Russell (Tyrone, S.), who, in a forcible and eloquent speech, denied that arbitration was 66 a kind of lymph" which would destroy Irish land disputes; showed that the advocates of the Plan of Campaign were growing tired of their scheme, as it was costing them, with an impoverished treasury, between 5,000l. and 6,000l. a month for the maintenance of evicted tenants; and pointed out, moreover, that the Plan had never been worked for the benefit of the tenants, but only as a political machine, and that arbitration was of no use, for in those cases where it had been accepted the award of the arbitrators had not been carried out by the tenants. One of the neatest points in Mr. Russell's speech was that in which he charged Sir Thomas Esmonde, a Nationalist member and a supporter of the Plan of Campaign, with being himself an evicted landlord, and Sir Thomas Esmonde (Dublin Co.), in a brief speech, practically admitted the charge. After a humorous speech by Col. Saunderson (Armagh, N.), who infused some life and reality into the debatequalities it had hitherto lacked-Mr. Healy (Longford, N.) made a long and spirited speech, in which he urged the Government to take advantage of the "split" in the Irish party by making themselves the friends of the Irish tenantry, and accepting Mr. Lefevre's motion; but while he admitted that the Irish party might have differences among themselves, he declared that they would "always be solid against the common enemy." In discussing details of landlordism in Ireland, he charged Lord Clanricarde with being "a man-eating tiger," and his lordship's agent with being "a discredited bankrupt." Mr. Henniker Heaton (Canterbury) explained the uselessness of arbitration by pointing out that, though an arbitration took place on the Vandeleur estate, and the principal arbitrator was Sir Charles Russell, only 27 out of 213 tenants had abided by the award.

In reply to the various points raised in the course of the debate, the Irish Secretary, Mr. A. J. Balfour (Manchester, E.), at the outset, declared that the motion went to show that its advocates could not trust the Land Courts, and proved that the method of arbitration established in 1881 was a failure. He pointed out that arbitration as proposed by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre involved the recognition of the Plan of Campaign, which had only been kept up by bribery and intimidation, and was clearly not the spontaneous action of the tenants, but a political move on the part of political revolutionists. Moreover, where arbitration had been tried, as in the case of the Vandeleur estate, it had failed, and although no one was more interested than himself in getting all disputes in Ireland settled, he would certainly refuse to advise the landlords to accept any scheme which would bolster up the tottering Plan.

Sir G. Trevelyan (Glasgow, Bridgeton), summing up on behalf of the Home Rulers, on the other hand, contended that the

scheme proposed afforded a practical solution of a great difficulty, which could not be solved by existing machinery; but the House refused to adopt a resolution which would have given a recognition to the Plan of Campaign, and negatived the motion by 213 to 152-the smallness of the attendance on both sides testifying to the little interest the discussion evoked.

Meanwhile the question of the leadership of the Irish party in Parliament had remained unsettled. On the opening night, Mr.. Parnell had anticipated the action of his rivals in giving notice of a resolution in reference to the administration of the Crimes. Act. On the following day, Mr. Webb (Waterford Co. W.), for his chief, Mr. Justin McCarthy (Londonderry), gave notice of a similar motion. The old leader had lost none of his coolness or audacity, although the recent defeat of his candidate in Kilkenny might well have filled him with anxious forebodings as to the future. He realised, however, that if he could not himself make terms with the Liberal leaders, he could practically force the hand of Mr. McCarthy and his colleagues, and prevent their accepting any terms which their English allies would concede.. At one time it was currently reported that the strength of Mr. Parnell's position was so clearly admitted, that the two factions. had agreed to submit to Mr. Gladstone a joint statement of their terms; but at the last moment this agreement fell through in consequence of some fresh pretensions put forward by Mr. Parnell, with regard to the conditions of his immediate and temporary withdrawal from public life. Mr. McCarthy gave some colour to this belief by the confident tone of a speech he delivered at Liverpool (Feb. 2), stating that he expected a great measure of Home Rule from Mr. Gladstone, "who would never bring forward any measure which could not be cordially accepted by the Irish people." And he went on to explain that, on both the land question and the control of the police, he and his party had advanced their views and probably also their demands. He declared that, if the British Parliament did not settle the land question before Home Rule was granted, it must be left for settlement to the Dublin Parliament, with "a free hand" in the matter. What that "free hand" implied Mr. Parnell had on the previous day explained. The Irish Parliament was to be "supreme in Ireland," and the right reserved to the Imperial body was to be a nominal one, inasmuch as he insisted that "the veto shall be exercised as in England," which could only mean that it was not to be exercised at all. On the police question Mr. McCarthy wished the semi-military constabulary to be transformed as quickly as possible into a civil force, of which the control should be wholly in the hands of the Irish Legislature. This, he said, was in principle Mr. Gladstone's original idea, and he did not think the Irish people ought to accept less. If these terms were conceded (and Mr. McCarthy's tone made many of his hearers and readers imagine that they had been), he was pre

