IRELAND.-Imprisonment of Messrs. Davitt and Healy-The Mallow Election- The Dublin Trials-James Carey-The Parnell Testimonial-The Monaghan AMERICA: UNITED STATES-CANADA-CENTRAL AMERICA, MEXICO, &c.- AUSTRALASIA: AUSTRALIA-TASMANIA-FIJI-NEW ZEALAND The Recess Sir Charles Dilke's Addresses-Changes in the Administration-Mr. Goschen on the Home and Foreign Policy of the Government-The Bankruptcy Bill and the Farmers' Alliance-The proposed Reform of the Government of London-Egyptian affairs-Lord Dufferin's Despatch-Annexation Policy in the South Pacific. ANXIETY rather than gloom may be said to have been the dominant feeling throughout the country at the opening of the year. At home, although there was less open defiance of the law amongst our Irish fellow subjects, the tranquillity was felt to be due rather to the firmness of Lord Spencer's government than to any real desire to promote more friendly sentiments. On the Continent the death of M. Gambetta, whilst possibly removing one of the obstacles to a settlement of the Egyptian question in a way favourable to British interests, removed also the one French statesman who seemed capable of directing the discordant sections of the Republican party, and suggested dangers arising from a rapid succession of weak administrations. In the Colonies the futility of the claim of suzerainty over the Transvaal, put forward for the Queen, was becoming every week more apparent; and the powerlessness of the local rulers to maintain order within their own boundaries, coupled with their refusal to keep peace amongst themselves, were regarded as significant proofs of the failure of Lord Kimberley's pacification policy. It may have been with the special object of drawing away public attention from such matters, that Sir Charles Dilke, in a series of speeches addressed to his constituents at various meetings B held in the borough of Chelsea, studiously avoided all reference to those questions on which he was most undoubtedly fitted to speak with authority. The advantages of local government, and the Ministerial programme for the approaching Session, formed the staple of his addresses. Of the measures to be proposed, those which might furnish the elements of a new Reform Bill were the most keenly canvassed. Sir Charles Dilke intimated that the Government at the time of his speech had come to no definite conclusion as to whether the reduction of the county franchise and a relistribution of seats should be brought forward separately, or, following the precedents of 1832 and 1867, as a single measure. The organs of public opinion were on this point no less divided than the Cabinet itself; and even when at a subsequent period an idea got abroad that the proposals would form the subject of two separate bills, the discussion as to which should obtain precedence was no less hotly discussed. On the one hand it was maintained that the result of such a separation would be to postpone the settlement of the question for five or six years, inasmuch as the hostile majority of the House of Lords would insist upon the test of a general election before acceding to that extension of the county franchise to which the majority of the House of Commons was pledged. On the other hand, those who urged the advantages of a "double-barrelled" reform were met by the argument that any such measure, if it passed the Commons at all, would come before the Upper House with such a small preponderating vote in its favour, that the Peers would have no scruples in rejecting it altogether. The assumption that redistribution would best be dealt with by a new and invigorated constituency was met by the objection that any measure of the kind would naturally be postponed until the energy of the new Parliament had exhausted itself, and a fresh dissolution was in sight. On the franchise question, moreover, the Liberals, with the exception of Mr. Goschen, were said to be unanimous, whilst, on that of redistribution, in whatever way the smaller constituencies were swept away, they could not fail to be divided. Sir Charles Dilke himself undoubtedly leant to this proposed separation of the two questions; and speaking a few days later at Bridgwater (January 10), the Attorney-General, Sir Henry James, expressed himself far more strongly in favour of two Bills, declaring that if the attempt were made to deal with the question in one Bill, certain failure would ensue. The Opposition would naturally insist upon having the whole Bill before them, in order to get the assistance of those Liberals whose seats would be endangered; and arguing from the precedent of 1867, when the Boundaries Bill and other measures relating to Parliamentary Reform were allowed to stand over until the following Session, Sir Henry James further hinted that residence might possibly be insisted upon as a voting qualification, forty-shilling freeholders being thus altogether swept away, except when living on their own holdings, and with them, as a logical consequence, the non-resident voters for the Universities must also disappear. Lord Hartington, however, speaking ten days later (January 20) to his Lancashire constituents, seemed to regard the discussion of such questions as premature, expressing his belief that Parliament would have plenty of work before it in the ensuing Session without committing "the act of happy despatch" which would result from the passing or from the summary rejection of a Reform Bill in any shape. He preferred to see Parliament occupied in carrying out a part of the programme adopted by the Liberal party at the general election, and, foremost