HC Deb 10 April 1885 vol 296 cc1310-38

Amendment again proposed,

In page 24, at end, to add the words,—

"Dublin The present Parliamentary borough of Dublin.
The township of Rathmines.
The township of Kilmainham.
The township of Drumcondra, Clonliffe, and Glasnevin.
The township of Clontarf.
The townland of Grangegorman South, the townland of Cabragh, and so much of the townland of Grangegorman Middle as lies south of the road leading from Phibsborough to Cabragh, and so much of the said townland as lies south of Faussagh Lane, and east of Quarry Lane, all in the parish of Grangegorman, barony of Coolock, and county of Dublin.
The townland of Dolphinsbarn, in the parish of St. James, barony of Uppercross, and county of Dublin.
The townlands of Terenure, Kimmage, Rathfarnham, and Newtown Little, all in the parish of Rathfarnham, barony of Rathdown, and county of Dublin.
The townlands of Rathmines Great, Rathmines Little, Farranboley, Churchtown Lower, Friarland, Roebuck, and Trimlestown, or Owenstown, all in the parish of Taney, barony of Rathdown, and county of Dublin.

"Dublin The townlands of Simmonscourt, Annefield, and Priesthouse, all in the parish of Donnybrook, barony of Rathdown, and county of Dublin."
—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question again proposed, "that those words be there added."

