new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The judges, although they admitted the evidence to be very conflicting, refused to grant a fresh trial. On the following day (August 2), Mr. Bradlaugh held a meeting in Trafalgar Square to support his claim to take his seat. The numbers assembled were variously estimated at from 8,000 to 20,000. In a speech of some length Mr. Bradlaugh declared his intention to go to the House of Commons and insist upon his right. The crowd dispersed quietly, about five thousand going towards Palace Yard, which they found strongly guarded by policemen and its gates closed.

On the following day the House of Commons, according to custom, met at noon, and as soon as prayers were over Mr. Bradlaugh advanced to the door of the House with the intention of entering. He was met by the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms and other officials, who barred the passage, and on Mr. Bradlaugh's attempting to force his way past them, a number of policemen who had been posted in the side lobbies rushed forward and seized Mr. Bradlaugh, who struggled in vain against unequal numbers, and was finally carried down a small staircase into the courtyard, where he arrived overcome with exertion and his clothes torn and in disorder. The issue of this unseemly contest was no sooner known within the House than Mr. Labouchere, rising with a question of privilege, asked the House to say that the order excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from the House did not extend to the lobbies, and therefore the Speaker had exceeded his duties. The Speaker explained that he had given a wider interpretation to the order of the House than its words justified, because he conceived that by excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from the building he could carry out the spirit of the resolution. This view was supported by Mr. Gladstone and Sir Stafford Northcote. It was thought that a vote might at once have been taken on Mr. Labouchere's question of privilege. Several members, however, endeavoured to widen the basis of the debate, including Sir Wilfrid Lawson and Mr. Bright, both of whom were called to order, whilst the latter succeeded by a few words in raising bitter recriminations. Mr. Biggar's contribution to the discussion was the most original, and did much to restore good humour in an assembly where passion was beginning to show itself on both sides. Although not sympathising with Mr. Bradlaugh, and resenting his conduct during the coercion debates, yet he objected to the treatment to which that member had been subjected, because it was a 'precedent' which might provoke or even justify its repetition. Finally, an amendment proposed by Sir Henry Holland, to the effect that the House approved of the action of the Speaker, was on the recommendation of the two leaders adopted by 184 against 7, the great body of the independent Liberals not voting. Mr. Bradlaugh, having partially recovered from the violent treatment he had received, at once drove to the Westminster Police Court to apply for a summons for assault against

the police-sergeant. The magistrate, however, after adjourning the case, decided that the police were protected by the privilege of Parliament, the alleged assault having been committed in the precincts of Westminster Palace. The Session closed without any further intrusion on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh, but the question of his right to sit was discussed with more or less ardour at public meetings in various parts of the country. On the reopening of the Law Courts after the Long Vacation, Mr. Bradlaugh again appeared before them, and in the Court of Appeal obtained the first verdict in his favour. By this the rule refusing a new trial was reversed, and the year closed with the prospect that the whole of the legal proceedings in the case would have to be again gone.

through.

The last division of the Session took place in the House of Lords, on a resolution proposed by Lord Salisbury to disagree with certain amendments introduced by the House of Commons into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Statutes) Bill. The object of this measure was to wind up the work of the two expiring University Commissions, by creating a body with power to amend any statutes disapproved on petition or rejected by The Bill, which was originally discussed in the

Parliament.

House of Lords, proposed to commit the duty to a body consisting of the Chancellors of the two Universities, the Archbishop of Canand Sir Montagu Smith-the original Oxford and Cambridge terbury, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council,

add two

University Commissioners. of Commons, a clause was added empowering the Government to new members to the Committee. Lord Salisbury opposed this on the ground that it would give a large influence to the Ministry of the day, and would empower the University Committee to legislate for the University authorities in all controverted points. These views were supported by 36 against 13, and the Bill was lost for the Session.

When the Bill came before the House

At length,

of the longest and most arduous sessions of the present reign, having assembled on January 6, and sat, with but short intermissions at Easter and Whitsuntide, for nearly eight months. The Queen's Message gave the summary of what had taken place in

on August 27, Parliament was prorogued after one

the interval.