pared on other points to meet the English Liberals in the most friendly spirit.

These negotiations between the rival factions ultimately broke down, Mr. Parnell announcing the fact by publishing (Feb. 11) a letter to Mr. William O'Brien, in which he regretted that, not considering the national interests sufficiently safeguarded, he found it impossible to resign the lead "which I have accepted at the hands of our nation and our race." He promised that the seal of confidence should not be broken, but asserted that he had done everything consistent with the national interests to promote the cause of peace. In conclusion, he alluded in somewhat dark terms to the existence" in some quarters, and those quarters from which such a spirit might be least expected, a spirit breathing the deadliest hostility to that of peace -meaning thereby the Catholic prelates. Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Dillon also published letters, both agreeing that peace would have been perfectly possible but for "powerful influences on both sides." So entirely did these two gentlemen believe peace hopeless that they forthwith (Feb. 12) surrendered themselves to the English police to undergo the sentence from which they had fled in the autumn. To many it seemed that they looked forward to the period of forced seclusion with relief, hoping that before their release events might have so matured as to leave no doubt as to the section with which they should act.

The secret of the Boulogne negotiations was well preserved for some months, and it was not until the chief actor had passed away that Mr. W. O'Brien, in answer to a challenge from his opponents, gave a succinct account of the proceedings. According to this version, Mr. Parnell expressed the wish to see Mr. O'Brien on his return from America, and before he made any public declaration. At the first interview at Boulogne Mr. O'Brien laid down that the only subject open for discussion was Mr. Parnell's retirement, but he at once discovered that "it was perfectly plain that Mr. Parnell did not mean business." After some further fencing Mr. Parnell suddenly stated that there was one condition only on which he would retire, and that was that Mr. O'Brien should accept the chairmanship of the party. To this proposal Mr. O'Brien replied by suggesting Mr. Dillon in place of himself. With this the two leaders separated. A few days later Mr. O'Brien put his suggestions into writing. He proposed that a meeting of the entire parliamentary party should be called, with Mr. R. Power, as senior whip, in the chair. The whole of the proceedings in Committee Room No. 15 were to be wiped out; an expression of gratitude to Mr. Parnell for his great services was to be voted, and thereupon Mr. Parnell was to announce his withdrawal from the leadership, and Mr. McCarthy elected in his place. An expression of regret was, if possible, to be obtained from Mr. Gladstone for the hasty publication of his letter without consulting the Irish party, and from the Irish

Bishops was to be sought priestly recognition of Mr. Parnell's political services. Mr. Parnell was, however, to remain President of the National League, and Mr. O'Brien offered, if these terms were agreed to, to resign the chairmanship of the National Press Association, which was about to start a rival paper to the Freeman's Journal. On these proposals being made known to Mr. Parnell, the first meeting at Boulogne came to an end; but on the following day Mr. Parnell wrote that Mr. Justin McCarthy, being now recognised as the leader, should obtain from Mr. Gladstone confidential assurances as to the Land question and Police question, and that these assurances should be submitted to himself and Mr. O'Brien, and, if agreed upon by them as satisfactory, they were to be kept private until either the Liberal party should have violated their promises, or until a satisfactory Home Rule Bill on their basis should have been passed." On these terms Mr. Parnell was prepared to retire from the chairmanship. The full acceptance by Mr. Parnell of these proposals was withheld on the ground that he was opposed to Mr. McCarthy's remaining chairman, and he was equally opposed, a week later, to the substitution of Mr. Dillon's name, and, failing to come to an arrangement, the negotiations were again broken off.