MR. HEALY

said, he hoped that in the interval of a fortnight which had taken place since this matter was under discussion there might be a better disposition evinced on the part of the Government to accept the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He wished to impress upon the Committee that in the Amendment now before them his hon. Friend had asked for nothing whatever in the nature of a concession. No demand was made for an additional Member; but the simple proposition was that an extension of boundaries should be given for the borough, which the number of Members allocated by the Bill to the City of Dublin would have to represent. It was proposed by the Bill that Dublin should in future have four Members; and his hon. Friend asked that the territory, in which those four Members were to have jurisdiction in the shape of representation, should be extended so as to take in certain districts which really, to all intents and purposes, belonged to the City of Dublin proper. He could not, for the life of him, understand why the Government should resist this very reasonable demand with the persistency they had hitherto maintained. He (Mr. Healy) had taken the trouble to go through the Bill in order to ascertain what had been the amount of extension of boundaries given to various other cities in England, Scotland, and Ireland. He found that in England the Government had extended the boundaries to no less than 38 towns; in Scotland the boundaries had been extended in 9 cases; but in Ireland the Bill only extended the boundary of one borough—namely, the borough of Belfast. In accordance with the arrangement entered into with Lord Salisbury, Belfast was to possess two more Members, and in order to justify this addition to the representation the boundaries had been enlarged. Now, if the boundaries of Dublin had been extended in the same way as in other cities in England and in Scotland, or as in Belfast, it would have been entitled to five Members, and perhaps to six. At the present moment Dublin had a larger number of population per Member than any other town in the United Kingdom. Each Member represented a population of 68,000, whereas the general average was only from 55,000 to 60,000. The Irish Members had given up in despair all hope of obtaining an additional Member for Dublin. It appeared to be quite impossible that they would be able to obtain that concession; but he could not understand what on earth could be the reason which actuated the Government in endeavouring to prevent the Committee from allowing them to have, for Parliamentary purposes, the extension they claimed, presuming that the original number of Members allotted to Dublin by the Bill—namely, four, was still to be retained. The answer which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had made to the claim of Dublin was that if it got this extension of boundaries it would be necessary, upon logical grounds, to allot five Members to the city. Now, he ventured to say that there was very little logic in the Bill at all. It was not a logical Bill in any respect, and one additional departure from the principles of logic would not impair the value of the measure. As a matter of fact, it was not on the grounds of logic that the Government objected to this proposition; but what really animated the opposition of the Government was a totally different reason—namely, that they were afraid if they agreed to it they would have to meet the opposition of the Tory Party, not only in the townships around Dublin, but in the House itself. He would like to address himself for one moment to the Tory Party in that House, simply in order to assure them that by no possibility, whatever the fate of this Amendment might be, would they succeed in returning a Member either for the county or the City of Dublin. He was prepared to pledge his credit to the fact that although Dublin had been jerrymandered in order to give to the Tory Party two seats—one in the city, and one in the county—they had not the ghost of a chance of returning one. Therefore, he did not see what difference it could make to them, either as prac- tical statesmen, or as capable citizens, seeing that it was impossible for them to secure the return of a Representative. No doubt, the boundaries of the city had been manipulated by Mr. Peers White and the Boundary Commissioners in such a way that it was hoped that some advantage would be given to the Tory Party; but he was perfectly convinced that the Tory Party had no chance whatever of returning a single candidate in this district. Then what difference could it make to anybody if the Committee consented to make the boundaries what they ought to be according to common sense, seeing that they could not obtain the advantage which the jerrymandering of the boundaries was intended to give to them? He would make a suggestion to the Government—namely, that they should insert a date in the Bill up to which the proposed boundaries for Dublin should prevail, and that then, if it were found that the Tory Party were unable to carry either of the two seats for the county, or of the four seats for the borough, they should return to the plain principles of common sense, and fix the boundaries which Nature and geographical position pointed out. He would ask the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board to say that the existing boundaries provided for the City of Dublin should come to an end after—say, five years, or two General Elections; and then, if the Tory Party could show that they had been able to return a single Tory, either for the city or the county, let things remain as they were; but if not, let them substitute a boundary scheme that was dictated by common sense. Do not let them have a cast-iron arrangement like this staring them in the face. It was a matter of extreme importance to the people of Dublin that they should not have their wards unnecessarily broken up. It was something horrible to contemplate that Dublin should be the only city in the Kingdom which should have its wards broken up and made "pie" of, as a printer would say, for the purposes of jury lists and registration. He repeated that he was quite prepared to accept a provisional arrangement; and if, at the end of five years, it could not be found that the Tory Party had succeeded in returning a Representative in consequence of the jerrymandering which had taken place, let things remain as they were; but if not, let them give the boundaries which common sense and propriety dictated. In 38 English cities and in nine Scotch towns they had given an extension to the existing boundaries, having regard to the urban area. In only one instance had that been done in Ireland, and, curiously enough, it was in the case of Belfast. He thought the people of Dublin had very good reason to complain of the invidious way in which they had been treated as contrasted with the way in which the people of Belfast had been treated. Belfast had an existing population of 208,000, which would only entitle it to two Members, or perhaps to three; but something like 14,000 persons had been added to the population of the borough from the counties of Antrim and Down. They had been dragged in ruthlessly, in spite of their own protestations, for many of them were engaged in rural pursuits, especially in the case of those who weretaken from the county of Down. They were, however, notwithstanding their remonstrances, dragged in bodily in order to please Lord Salisbury, and to give the Tory Party an additional Member for Belfast. That having been done in the case of Belfast, in what position did Dublin stand by the extensions which had been made? Belfast was to have a population of 222,000 and four Members. The population of Dublin was already 273,000, or more than 50,000 above that of Belfast after the extension of its boundaries had been carried out, and yet, under the present Bill, it was only to receive the same number of Members. Now, that appeared to him to be an exceedingly invidious and unfair arrangement. It was an arrangement by which the citizens of Dublin were treated with gross unfairness in more respects than one, not only in regard to the refusal to allocate an additional Member, but also in regard to the fact that no additional Member was to be given for the excess of population already existing in the present boundaries. Dublin was certainly entitled to more than four Members with the existing population; but how much more would it have been entitled to additional representation if the boundaries recommended by the Exham Commission had been agreed to. It must be remembered that that was a Commission which had been appointed by the late Government at the time when the Duke of Marlborough was Lord Lieutenant, that it sat for a considerable time, and that it was presided over by an able lawyer, who certainly could not be accused of having popular proclivities. In addition, the President of the Commission was checked by other Commissioners of still less popular proclivities; and yet those gentlemen unanimously recommended the inclusion in the boundaries of Dublin of the outlying townships. Upon that recommendation the Government had not deemed it right to act; and, therefore, the only conclusion that could be arrived at was that the recommendations of the Exham Commission had been adopted in the case of Belfast and refused in the case of Dublin, simply in order to give the Tory Party a fancy and bolstered-up representation which in good faith it was not genuinely entitled to. This arrangement, of course, was the offspring of the secret compact and most unfair arrangement between the two Front Benches, who seemed to have put their heads together in order to square off the Bill as Representatives of the Tory Party on the one side, and of the Liberal Party on the other. No disposition had been manifested to consult the wishes of the people of Dublin; and what Lord Salisbury appeared to have laid down was, that four Members should be given to Belfast to counterbalance the return of four Nationalists in Dublin. Certainly, such an arrangement was not in accordance with the principles of logic which the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board appeared to advocate in other cases. He (Mr. Healy) thought the Irish Members were entitled to know from the right hon. Baronet why he was anxious to enlarge the boundaries in the one case and restrict them in the other. At the present moment the residents of the township of Fathmines were, to all intents and purposes, part of the population of the City of Dublin; and he should be glad to learn what defence could be made by the Irish Law Officers of the Crown of an