taken up his case than by the Indian Government, and the motion was negatived. The whole of an evening sitting was consumed (April 17) in the discussion of a number of small PostOffice grievances and imperfections, brought forward by Earl Compton (Barnsley), who asked for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into Post-Office administration; but Mr. Raikes (Cambridge University) vindicated his department from the charges urged against it, and the motion was rejected by 163 to 93. Another attempt was made (April 20), and this time with some success, to ascertain the reason of Mr. Michael Davitt's non-appointment upon the Labour Commission. Mr. W. H. Smith (Strand), replying to a question from Mr. Cobb (Rugby), pointed out that the Government had before them the evidence given by Mr. Davitt before the Parnell Commission, and the judgment of the Commissioners, and stated that, after carefully considering the subject, they felt that they could not recommend Mr. Davitt as qualified for a seat upon the Commission. At the same sitting the London Trial of Causes Bill-a measure "to provide for the trial of civil causes in the city of London "-was read a second time, and the bill became law during the Session. A bill of some importance, providing for the enfranchisement of leasehold places of worship, was read a second time (April 22) by the large majority of 108, in spite of opposition from the Home Secretary. But it shared the fate of many other measures for the completion of which no time could be found, and was not proceeded with.

The most brilliant and most crowded sitting of the House of Lords during the Session was that at which the Newfoundland' Fisheries Bill was introduced for second reading (April 23). Delegates had been sent by the Legislature of Newfoundland to this country to present the case of the Colony to the Imperial Parliament, and it was expected that the House of Lords would consent to hear the delegates at the bar. Before this business was taken, however, Lord Salisbury made an important statement-in reply to a question by Lord Kimberley-as to an attack by the Portuguese upon a British expedition in the Pungwé river. He said there was no doubt that a most unjustifiable attack had been made. He had remonstrated with the Portuguese Government on the subject, and he had on the previous day received from the Portuguese Minister an assurance that his Government had given orders for the removal of every obstacle to the free passage of peaceful British subjects up and down the river. "But," Lord Salisbury went on to say, "the demeanour of the Portuguese officials on the East Coast of Africa has on more than one occasion corresponded so little with the assurances we have received from Lisbon, that we have thought it desirable to request three of Her Majesty's vessels to proceed to the Pungwé as speedily as possible." This statement was received with loud cheers.

The House then proceeded with the order for the second reading of the Newfoundland Fisheries Bill. Lord Dunraven presented a petition from the Legislature of the Colony, praying that one of their delegates might be heard at the bar of the House against the bill. This request was acceded to, and Sir William Whiteway, Premier of Newfoundland, advanced to the bar, accompanied by his brother delegates. After rapidly tracing the history of the treaties relating to the Newfoundland fisheries and the legislation connected with them, Sir William Whiteway enumerated the various objections taken by the Colony to the passing of the measure before the House. It had, he urged, been introduced before the Government and Legislature of Newfoundland had had an opportunity of either accepting or opposing it, or of suggesting its amendment—a proceeding contrary to the principles of responsible government conceded to the Colony, and at variance with the distinct declaration made in 1857, in the despatch of the then Secretary of State, that the consent of the Newfoundland community was an essential preliminary to any modification of their territorial or maritime rights. He next complained that the bill was modelled on an Act passed at a time when the Colony had no Legislature of its own, and when there was but a small population on the coast directly affected; whereas the treaty shore was now settled from end to end, and therefore the revival of provisions giving arbitrary powers to naval officers would work grievous injustice to British subjects, arrest the development of the natural resources. of one-half of the island, and render British sovereignty over it an empty name. Maintaining, further, that the right of fishing and drying fish on the coast was conceded to the French merely as an easement, he insisted that the Newfoundland Courts should be left to adjudicate on all questions arising between British and French fishermen, with a right of final appeal to the Privy Council. After next asserting the strong objection of the colonists to the proposed arbitration agreement on the ground of its piecemeal character, Sir William Whiteway stated that what they desired was an unconditional arbitration on all points that either party could raise under the treaties, and he offered that if this suggestion were adopted by England and France, and Newfoundland were to be represented on such an arbitration, the Colony would then pass an Act to carry out the award. Sir William Whiteway was loudly cheered by the House on the conclusion of his address, and he and the other delegates then withdrew. Lord Knutsford thereupon moved that the debate be adjourned until the following Monday, in order that their lordships might have time to consider the "very able speech" they had just heard, and this was agreed to.