Mr. O'Brien, however, was nothing daunted by his failures, and continued to urge the adoption of Mr. Dillon as the new chairman, and, after some time, the terms of agreement come to between Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Parnell were as follow:

(1) That Mr. O'Brien ask Mr. McCarthy to obtain an interview with Mr. Gladstone, and ask for a letter or memorandum (a) stating whether he and his colleagues intend to deal with the Irish Land question themselves by legislation in the Imperial Parliament, or to regard this as one of the questions the power of dealing with which would be conferred upon the Irish Parliament; and, if the former course is to be adopted, whether this question would be dealt with by purchase, or upon the lines of the measure annually introduced by the Irish party during this Parliament and supported by the Liberal party. (b) Stating whether Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues will agree to insert a provision in the next Home Rule Bill that the control of the Imperial authority over the Irish Constabulary shall cease within a definite number of years (say five years), and that this force, with such modifications in its character as deemed necessary, should then be transferred to the control of the Irish Executive responsible to the Irish Parliament. (c) Stating whether Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues will consent that the solution of the question dealt with in (a) and (b) upon the lines agreed upon shall be regarded as vital.

(2) That Mr. McCarthy should transfer this memorandum to the custody of Mr. William O'Brien, and that if Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Brien should find from its terms that the inten

tions of Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues are in accordance with the views expressed in sections (a), (b), and (c), that thereupon

(3) A meeting of the whole party should be called and a resolution proposed, acknowledging the informality of Mr. McCarthy's election, and that after the passing of this resolution Mr. Parnell will retire from the position of chairman, and Mr. McCarthy from that of vice-chairman, and Mr. Dillon should be elected chairman.

(4) That the terms of Mr. Gladstone's memorandum should not be disclosed to any persons, save the persons named in these heads of agreement, until after the introduction of the Home Rule Bill, and not then unless such bill should fail to carry out these terms; but if the bill should be found satisfactory, Mr. Parnell should be permitted to publish the memorandum after the passage of the former into law.

These, according to Mr. O'Brien, were the sole conditions proposed by Mr. Parnell for his retirement, which was regarded by his colleagues as real, but without any binding arrangement as to the future. Mr. Dillon, on learning them, expressed the strongest repugnance to being made chairman of the party; and meanwhile Mr. McCarthy agreed to seek the assurances named from Mr. Gladstone, and, a few days later, arrived at Boulogne to discuss the altered state of affairs. Mr. Parnell had, however, been much annoyed by certain newspapers which had stated that Mr. O'Brien and Mr. McCarthy had settled the whole matter behind his back, and insisted upon making certain alterations in the original conditions. First, with regard to the Police clause, he suggested the substitution of the word "will" for "ought," and the addition of these words: "And by which the statutory power now possessed by the Lord Lieutenant for the raising or maintenance of such Police force in Ireland shall thereupon cease." As to the Land clause, he made a suggestion, which, however, he did not insist upon, that the powers of dealing with the ownership and occupation of land in Ireland should be included in the powers to be conferred upon the Irish Parliament, and that it should be deferred for three or five years, during which the Irish members should be retained in their full strength. Mr. O'Brien replied that, if those assurances honestly meant, they completely covered their demands, and that if he regarded them as dishonestly meant, there could be no use in having assurances at all. Mr. O'Brien read a letter from Mr. Parnell to Mr. Gill, alluding to the "new proposals and demands of the Liberal leaders." He (Mr. O'Brien) wrote to Mr. Parnell, telling him there was not a shadow of foundation for the story, for he had in the meantime communicated with Mr. McCarthy, and had learned that no further amendment would be made in the assurances. Upon hearing that his amendments would not be accepted, Mr. Parnell abruptly closed

were