arrangement by which the two votes now enjoyed by the people of Rathmines were to be continued, while the people of Dublin were only to enjoy one? A person living in Rathmines and possessing a dwelling-house there had only to cross a canal in order to get into Dublin proper, just as a man crossed the bridge from Southwark to get into the Strand; but by crossing that small canal the resident of Rathmines obtained possession of a second vote for his business premises, being in the enjoyment of one already for his residence—that was to say, that by crossing a small stream of water a resident of Rathmines blossomed into a full-blown, double-breasted voter, with one vote for his residence and a second vote for the place in which he carried on his trade or business. Why should it be the fact that a man residing in a particular part of Dublin called Rathmines was entitled to two votes? What was the case with regard to the township of Pembroke? By some arrangement, which he had never been able to understand, Pembroke, for Parliamentary purposes, was within the City of Dublin; while, for municipal purposes, it was without the City of Dublin. The township was in precisely the same position as Rathmines, but having been included in the Parliamentary boundary of Dublin, the people of Pembroke would not have two votes, while those of Rathmines would. What logic was there in that? He should be glad to learn upon what principle of logic the people of Rathmines were to enjoy two votes and the people of Pembroke not? In order to be logical the Government, if they insisted on keeping Rathmines in the county, as the Bill proposed, should cut off the right to a county vote because the people residing there possessed a vote already for their business premises in the City of Dublin. A man might have a shop at a street corner and his residence next door, and because one happened to be in the county and the other in the city he enjoyed the privilege of two votes. Such an arrangement appeared to him to be a most extraordinary and unfortunate one. The Corporation of Dublin had put forward a scheme dealing with the boundaries of the city. He did not know what fault the Government had to find with the scheme of the Corporation; but he knew that the moment a proposal was made by the Emergency Society in regard to the county it was adopted by the Commissioners, the proposal being one that involved the paring off of a small portion of the county. When the Corporation of Dublin brought forward their scheme it was not only rejected, but rejected with contumely. Why had the Corporation of Dublin been treated with derision and contempt in the matter, and why had the recommendations of the Emergency Society—an association instituted in order to prop up bankrupt landlords, and provide them with bailiffs for serving writs—been conciliated in every step? It was most extraordinary that the Corporation of Dublin should have been flouted, while the contemptible organization of landlords had their scheme accepted. He was himself present when the Emergency scheme was handed in. The agents of the Emergency Society, unsupported by a single argument, simply handed in a map, and at the sight of that map the Boundary Commissioners jumped at their proposal, and accepted it. In the course of the discussions upon the Bill, the Tyneside area, with which he was personally very well acquainted, and some of the areas about London had been mentioned. But the reason why those areas had been ex-ceptionably dealt with was obvious—namely, that in all those cases the counties had had an additional number of Members allotted to them. For instance, eight or nine Members were given to Northumberland by the Bill; and, therefore, there was no injustice in grouping together the Tyneside populations, and forming them into a division in the way the Bill provided. In the same way Middlesex would have half-a-score of Members, if not more, under the Bill. Therefore, there was nothing incongruous in grouping together small portions of the county area in which the houses were clustered together. But the county of Dublin was only to have two Members; and he challenged the Government to point out, on any of the maps they had issued, any case which stood on all fours or would compare in any way with what had been done in regard to that county. He had assured the House that no jerrymandering of the boundaries would secure the return of a Tory candidate; and, under those circumstances, why should not the City of Dublin have the benefit of geometry and symmetry in the matter? It was upon that ground that he appealed to the right hon. Baronet to make the scheme for Dublin a provisional scheme, and not to make it a Procrustean bed which must stand for the borough for another generation. Let a provision be inserted in the Bill to provide that—say, until the year 1890, the present provision should remain in operation, and that it should then be subjected to revision. He could not understand the object of continuing this abortion in the schene as it now stood. It might be asked, "Why did the Irish Members desire this change?" He thought the fact that they asked for it was a sufficient evidence of their bona fides. They were not seeking for any political advantage, because the political effect would be the same under all circumstances. Then, if there could be no political result from the change, he intreated the Government to allow a provision to be inserted in the Bill, by which the plan now proposed would not be allowed to have permanent effect. A strong objection was entertained against breaking up the wards of Dublin, and adding very largely to the expense and trouble of the Revising Barrister. Moreover, what was of still more importance, greater symmetry would be carried out in connection with the Parliamentary divisions of the City of Dublin, if the proposal of his hon. Friend were adopted. Anybody who was acquainted with the City of Dublin—he did not know whether the right Baronet was acquainted with it himself—would be aware that Mount-joy Square was proposed to be placed in the same Parliamentary district as Ringsend, so that the swells of Mountjoy Square—Her Majesty's Judges and the aristocracy of Dublin—and the people who sold cockles in Ringsend would be required to vote in the same district. A grosser absurdity could not be imagined. It had been done in the hope of insuring the return of a Tory candidate; but in whatever way they manipulated the constituency that result was hopeless. There existed throughout the city an overwhelming mass of Nationalist opinion that would completely swamp the Tory Party notwithstanding the jerrymandering which had been resorted to. Why, then, continue this absurdity and perpetuate it, knowing that it was impossible for the Tory Party in Dublin to secure a representation of their particular views in that House? He thought it was a disgrace to the deliberations of Parliament that the House of Commons should be told that two Gentlemen, how- ever distinguished, had come to an arrangement, and that, therefore, in the face of that arrangement, common-sense principles were not to prevail. He asked the Committee to import something of a deliberative character into the consideration of the Bill, and not to discuss things that were absolutely cut and dried. It would really appear that the Committee was engaged in carrying on a pantomime or farce, night after night, in pursuance of an iron-bound compact. Let them have something like a real discussion upon the merits of the proposals contained in the Bill without reference to any previous bargain. He hoped that, at any rate, the Government would consent to the boundaries laid down in the Bill being continued for four or five years only, especially when it was demonstrated that the Tory Party could obtain no benefit from them.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he rose out of courtesy to the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken. (Mr. Healy); but the question had been fully discussed on a former occasion, and having himself already expressed his opinions upon it he would not now detain the Committee by repeating them. He only followed the hon. and learned Member out of courtesy, and not that he had anything fresh to say. He would not, however, follow the hon. and learned Member into the discussion of a question which would arise upon Schedules 6 and 7. He anticipated that there would be a full discussion upon Schedule 6, on the point which had been raised by the hon. and learned Member, and he would not enter into it now upon the present Schedule. Nor would he attempt to anticipate what he would have to say upon Schedules 6 and 7 by any reference to that part of the subject at the present moment. The hon. and learned Member had stated that there were 38 boroughs in England and nine boroughs in Scotland which had had their boundaries extended. In the latter case the hon. and learned Member made up nine by counting the extension of existing groups. He was quite justified in doing so; but it was a very small matter indeed, and the extensions were only made for the purpose of bringing the Parliamentary boroughs up to the municipal limits. In regard to the 38 English boroughs, the boundaries had, in almost every case, been extended to the municipal limits. In Ireland, by the Act of 1868, a general provision was made in regard to extending the borough boundaries up to the municipal limits, which had not been the case in England. The hon. and learned Member suggested that a provisional arrangement might be made in the case of Dublin. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was not aware of any case in which a constituency had been provisionally created for a given number of years, on the expiration of which it was to come to an end, and he did not think that would be at all a convenient or satisfactory arrangement, or one which he could recommend to the Committee. At the same time, he was quite ready to give the hon. and learned Member his personal assurance that he should be disposed to support a measure for the extension of the boundaries of the City of Dublin, for municipal purposes, to a reasonable degree, and he should also be inclined to favour a subsequent extension of the Parliamentary boundaries to the municipal limits. The hon. and learned Member had complained of persons living outside the boundaries of the city, in a township divided only by a canal, having two votes, whereas persons who lived in the city had only one. No doubt, that was an anomaly; but anomalies existed in regard to the English boroughs, and applied with a greater or less degree to the large towns throughout the United Kingdom.

