30] ENGLISH HISTOEY. [rn.
known as a great adherent to the Eussian alliance, and the ease and tranquillity with which his successor, M. Loubet, was elected removed any apprehension of quarrels arising out of the claims of rival pretenders. For many reasons the sympathetic good- will which in this country had greeted the election of M. Faure to the presidency had melted away, and it would be idle to assert that his sudden death gave more than a passing shock.
There seemed also at one moment danger lest the more friendly feelings which had recently been displayed by the United States towards Great Britain might be jeopardised by the requirements of Canada in the matter of the Alaskan boundary, which, in consequence of the Klondyke gold mines, had suddenly become a matter of serious importance. A British and joint high commission for settling every point in dispute between the two Governments had been sitting in Washington for some months, and although good progress in the settlement of several thorny questions had been made, a difficulty was found in coming to an agreement over the Alaskan boundary. The British com- missioners, presided over by Lord Herschell, proposed that the points in dispute should be referred to six arbitrators, who might elect an umpire, while the Americans wished all points to be decided by a majority vote. The difficulty was further increased by the knowledge that if the principle of an umpire were admitted the British commissioners would object to the selection of an American umpire, and the Americans to a European one. Under these circumstances it was decided to suspend the sittings of the joint commission for six months, during which the questions at issue could be handled in the ordinary way of diplomacy.
The House of Commons, having disposed of the Address (Feb. 10) devoted the remainder of the evening to the dis- cussion of a resolution proposed by Mr. Herbert Lewis (Flint Burgh) that the " legislative power of bishops in the House of Peers in Parliament is a great hindrance to the discharge of their spiritual functions, prejudicial to the commonwealth, and fit to be taken away by bill." These were the actual terms of a resolution passed by the House of Commons in 1641 ; but, notwithstanding the precedent, the House took on this occasion a very different view of its duties and responsibilities. On such a question it might be anticipated that the various Nonconformist bodies would be agreed, and that their arguments would run on almost identical lines. Sir E. Clarke (Plymouth), in opposing the resolution, argued that if the bishops were deprived of their seats in the Upper House, the Church would have no representa- tives at all in the council of the nation. He did not approve of everything done by the bishops, but he could not on that ground subscribe to the view that their presence in the House of Lords was prejudicial to the commonwealth. At the same time he expressed his regret that no member of the Cabinet should think it worth while to be present at the discussion. Lord Hugh Cecil (Greenwich) replied for the Church party in a speech