Another full House assembled on the occasion of the adjourned debate (April 27), when Lord Knutsford briefly explained the reasons which had necessitated the introduction of

the measure. It was, he said, only when the Newfoundland Legislature had declined altogether to give effect by legislation to the modus vivendi agreed upon with France that the Government reluctantly took the matter into their own hands. Adverting next to the speech of Sir William Whiteway at the bar of the House, he denied that the authorities of the Colony had been taken by surprise, because they had been duly warned that, if they did not act themselves, the Imperial Government would be obliged to do so in fulfilment of its international engagements. As regarded the alternative proposals of Sir W. Whiteway, the Government were prepared to consider them with an earnest desire to find a solution of a difficult problem; but, looking at the early approach of the fishing-season and the engagements which had been made with France, he thought that the Bill should be passed through their Lordships' House, and then it might come before the other House after Whitsuntide. That would allow time for the Colonial Legislature to pass an Act for carrying out the modus vivendi. If, however, the general arbitration suggested by the delegates was made by them a sine quâ non to the acceptance of their proposals, the Government would have no other alternative than to press forward their Bill. Lords Kimberley and Herschell deprecated any further action on the part of the Imperial Legislature, but the Duke of Argyll pointed out that by reading the bill a second time the House would only be committed to its principle, and Lord Salisbury both vindicated the course adopted by the Government and urged the prudence of letting the bill pass. The second reading was then agreed to, and the bill was afterwards (May 12) read a third time and sent to the Lower House.

No great expectations had been formed in regard to the Budget. Though it was certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a good surplus, the amount at which it was generally estimated was not big enough to excite strong hopes in any quarter. There was a reference in the Queen's speech, at the opening of the Session, to "the expediency of alleviating the burden which the law of compulsory education has in recent years imposed upon the poorer portion of the people," but language so vague left the Government free to choose their own time for moving in the matter. The Prime Minister, in an allusion to the subject of free or assisted education, had said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was master of the position, and that nothing could be done until he was able to spare the necessary funds. It was not believed that Mr. Goschen would this year have them to spare. His surplus, it was conjectured, would not be enough to cover the reduction of a penny in the income-tax, but it was generally hoped that if there was any remission of taxation it would take this form. Though no pleasant surprises were anticipated, Budget night (April 23) did not lack its usual importance. The House of

Commons was crowded, except in the Peers' Gallery, for the House of Lords had its own counter-attraction in the address of the Premier of Newfoundland from the bar. Mr. Goschen spoke for two hours and forty minutes, and evolved an extremely interesting statement from the dry statistics of the year's income and expenditure.