MR. HEALY

said, that it did not apply to the same extent.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the anomaly existed to a startling extent even in the Metropolis, and he had mentioned it in a previous discussion in connection with his own borough. In that case there was not even a division by a canal, but the one part of the district was absolutely undistinguishable from the other. There was no distinction whatever to the eye, not even to the extent of that which existed in the case of Rathmines. There was simply a continuation of streets, and it was an anomaly which existed in the case of nearly all the large cities in the United Kingdom, and was not in any way peculiar to the City of Dublin. He certainly did not like these distinctions; but it had been found impossible to avoid them altogether,

MR. HEALY

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet in regard to a matter of detail which might easily be remedied under the Bill. At the present time, the whole expense of preparing the registration lists was thrown upon the municipality of the borough proper; while the people of Pembroke and the people of Blackrock, who were included within the Parliamentary borough, but were not within the municipal limits, were not required to contribute towards it at all. As a matter of fact, they did not pay 1d towards the expense. Some time ago a lawsuit took place in which the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was counsel. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, therefore, perfectly acquainted with the matter. The lawsuit to which he referred was brought on in 1880, when the Corporation was represented before the Court of Queen's Bench by the hon. and learned Gentleman; and that Court decided that they had no power to make the Grand Jury present, for the expense of the registration of voters, any part of the Parliamentary borough that was situated in the townships of Pembroke and Black-rock. The Government would easily get at the facts of the case if they would consult their own Law Officer. He (Mr. Healy) thought it was not unreasonable to ask that the area of Pembroke and Blackrock should be charged with the expenses incurred within those districts for Parliamentary purposes. It would be a matter of satisfaction to the citizens of Dublin to find that in future the expense which was now entirely borne by the city would be thrown in proper proportion upon the districts he had mentioned, which hitherto had contrived to evade any contribution.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that if the hon. and learned Member was right in his facts—and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had no doubt the hon. Member was—he would be glad to consider the question, if the hon. and learned Member would kindly aid him by putting his statement in writing.

MR. SEXTON

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to express his willingness to consider the question of the payment of expenses in connection with Pembroke and Blackrock being thrown upon the Corporation of Dublin. If the right hon. Baronet desired to ascertain facts precisely, he would find them in a printed pamphlet issued by the City of Dublin in reference to the proposal to extend the boundaries of the city in this case. It was an undoubted fact that at present all the expenses were thrown upon the Corporation of Dublin. Pembroke was part of the Parliamentary borough of Dublin; but it was independently registered for Parliamentary purposes, and no portion of the expense of the Parliamentary register was borne by that township. That was undoubtedly an anomaly, and he thought the City of Dublin was very hardly treated under the Bill. Within the last two days an illustrious Person, who was now visiting Ireland, had delivered a speech in reply to an address, in which he spoke in terms of the highest praise of the public and private enter prize of the citizens of Dublin. He (Mr. Sexton) thought it was very strange that while the Heir to the Throne should be speaking to the citizens of Dublin in such terms, that city should be singled out for exceptionally harsh treatment under the present Bill. He was afraid, however, that the Government, in reference to the City of Dublin, were in the position of marionettes, and that the string was pulled by the man behind the screen—Lord Salisbury. They had heard before now that Lord Salisbury had already told the Tories that their position under the Bill would depend upon the spirit in which the Boundary Commissioners performed their duties; and, unquestionably, the way in which the City of Dublin had been treated was a remarkable and conclusive indication of the spirit in which the Boundary Commissioners had acted in Ireland. In every instance the people who were most interested had been required to give way. The right hon. Gentleman said that wherever there had been an extension of boundaries in England there had first been an extension of municipal boundaries. No doubt, in England and Scotland, wherever a municipal extension had been sought it had been granted, and the Parliamentary boundary had gone with it; while in several cases the Parliamentary boundary had even been carried beyond the municipal boundaries. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons had in certain towns been added in areas which had been previously outside the municipal boun- daries. Broadly speaking, that had generally been the case; and, whether the boundaries were made co-extensive with the municipal boundaries or not, the Bill provided that in the case of England and Scotland the Parliamentary boundary of every important borough should coincide with the actual area of the borough.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that was not so in the case of Glasgow.

MR. SEXTON

said, he would admit that the case of Glasgow was a singular and a single exception. In every other case the desired extension had been made, and why had it not been made in Glasgow? As a matter of fact, it had been made partially, and many thousands of people had been added by the Bill. Indeed, almost as many people had been added to the Parliamentary borough of Glasgow as he proposed to add to the City of Dublin.

SIR CHAELES W. DILKE

said, that the number was much fewer in proportion, and very few compared with the number left out.

