the sacred nature of the endowments, I should even then be satisfied with the propositions in this bill-for, after all, I hope it is not far from Christianity to charity; and we know that the Divine Founder of our faith has left much more of the doings of a compassionate and loving heart than He has of dogma. (Hear, hear.) I am not able to give the chapter or the verse, the page or the column; but what has always struck me most in reading the narratives of the Gospel is how much of kindness and how much of compassion there was, and how much also there was of dealing kindly with all that were sick, all that were suffering. Do you think it will be a misappropriation of the surplus funds of this great Establishment to apply them to some objects such as those described in the bill? Do you not think that from the charitable dealing with these matters even a sweeter incense may arise than when these vast funds are applied to maintain three times the number of clergy with which they are connected? (Hear, hear.) We can do little, it is true. We cannot relume the extinguished lamp of reason. We cannot make the deaf to hear. We cannot make the dumb to speak. It is not given to us

"From the thick film to purge the visual ray,

And on the sightless eyeballs pour the day;

but at least we can lessen the load of affliction, and we can make life more tolerable to vast numbers who suffer. (Loud cheers.) Sir, when I look at this great measure-and I can assure the House I have looked at it much more than the majority of hon. and right hon. members opposite, because I have seen it grow from line to line, and from clause to clause, and have watched its growth and its completion with a great and increasing interest,-I say when I look at this measure I look on it as tending to a more true and solid union between Ireland and Great Britain; I see it giving tranquillity to our people-(“ Oh, oh," from the Opposition, followed by Ministerial cheers),-when you have a better remedy I at least will fairly consider it--(cheers),—I say I see this measure giving tranquillity to our people, greater strength to the realm, and adding a new lustre and a new dignity to the Crown. (Hear, hear.) I dare claim for this bill the support of all thoughtful and good people within the bounds of the British Empire, and I cannot doubt that in its early and great results it will have the blessing of the Supreme; for I believe it to be founded on those principles of justice and mercy which are the glorious attributes of His eternal reign.' (Loud cheers.)

This noble conclusion to a speech peculiarly distinguished for its moral fervour and earnestness greatly moved the House, and when Mr. Bright sat

down the cheering was renewed again and again. The applause came from both sides of the House. The peroration was such an one as was rarely, if ever, heard within the walls of the House of Commons before; but delivered in sonorous and thrilling tones, and with due solemnity, the speaker succeeded in the great achievement of the orator, namely, that of swaying others so completely as to permeate them for a time with his own feelings and emotions.

The division took place amid much excitement. The numbers were-For the second reading, 368; against, 250; majority, 118. The majority was somewhat larger than had been anticipated. It will be seen that, including tellers, no fewer than 622 members voted in this division. The House of Commons now adjourned for a few days for the Easter recess.

After the re-assembling of the House, and during the progress of the Irish Church Bill through Committee, a debate on the general condition of Ireland was initiated by Mr. S. R. Graves, one of the members for Liverpool. In the course of this discussion, which took place on the 30th of April, Lord Claud Hamilton charged the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bright) with countenancing Fenianism, by a letter written in 1866, by attending one of their demonstrations in Dublin, by jesting at the scheme to surprise Chester Castle, and by sympathy with Barrett, condemned for his share in the Clerkenwell explosion. Mr. W. M. Torrens rose to order during the noble lord's speech, and was himself called to order by Mr.

Disraeli; but upon the Chair being appealed to, the Speaker said that although no definite expression had been made use of which he could officially notice, he had watched, not without a feeling of pain and regret, the course of the speech of the noble lord.

As Mr. Torrens remarked, however, Mr. Bright was well able to take care of himself, and Lord Claud Hamilton's speech led to a spirited and crushing reply from the right hon. gentleman. Mr. Bright began by reminding his antagonist that the Irish question was a great question before either of them was born into the world. He called both the House and the noble lord to witness that from the first moment when he (Mr. Bright) felt called upon to speak on the Irish question, either in or out of Parliament, he described the maladies of Ireland in the same language, and called on Parliament to apply the same remedies. What he said before, he said now, that there could be no peace in the country, and no settlement, until the population were put in possession in greater numbers of the soil of their own. country. They all wished for the suppression of agrarian crime in Ireland, but throughout considerable districts there was a state of opinion so depraved, or so hostile to the law, or so regardless of human life, that all the powers of the Government were baffled in endeavouring to grapple with the sore evil which afflicted the country. What was to be done? It was not a case for panic. They must ask themselves why there was in Ireland

a state of things so different from any which existed elsewhere.

Recalling the language of the appeal which, as we have seen, Mr. Bright addressed to Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone in 1866, begging them to address themselves to this momentous Irish question, the speaker went on to observe that he adhered to the main argument of the letter complained of. 'I say that the condition of things in Ireland which has existed for the last two hundred years, for the last one hundred years, or even for the last fifty years, would have been utterly impossible if Ireland had been removed from the shelter and the influence and the power of Great Britain. I repeat that if Ireland were unmoored from her fastenings in the deep, and floated two thousand miles to the westward, those things which we propose to do,-which we offer to the House in this session, and which, in all probability, may be offered to the House in the next session,would have been done by the people of Ireland themselves; and that if they had become a State of the American Republic under the constitution of that country, these things would have been done. As to the charge of his sympathy with Barrett, Mr. Bright said that he had been asked to interpose because some persons believed that the wrong man had been convicted, and as he was against capital punishment, whether for Fenianism or any other offence, he had a double reason for making an appeal to the Home Secretary. With regard to the real question of the

evening, there was a case that should induce every man on both sides of the House to apply a remedy to the great grievance of the land. The time had come when acts of constant repression in Ireland were unjust and evil, and no more acts of repression ought ever to pass the House unless attended by acts of a remedial and consoling nature.

Such, once more, was the sympathetic language of a true and tried friend of Ireland. Mr. Bright added that if his voice could reach any man in any Ribbon lodge, he would tell him that no man was a greater enemy to his country than he. For the only time in the history of the union between Great Britain and Ireland, there was a Parliament willing to do justice to Ireland-both with regard to the Church and the land question. They who lived twenty years to come, and looked back to the Irish policy of the present Government, would say they acted not only according to their light, and with the most honest intention, but with a wisdom which all that had succeeded demonstrated to be political wisdom of a high order in con nection with this question.

After many lengthy discussions, the Irish Church Bill passed through Committee in the Lower House on the 7th of May-a morning sitting, protracted from two to seven o'clock, being taken for that purpose. The same evening, in the House of Lords, the Marquis of Salisbury questioned the Government as to the sense in which Mr. Bright's recent declaration on the Irish land question was to be received. Earl