General Roberts in Afghanistan, criticised the Treaty of Berlin as giving each of the powers a separate cause of quarrel with Turkey, and the Anglo-Turkish Convention as guaranteeing Turkey against the consequences of breaking its own promises, and charged that Lord Lytton, Viceroy of India, had led the Government in its Afghan policy. Lord Cranbrook replied to the Duke of Argyll, and the motion for the address was adopted. The address was moved in the House of Commons by Colonel Drummond Moray, and seconded by Mr. J. P. Corry. Lord Hartington asked explanations from the Government on various points; first, as to the Greek frontier negotiations, and the progress which had been made in inducing Turkey to adopt the promised reforms. He deprecated any action on the part of England for the repression of the rising liberties of the Danubian principalities, and insisted that the threatening state of Europe should teach the lesson of making the country safe, by concentrating its resources and lessening its responsibilities. He complained that the speech from the Throne contained no reference to future policy in Afghanistan, and argued that the course of events had made it impossible to pursue the policy marked out in the Treaty of Gundamuk. He thought the annexation of the Transvaal in South Africa was effected under a mistake as to the views of the people, and might be revoked if that should turn out to be the wisest policy. He hoped the Ministers would take the earliest opportunity for explaining what steps they had taken to meet the distress prevailing in Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in explanation of measures that had been adopted by the Government on subjects to which the opposition had directed their inquiries. The state of Turkey was such as to cause anxiety, but the Government were striving to bring about a better condition. Under existing circumstances, and in the armed state of Europe, England could not afford to abdicate its position and influence in the council of nations. The policy of the Government as to Afghanistan was not changed. A better hope than hitherto existed of bringing about a South African federation. The Chancellor also related what the Government had done with respect to the distress in Ireland.

In the course of the subsequent debates, Earl Beaconsfield several times announced that the statement that the Government had released Persia from its engagement not to occupy Herat, was not true; and a letter was read from General Roberts denying allegations that Afghan prisoners had been shot for fighting against the British troops. On the 18th of February Earl Beaconsfield, in answer to a question from Earl Granville, said that he was not prepared to say that the tripartite treaty of 1856, by which Great Britain, Austria, and France guaranteed the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, had ceased to exist, but that if

the kingdom were appealed to by the co-signatories of the treaty to act under its provisions, there were certain circumstances he should take into consideration. Lord Selborne said that he considered the treaty as completely inoperative as if it had been abrogated in the most solemn form. On the 20th of February the Duke of Argyll made a speech of more than two hours in length in the House of Lords, in condemnation of the policy and proceedings of the Government in Afghanistan. He was replied to by Lord Cranbrook, and the debate was continued by Lord Northbrook, Lord Hammond, Lord Strathnairn, Lord Napier of Magdala, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Granville, and Lord Beaconsfield.

Attention was called in the House of Commons, February 17th, to a placard signed "S. Plimsoll" which had been posted on the walls of Westminster, appealing to the constituents of Sir Charles Russell against his action on the grain-cargoes bill. This was regarded by the member assailed as a breach of privilege, and he moved a resolution affixing that character to it. Mr. Plimsoll acknowledged his responsibility for the paper, made an explanation and apology for his act, and desired to withdraw the words he had used. The resolution of censure was withdrawn, but it was insisted that some notice ought to be taken of the act notwithstanding an apology had been made, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a resolution mentioning the offense, but declaring that an apology for it had been accepted. A debate ensued as to whether the effect of the resolution might not be to make a new rule or to limit the freedom of discussion, after which it was adopted.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, February 23d, a series of resolutions for preventing the obstruction of the progress of business in the House by factious members, which were adopted without a division and made a standing order of the House. They provide that if any member shall have been named by the Speaker or Chairman of Committees as disregarding the authority of the Chair or abusing the rules of the House by persistently or willfully obstructing business, then the Speaker shall put the question-if motion be made, without amendinent, adjournment, or debate-that the offender be suspended for the remainder of the sitting. If a member be suspended three times in one session his suspension shall continue on the last occasion one week, and until a motion has been made upon which it shall be decided whether his suspension shall cease, or for how long a period it shall continue; and a member, if he so pleases, may be heard in his own defense.