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought that a population of some 25,000 had been added to the borough of Glasgow. The claim made in the City of Dublin was for an addition of 40,000. The Government had added 25,000 to Glasgow, and refused to do more, but for a reason altogether different from that which was assigned in this case. The citizens of Glasgow asked to have 200,000 added. That increase involved an enormous extension, and if it had been granted to the citizens of Glasgow the effect would have been not only to upset the proposals of the Bill in regard to the number of Members to be given to Glasgow, but also to upset the proposals of the Bill as to the number of Members to be given to the counties of Renfrew and Lanark. The reason why the Government had refused an application was, that it would involve a complete disturbance and an upheaval of the proposals of the Bill in regard to the rural constituencies. The case was notoriously different in Dublin, because, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had pointed out, whether they got an extension of the boundaries of the City of Dublin or not, the county of Dublin, which was the only county concerned, would still be entitled to its two Members, and no request was made for any increase in the number of Members at all. What were the facts of the case in regard to Glasgow? The granting of a fuller extension would have completely altered the number of Members for Glasgow, Renfrew, and Lanark; whereas, if the Government granted the request now made to them by the Irish Members, it would not make the slighest difference either in the representation of the city or of the county of Dublin. Admitting that exception, he emphasized his former assertion—that over the whole area of England and Scotland there was not an important city left by the Bill with a Parliamentary boundary more limited than the actual area of the city as it met the eye. He (Mr. Sexton) entirely supported the statement of his hon. and learned Friend that this Amendment had not been moved for any political purposes. The City of Dublin was to have four Members, and the County of Dublin two, and he did not think there was any man in Dublin who was able to speak with positive certainty as to the political effect of the change. His own opinion was that the National Party would certainly return five out of the six—in all probability the whole six; and it could not be urged that the acceptance of the Amendment would affect the question either in one way or the other. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was quite as skilful in evading arguments as in advancing them, and he had not touched at all upon the question of the relative position of the townships of Pembroke and Rathmines in regard to the City of Dublin. They lay side by side; they were equally distant; they both touched the Parliamentary borough along the whole line of the inner boundary; they were about equal in size; and the only difference was that Pembroke was a good deal more rural in its composition than Rathmines. It was occupied chiefly by the owners of detached villas which had extensive grounds around them. They were occupied by the mercantile and official class who had made money enough in Dublin to enable them to have their villas outside, and if any township ought to be placed within the county, and not in the city, that township was Pembroke. But the township of Pembroke was in the city already, while the township of Rathmines, composed as it was of streets undistinguishable from those of the city, and composed of streets joined in one continuous line with the streets of the city, was placed in the county. Reason was baffled in the effort to discover any cause for placing the township of Rathmines outside the city and the township of Pembroke within it. It was an indication of the way in which the spirit enjoined upon the Boundary Commissioners by Lord Salisbury had been manifested; and after this extraordinary effort of audacity so far as the Commissioners were concerned, he thought the least thing that could be done for Mr. Peers White was to make him a Judge. The right hon. Baronet said he would have no objection to favour the introduction of a Bill for the extension of the municipal boundaries of Dublin, and that when the municipal boundaries of Dublin had once been extended, he would then favourably consider a proposition for making the Parliamentary boundaries coincide with those of the municipality. The Committee would expect no less than that from the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had repeatedly pressed against him (Mr. Sexton), upon this and previous Amendments, the argument that wherever Parliamentary boundaries had been extended in England, they had been extended because there had been a previous extension of the municipal boundaries. As the municipal boundaries of Dublin had not been extended, the right hon. Gentleman urged that that case was not on all fours with that of the English boroughs. It now appeared that the right hon. Baronet was indisposed to accept the present extension of the Parliamentary boundaries of the city, and he would only allow them one bridge by which at any period of time they might pass from their present position to an extension of the Parliamentary boundaries, that bridge being the previous extension of the municipal boundaries. He asked the right hon. Baronet to give the people of Dublin an undertaking that they would be allowed to pass over that bridge. Would the right hon. Baronet undertake that the Government would introduce a Bill for the extension of the municipal boundaries of Dublin, either upon its own merits solely, or upon its own merits accompanied with the necessity which existed for an extension of the boundaries of the Parliamentary borough? He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that such a project had for many years been agitated. It was recommended by the Commission which was appointed in 1877, and which reported in 1879; and if the municipal boundaries had not been extended, it was not because any objection had been raised to the extension on the score of equity and inconvenience. Both of those points told the other way. They had endeavoured to get the Irish Government to take up the question of the extension of the municipal boundaries of Dublin; and the only two reasons which had been given by Lord Spencer and the Irish Government for not taking it up were, in the first place, that a general measure was meditated on the subject of Local Government in connection with the towns of Ireland; and, in the second place, that the Irish Government and Lord Spencer had been so busily engaged with other matters during the last two years that they had not had time at their disposal for the introduction of a Bill. So far as the special duty of attending to the interests of the Municipality of Dublin was concerned, if they could by any arrangement be transferred from Lord Spencer to the right hon. Baronet, he would regard the solution of the question as much more hopeful. He trusted, on behalf of himself, of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and other hon. Members who sat around him, that the right hon. Baronet who had charge of the present Bill would take this matter into his own hands, especially as the Irish Government pleaded very excessive occupation as a reason for delay. So far, no reason for deferring the settlement of the question of an extension of the borough boundaries of Dublin had been advanced upon its own merits; and as all the arguments of common sense were in favour of an extension, he would be disposed not to press upon the Government to any great extent the question of the extension of the Parliamentary boundaries, if the right hon. Baronet would give an undertaking, on behalf of the Government, that they would promptly introduce a Bill to place the City of Dublin, in regard to its municipal affairs, on a parity with the cities of England. He understood that the right hon. Baronet would not oppose the extension of the Parliamentary boundaries up to the municipal boundaries if a Bill wore passed to extend the latter.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that was so. He had already stated his own opinion upon the subject, and he was quite ready to repeat it. He was fully prepared to give his best attention to a proposal for the extension of the municipal boundaries of Dublin; but he could not at present see his way to an extension of the Parliamentary boundaries beyond the municipal limits.

