to a stop by a motion to count the House. Three times this motion was made, but on each occasion the Speaker found more than forty members to be present. A fourth member then called the Speaker's attention to the presence of" strangers," upon which the galleries were cleared amid much confusion, and the reporters were excluded with the rest of the outer world.

At the end of about an hour "strangers" were readmitted, and the House was then found to be engaged in dividing on the question of the adjournment of the House, which was beaten by 261 to 23.

Mr. Fawcett said that, though a year ago he might have voted for the motion, now that it was associated with the Newcastle speech, which he thoroughly disapproved, he should vote against it. The question of Republicanism ought not to be raised on a miserable haggle over the cost of the Queen's household.

Mr. Liddell protested against a remark of Mr. Fawcett's that the Conservatives had attempted to stifle discussion. They had listened in silence to Sir Charles Dilke, and it was only when Mr. Herbert rose, who had no connexion with the question, that the interruptions began.

The House then divided on the motion, and it found two supporters only (besides the two tellers), the numbers being 276 to 2. The result was cheered from both sides.

The following graphic description of the scene in the House during the absence of reporters is given by an eye-witness :

"Mr. Herbert continued in a strain of strong invective, but was totally inaudible to the members of the House, who had by this time assembled in large numbers behind the Speaker's chair, where they gave vent to their disapprobation in wild discordant cries, amongst which it was easy to detect a very good imitation of cock-crowing in a voice very similar to that of an Hibernian baronet. Eventually Mr. Herbert pledged himself that he would not detain the House for more than five minutes on condition of their listening to him, and Mr. Headlam, crossing over to the Opposition benches, timed the hon. gentleman by a watch which he openly held in his hand. Mr. Herbert proceeded to denounce the Civil List system as being extravagant, and warned the House that the country would draw their own conclusions from the manner which hon. members had refused to hear him. An extravagant Civil List, he said, at all times exercised a bad influence on society. Here he was again met by loud cries of 'Divide!' and a scene of the greatest confusion prevailed. In the midst of this, Mr. Headlam warmly rebuked the hon. gentleman for not fulfilling his pledge, and then there was more cock-crowing and disorder amongst the members crowded in the vicinity of the chair. Presently Mr. Dodson advanced to the table, when the House was hushed to silence. In dignified terms he drew attention to the cries that had come from behind the chair, which, he said, were not consistent with the dignity of the British House of Commons. The scene he had witnessed gave him the greatest pain and apprehension. He appealed for order, and was met by loud cheers on both sides of the House.

"The Speaker hereupon rose, and said that he had certainly heard sounds which were very unusual in that House, but he could not discover whence they came. Mr. Herbert then essayed to conclude his observations, and was heard to say that the refusal of the papers would have an effect that it was not desirable to produce. The scene that evening would do more to increase a Republican feeling in the country than anything else.

"After this, Mr. Mundella, in energetic and powerful language, regretted that the House had declined to hear the statements of the two hon. members; at the same time, however, he repudiated having any sympathy with them in the motion they had brought forward. The House, he was grieved to say, had assumed an aspect worthy only of an assembly on the other side of the Channel. He trusted that such a state of things would never occur again. It savoured of persecution, and the great masses of the country would so interpret it. He disagreed with the proposer and seconder of the motion, and thought the scene they had witnessed would tend to elevate them to positions they did not deserve. If, as it seemed, Sir Charles Dilke's object was to carry out economy, why did he not attack the granting of large and important sums, instead of coming to the House and endeavouring to carry out narrow, contemptible, and petty economies-such as the clothing of trumpeters and other servants of the Royal Household? Both hon. members would do well to devote the courage they possessed to dealing with real grievances; but if their intention was not to promote economy, then it was to bring about organic changeswhich would not be at all desirable. He hoped, however, that the House, having regard to its own dignity, would allow their arguments to be heard and reported to the country.