The army estimates were passed March 1st, including a vote of £4,579,000 for pay and allowances for the land forces at home and abroad. The naval estimates were passed March 8th, embodying a vote of 58,800 men and boys for the service for 1880-'81, and several votes of money.

that these issues should be plainly stated, and that others which he has avoided shall be brought before you. I know of no party which 'challenges the expediency of the imperial character of this realm.' I know of noue who have attempted to enfeeble our colonies by their policy of decomposition." " The present healthy condition of the colonies, and their harmony of feeling with the mother-country, he continued, was owing to their having received their institutions under the guidance of Liberal statesinen, and learned "that entire dependence on imperial assistance for their freedom and defense was not compatible with the dignity of freemen." No patriotic purpose was to be gained by the use of language of exaggeration in describing the Irish agitation for Home Rule. His lordship believed that the demand so described was impracticable, that concession to it would be mischievous, and he had always opposed it and always would oppose it. The Government had treated it with indulgence and indifference when it should have met it with firm and consistent resistance, combined with proof that every just and reasonable demand of the Irish people for equal laws and institutions would be granted. Lord Beaconsfield had claimed that her Majesty's Ministers had maintained the peace of Europe. "But they did not prevent," said the Marquis of Hartington, even if their policy did not cause, a war in the East of Europe. The ascendancy of England has been claimed in circulars, but it has been surrendered in secret conventions. In the aggrandizement of Russia, and the destruction of the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire, the declared objects of their policy have been frustrated." No progress had been made toward giving effect to the provisions of the AngloTurkish Convention for reforms in Asia Minor, and the Greek question, which disturbed Eastern Europe, was still as far from a solution as ever; but while the policy of the Ministry had failed, the immense responsibilities incurred by the country remained. In Africa, the address continued, "her Majesty's Ministers have drifted into a war which they did not sanction and which they deplore a war which has brought no honor and no advantage in return for the blood and treasure which have been spent. In Afghanistan they have created a war which has destroyed a nation, the strength and independence of which they declared, in common with their predecessors, to be important for the safety of the frontier of India." And in this they had subjected India to immense loss and expense. The just influence of England in the councils of Europe," the Marquis added, "is an object which the Liberal party has pursued with at least as much sincerity as, and certainly with more success than, has attended the policy of the present administration. But the influence of England does not rest upon boasts of ascendancy over Europe, irrespective of the objects for which that ascen

dancy is to be employed. It rests on the firmness and moderation of our conduct, based upon the material and moral strength of our position, and exercised in concert with other nations on behalf of peace, justice, and freedom." The domestic consequences of a foreign policy at once restless and undecided had been stagnation in internal reforms and financial confusion. Had not domestic prosperity and honor been attended to by the predecessors of the present Ministry, the power and influence of England, of which they were the foundations at home, would never have existed to be displayed abroad. The Marquis then mentioned several points of domestic concern which required consideration, but in relation to which nothing serious had been attempted by the Government, and there was no indication that anything serious was intended. The Liberal party, he concluded, "can offer no special favor to any class or to any interest. They can only undertake that, while upholding the power of the empire, securing the safety of our own country, and maintaining its possessions, they will engage in no policy of disturbance or uncalled-for annexation."

The elections for the new Parliament were held during April, and resulted in the return of 355 Liberals, 238 Conservatives, and 62 Home Rulers, giving the Liberals a plurality of 117, and a majority of 55 members. At the election of sixteen peers to represent the peers of Scotland in the House of Lords, April 16th, the Earl of Leven and Melville, and Lord Borthwick were chosen in the place of Lord Sinclair and the Marquis of Queensberry. Mr. Gladstone, who was universally regarded as the real leader of the Liberal party, was returned to the House of Commons by the two constituencies of Midlothian and Leeds. He elected to sit for Midlothian. He gave his view of the situation and of the responsibility of his party in his ad. dress to the electors of that borough, saying, "The efforts of the party which now seems likely to attain the full measure of its predominance will, I trust, be steadily and temperately addressed toward establishing the external policy of this country on the lines of justice, equal right, and sympathy with freedom, and toward the direction of the internal government and legislation which, during the last halfcentury, have done so much to relieve the people, to gain respect for the laws, to strengthen the foundation of the throne, and to consolidate the structure of this great and noble empire." The Marquis of Hartington regarded the result of the elections as rather the expression of the disapproval and condemnation by the voters of the conduct of the Government than of their confidence in the Liberal party; he thought the Liberals knew very well that they had still very much to do in order to establish their claims before the country. A task of pressing importance which they had before them was to secure a condemnation and reversal of the system of foreign policy which

the Government was pursuing. Mr. Gladstone was offered a public reception in London, but declined it on grounds of public propriety, saying, "I am sure that in the eyes of many, and not of our political opponents exclusively, it would be regarded as an attempt, made for the first time, to establish a practice of public rejoicing in the metropolis of the country over the catastrophe of an administration and a political party, and would wound feelings which we ought to respect as well as spare."

