. From the spread and influence of public opinion, he believed England would not be allowed to trample on the rights of the Irish people. Even if she wished to do so, she would not be allowed. He believed the rights of this country must be conceded." The above expressions were stated to have been received with ardent cheering and demonstrations of concurrence by the assembled company. In England they excited a feeling of intense indignation and disgust, and a demand was loudly made upon the Government to vindicate the law, and remove the Mayor from the position in which his example and influence were so prejudicial to the interests of order and the public peace. On the day after the account of the Cork banquet, transmitted by telegraph, appeared in the London papers, Mr. Graves, one of the Members for Liverpool, brought the subject of the Mayor of Cork's conduct, in connexion with the generally disturbed and insecure condition of society in Ireland, before the House of Commons. One sentiment of reprobation of the language and conduct of the Mayor was expressed by all who took part in the debate which then took place. It was agreed on all hands that if the Mayor had really used the language attributed to him, he had proved himself wholly unfitted for his office, and that immediate steps ought to be taken.

to remove him. Mr. Gladstone, in answer to the appeals made to him, assured the House that the Government only desired to ascertain with certainty whether the terms of the speech were truly reported, as to which they were then pursuing their inquiry; and if it should turn out that the words were used as stated, they would be in a position in a very few days to announce the measures which they would take in consequence.

Inquiry soon showed that the disloyal and offensive language attributed to the Mayor had really been used by him, but the proper mode of proceeding in such a case was not without difficulty. In the event of a magistrate appointed by the Crown misconducting himself, the Crown can punish the offence by removing the delinquent from the Commission of the Peace, a proceeding of which instances not unfrequently occur, but the case of a mayor is different. He is not appointed by the Crown, and no power of removing him from his office is vested in the Executive. The only jurisdiction to which such a power belongs is the Court of Queen's Bench, but a proceeding before that tribunal is ill-adapted to meet such an emergency as that which had now occurred. The only alternative which presented itself to the Government was the exercise of the legislative power of Parliament, and to this they felt that under the circumstances they were justified in resorting. Accordingly, on the 5th of May, the Attorney-General for Ireland asked leave to introduce a Bill into the House of Commons for degrading and disqualifying for his office the Mayor of Cork. In his speech on this occasion, the hon. and learned gentleman referred to the repeated instances in which the Mayor had misconducted himself on the Bench, the discredit into which he had brought the administration of justice, and, finally, the culminating offence of his speech at the Fenian banquet. He admitted that the course he proposed was exceptional, there being only one precedent for it, the Porteous. Act, but the necessity was exceptional. It would have been possible to file an ex officio information against the Mayor of Cork in the Queen's Bench, but this would have involved long delay, and would not have secured his permanent disqualification; or the Government might have brought in a general Bill, but that, they held, would have been an unnecessary interference with the municipal privileges and charters of the other Irish boroughs for the fault of one man. The Government had received a memorial from the magistracy of Cork requesting an immediate interposition, and, looking to the importance of removing O'Sullivan from the administration of justice immediately, and preventing him sitting with the Queen's Judges at the next assize (as he would have a right to do under the charter of Cork), the Government had decided on this exceptional course after the most anxious consideration. The preamble of the Bill recapitulated the misconduct of the Mayor in the administration of the law, as well as his use of scandalous and seditious language, and the clauses disqualified him for any office connected with the administration of justice now and hereafter,

and enabled the citizens of Cork to proceed immediately to the election 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.

The

Dr. Ball denied that the Opposition wished to obstruct the Bill; they merely desired to inculcate the necessity of caution. preamble accused Mr. O'Sullivan of an offence against the lawseditious 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