MR. PARNELL

said, the question of the municipal boundaries of Dublin, which was considered to be interfered with by the lines of the Bill as far as it was affected by the question of the Parliamentary boundaries of the city, was proposed to be left as it was. He could not help expressing a protest against the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) at a time when an important matter of this kind was occupying the attention of the Committee. The name of the right hon. Gentleman was on the back of the Bill, and yet he was away from the House while this very important Amendment affecting the city within his own jurisdiction was under discussion, and when he must have known that other important Amendments relating to Ireland were to follow. He (Mr. Parnell) also thought that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) should have been present on that occasion, and that the Irish Members ought to look for some more authoritative exponent of the views of Lord Spencer on this question of the extension of the Parliamentary boundaries of the City of Dublin than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). While he said that, he had no wish to be understood as in any sense being desirous of expressing any feeling in the matter after the statement the right hon. Gentleman had made with respect to the extension of the boundaries of Dublin. The Irish Members were in this position—that if they let this Amendment go by and allowed the seal of the House to be put on the present imperfect boundary system of Dublin by the adoption of a Parliamentary boundary of such an extraordinary character as that proposed in the Bill, they might very seriously damage the strong position which the Corporation of Dublin now possessed in regard to the extension of the boundaries of the city. Two Commissions had inquired into the matter. There was the Commission issued by the late Government of Lord Beaconsfield during the last Parliament. That Commission reported in favour of such an extension of the boundaries of Dublin as that which the Irish Members now claimed. The Exham Commission also reported in favour of the extension of the city boundaries in the following terms:— That the area of Dublin should be extended by including with it the townships of Rathmines, Pembroke, Kilmainham, &c., coloured yellow on map No. 2, and annexed thereto. The position of the Corporation of Dublin with regard to its powers for the purpose of extending the municipal boundaries was this—it had not the same power which other municipalities possessed for the purpose of enabling it to spend the money of the ratepayers for the purpose of promoting Private Bills in order to extend the municipal boundaries. But those boundaries could be extended in another way—namely, by means of a Public Bill, in default of a Bill being first passed to enable the Corporation of Dublin to spend the money of the ratepayers in the promotion of a Private Bill before a Select Committee—the power enjoyed by all the English Corporations. The only method in which the Corporation of Dublin could obtain the judgment and consideration of Parliament on this question for the extension of boundaries was by bringing forward the matter in the shape of a Public Bill. Of course, they all knew perfectly well that even under the circumstances of an ordinary Session it would be practically impossible for a private Member to hope to be able to carry such a Bill as that through the House of Commons. The various stages and progress of the Bill would be blocked, under the existing Forms of the House, from the very commencement, and if it got further than the second reading, it would be exceedingly fortunate. But under the circumstances of the present Session, all the time of the House having been absorbed by the Government, the difficulties were, of course, rendered still more insuperable, and it became almost impossible for any private Member even to obtain the second reading of a Bill. The matter, therefore, stood in this way—the Corporation of Dublin asked the Government to introduce a Bill to confer upon them the same powers in respect of the promotion of Private Bills as were enjoyed by the English Corporations; and the only way in which that matter could be brought under the notice of Parliament was by the introduction of a Public Bill. Such Public Bill would have to be introduced by the Government. There was, however, another alternative. There was the alternative of the introduction and passing of a Bill giving to the Dublin Corporation the powers which English municipalities enjoyed in respect of these matters, and the Corporation of Dublin had approached the present Lord Lieutenant, from time to time, with reference to this matter. It was, however, one of the misfortunes of Irish government to find, when a Liberal Administration was in power—that while the English people were governed in accordance with a Liberal policy, the Irish people were invariably governed from Dublin Castle in pursuance of a Conservative and reactionary policy. Lord Spencer had by no means manifested the same spirit which the right hon. Baronet had exhibited in that House. In reply to the Memorial of the Corporation of the City of Dublin, the Lord Lieutenant, through his Under Secretary (Sir Robert Hamilton), said that— The Government, having regard to public changes of a general character affecting the local government of cities, as well as of counties, would have to be considered. His Excellency does not think it desirable to include in this Bill any provision affecting public or general rates. But he went on to say— The Government will further be prepared to introduce a Bill next Session for assimilating the law between England and Ireland with respect to the payment of the Parliamentary costs for the promotion of measures affecting municipal affairs. But His Excellency is of opinion that until the defects in rating, which he proposes to deal with next Session, are remedied, the question of the extension of boundaries of Dublin is not ripe for settlement. The matter, consequently, stood thus—two Commissions had reported in favour of the extension of the municipal boundaries which was now suggested. The Corporation of Dublin had no power to promote a Bill for themselves; but the Government, through Lord Spencer, had promised to introduce a Bill this Session. [An hon. MEMBER: Last Session.] That was so. The Government, through Lord Spencer, had promised to introduce a Bill last Session for assimilating the law between England and Ireland with respect to the payment of the Parliamentary costs for the promotion of measures affecting municipal affairs, by means of which the Corporation of Dublin would be placed in the same position as that which was occupied by an English Corporation. But this pledge of Lord Spencer, imperfect as it was, had not been kept; and he thought the Irish Members were entitled to ask for a plain declaration from the Government on the present occasion. At all events, if they were not now entitled to ask for it on the next occasion, when the Amendments with regard to the divisions of the City of Dublin came up for consideration, he thought they would be entitled to ask the Government for a distinct reply to the question—"Will you introduce a Bill in the direction promised by Lord Spencer, and take all necessary steps to secure its rapid passage through the House of Commons?" If that were done, the Corporation of Dublin would be able to take the same action which the English municipalities were able to take respecting the question of boundaries, and the Government would at least have done something to carry out the expressions of goodwill which the right hon. Baronet had just made. He would repeat again that it was a monstrous thing that on this occasion they should not have the presence in the House either of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant or of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, those Gentlemen being the only two Irish Officials in a position to understand the Parliamentary position of the Government of Ireland who possessed seats in the House of Commons. There were certainly plenty of officials in Ireland to discharge the duties those Gentlemen were now performing in that country.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he did not intend to recede from what he had already stated. His own opinion was very strongly in favour of the Corporation of Dublin possessing the same power as the English municipalities in respect of the promotion of Private Bills. In regard to the absence of the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General for Ireland, he could only say that they were at present engaged elsewhere in the discharge of important duties in connection with the position they held in the Irish Government.