On the 21st of April the Earl of Beacons field formally tendered to the Queen the resignations of himself and his colleagues in the Ministry. On the next day the Queen sent for the Marquis of Hartington. On the 23d Lord Hartington visited the Queen again with Lord Granville, and afterward Mr. Gladstone was summoned to Windsor and received the appointment of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. The new Cabinet was constituted as follows: First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone; Lord Chancellor, Lord Selborne; Lord President of the Council, Earl Spencer; Lord Privy Seal, the Duke of Argyll; Secretary of State for the Home Department, Sir William Harcourt; Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Earl Granville; Secretary of State for the Colonies, Earl of Kimberley; Secretary of State for War, Mr. Childers; Secretary of State for India, Marquis of Hartington; First Lord of the Admiralty, Earl of Northbrook; President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Chamberlain; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Bright; Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Forster; President of the Local Government Board, Mr. Dodson.

Earl Granville as Foreign Secretary received the foreign ambassadors and ministers April 30th, and stated concerning the attitude of the new Cabinet in regard to Continental affairs, that the Treaty of Berlin, frankly adopted by the new Government, would be maintained; the Cabinet would enter into no Continental alliance, and would cordially continue the relations with France; it would support the demands of Greece; and it expected to maintain a good understanding with respect to English and French relations in Egypt.

The new Parliament met April 23d. The Right Honorable Henry Brand was elected Speaker of the House of Commons. During the process of swearing in the members of the House of Commons, Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, who had been returned from Northampton, being an atheist, claimed the privilege of making an affirmation instead of taking the oath. The Speaker was not able to determine the question thus raised, since he had grave doubts of the construction placed on the meaning of the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 by Mr. Bradlaugh. The case was referred to a select committee. The House afterward adjourned till May 20th. The committee appointed to consider the question raised by Mr. Bradlaugh,

decided that the oath should not be dispensed with in his case, and so reported when the House met again. On the 21st of May Mr. Bradlaugh came forward and offered to be sworn. A resolution was offered declaring that he ought not to be allowed to take the oath. This was rejected by a vote of 289 to 214. The case was then referred to a select committee, with directions to inquire into the facts and circumstances of the claim of Mr. Bradlaugh to be sworn, into the law applicable to the claim, and into the jurisdiction of the House to refuse it. This committee reported adversely to Mr. Bradlaugh's claim, and the House decided, June 22d, after having debated the question for two days, that Mr. Bradlaugh should not be allowed to take the oath. Ön the next day, Mr. Bradlaugh again pressed his claim to take the oath. It was denied, and he was requested to withdraw. He declared the order contrary to law, and refused to obey it, and for this was taken into custody. The case excited great public interest, and many meetings were held on the subject, some of which were in sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh, and others with the Parliamentary majority. On the 2d of July Mr. Gladstone moved a resolution declaring that every person returned as a member of the House of Commons, who may claim to be a person for the time being by law permitted to make a solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath, should henceforth-notwithstanding so much of the resolution adopted by the House on June 22d as relates to affirmation -be permitted without question to make and subscribe a solemn affirmation in the form prescribed by the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866, as amended by the Promissory Oaths Act of 1868, subject to any liability by statutes. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 303 to 249, and was made a standing order. Mr. Bradlaugh made the affirmation and took his seat on the next day.

In the opening speech of his canvass at Edinburgh, March 17th, Mr. Gladstone attributed to the Emperor of Austria a disparaging remark concerning himself which his Majesty was said to have made to Sir Henry Elliot, describing Mr. Gladstone as a man who did not approve the foreign policy of Austria, and whom he therefore did not desire to see in power. Mr. Gladstone then reviewed the foreign policy of Austria, saying: "Austria has ever been the unflinching foe of freedom in every country in Europe. . . . There is not an instance, there is not a spot on the whole map where you can lay your finger and say, 'There Austria did good.' I do not of course abandon the hope of improvement in the future; but we must look to the past and to the present for the guidance of our judgments. At this noment, and in the Congress of Berlin, Austria resisted the extension of freedom, and did not promote it." Sir Henry Elliot telegraphed from Vienna, March 22d, that Mr. Gladstone had entirely misrepresented a casual remark

...