amongst such measures, he placed those for county self-government, and the recognition of tenant-right. Meanwhile the condition of Mr. Gladstone's health had suddenly become such as to inspire his friends with considerable anxiety. A week's "campaign" in Midlothian, to which not only his constituency alone, but the country at large had been looking forward, as likely to furnish some clue as to the ministerial plans, had to be abandoned altogether. The possibility of the Premier's retirement, or at least of his withdrawal to the House of Lords, was openly discussed, as were the chances of his successor. On whomever the lot might fall, it was generally admitted that he would fail to keep the Liberal party together, composed, as it has ever been, of materials so heterogeneous; whilst the prospects of a fusion between the moderates of both parties were regarded as not wholly visionary, for it was urged that the restraints imposed by differences of opinion between Whigs and Radicals were scarcely felt by the latter, and therefore, as urged by the Conservative organs, that in an alliance between the moderate Whigs and the Liberal Conservatives lay the only probable safeguard against the dictatorship of the Irish Nationals in an otherwise equally balanced House of Commons. The eventuality anticipated was, however, not destined to arise; and, although Mr. Gladstone was forced to quit England for some weeks, it was not until he had filled up the subordinate places in his administration which had become vacant in consequence of the Cabinet changes at the close of the preceding year. A further concession to the Radical supporters of the Government was made by the appointment of Mr. J. Kynaston Cross, member for Bolton, to the Under-Secretaryship for India; whilst from the Whigs Mr. H. R. Brand, member for Stroud, was selected to replace Sir John Adye at the War Office in the office of Surveyor-General of the Ordnance. The succession, however, of Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, M.P., to Sir Charles Dilke at the Foreign Office, was sufficient evidence that the great Whig families were still powerful in the councils of the Liberal party, and were by no means disposed to break with their allies, in order to seek adventures in a field of political life to which they were strangers. For the moment, the Egyptian policy of the Government continued to be the most attractive topic of discussion. Sir R. A. Cross, at Southport (January 20), whilst twitting the Government with its vacillation, declared that whatever popularity it enjoyed was due to the valour of our troops and naval forces in Egypt. He desired before all things to see our interests in that country maintained, and, although disclaiming any thought of annexation, trusted that we should not scuttle out of the country until a stable and a humane Government was established. He objected to the convention especially on the ground that it contained no assurance that we might not have to do over again our work in Egypt, should the imaginary safeguards, for which Lord Granville stipulated, be swept aside by the Egyptians themselves or any foreign interloper. Lord Hartington, in his reply, whilst regretting the misapprehension of our intentions as displayed by the French, expressed his conviction that the dual control had proved itself to be radically unworkable. He looked to the increased strength of the Khedive's rule for a guarantee of order, and to his readiness to adopt the suggestions of his European advisers for a speedy reconstruction of his authority, and for the emancipation of Egyptians of all classes from foreign control. Meanwhile the English Government would give all its support to the "Financial" Adviser of the Egyptian Government (Sir Auckland Colvin), who, selected by the Khedive, was the servant of the Egyptian Government, acting in its interests and in those of the Egyptian people. Two independent Liberals, Mr. Goschen and Mr. Forster, also addressed their constituents previous to the opening of the Session. The former at Ripon (January 22), after warmly defending the Egyptian policy of the Government, and their policy in proposing the reform of Procedure in the Commons, protested against the notion that a politician in his position is always desiring to trip up the Government, because on one point he cannot vote with it. On the subject of Ireland, he echoed Lord Hartington's warning against any concession to the demand for Home Rule. The Irish should be made to understand that the unity of the Empire is not to be broken up, and that no party would be found in England and Scotland to concede Home Rule, or to concede what may ultimately be construed to involve it; and he warned the country against "drifting" into Home Rule through despair of any other settlement. Mr. Goschen declared himself still hostile to the extension of the household franchise to the counties, but professed his willingness, in case Ripon should wish to be represented by a representative favourable to that measure, to resign his seat as soon as the Franchise Bill was brought in. Mr. Forster, speaking at Leeds (January 25), addressed himself chiefly to the question of the coming Reform Bill. For his own part he inclined towards the equalisation of electoral districts; and desired as the best step in that direction a strong Redistribution Bill; if some protection for minorities were needed, he would rather see it given in the shape of dividing constituencies into smaller sections, and giving one member only to each section-no voter having more than one |