Acknowledging that the Exchequer had enjoyed a highly prosperous year, he explained that he was unable when he made his last year's estimate to rely on such prosperity, because of the constrained condition of the labour market, and the suspicion that all was not right in the regions of high finance. The result, however, was that the excess of revenue over expenditure had amounted to 1,756,000l. But he had been heavily handicapped by unforeseen supplementary charges, and among these he mentioned 200,000l. for the relief of Irish distress; 200,000l. for the Post Office and telegraphs-150,000l. of the sum being spent on increased wages alone; 80,000l. to complete the "boon to the Volunteers ;" 350,000l. for the navy; 150,000l. to relieve the Irish Constabulary Fund from a state of insolvency; and 100,000l. to readjust the balance of the Chancery Book Debtthe last two items being unexpected "bequests of liability " left him by his predecessors. On the other hand, he had had the benefit of certain savings which had been expected, and among them 75,000l. voted, but not spent, for barrack construction, and 25,000l. allowed, but not required, for the drawback on silver plate, the original estimates of expenditure in both cases not having been realised. Dealing with the increase in the revenue, he showed that the receipts from alcohol had exceeded the estimate by no less a sum than 900,000l., or half the total increase in the whole revenue, the increased consumption of alcohol having been proportionately larger in England than in either Scotland or Ireland. Although such an increased consumption was in some respects to be regretted, it yet showed that the working classes, through increase of wages, were more comfortably off. In non-alcoholic beverages increased power of consumption was also shown, and the loss of revenue from the reduction of the tea duty, which was estimated at 1,282,000l., had really only amounted to 1,073,000l. There had been an increase also in the consumption of tobacco, and, assuming that an ounce of tobacco would fill twelve pipes, the increased consumption amounted to 36,000,000 pipes. Mr. Goschen next dealt with the death-duties and note-stamps, showing that the returns from them had closely approached the estimate made last year; and the same thing happened in the case of the income-tax, which, estimated to yield 13,200,000l., had actually realised 13,250,000l. Summing up his figures the right hon. gentleman pointed out once more that the revenue had produced 1,750,000l. more than the expenditure, and this, when compared with the estimated margin of 233,000l. for which he allowed in

his last year's Budget, was not, in a year of uncertainty and doubt, an unsatisfactory result. He next reviewed the expenditure which had been carried out by loans under the Barracks Act, the Naval Defence Act, and the Imperial Defence Act, and he was loudly cheered when he incidentally explained that the revenue from our Suez Canal shares would, after the year 1894, amount to from 500,000l. to 600,000l. a year. The amount borrowed under all three Acts during the last threeyears made a total of 2,580,000l., of which 52,000l. had already been repaid; now 696,000l. more was in process of expenditure, making a total of 3,276,000l. for the year 1890-1. For the coming year 3,229,000l. would have to be spent under theseheads. The right hon. gentleman then approached the subject of the reduction of debt, and showed that debt had been reduced. during the past year by the sum of 7,616,000l., after allowing for the debt incurred under the Defence Acts; and during the last four years the amount of debt which had been wiped out had been 30,939,000l., while the annual interest on debt had been reduced by very nearly two millions. During the last five years. 37,200,000l. of debt had been discharged out of taxation, while during the previous five years the amount had only been 24,600,000l. After touching on the size of the unfunded or floating debt, now amounting to 21,000,000l., and on the price of Consols, the right hon. gentleman dealt briefly with the relief given to local taxation, which he fixed at 3,873,600l. He declined to remit the extra duty placed last year on spirits and beer and handed over to the county councils, first, because that extra duty was shown by the state of the trade to be not unreasonably high or more than the trade could well bear, and secondly, because the money had been so excellently applied by the county councils, especially in the promotion of technical education, that it would be unwise to disturb the arrangement arrived at last year.

From a review of the actual revenue and expenditure of the year expired, the transition was natural to the estimated revenue and expenditure of the coming year. The real totals of these, as compared with the previous year's receipts and. exchequer issues, may be tabulated as appears on page 93.

The total estimated expenditure thus stood at 88,319,000l., or 576,000l. more than the actual expenditure of the previous year. The main individual items of increase were 500,000l. for the relief of Ireland, 140,000l. for education, 70,000l. for public buildings, 400,000l. for Post Office and telegraphs, and 150,000l. for the census. Turning to the anticipated revenue, Mr. Goschen showed that the financial year had an advantage in the fact that it possessed three extra tax-earning days, for it was. Leap-year, and it contained no Easter, and therefore no Good Friday or Easter Monday. He examined the prospects of trade and general prosperity, and declared them to be very