Outside Parliament peace had been maintained;

Thessaly had been ceded to Greece, the British Treaty rights in Tunis, though they had led to an interchange of views with France, had been fully recognised, as had also the relations between the Regency and Tripoli. The wars in Basutoland and in the Transvaal had been brought to an end, and the Convention with the latter, although not fully ratified, had been signed by the local government; British troops had been withdrawn from Candahar, and the prospects of peace with a friendly and independent Afghanistan were reassuring. The results of the sessional work inside Parliament had not been so extensive, and compared in

6

somewhat meagre fashion with the promises made at its commencement. Nevertheless, the measure for improving the relations between the owners and occupiers of land in Ireland, and for otherwise bettering the condition of the agricultural population,' had after much pains and labour become law; and the Act for the Regulation of the Forces, connecting regiments with the districts in which they were to be mainly raised would, it was hoped, render more efficient the military organisation of the country.

The changes in the administration during the year were scarcely more than departmental. The withdrawal of the Duke of Argyll was followed by no other apparent consequences than the advancement of Lord Carlingford to a seat in the Cabinet, thereby giving an official position to the most able and willing champion of the Ministerial Land policy in Ireland. The suc cession of Mr. Grant Duff to the Governorship of Madras enabled Mr. Gladstone to transfer Mr. Courtney to more congenial work at the Colonial Office, and to leave to him the official defence of his department in the House of Commons. Mr. Courtney's place as Under Secretary of the Home Department was filled by the Earl of Rosebery, who accepted it with a sort of tacit understanding that his responsibility would be extended to, and especially connected with the transaction of Scotch business, so far as it was not of a legal nature. The status of the Lord Advocate on the promotion of Mr. Maclaren to the Bench was in no degree lessened, but his successor was relieved of the non-legal duties of the office, and by this means the frequently recurring request of the Scotch members for more specific representation in the Administration was in a measure recognised. In like manner Mr. Herbert Gladstone was added as a supernumerary Lord of the Treasury (without salary), with the understanding that he should especially take charge of Irish business, and as far as possible relieve Mr. Forster of some of the extra pressure of work which both in Dublin and the House of Commons was thrown upon him as Chief Secretary for Ireland.

now about to adopt in the Transvaal, and a few evenings later (January 20) he submitted an amendment to the Address praying Her Majesty to take steps to bring to an end the war which was going on between the Cape Colonists and the Basutos. These latter had risen against the decree of disarmament pronounced on them by the Cape Legislature, and in Sir Wilfrid Lawson's opinion disarmament would be followed by spoliation. It was the duty of the Queen, he contended, to defend the Queen's children,' as the natives styled themselves, against the rapacity of the colonists. Mr. Grant Duff in reply admitted that the disarmament had been conducted with little tact or discretion; but as the colonists knew the risks which attended them in their campaign, the Imperial Government could not intervene, but he hoped that on the arrival of the new governor a mediation would be effected between the belligerents. In regard to the rights of the Cape Colonists to make war on the Basutos, Lord Kimberley declared on a later occasion that, although the transfer of a Crown Colony to a responsible Government practically involved no transfer of the right of that colony to make war beyond its borders, yet it had a right to prevent anarchy and consequently to put down war within its borders, and that therefore he could not interfere except as a mediator between the Basutos and the Cape Government.

A more important discussion was raised on January 21 by Mr. Rylands, who proposed a resolution condemning the annexation of the Transvaal as impolitic and unjustifiable. In support of his motion Mr. Rylands carefully surveyed the whole history of our dealings with the Boers, insisting that the consent of Parliament to the annexation had been obtained on a deliberate misrepresentation of the national feeling, and quoting from speeches by Mr. Gladstone and Lord Hartington passages which would have encouraged the Boers to believe that a change of government in England would be followed by a reversal of English policy in South Africa. Sir John Lubbock on this occasion presented himself as the friend of the Ministry, urging that Mr. Rylands and his associates lost sight of the interests of the natives in their anxiety to repudiate the forward policy of the Tories. If the Boers did not want annexation the natives did, and the tyranny of the former needed some check such as the British Government could alone impose. The annexation moreover of a country as large as France had not been a deed of violence, as Mr. Rylands represented, for it was accomplished by twelve Englishmen and twenty-five native policemen. In defending the action of the Government, Mr. Gladstone said that at the time both he and Lord Hartington disapproved the annexation, though they did not think it right to add to the difficulties of the situation by a parliamentary declaration of their opinions. But to disapprove a policy was one thing, to reverse it was another, especially having regard to the obligations contracted by the annexation towards the English settlers, the natives, and the future tranquillity of the colony. If a wrong