"Following this speaker, Mr. Newdegate rose, and with his usual ponderosity and slow phraseology, expressed regrets of much the same character. He reminded the House of the necessity of hon. members always carrying on its business with dignity-and he confirmed the statement of the Prime Minister that Sir Charles Dilke had not chosen to retract one word he had said to the effect that he was in favour of a Republic. That he (Mr. Newdegate) conceived to be the intenion of his motion. If the hon. baronet desired a Republic, he would perhaps propose a repeal of the oath of allegiance.

"Mr. Dillwyn followed, and moved the adjournment of the debate, observing that he should decline to discuss anything whatever during the absence of reporters from the House."

With this the discreditable scene closed.

Some time afterwards Sir Charles Dilke distinguished himself by proposing as strange a measure as any that has at any time been introduced into Parliament. By the Public Lands and Commons Bill all lands belonging to incorporated bodies, or to trustees for public and charitable purposes, were to be transferred to certain elected officers who were within wide limits to dispose of them at

pleasure, with especial regard to the encouragement of co-operative agriculture. The same functionaries were to hold a general licence of mortmain, and while they were to account to existing beneficiaries for the present revenue of the estates, no security was provided against the diminution or exhaustion of the principal. It is surprising that seventeen members were found to vote for a project which seemed to have no object except to furnish a precedent for confiscation. More serious embarrassment to the Government was threatened by the renewal of Mr. Fawcett's Bill for the re-organization of Trinity College, Dublin, and for the abolition of University Tests. Mr. Plunket again distinguished himself by an able speech in favour of the motion; but Mr. Gladstone, while he consented to the abolition of Tests, refused to allow his hand to be forced. It is evidently necessary that the settlement of the Irish University question, if it is in any case practicable, should be undertaken by the Government; yet the opposition to the pretensions of the Irish Roman Catholic hierarchy is so strong that it was thought prudent to get rid of the Bill by prolonging the debate instead of proceeding to a Division. Mr. Fawcett never afterwards found an opportunity of obtaining a decision, since Mr. Gladstone rightly refused to regard a legislative proceeding as a vote of censure on the Government.

On one important question the Ministers suffered a decisive and unexpected defeat. Sir M. Lopes brought forward his annual motion on the subject of Local Taxation, which this year took the form of a Resolution declaring that, in remedying the grievance of imposing taxation for national objects on one description of property, the Ratepayers in counties and boroughs ought to be relieved either in whole or in part from the charges for administration of justice, police, and lunatics. He began by reviewing the history of his previous motions, dwelling especially on the events of last year, and condemning the Report on which Mr. Goschen's Bills were founded, the figures of which he said, were fabulous and "cooked." The Local Taxation of the Empire he computed at 40 millions (almost identical with Imperial Taxation exclusive of the cost of the debt), and this he maintained was levied exclusively on barely one-seventh of the whole annual income of the country. Analyzing this gross sum, and showing the purposes to which it was devoted, Sir Massey came down at last to a sum of 3,400,000l. collected on the PoorRate Assessment for purposes unconnected with the Poor Rate, and this he showed was spent on objects which it was the duty of the Imperial Government to provide for, and was almost entirely removed from local control. The three principal heads of this expenditure were Justice, Police, and Lunatics, and he suggested as a practical mitigation of the grievance that the Imperial Exchequer should take on itself the whole expenses of administration of Justice (670,0007.), half the charges of Police (563,0007.), and half the charge of Lunatics (424,0007.). Including the corresponding relief for Scotland and Ireland the whole sum transferred

to the Consolidated Fund would be 2,037,0007., and he maintained that by such an equitable arrangement the economy of local control and the efficiency of central supervision would be combined. Referring to the amendment of which Sir T. Acland had given notice, he characterized it as specious and crafty, the work of an enemy rather than of a friend, showing doubtful sympathy and questionable sincerity; and he denied altogether that the division of Rates between owner and occupier would meet the grievance of the Ratepayers, who complained that they were fleeced to diminish the burdens of the Imperial Exchequer.

Colonel Amcotts seconded the Resolution, and warned the Government that the question would be irrepressible until a remedy had been discovered.

