(Oh, oh! and great interruption.) We only wish to know this simple fact, whether the great, occasion on which the working majority was to increase from 100 to 125 or 130, is upon the question of an election ballot?-(Cheers and groans)—and whether the Grenville Act has not been held up to the odium of the country? and whether it has not been given forth to the people that it is impossible that an impartial tribunal can be obtained in this House? (Oh, oh! Question, question.) If honourable members think it is fair thus to interrupt me, I will submit. (Great laughter.) I would not act so towards any one, that is all I can say. (Laughter, and cries of 'Go on.') But I beg simply to ask- (Oh! and loud laughter.) Nothing is so easy as to laugh. (Roars of laughter.) I really wish to place before the House what is our position. When we remember all this-when we remember that in spite of the support of the honourable and learned gentleman the member for Dublin, and his well-disciplined phalanx of patriots, and, in spite of all this, we remember the amatory eclogue-(roars of laughter) the old loves and the new loves that took place between the noble Lord, the Tityrus of the Treasury bench, and the learned Daphne of Liskeard-(loud laughter, and cries of Question) which appeared as a fresh instance of the amoris redintegratio-(excessive laughter)—when we remember at the same time that, with emancipated Ireland and enslaved England, on the one hand a triumphant nation, on the other a groaning people, and notwithstanding the noble Lord, secure on the pedestal of power, may wield in one hand the keys of St. Peter, and (Here the honourable member was interrupted with such loud and incessant bursts of laughter that it was impossible to know whether he really closed his sentence or not.) The honourable member concluded in these words: Now, Mr. Speaker, we see the philosophical prejudices of man. (Laughter and cheers.) I respect cheers, even when they come from the lips of political opponents. (Renewed laughter.) I think, sir (Hear, hear, and repeated cries of Question, question.) I am not at all surprised, sir, at the reception which I

have received. (Continued laughter.) I have begun several times many things-(laughter)-and I have often succeeded at last. (Fresh cries of Question.) Ay, sir, and although I sit down now, the time will come when you will hear me. (The honourable member delivered the last sentence in a very loud tone, and resumed his seat amidst cheers from the Opposition, and much laughter from the Ministerial benches.)

IRISH GRIEVANCES.

[From a speech delivered in the House of Commons, April 3, 1868, in the debate on the Irish Church Bill.]

Now, what are those sentimental grievances of the Irish people? I am not conscious that I have ever been deficient in sympathy for the Irish people. They have engaging qualities, which I think every man who has any heart must respect. But, I must say, nothing surprises me more than the general conduct of the Irish people on this subject of sentimental grievances. They are a race who are certainly among the bravest of the brave, most ingenious, witty, very imaginative, and therefore very sanguine; but for them to go about the world announcing that they are a conquered race, does appear to me the most extraordinary thing in the world. All of us, nations and individuals, are said to have a skeleton in the house. I do not say that I have not one. I hope I have not-if I had I would turn the key upon him. But for the Irish ostentatiously to declare that they are a conquered race, is very strange. If they really were a conquered race, they are not the people who ought to announce it. It is the conquerors from whom we should learn the fact, for it is not the conquered who should go about the world and announce their shame and humiliation.

But I entirely deny that the Irish are a conquered race. I deny that they are more of a conquered race than the people of any other nation. Therefore, I cannot see that there is any real ground for the doleful tone in which they complain that

they are the most disgraced of men, and make that the foundation for the most unreasonable requests. Ireland is not one whit more conquered than England. They are always telling us that the Normans conquered Ireland. Well, I have heard that the Normans conquered England too, and the only difference between the two conquests is that while the conquest of Ireland was only partial, that of England was complete. Then they tell us that was a long time ago, but since then there was a dreadful conquest by Cromwell, when Cromwell not only conquered the people, but confiscated their estates. But Cromwell conquered England. He conquered the House of Commons. He ordered that bauble to be taken away, in consequence of which an hon. member, I believe of very advanced Liberal opinions, the other night proposed that we should raise a statue to his memory. But Cromwell not only conquered us, but he forfeited and sequestrated estates in every county in England. Well, sir, then we are told that the Dutch conquered Ireland, but, unfortunately, they conquered England too. They marched from Devonshire to London through the midst of a grumbling population. But the Irish fought like gentlemen for their sovereign, and there is no disgrace in the battle of the Boyne, nor does any shame attach to the sword of Sarsfield. I wish I could say as much for the conduct of the English leaders at that time. Therefore, the habit of the Irish coming forward on all occasions to say that they are a conquered race, and, in consequence of their being a conquered race, they must destroy the English institutions, is a most monstrous thing.

Then we are told that the Church in Ireland is a badge of this conquest. Well, sir, I will not go into the question as to the origin of the Irish Church. I hope that nothing shall induce me to enter into a controversy as to whether St. Patrick was a Protestant or not. But I ask this plain question from this conquered race,-who attain an eminent position in every country where wars are successful,-why is the Church of Ireland more a badge of conquest to the Roman Catholics of

that country than the Church of England is to the Dissenters? There is this difference, that according to their own story countless generations almost have elapsed since the Roman Catholics were in possession of these churches in Ireland, while in England there was a great change within comparatively modern times; the fact being that one meets almost every day in England the descendants of some one or other of the ejected ministers, but we never meet a burly Nonconformist who tells us that he is a member of a conquered race, and that he regards the Church of England as a badge of conquest. The Dissenter disapproves of the Church, and he hopes some day to terminate its existence as an establishment, but he considers himself to be on perfectly equal terms. As far as their relation to the Church Establishment is concerned, what difference is there between the Roman Catholics of Ireland and the Nonconformists of this country, who are among the most wealthy, influential, and intelligent of her Majesty's subjects, scores of whom, moreover, occupy seats in this House at the present moment? If there is any difference, the feelings of the English Dissenter ought to be more bitter than those of the Roman Catholic. That is, therefore, another point, so far as sentimental grievances are concerned, of which I really do hope we shall hear no more.

T

HE RIGHT HON. WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE was born at Liverpool on the 29th December, 1809. He is the fourth son of the late Sir John Gladstone, Bart. of Fasque, county of Kincardine, a Liverpool merchant. He studied at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, and after some time spent in continental travel, he entered (1832) the House of Commons as member for Newark in the Conservative interest. Sir Robert Peel, early recognising his business and administrative talent, in the autumn of 1834 appointed him Under Secretary for the Colonies. In the revision of the British tariff in 1842, his explanation and defence of the policy of the Government, and his complete mastery of its details, led to its being passed almost without alteration in both Houses. In 1851 he left the Conservative, and has ever since appeared on the Liberal side. He has held office as follows: Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and Master of the Mint, from September 1841 to May 1843; President of the Board of Trade from May 1843 to February 1845; Secretary of State for the Colonies, July 1846; Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Lord Aberdeen's ministry, December 28th, 1852; resigned along with the Aberdeen ministry, January 30th, 1855; held the same office under Lord Palmerston, February 5th, resigned February 21st, 1855; held office as Chancellor of the Exchequer from June 18th, 1859, to July 5th, 1866; represented South Lancashire in Parliament from 1865 to 1868; was elected for Greenwich