ints of the correspondence. The omitted sentences related
to the Afghan frontier, and the state of the negotiations with
Russia.

130 This proceeding was so unusual as to be almost without a precedent.
Lord Mulgrave had addressed the House of Lords in 1837, and Lord
Clarendon in 1850. But on each of these occasions the viceroy's
administration had been the object of vigorous attack, and no one
but the viceroy himself was capable of making an effective
parliamentary defence.

131 July 6, 1885. _Hans._ 298, p. 1659.

M83 The Maamtrasna Debate

132 Sir M. H. Beach, July 17, 1885. _Hans._ 299, p. 1085.

_ 133 Hans._ 299, p. 1098.

_ 134 Ibid._ p. 1119.

M84 Change In Situation

135 In _The Contemporary Review_, October 1885, p. 491.

136 See _Spectator_, Sept. 26, 1885.

M85 Whigs And Radicals
M86 Party Aspects

137 Mr. Chamberlain has been good enough to read these two letters, and
he assents to their substantial accuracy, with a demurrer on two or
three points, justly observing that anybody reporting a very long
and varied conversation is almost certain, however scrupulous in
intention, to insert in places what were thoughts much in his own
mind, rather than words actually spoken. In inserting these two
letters, it may tend to prevent controversy if we print such
corrective hints as are desired.

138 In connection with a local government bill for small holdings and
allotments, subsequently passed.

139 He suggested, for instance, the appointment of a committee.

140 Mr. Chamberlain puts it that he proposed to exclude home rule as
impossible, and to offer a local government bill which he thought
that Parnell might accept. Mr. Gladstone's statement that he and his
visitor were "pretty well agreed" on Ireland, cannot mean therefore
that the visitor was in favour of home rule.

141 This is not remembered.

142 "Some misunderstanding here."

143 That is, in his seventy-sixth year.

M87 A Remarkable Interview

144 This episode was first mentioned in the House of Commons, June 7,
1886. Lord Carnarvon explained in the Lords, June 10. Mr. Parnell
replied in a letter to the _Times_, June 12. He revived the subject
in the House of Commons, Feb. 13, 1888, and Lord Carnarvon explained
a second time in the Lords on May 3. On Lord Carnarvo