MR. HEALY

said, it was certainly extremely desirable that they should have some distinct intimation in regard to the promise which had been made by Lord Spencer in January, 1884—something like 17 months ago—that a Bill would be introduced for assimilating the law between England and Ireland with respect to the payment of the Parliamentary costs for the promotion of measures affecting municipal affairs. That promise was given by Lord Spencer, in reply to a Memorial from the Corporation of Dublin. It was most courteous and kind on the part of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to give the pledge he had made; but the right hon. Baronet, unfortunately, could only express his own personal opinion, and behind him it would be necessary to move the dead weight of Dublin Castle. The right hon. Gentleman, he was sorry to say, would not be able to move it; and seeing that they had already had for 17 months a pledge from the highest authority—namely, the Viceroy—that a Bill would be introduced and passed last Session to enable the Corporation to obtain what they asked for—as that pledge had not been kept, what confidence or reliance—he meant no disrespect to the right hon. Baronet—could they place in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman? This was a matter in which they felt bound to endorse the complaint of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). No doubt, it was necessary that the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland should have a holiday, like anybody else; but, on the present occasion, they were absent from their places, not for holiday purposes, but for purely ceremonial purposes, in order to hold up the train of some Gold Stick in Waiting at Dublin Castle, in connection with the visit of the Prince of Wales. He was informed that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was engaged in bearing the Sword of State in some ridiculous ceremonies, of which the country ought to be ashamed, and the House of Commons were deprived of the advantages they would otherwise have possessed in the participation which the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland would have taken in this important debate. Instead of being engaged in holding the Sword of State, he (Mr. Healy) thought it would have been far better if the Chief Secretary had been employed in holding up the pledges and faith of his Superior, the Lord Lieutenant, in this matter. The Lord Lieutenant had broken faith with the House of Commons, with the Corporation of Dublin, and with the Irish people, and it was a most suspicious circumstance, and extremely unfortunate, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, at the time the subject was likely to come up for consideration, should be over in Dublin, taking part in some puerile and petty parades in connection with a Royal levée, or something of that kind. It was really absurd that the Irish Members should be treated in this way. What would the Scotch Members say if they found the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate absent when some question vitally affecting the interests of Edinburgh came up for discussion, and there was nobody to make a reply? What would they think, especially if they were told that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was engaged in some tomfoolery in connection with the Prince of Wales? His own opinion was that the Committee ought to report Progress upon this Schedule, in order to afford an opportunity of discussing it afresh, or they ought to have a distinct pledge from the Government that something would be done in the matter. If they allowed this opportunity of discussing the question on this Schedule to slip, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland got back he would feel that he had got the better of the Irish Members, and had practically dodged them out of a discussion. He therefore thought the best course would be to postpone the Schedule until the right hon. Gentleman returned. It was a matter that was absolutely vital to the existence of the City of Dublin. Any- body who lived in that city, as he had to do, must see that much of the decay which had set in was owing to the fact that the city could not extend itself by a single brick in the direction of the outlying townships. The city was practically kept hide-bound by the extraordinary provisions which had been adopted, and anybody who lived there must see that it was a matter of vital importance to the very existence of the city that it should have this extension of boundaries. An opportunity for discussing the matter would not arise very often, and, in the absence of the two Officials who were supposed to speak the mind of the Lord Lieutenant, he failed to see how it could be properly discussed. No such breach of a distinct pledge and promise could take place in any other country over which Her Majesty ruled. It could occur only in Ireland under the despotic rule which Lord Spencer was able to exercise. Later on they would be told that the pledge had not been fulfilled for fear it might have interfered with the carrying out of the Coercion Act. He would ask the Government if they were able to give any more definite explanation of the failure to redeem the pledge of Lord Spencer than had already been given? He had a copy of the letter from Lord Spencer, and, if necessary, he would place it in the hands of the right hon. Baronet. It was dated "Dublin Castle, January 14, 1884."It was signed by Sir Robert Hamilton, and addressed to the Lord Mayor, and in it this passage, among others, occurred— The Government will further be prepared to introduce a Bill next Session for assimilating the law between England and Ireland with respect to the payment of the Parliamentary costs for the promotion of measures affecting municipal affairs. That might appear to be a very small matter; but underlying it was the fact that it was the only measure which would enable the Corporation of Dublin to promote a Private Bill for the extension of the municipal boundaries of the City. He saw the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) in his place, and he was sure it would be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that this pledge had been given. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would be able to offer some explanation as to the serious breach of faith in regard to Lord Spencer's promise which had been committed?

MR. TREVELYAN,

after apologizing for his absence from his place during the last few minutes, said, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was quite correct in saying that the Government approved, as a matter of principle and detail, both of the larger and the smaller measure which had been referred to in the course of the debate. The principal objection to the larger of the two measures to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded—namely, a Bill for the extension of the boundaries of the borough—was, in the minds of those Members of the Government who were connected with Ireland, that it would meet with very strong opposition. Therefore, they had placed in the first rank the smaller measure, if he might so call it, which gave to the municipalities of Ireland that power of dealing with the money of the ratepayers for the purposes of Parliamentary legislation for municipal purposes which was enjoyed by the municipalities of England. The term "breach of faith" was a hard one to employ, because the inability of the Government to bring in and pass a Bill was entirely due to the want of time. He was quite certain that hon. Members sitting below the Gangway who attended the Sittings of the House up to the latest moment of last Session would remember that there was not much time to spare. If he recollected rightly, all the spare time was given by the Government to an Irish measure, which hon. Members opposite put in the front rank, as compared with the Dublin measure—namely, the Bill—likewise a Dublin measure—for giving assistance to the Recorder in connection with the revision of the Parliamentary votes. If he were not mistaken, after that Bill had passed through its various and multifarious stages, very little time was left except for the purpose of passing the Estimates. His own impression was, that if the smaller of the two Bills were brought forward in the present Session, from what he knew of the House of Commons it would probably pass, and he would use his own personal influence with the Irish Government to press forward such a Bill, and, if it would be of any value, he would lend his personal assistance in having it passed.