Sir T. Acland moved as an amendment a Resolution which, while admitting the justice of relieving Ratepayers from payments for national purposes not under local control, recommended that rates for new objects should be divided between the owners and occupiers. Disclaiming the connexion with the Government which had been insinuated on the other side, Sir Thomas, in a lengthy and desultory speech full of details of Local Taxation in different parts of the country, argued that the real injustice fell, not on the landlord, but on the tenant, and that the remedy was to be sought, not in an appeal to the Exchequer, which was a step towards a national Rate, but in the careful re-organization of Local Government.

Mr. Read thought the speech in which the amendment had been moved had no particular relevancy either to the motion or to the amendment. No amount of sophistry could conceal the fact that Local Taxation had largely increased. A special grievance on which he dwelt was that the Ratepayers had no local control, because the magistrates had no representative character.

Mr. Rathbone, in seconding the amendment, argued against exemptions, and, deprecating the withdrawal of the wealthy classes from Local Government, said he was opposed to the wholesale transfer of whole charges to the Exchequer. He preferred to meet the grievance by a fixed contribution, which would not dispense with personal responsibility.

Mr. Liddell supported the Resolution, which he thought it impossible for the Government to oppose after their offer of the House Tax last year for the relief of Local Taxation.

Mr. Colman, speaking on behalf of the towns, bore testimony to the hardship caused there by the crushing weight of local taxes, and Sir G. Jenkinson argued in favour of relieving the Rates by a system of local licences and a special Income-tax schedule for local

purposes.

Mr. Craufurd also supported the motion as an indirect means of bringing personal property under contribution, though he did not despair of doing this in a direct manner.

Mr. Henley held that Sir M. Lopes' proposal was wise and moderate, and advised the Government to seize so favourable an

a

opportunity of settling a question which would daily assume more menacing aspect, particularly when the boroughs discovered where the shoe pinches. Mr. Henley was of opinion that the increase in the local taxes was due to the Legislature, not to the Executive.

Mr. Stansfeld replied by quoting certain passages from Sir M. Lopes' speech, from which he inferred that the settlement he offered would not completely satisfy public opinion out of doors. The Government, however, were not prepared to accept the Resolution, but they would accept the Amendment. This statement was received with laughter, and some sarcastic cheering, which led Mr. Stansfeld to protest that he had no connexion with Sir T. Acland. But it was with certain reservations that they would accept it; for instance, they would reserve to themselves the right of judging what were the payments for national objects not under local control, for which relief should be afforded. The Government were also in favour of dividing Local Taxation between the owner and occupier. Proceeding next to criticize the language of the Amendment, he maintained that the administration of justice and peace were not "almost entirely independent of local control," or so far removed from local interest as the Amendment asserted. But if the State assumed the cost it would also assume the control, and for the sake of a miserable saving in Rates the principle of Local Government would be invaded, and a direct step would be taken to a system of centralization. Moreover, it would draw the attention of the public to the incidence of Taxes as well as of Rates, and also to the duties and the rights of property, and this was hardly advisable from the point of view of the supporters of the motion. Commenting on the exaggerations in Sir M. Lopes' speech, he maintained that we had now reached the maximum of the Poor Rates, and would henceforth see a falling off. The Government was anxious to introduce a measure on the subject, and he asked the House, therefore, not to tie their hands by a sweeping general Resolution.

Mr. Disraeli remarked that, though the question was now a quarter of a century old, this was one of the most moderate and practical plans for remedying the injustice ever proposed, and the speech of Mr. Stansfeld, though sensible and useful, did not touch the complaint. The Government could not consistently oppose the application of two millions to the relief of Local Taxation, because they themselves had proposed to hand over the House Tax for that purpose, though he himself disapproved it, and thought it would increase the present anomalies. As to Mr. Stansfeld's warning not to open the consideration of the rights and duties of property, if they were not thoroughly understood and fulfilled by this time, the merited consequences could not be avoided by refraining to press a claim of justice. During the twenty-five years the question had been discussed, the burdens on real property, Mr. Disraeli pointed out, had greatly increased, and would be still more