MR. SEXTON

hoped that, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, they would be able to arrive at some satisfactory arrangement. He entirely agreed with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman—that the only reason advanced by the Irish Government for not having dealt with the question last Session was want of time. Lord Spencer had never urged anything against the claim which was made by the Corporation of Dublin; but it must be borne in mind that not only had this plea of want of time been put forward last year, but the same excuse had been made every year since 1881 or 1882. Whenever the question of extending the boundaries of Dublin was raised, the Irish Government invariably pleaded pre-occupation and want of time. Probably the Irish Government were not so busily engaged at the present moment, and there was, therefore, a better opportunity and a more promising prospect of legislation. He would like, however, to have a definite understanding as to what they were to expect. What was essential in the matter was this—that the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite—the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—should pledge the Government to the introduction of a Bill, and to facilitating the opportunities for passing a measure, which should comprise. the two principal points dealt with in the Memorial of the Corporation of Dublin of January 14, 1884, addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, the first of which was the assimilation of the law between England and Ireland with respect to the payment of the Parliamentary costs for the promotion of measures affecting municipal affairs. Lord Spencer's promise, which had not been carried out, that the Government would introduce a Bill for that object in 1884, ought now to be carried out by the Government. In the second place, it would be understood that the question of the extension of boundaries would also be dealt with, the only reason why Lord Spencer had hitherto delayed dealing with that question having been his opinion— That until the defects in rating are remedied the question of the extension of boundaries of Dublin is not ripe for settlement. Thirdly, in regard to the collection of rates, it was admitted that there were defects in the law, and therefore there were three questions now to be dealt with—namely, the collection of rates, the power of the Corporation to use the municipal funds for the purpose of promoting measures in Parliament for municipal purposes, and the extension of the municipal boundaries. After the pledges which had been given that evening, the Irish Members would certainly expect that the Government would facilitate the introduction of a Bill for carrying out these three objects, and if they were to understand that a Bill for that purpose would be introduced, and that the Government would use their influence to pass it, he should not feel disposed to press the Amendment further. Of course, he was aware that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were only two Members of the Cabinet, and could not predominate the views of the Government. All he would ask of them, therefore, was that they would use their influence to secure the introduction and passing of a Bill.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he could say nothing further than he had said, and it was impossible for him to give any pledge that would bind others besides himself; nor could he give any pledge that a Bill would be introduced in regard to the collection of rates; but he would use his best efforts to have a Bill passed to assimilate the law in England and Ireland with regard to the employment by municipalities of rates for legislative purposes, and he was himself in favour of a Bill for the extension of municipal boundaries. As far as possible, he would assist in the passing of any Bill that might be introduced with that object.

MR. PARNELL

said, there were two alternative measures by which the municipal boundaries could be extended. The first was the introduction of a Bill for the express purpose of extending the boundaries of Dublin; and, secondly, the same object might be effected by introducing a Bill to enable the Corporation to apply in the ordinary way for a Private Bill. He understood that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in the course of the debate, had expressed himself in favour of both of those methods; and all he (Mr. Parnell) had to say was that he would very much prefer that the matter should be undertaken by the Government themselves. He believed that was the opinion of the Corporation of Dublin also—namely, that Public Bills should be introduced by the Government for the extension of the municipal boundaries of the City of Dublin. On the understanding that the right hon. Baronet would use his influence with the Government for the purpose of introducing and passing such a Bill, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would be quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That Schedule Five, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. WARTON

said, he had hoped that the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would have paid some attention to a suggestion which he (Mr. Warton) had made some time ago. His suggestion was, to some extent, founded on a complaint which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) with regard to the extraordinary note now left standing at the bottom of page 22, which was as follows:— The law relating to the Parliamentary elections for the borough of Pembroke shall apply as if the places comprised in the present Parliamentary borough of Haverfordwest were named in the Act of the Session of the second and third years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter forty-five, as places sharing in the election of a Member for Pembroke, and the borough shall be called Pembroke and Haverfordwest. He thought it would be in the recollection of the right hon. Baronet that the draftsman of this extraordinary Bill had devised a singular mode of making notes; and by Clause 22 it was provided that the Schedule to the Act and the notes thereto should be construed and have effect as part of the Act. To this Schedule a most extraordinary note was affixed at the end of that part of it which dealt with the English boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire had pointed out the absurdity of this process in connection with another Schedule, and, at his suggestion, the note to which attention was directed had been turned into a new clause. Following up that suggestion, he (Mr. Warton) desired now to call attention to a similar absurd note which stood by itself in the present Schedule, and which was the only one left. As he had said, it related to the grouping together of the boroughs of Pembroke and Haverfordwest, and he wanted the right hon. Baronet to consider what the effect of inserting this singular note, standing all alone as it did, would be. Why should these boroughs not be incorporated in the new clause; or was the note to be inserted in the Bill somewhere else; or what was to be done with it? He could not allow the Schedule to pass without asking the right hon. Baronet what he intended to do in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have every possible point in connection with the Bill so thoroughly at his finger's ends, and had displayed so much courtesy in his dealings with the Committee, that he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter at once, or promise to do so on the Report.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he had already given the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) the assurance for which he asked when the same point was raised on a former occasion. As to the necessity for inserting these notes in the Schedule, he had already promised that they should appear in the shape of clauses, instead of notes, and to that promise, of course, he intended to adhere. Before the Bill came up, upon the Report, a decision would be arrived at as to the precise mode in which the matter was to be dealt with.

MR. WARTON

said, he quite remembered what the right hon. Gentleman had said before. What the right hon. Gentleman did say was that he would consider the matter; and all he wanted to know now was whether the right hon. Baronet had considered the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.